2000 was my year of riding the dot com roller coaster. I had companies promise me the moon (in writing) and then immediatly cut my pay by 20%. I had a company promise me the same high pay the first company did and then announce that they didn't have money for payroll 4 weeks after they hired me.
The lesson I learned? When companies screw you over go get a lawyer and sue the hell out of them FAST while they still have money to lose. They'll stop victumizing us when we decide to stop being victums. If some a-hole punched a hole in the wall above my head at a meeting I'd have to smile and think "That just cost you a cool quarter million".
Absolutly true. I just did a $150,000 remodel on my house last year. In the year since two other owners on my street have had major remodeling projects done. The one thing that stands out above all others is the incredible number of mistakes that these contractors make.
My experience:
It says right on the plans "Run a quad phone line and Cat 5 cable to the office". They forgot both. I should have checked every wire before the insulation when in and the drywall went up.
Our spiral staircase was delivered. It was suppose to be antique white. We came home one day to find a BLACK spiral staircase installed in the wrong location. 2nd staircase comes in and it's just dropped on our front lawn for 3 weeks AND it's the wrong color (bright white) and is very scratched up. We come home one day and the staircase is missing from our lawn. We open up the front door and it's installed (but still the wrong color). After much arguing we get then to come in and paint it the proper color.
Our neighbor came home one day to find the wrong kitchen cabinets installed.
Same neighbor. Double door installed so crooked that it won't close.
Us AND our neighbor: When nailing the plywood shear walls to the studs the building code says that the heads of the nails cannot penetrate the surface of the plywood. The inspectors HATE THAT. It reduces the structual integrity of the wall. You would think that getting rejected once would be enough for a contractor to learn this lesson. But both of our houses had the framing rejected for the exact same reason.
Just ask anyone who's had a major remodel and you'll hear the same stories. It's up to YOU the owner to catch these mistakes and make sure that they get fixed correctly. So if you're already doing that job then what are you paying the contractor for?
Also, don't forget the value of sweat equity. The original reviewer mentioned staining the staircase. That's a good example of a job you can do yourself. Interior paint (especially if it's just solid colors) is another good example. Even if you're having custom faux finshing done you can certainly do the primer coat on the drywall yourself.
Being a software engineer I find it odd that nobody has mentioned the fact that in most companies the QA department is seen as a cost center, not a revenue producer. I've worked for far too many comnpanies that don't even have a QA department. They will have business requirements, use cases, and even GUI design, but nobody takes those requirements and use cases and turns them into a descrete set of test cases.
Far too often the testing is done at the end of the coding process by the same people who wrote the business requirements with no "white box" testing done at all.
Also, in the companies which do have software QA departments those jobs are seen as "entry level". After all, all those people have to do is use the software to find bugs. Right? Once again, management's lack of understanding of the QA process causes them to under fund and under staff those positions.
In a perfect world, as soon as the business requirements were released the QA department would start designing a test plan full of test cases which touch each variation of each requirement. And if you want to have an even higher level of confidence then you would higher actual programmers in your QA department. They would write test IN CODE that call each method of each class with all the variations of parameter values and actually unit test individual classes and methods.
We havn't even touched on the topic of automated testing tools that drive the GUI with pre-programmed mouse clicks and key strokes. You can build an automated script that can test thousands of regression test in hours instead of days.
But here's the truth folks: As reasonable as these suggestions seem, very few companies implement even a few of them.
The real reason software sucks is because companies don't want to allocate money and resources to this cost center called "QA". And yet, the sooner a bug is caught and fixed the less the cost to fix it. Once again it's a case of the short sightedness of the corporate checkbook that's the real problem.
>If you're like us, you're not a big fan of pop-up and pop-under ads. Hence, you'll adore the handy Mozilla feature that disables many, though not all, of them.
Uh oh! So Mozilla allows the users to see content without seeing the pop-up and pop-under adds. If we are to believe the Replay TV lawsuit then Mozilla is a tool which allows users to "steal" content. Sounds like a DMCA violation as well.
Let's sit back and watch as the lawsuits start rolling in.
>Artists, in particular, are hurt because under most recording contracts, promotional costs come out of their royalties, said Michael Bracy of the Future of Music Coalition.
Yeah, well if the record companies so concerned about the artist then perhaps the record companies should foot the bill of promoting the product themselves.
The artist writes the music and the Record company demands that the artist signs over the publishing rights to them.
The artist records the CD and the record company charges the cost of the studio time back to the artist to be paid out of their royalties.
The record companies promote only the albums that they think can be the next britney buster and they charge that promotion cost back to the artist' royalties.
The record companies have a suggested retail price of anywhere from $15 to $18 per CD. If the artist is very lucky they'll get about $1 of that.
The RIAA puts Napster out of business by winning a multi-million dollar lawsuit allegedly to regain the royalties that the artist have lost. They then tell the artist that THEIR songs wern't being traded on Napster and therefore the artist don't actually get any of that lawsuit money.
