Re:MPA is associated with MPAA, DUH lordsuck
on
China and the MPA
·
· Score: 1
I don't know how Music Publishing got here, since Katz did not mention the musical MPA. He did mean the movie MPA. They are two distinct entities. MPAA.org's title comes up as Motion Picture Association, with Motion Picture Association of America subtext. Looking at http://www.mpaa.org/about/ shows the two organizations are related.
MPA deals with U.S. movie exports. MPAA deals with domestic stuff, like image. By the way, have a look at everybody's favorite DVD guy while you're there.
In photography, there is a niche market for "archival" mounting, framing and storage mechanisms. Black and white hand development has several techniques to minimize the presence of acid in photo paper post development.
Unfortunately, I don't see an easy translation to computers, maybe beyond a remote server that upgrades a RAID every few years.
However, one unique problem that plagues data as opposed to books, film an photographs is that the really useful stuff changes, even in minor ways, frequently. One of the larger issues, aside from strict data preservation, is knowing how say, Amazon's first site looked.
My employer, it is fairly assumed around the office, doesn't have it's first site in code or graphics, only screenshots. I think this is true for many organizations beyond mine.
Oddly, the archival market in photography developed after a few decades of seeing early photographs fade, then determining what environmental factors lead to image decay. I suspect something similar will emerge for data, beyond the archival tape "cover your ass from data loss" market.
We've seen stories on our side of the pond about your arrest and a one or two Babelfish translations from Norway. But, how has your local media covered your story?
Has that coverage been fair in describing your beliefs, or does it appear to be strictly the MPAA/authority view?
Most of all, how do you think it compares with U.S. media coverage (CNN, L.A. Times, etc) of DeCSS?
>Do you know MS didn't make the MacOS player? The only folks that tend to develop the Mac OS (Darwin looming as a huge exception) are Apple and smaller third-parties that Apple licenses technology from (WindowShade, SuperClock!). As near as I can tell, Apple hasn't and I doubt ever would, turn over development of Apple-branded software coponents to MS.
Jobs likes having MS as an apps provider, but doesn't want to help Windows by letting MS have a peak at the OS innards. Besides, Apple has their own motivation for writing their own player. Streaming and professional media is one of Apple's big pushes.
Not only is the MPAA getting their opinions out, they are succeeding in the fact that DeCSS proponents are getting much lesss positive ink.
Consider the placement of the article in question. So far, there isn't a comparable article for the opposite time, which really isn't required, but would be only fair.
Unfortunatly, it seems this isn't the only slight bias the Times has shown, if you're looking for what the Open Source community would consider balanced coverage. See Another Blow Against Internet DVD Piracy from earlier in the month.
I doubt there are any. Fisrt, there are *MacOS* and Windows players, so that really doesn't hold.
What causes the comparison is similarity of behavior. Merely because they act protectionary and monopolistic doesn't make them MS bedfellows. In fact, I doubt highly they act together or cooperate out of anything but necessity.
Hey, I'm interested. Huzzahs for Chris and Christine. Good luck. 'Sides, it's probably the only time we'll ever have *proof* of Malda and Hemos in suits. Notice though, the suits looked good.
Maybe that's why I'm resistent to wearing anything snazzier than flat-front khakis and solid color t-shirts to the office. Wearing a suit to an in-house meeting makes the times I intentionally dress up for special social occasions less special. So, thanks to my employer for tolerating jeans and black t-shirts on those really off days.
The UC about fifteen miles from me has those same blue phones. Not a party school. Don't hear much about them. Why? They act as a deterant and give women some semblence of protection when walking in the dark, which, incidently still doesn't seem to be recommended behavior anywhere.
Secondly, the heart of the First Amendment is that the "state," (actually the feds, but extended to the states as we know them) can not limit free speech if they provide an arena.
Taxpayer-payer sponsored or not, the government can't control what comes out of the pipe. Cases involving welfare/low-income housing recipients and limitations on their actions on that same basis have been rejected by the Supreme Court.
Secondly, state-sponsored or not, I paid as much over two years for my dorm as it would have cost to live off campus in private housing. I was of majority age (over 18). At that point, I am only legally bound by two things: law and contracts to which I become a willing party. While this would make such a condition law, I doubt it is constitutional since it infringes on the right of peaceable assembly, which is strongly protected by both the constitution and Supreme Court precident.
As for entry into my apartment, my landlord must call me and request 24-hour notice for permission to enter. The only conditions under which they may enter the premisis under my lease (as part of which, I become the primary caretaker) are if life or property appear in imminent danger. The fact they "own" the property doesn't change that.
As for any alleged hypocracy, I say return to local, state and federal laws which currently prohibit growing pot, redistributing pirated software and consuming images of child pornography or beastiality. To say these problems only exist on college campuses ignores the real situation.
I think you and the lady from Arizona are choosing only to see the extreme negatives of college life. I for one had a hell of a four-year run. The first year college dropout rate? It might be better to look at how well those students are being prepared for college in high school, or how well they adjust to being away from home socially and emotionally. College isn't the big bad monster.
They own (almost) every media outlet, so is it a surprise that they can get the media to show pictures of the union exploiters sitting on their ass earning workman's comp for a papercut? Is it surprising that this is portrayed as some sort of a majority of union workers?
Funny thing about that. Pretty much everyone at my paper (newswriters, copyeditors, production folks, machinists, delivery drivers), I believe, is unionized. But then, some folks complain that we're stridently liberal about everything. We can't win for losing.
While the not-quite top layer players like Zeos vanished, Compaq is struggling, there is still a vast market for flexible, knowledgable computer upgrade, assembly, etc.
My roommate and his father operate one such business, make a nice pile themselves ($56 an hour), and people like their work enough to spread it through word of mouth.
Maybe what we need is to define a "micro" category. Are they going IPO? Not bloody likely. But their margins are pretty good on hardware. On the other hand, they are happy working on-site vs. owning a brick and mortar. Aside from mileage, they really cut their expenses.
So, it's not that profit margins are drying up. It's that the margins of old no longer readily support the old method of doing business for anyone who's not a niche or top-level player.
I think the PC (hardware) industry is a rather poor one to make the analogy as I've demonstrated above, since barrier to entry is comparitively low. On the other hand, owning a television or radio station or daily newspaper is not cheap. That's where the consolidation has taken place and what I think we need to worry about most.
Compared to microsoft and their ways of taking over your internet links. AOL's client does not do that.
Maybe not, but if I said "Microsoft" instead of "AOL Time Warner" and "MSN" instead of "AOL 5.0," I think the perspective would be much different. In fact, I think it would be held up as an example of anti-competitive practices for use on a state or federal anti-trust suit. Of course, AOL doesn't have an Internet monopoly (yet), but crap like this doesn't help.
Add the DeCSS case (Warner Bros. Studios) and misc. RIAA (Warner/Elektra/Atlantic) anti-MP3 moves and this is one conglomerate in the making that would be unafraid to infringe on the ultimate choice of the technologically-savvy consumer.
What's going to be interesting is to see how Joe Average responds to this. Will it be, that he's OK with one source for everything (news, entertainment, bandwidth) like 90 percent of the U.S. is for MS products, or will he say, "I'm not comfortable with that?" Sadly, I don't know nor am I particularly hopeful at this point.
No, since Microsoft dropped the ball, they haven't properly defended their trademark. Also, he turned the domain back over to MS as soon as he was able. He didn't hijack it.
Yes and no. I believe it exists, but only as extentions of the sole-proprietor. Consider the "Ficticious Business Statement" or "Doing Business As" adverts in legal classifieds. By and large, what this does is serve notice to the public at large (by legal requirement) that Business X is actually Joe Smith dba Business X, not Business X (Inc.).
So in a sense, a non-incorporated partnership or sole-proprietorship do not exist. Consider, if a sole-proprietor dies, the business dies with her. Partnerships must be restructured if one or more partners buys out others, or leaves. A corporation can survive in the total absense of any living person, so long as the bills are paid.
You are absolutely correct about liability, however.