The RIAA (Excuse me, exactly how many "artist" are members of the "Recording Industry Artist of America") then calls any customer who wants to listen to their CD's on their computer a "pirate". This ticks off the customer who will then tend to buy even fewer CD's (which hurts the artist further by reducing their royalties).
This is so transparent. The RIAA is tired of paying the payola system that they themselves helped set up. There is ABSOLUTLY NOTHING about this complaint that actually helps the artist. It's just another way for the record companies to cut more of their cost and rack in even more of their ill gotten cash while doing nothing to help the people who actually write and perform the music.
>Of course legal software costs money, unless its Open Source
Open Source software does not HAVE to be free. It is perfectly OK to charge for your open source software. You just need to provide the source code with it and allow anyone who wants to use/modify your code to have the same rights that your have.
So we really need to be carefull when talking about Free software and Open Source software. They're still 2 different things.
1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
OK, I don't see how that has anything to do with refusing to release documents. However this:
4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
. . . seems like it would apply. I could understand how the store's customer records would be considered "papers and effects".
So I'm confused, how exactly does this relate to the 1st? Freedom of the press? That's usually considered to be the press's right to maintain secrecy of it's sources, not it's customer list.
This weekend we had a friend of ours over for dinner. She works for a record company and her husband works for a different record company.
We were talking about the latest RIAA atrocities and I offered up my oft-repeated idea of a new record company that's founded with the idea of "Don't screw the artist, don't screw the customer". The foundation of this idea is:
The artists keep the rights to their music. There's no reason a record company needs to own the music it distrubutes. They can easily have a distribution only contract with the artist.
CD's should sell for $10. If the big record companies won't give up their bin space at Tower and Sam Goody then go to an all internet sales business plan.
My friend responded to my idea this way: "But if we don't screw the artist and we don't screw the customer, then WHO ARE WE GOING TO SCREW?"
She went on to say "I'm joking of course. but that's how the record companies think. It is completly foreign to them to think that they can make more money by giving up their iron fisted control of the medium. They absolutly believe that if they don't control every aspect of the recording, distribution, promotion, and sale of "their" music then their business will collapse."
This is why the RIAA is not swayed by studies that show that people who describe themselves as "avid Napster users" buy 4 to 6 times more CD's than the average consumer. This is why they don't understand why record sales are this year are 43% of what they were when Napster was alive. This is why they think that Tower records sells more Recordable CDs than pre-recorded CDs because of "piracy".
They don't realize that the reason we're not buying albums is because THE MUSIC SUCKS! I'm sorry but I really don't want to buy any CD by Britney or Cristina or N'Sync or O'Town or any other headphone wearing pop icon manufactured band. And oddly enough, even when they shoot themselves in their own wallet (like when Capitol paid Maria Carey upteen million dollars to "Get The Hell Out Of Our Label") then they STILL don't get it.
So don't be surprised if these articles fall on deaf ears at the record companies. Remember what guitarist Adrian Legg says about record company executives and deafness: "It's actually quite a benefit for them as it allows them to make sound business decisions without being distracted by something so trivial as the tunes".
Software: We took data while running Linux on both computers. Although it should be possible to do this experiment with the new release of ping for Windows, because the authors were unfamiliar with Windows, Linux was chosen.
Unfamilier with Windows? Where's my checkbook? I want to send my kids to this school! That's not sarcasm, I mean it. I think the fact that the teachers and students were more familar with Linux than Windows is awesome!
Reader, in case you didn't know, every color Xerox machine and color laser printer prints the serial number of the machine on every page they produce, covertly hidden in the output, under a long-standing private "arrangement" with the US Treasury Department. I have been unable to confirm whether this is also true of black-and-white xerox machines.
I once spent 6 years of my life fixing photocopiers (Thank god I write code now). I can say that the comment above is absolutly not true.
The technology used in all black and white photocopiers, and in all color copiers that use toner rather than a photographic process, does not have a high enough resolution to accuratly embed a serial number into the "pixels" of a copy.
It's hard enough just to get the black areas dark enough and the white areas bright enough much less having to worry about modifying individual pixels.
Moreover, most photocopiers work by shining a bright light on the original and using the reflected light off the page to effect the static charge on a selenium covered drum. The original is not scanned, modified, and re-broadcast onto the drum.
The new digital copiers do scan the original one time and then use a laser to "print" the page on the drum from memory, but then you have to ask yourself:
Is the serial number embedded in the pixels? If so then how do you know which pixels if the source document is always different?
Is there an actual serial number printed in microscopic type on the border of every page? If you believe that then photocopy a dollar bill and look at the resolution in the resulting copy. Do you still believe that your copier can print microscopic serial numbers on every page?
The serial number of a copier is based on the frame, not the motherboard, drum, lens, or any other part of the machine. Photocopiers are parts hogs. We were constantly replacing circuit boards. There is no way a single serial number could stay mapped to a single photocopier's electronics.
It's unfortunate that Gilmore makes these outrageous claims in an otherwise well thought out article. It seems to push him from the "well-informed protector of our rights" to "crackpot". I wish he would write about what he understands instead of resulting to conspiracy theories. There is enough evil in the RIAA without having to make up conspiracies.