I've understood companies to be "individual" in the following sense. All of this applies to coporations (which limits human liability)
1. companies pay taxes. 2. companies can be sued. 3. companies can sue. 4. companies can enter into contracts. 5. companies can have loans. 6. companies can issue loans.
So, I guess I need some further explanation of the loophole. The only way I can see it is if a limited partnership (not sole-proprietor) company (not incorporated) did this. Then, there would be no "individual" since it would cover a group that could not be legally assumed to be either humanly or legally individual.
That would have been pretty damn expensive. Consider how much Real charges for a domestic SureStream server. And now you're looking to go interplanetary! Sheesh, that should give them a good reason to jack the rates and point to something else that's "not our problem."
Of course, Yahoo would try to coopt the whole mess and jump to Martian Media Player.
Why would the Air Force/NSA/CIA/insert secret agency here need to have NASA have a visible blunder like that?
Since the military has a black operations budget, they really don't need NASA's assistance. Of course, some fees can be hidden in other projects. I'm thinking $600 toilets for one.
OTOH: perhaps everyone is so cued to previous "government waste," NASA seemed like a great place to drop $150 mil on a "failure." Sure, the failure is not readily observable to the public. Hmm.
But then, why risk discovery with civil servents who like to yap about "innovations" and "discoveries?" That's a scientist's job.
While part of me is sorry to see them closing the doors on what should have been a spectacular mission, I'm hopeful the projects failure will bring about some intelligent review.
While Cheaper, Faster, More (or whatever the exact doctrine is) has brought about wonderful successes like Pathfinder, we've had two spectacular and still expensive failures. While the failures are still less expensive than one giant mission every six years, the results still are not encouraging.
However, I don't think this means NASA should change the doctrine. Instead, let's find out how the system can improve without radically altering the structure of what I think is the most exciting time in NASA since the very beginnings of the shuttle program.
So what needs watching? Obviously better communication with contractors and subcontrators. Further, it ought to be worth looking at how NASA space missions talk and review each other. Of course, I'd like that to be on the scientist rank-and-file level.
Actually, MacOS Photoshop 5/5.5 is something like 95 percent scriptable through AppleScript. Further, by my understanding, ImageReady allows creation of applet scripts specifically for batch processing.
It is cron? No. But it is scripting. And the "It's only on the Mac," argument doesn't fly, since half of Adobe's revenue (and users) come from MacOS.
Of course, the argument in favor of GIMP is that I'm not relying on a work copy to keep me legally using an application that lists above $500.
So, in agreement to what you're saying, the most acceptible solution would be to do nothing and price movies (MP3s, CDs, software) so inexpensively as to make owning a legal copy as attractive as going through the effort to copy. At least, if defeating piracy was the actual aim what you were doing.
On a side note, do SPA members (Microsoft, et al.) who claim multi-billion dollar losses from software piracy report the same to their stockholders and the IRS? I ask since it seems reasonable to start asking the same of the movie industry if we see massive damage claims tied to any reasonably non-vague dollar figure in this litigation.
Finally, is Chris DiBona going to spearhead the community effort here as well? If so, huzzahs.
I think this is a case of the industry attempting to wish a problem away with litigation rather than properly addressing the problm (as they see it), adequate copy protection.
Since it is not illegal to sell "glass water tobacco" pipes, even though *nudge, nudge. wink wink* they are obstensibly used for currently, illegal recreational purposes, this case should be tossed.
It is not, in my mind, the responsibility of the public to give any quarter to industries who have failed to insure their own well-being.
That said, I think a lot of this comes down to public posturing, since the industry feels they have to say *something*. Judge tosses first request, message of "Just say no!" still not strong. Refile with new claims.
Though I'm happy to see the defendents crack a fairly crappy algorithm in the name of Linux interoperability, I'm shocked the industry hasn't taken action against Xing for having the crappiest implimentation, and allowing the work-around to take place.
Now, if only the industry can get past those pesky First Amendment issues. ..
I think this is a case of the industry attempting to wish a problem away with litigation rather than properly addressing the problm (as they see it), adequate copy protection.
Since it is not illegal to sell "glass water tobacco" pipes, even though *nudge, nudge. wink wink* they are obstensibly used for currently, illegal recreational purposes, this case should be tossed.
It is not, in my mind, the responsibility of the public to give any quarter to industries who have failed to insure their own well-being.
That said, I think a lot of this comes down to public posturing, since the industry feels they have to say *something*. Judge tosses first request, message of "Just say no!" still not strong. Refile with new claims.
Though I'm happy to see the defendents crack a fairly crappy algorithm in the name of Linux interoperability, I'm shocked the industry hasn't taken action against Xing for having the crappiest implimentation, and allowing the work-around to take place.
Now, if only the industry can get past those pesky First Amendment issues. ..
Have attended the keynote, I'll second that. Before everyone creams their shorts, consider that Jobs also said they kept this secret for 18 months. I doubt highly they are going to turn around and give it away open source. But, they have named some very cool folks as open source developers for Darwin about a week ago.
However, the UI, taken with the UNIX underpinnings is very impressive and from my vantage point, the system seemed much more responsive than Mac OS 8.6. Further they've added a document preview (something Win 98 has), with the ability to play QT movies in the file preview.
Other cool stuff: the dock magnifies icons as you roll over them and it appear that they are leaving some of the UNIX file structure visible, note the ~/Documents folder when the documents button is clicked. Looks like a/home directory to me. Furthermore the Apple presentations guy I talked to said the UNIX stuff *will be there* for those that know it. Finally, good to see Jobs having some fun at his own expense with the iCeo title.
Of course, I should say that Xerox PARC was next on my list, but I realized I'd already hit 10. Of course, 10 is too few, but I like the discussion started over relative impacts of their contributions.
And yes, maybe Bernoulli is a better pick than the Wright Bros. Of course, I pretty much left social engineers off the list. People like Adams and Hamilton (Federalist Papers). Others were a judgement call. I had Ben Franklin on the list, but dropped him.
Maybe we all just carry our own definitions of geek heroism in our minds/hearts and let their advances inspire us.
Re:Last minute completion
on
Apocalypse Not
·
· Score: 1
I'm voting heavy on that ignorance factor.
What's interesting is that my employer completed it's Y2K testing in June. After verification that indeed, our Mac's and Solaris machines could make the transition, that was really all that was said. Of course, we had a contingency plan, but we didn't fly over the edge.
Unfortunately, all the talk and preparation looped. Some people started predicting doom and gloom and a frigid New Year's. Wired ran a story comparing a Canadian power failure caused by an ice storm (very good reading actually), to what *might* happen. People stockpiled as if the rapture was coming and they weren't invited.
Companies did so much due diligence, stockholders and clients must have felt a bit raw around the bottom end. Somebody tied the Y2K bug to the New World Order. No one ordered martinis. Hormel started a secret campaign to get SPAM less associated among my generation as crappy e-mail, but a canned spiced ham.
Someone or other decided people wouldn't be able to pump their own gas or be resourceful enough to pry the manhole off the tank if those spiffy new rapid pumping gas islands went kaput. A few of us drank skunky beer with "freshness dating," and decided it would not make Y2K. Water pump sellers and generator manufacturers decided Y2K could be the best thing since the sliced bread maker failed the Y1.930 rollover. PC software utility makers decided everyone needed to have a Y2K checker, priced at $29.95 (available at CompUSA) to take 10 minutes to reset dates in the Windows clock control panel. Serious software makers had their shit together in July or earlier.
More bunker people grabbed headlines. Reuniting with the Amish in-laws looked like a good plan for some. Someone asked if razors and bubblegum was compliant. Society stressed over Russian nukes. No one ordered martinis. Everyone worried that Alan Greenspan might raise interest rates on New Year's Eve then immediately pass since a previously unknown Jarvic 7 decided that it was 1900 and it hadn't been invented yet. People noticed civilization would collapse in New Zealand first.
Companies did some more due diligence. Stockholders and clients asked for more due diligence, as tobacco trial lawyers started casing doorways for any company that might have a product fail, with a Y2K policy that said anything more than, "Apart from an act of God, there is a very strong possibility our software/hardware/Tickle Me Furby may or may not survive the Year 2000 date transition (Y2K BUG). .."
The Government said it might not be a good idea to go to Canada, since those wacky canucks might not have their shit together for Y2K. Canadians threaten to take back Celine Dion. U.S. says something about Canadians not knowing anything about football having *four* downs and a *100-yard* field. Canadians issue another Alanis Morrisette album. U.S. retaliates with Backstreet Boys and N'Sync, issues travel advisories for random countries suspected of disliking Jesse Helms' isolationist policies.
Algerians cracked the U.S.-Canadian frontier. FBI made arrests from seeming good CIA data. CIA said, "Hey, we got over that obviously Y2K related Chinese Embassy thing just fine."
Stores didn't run out of champagne. Everyone and their brother did not decide a Carnival Millennium cruise with Kathy Gifford and the Hanoi Nike Boys Choir to the South Pole would be a good idea. Airlines cancel flights. Programmers reminded they need to check their work. Middle management has vacations cancelled so they can oversee programers do nothing since they did what they were supposed to the first time.
Someone cancelled the giant Union Square martini. No one riots. New Zealand has New Year celebration. Civilization survives. Audible sigh of relief crosses world. Equally loud "Find that happy New Year graphic! What! Of course I asked for one, months ago!" shout echos in television newsrooms across the U.S. Programmers settle smugly into those brand new Aerion chairs boss bought them for working on New Year's Eve, then start pouring celebratory martinis. World doesn't end. Alan Greenspan makes Y2K a-OK. Those stupid "stock up for Y2K" commercials end.
Slashdot Mirror
MPA deals with U.S. movie exports. MPAA deals with domestic stuff, like image. By the way, have a look at everybody's favorite DVD guy while you're there.
Unfortunately, I don't see an easy translation to computers, maybe beyond a remote server that upgrades a RAID every few years.
However, one unique problem that plagues data as opposed to books, film an photographs is that the really useful stuff changes, even in minor ways, frequently. One of the larger issues, aside from strict data preservation, is knowing how say, Amazon's first site looked.
My employer, it is fairly assumed around the office, doesn't have it's first site in code or graphics, only screenshots. I think this is true for many organizations beyond mine.
Oddly, the archival market in photography developed after a few decades of seeing early photographs fade, then determining what environmental factors lead to image decay. I suspect something similar will emerge for data, beyond the archival tape "cover your ass from data loss" market.
Has that coverage been fair in describing your beliefs, or does it appear to be strictly the MPAA/authority view?
Most of all, how do you think it compares with U.S. media coverage (CNN, L.A. Times, etc) of DeCSS?
Jobs likes having MS as an apps provider, but doesn't want to help Windows by letting MS have a peak at the OS innards. Besides, Apple has their own motivation for writing their own player. Streaming and professional media is one of Apple's big pushes.
Consider the placement of the article in question. So far, there isn't a comparable article for the opposite time, which really isn't required, but would be only fair.
Unfortunatly, it seems this isn't the only slight bias the Times has shown, if you're looking for what the Open Source community would consider balanced coverage. See Another Blow Against Internet DVD Piracy from earlier in the month.
What causes the comparison is similarity of behavior. Merely because they act protectionary and monopolistic doesn't make them MS bedfellows. In fact, I doubt highly they act together or cooperate out of anything but necessity.
Maybe that's why I'm resistent to wearing anything snazzier than flat-front khakis and solid color t-shirts to the office. Wearing a suit to an in-house meeting makes the times I intentionally dress up for special social occasions less special. So, thanks to my employer for tolerating jeans and black t-shirts on those really off days.
The UC about fifteen miles from me has those same blue phones. Not a party school. Don't hear much about them. Why? They act as a deterant and give women some semblence of protection when walking in the dark, which, incidently still doesn't seem to be recommended behavior anywhere.
Secondly, the heart of the First Amendment is that the "state," (actually the feds, but extended to the states as we know them) can not limit free speech if they provide an arena.
Taxpayer-payer sponsored or not, the government can't control what comes out of the pipe. Cases involving welfare/low-income housing recipients and limitations on their actions on that same basis have been rejected by the Supreme Court.
Secondly, state-sponsored or not, I paid as much over two years for my dorm as it would have cost to live off campus in private housing. I was of majority age (over 18). At that point, I am only legally bound by two things: law and contracts to which I become a willing party. While this would make such a condition law, I doubt it is constitutional since it infringes on the right of peaceable assembly, which is strongly protected by both the constitution and Supreme Court precident.
As for entry into my apartment, my landlord must call me and request 24-hour notice for permission to enter. The only conditions under which they may enter the premisis under my lease (as part of which, I become the primary caretaker) are if life or property appear in imminent danger. The fact they "own" the property doesn't change that.
As for any alleged hypocracy, I say return to local, state and federal laws which currently prohibit growing pot, redistributing pirated software and consuming images of child pornography or beastiality. To say these problems only exist on college campuses ignores the real situation.
I think you and the lady from Arizona are choosing only to see the extreme negatives of college life. I for one had a hell of a four-year run. The first year college dropout rate? It might be better to look at how well those students are being prepared for college in high school, or how well they adjust to being away from home socially and emotionally. College isn't the big bad monster.
Funny thing about that. Pretty much everyone at my paper (newswriters, copyeditors, production folks, machinists, delivery drivers), I believe, is unionized. But then, some folks complain that we're stridently liberal about everything. We can't win for losing.
While the not-quite top layer players like Zeos vanished, Compaq is struggling, there is still a vast market for flexible, knowledgable computer upgrade, assembly, etc.
My roommate and his father operate one such business, make a nice pile themselves ($56 an hour), and people like their work enough to spread it through word of mouth.
Maybe what we need is to define a "micro" category. Are they going IPO? Not bloody likely. But their margins are pretty good on hardware. On the other hand, they are happy working on-site vs. owning a brick and mortar. Aside from mileage, they really cut their expenses.
So, it's not that profit margins are drying up. It's that the margins of old no longer readily support the old method of doing business for anyone who's not a niche or top-level player.
I think the PC (hardware) industry is a rather poor one to make the analogy as I've demonstrated above, since barrier to entry is comparitively low. On the other hand, owning a television or radio station or daily newspaper is not cheap. That's where the consolidation has taken place and what I think we need to worry about most.
Maybe not, but if I said "Microsoft" instead of "AOL Time Warner" and "MSN" instead of "AOL 5.0," I think the perspective would be much different. In fact, I think it would be held up as an example of anti-competitive practices for use on a state or federal anti-trust suit. Of course, AOL doesn't have an Internet monopoly (yet), but crap like this doesn't help.
Add the DeCSS case (Warner Bros. Studios) and misc. RIAA (Warner/Elektra/Atlantic) anti-MP3 moves and this is one conglomerate in the making that would be unafraid to infringe on the ultimate choice of the technologically-savvy consumer.
What's going to be interesting is to see how Joe Average responds to this. Will it be, that he's OK with one source for everything (news, entertainment, bandwidth) like 90 percent of the U.S. is for MS products, or will he say, "I'm not comfortable with that?" Sadly, I don't know nor am I particularly hopeful at this point.
No, since Microsoft dropped the ball, they haven't properly defended their trademark. Also, he turned the domain back over to MS as soon as he was able. He didn't hijack it.
So in a sense, a non-incorporated partnership or sole-proprietorship do not exist. Consider, if a sole-proprietor dies, the business dies with her. Partnerships must be restructured if one or more partners buys out others, or leaves. A corporation can survive in the total absense of any living person, so long as the bills are paid.
You are absolutely correct about liability, however.
1. companies pay taxes.
2. companies can be sued.
3. companies can sue.
4. companies can enter into contracts.
5. companies can have loans.
6. companies can issue loans.
So, I guess I need some further explanation of the loophole. The only way I can see it is if a limited partnership (not sole-proprietor) company (not incorporated) did this. Then, there would be no "individual" since it would cover a group that could not be legally assumed to be either humanly or legally individual.
Of course, Yahoo would try to coopt the whole mess and jump to Martian Media Player.
Since the military has a black operations budget, they really don't need NASA's assistance. Of course, some fees can be hidden in other projects. I'm thinking $600 toilets for one.
OTOH: perhaps everyone is so cued to previous "government waste," NASA seemed like a great place to drop $150 mil on a "failure." Sure, the failure is not readily observable to the public. Hmm.
But then, why risk discovery with civil servents who like to yap about "innovations" and "discoveries?" That's a scientist's job.
While Cheaper, Faster, More (or whatever the exact doctrine is) has brought about wonderful successes like Pathfinder, we've had two spectacular and still expensive failures. While the failures are still less expensive than one giant mission every six years, the results still are not encouraging.
However, I don't think this means NASA should change the doctrine. Instead, let's find out how the system can improve without radically altering the structure of what I think is the most exciting time in NASA since the very beginnings of the shuttle program.
So what needs watching? Obviously better communication with contractors and subcontrators. Further, it ought to be worth looking at how NASA space missions talk and review each other. Of course, I'd like that to be on the scientist rank-and-file level.
It is cron? No. But it is scripting. And the "It's only on the Mac," argument doesn't fly, since half of Adobe's revenue (and users) come from MacOS.
Of course, the argument in favor of GIMP is that I'm not relying on a work copy to keep me legally using an application that lists above $500.
On a side note, do SPA members (Microsoft, et al.) who claim multi-billion dollar losses from software piracy report the same to their stockholders and the IRS? I ask since it seems reasonable to start asking the same of the movie industry if we see massive damage claims tied to any reasonably non-vague dollar figure in this litigation.
Finally, is Chris DiBona going to spearhead the community effort here as well? If so, huzzahs.
Damn slow connection. It forced to me to hit submit twice! I'm suing and filing for class action status. Now, who's got deep pockets?
Since it is not illegal to sell "glass water tobacco" pipes, even though *nudge, nudge. wink wink* they are obstensibly used for currently, illegal recreational purposes, this case should be tossed.
It is not, in my mind, the responsibility of the public to give any quarter to industries who have failed to insure their own well-being.
That said, I think a lot of this comes down to public posturing, since the industry feels they have to say *something*. Judge tosses first request, message of "Just say no!" still not strong. Refile with new claims.
Though I'm happy to see the defendents crack a fairly crappy algorithm in the name of Linux interoperability, I'm shocked the industry hasn't taken action against Xing for having the crappiest implimentation, and allowing the work-around to take place.
Now, if only the industry can get past those pesky First Amendment issues. . .
Since it is not illegal to sell "glass water tobacco" pipes, even though *nudge, nudge. wink wink* they are obstensibly used for currently, illegal recreational purposes, this case should be tossed.
It is not, in my mind, the responsibility of the public to give any quarter to industries who have failed to insure their own well-being.
That said, I think a lot of this comes down to public posturing, since the industry feels they have to say *something*. Judge tosses first request, message of "Just say no!" still not strong. Refile with new claims.
Though I'm happy to see the defendents crack a fairly crappy algorithm in the name of Linux interoperability, I'm shocked the industry hasn't taken action against Xing for having the crappiest implimentation, and allowing the work-around to take place.
Now, if only the industry can get past those pesky First Amendment issues. . .
However, the UI, taken with the UNIX underpinnings is very impressive and from my vantage point, the system seemed much more responsive than Mac OS 8.6. Further they've added a document preview (something Win 98 has), with the ability to play QT movies in the file preview.
Other cool stuff: the dock magnifies icons as you roll over them and it appear that they are leaving some of the UNIX file structure visible, note the ~/Documents folder when the documents button is clicked. Looks like a /home directory to me. Furthermore the Apple presentations guy I talked to said the UNIX stuff *will be there* for those that know it. Finally, good to see Jobs having some fun at his own expense with the iCeo title.
Of course, I should say that Xerox PARC was next on my list, but I realized I'd already hit 10. Of course, 10 is too few, but I like the discussion started over relative impacts of their contributions.
And yes, maybe Bernoulli is a better pick than the Wright Bros. Of course, I pretty much left social engineers off the list. People like Adams and Hamilton (Federalist Papers). Others were a judgement call. I had Ben Franklin on the list, but dropped him.
Maybe we all just carry our own definitions of geek heroism in our minds/hearts and let their advances inspire us.
What's interesting is that my employer completed it's Y2K testing in June. After verification that indeed, our Mac's and Solaris machines could make the transition, that was really all that was said. Of course, we had a contingency plan, but we didn't fly over the edge.
Unfortunately, all the talk and preparation looped. Some people started predicting doom and gloom and a frigid New Year's. Wired ran a story comparing a Canadian power failure caused by an ice storm (very good reading actually), to what *might* happen. People stockpiled as if the rapture was coming and they weren't invited.
Companies did so much due diligence, stockholders and clients must have felt a bit raw around the bottom end. Somebody tied the Y2K bug to the New World Order. No one ordered martinis. Hormel started a secret campaign to get SPAM less associated among my generation as crappy e-mail, but a canned spiced ham.
Someone or other decided people wouldn't be able to pump their own gas or be resourceful enough to pry the manhole off the tank if those spiffy new rapid pumping gas islands went kaput. A few of us drank skunky beer with "freshness dating," and decided it would not make Y2K. Water pump sellers and generator manufacturers decided Y2K could be the best thing since the sliced bread maker failed the Y1.930 rollover. PC software utility makers decided everyone needed to have a Y2K checker, priced at $29.95 (available at CompUSA) to take 10 minutes to reset dates in the Windows clock control panel. Serious software makers had their shit together in July or earlier.
More bunker people grabbed headlines. Reuniting with the Amish in-laws looked like a good plan for some. Someone asked if razors and bubblegum was compliant. Society stressed over Russian nukes. No one ordered martinis. Everyone worried that Alan Greenspan might raise interest rates on New Year's Eve then immediately pass since a previously unknown Jarvic 7 decided that it was 1900 and it hadn't been invented yet. People noticed civilization would collapse in New Zealand first.
Companies did some more due diligence. Stockholders and clients asked for more due diligence, as tobacco trial lawyers started casing doorways for any company that might have a product fail, with a Y2K policy that said anything more than, "Apart from an act of God, there is a very strong possibility our software/hardware/Tickle Me Furby may or may not survive the Year 2000 date transition (Y2K BUG). . ."
The Government said it might not be a good idea to go to Canada, since those wacky canucks might not have their shit together for Y2K. Canadians threaten to take back Celine Dion. U.S. says something about Canadians not knowing anything about football having *four* downs and a *100-yard* field. Canadians issue another Alanis Morrisette album. U.S. retaliates with Backstreet Boys and N'Sync, issues travel advisories for random countries suspected of disliking Jesse Helms' isolationist policies.
Algerians cracked the U.S.-Canadian frontier. FBI made arrests from seeming good CIA data. CIA said, "Hey, we got over that obviously Y2K related Chinese Embassy thing just fine."
Stores didn't run out of champagne. Everyone and their brother did not decide a Carnival Millennium cruise with Kathy Gifford and the Hanoi Nike Boys Choir to the South Pole would be a good idea. Airlines cancel flights. Programmers reminded they need to check their work. Middle management has vacations cancelled so they can oversee programers do nothing since they did what they were supposed to the first time.
Someone cancelled the giant Union Square martini. No one riots. New Zealand has New Year celebration. Civilization survives. Audible sigh of relief crosses world. Equally loud "Find that happy New Year graphic! What! Of course I asked for one, months ago!" shout echos in television newsrooms across the U.S. Programmers settle smugly into those brand new Aerion chairs boss bought them for working on New Year's Eve, then start pouring celebratory martinis. World doesn't end. Alan Greenspan makes Y2K a-OK. Those stupid "stock up for Y2K" commercials end.
Thank God, and slice another lemon.