Once you learn OOP and truly "grok" the meaning of OOP you'll wonder why you ever coded any other way. It's difficult to answer the question "What's the businessw case for OOP" because we're not talking about how to build a more efficient web server, we're talking conceptually about design, implementation, and code re-use.
So there's no easy answer. Unfortunatly, the real answer is to spend a year or two coding in C++ or Java and becoming familier with OOP concepts. Then you'll be able to answer your own question.
But Microsoft Deputy General Counsel Tom Burt said the software giant could help more schools under the proposed settlement, distributing more software at a lower cost than if the same schools went out and bought programs on the open market.
However, the last article on the M$ counter offer said that they would provide $1.2 billion of which $900 million of that would be Microsoft software products. That leaves $300 million for hardware which means that apparently Microsoft thinks it can best help the schools by charging 3 times what the hardware cost for their software (and coincidentally putting that $900 Million back into their own pockets)
If the average computer runs roughly $1200 for a hot shot system then it seems to me that the schools can buy a copy of Windows 98 or 2k and MS Office at the local software store for a LOT less than $3600.
The real reason for that counter offer is that it puts 3/4 of the settlement cash right back in Microsoft's pockets.
Give the money directly to the schools and let them decide. Apple, Linux, Even PC's with Windows is OK, but the schools should be making the decision, not Microsoft.
Yep. I absolutly agree. It would be nice if he put as much effort into answering the questions as those who wrote and reviewed them.
He should have just said; "No thanks, I really don't have time to do the interview". The terse, and mostly uninformative, answers came across as simply being rude.
Check and test wires BEFORE the drywall goes up
on
Wiring A New House?
·
· Score: 1
We ran cat5 in our house during a remodel. Be sure to put temporary connectors on each end and test every cat 5 wire before the drywall goes up. Also, be sure to leave plenty of extra wire in the blue box.
Also, make sure the wires go where you expect them to go. I totally missed that the electrician put all the cables in except one, the one to my front room with my TV/Stereo. So the idea of having my MP3 server play through my stereo is now no longer available unless I want to rip up the walls and route new wires.
Take photos of the wiring in the walls before the insulation goes in and the drywall goes up. Drywallers have a habit of plastering over anything that isn't moving too quickly. I've had entire AC boxes plastered over. With the photos you can check to see if you're missing any outlets and if so the photos will tell you where to cut through the plaster.
Don't let the electrician wire the outlets. Unless they know how to do it they will wire them wrong. Wire your outlets to wireing spec T568B. Be sure it's "B" and not "A". And don't untwist the pairs more than 1/2 an inch. Our contractor wired every one of them wrong and had 4 to 5 inches of untwisted wire. I was amazed that any of them worked.
While you're wiring it would be nice of all the ends of the cat5 cables came to a central point. We have an attic where they all terminate as does the cable TV cable, the phone lines, and a power outlet. That way I have my cable modem going to a Linux box running my firewall that goes to an 8 way hub. The hub outputs go to a patch bay with all the cat5 cables for each room.
But watch those contractors. And take those photos. I wish I had taken my own advice.
As an @Home subscriber I just have to wonder: How can they have a 45% market share AND charge $39.95 per month and still not make money? If this was some bizzare dot-com startup I could understand it (we're going to give the user the ability to change the contrast and brightness of their monitors via the internet). But this is a basic infrastructure company with steady income and a massive market share.
Certainly they are not taking in the entire $39.95 each month. The local provider (Cox Cable in my town) obviously takes a portion of that montly bill, but Excite! must still be receiving a ton of money each month.
Moreover, they have a monopoly. In my neighborhood I don't have a choice between Cox and Roadrunner. It's either Cox@Home or a phone modem (we're too far away from the CO for DSL). So they can't be losing customers since there's no compitition. And even if their competition is DSL then their competitors are going out of business as well (whatever happened to Covad?)
Sombody's got to be taking some money home with them at night.
I think part of the popularity of The Iron Chef is its Japaneseness
This is so true. My wife and I love watching it with friends who are newbies to IC. When one of the judges says something as subtle "a little less salt would have allowed the essence of the urchin roe to assert itself more" we can jump up and react: "Oh My God! He's Toast! That's it, there's NO WAY he can win now". Our friends just stare and think "What happened? I missed it".
The subtlety of the judging combined with the flamboyance of Chairman Kaga along with the absolute seriousness of the contestents and the commentators is what makes it such an amazing show. (sure they joke around some, but when it comes to the food, they mean business).
The Record companies are screwing the artist (just read Courtney Love's rant on Salon to understand how).
The record companies are screwing the consumer (If they burn CD's for less than $2 and the artist gets less than $1 then why am I paying $15+ ??)
The artist and the consumer KNOW THIS!
So, what will come of all of this? I think that some of these major artist who, in spite of the RIAA, have been able to get rich off of their talents will form a new record company. This company must follow the credo: "Don't screw the artist; don't screw the customer"
The contracts for the artist would specifically state that the artist recordings are NOT "work for hire", the contract would specifically state that the publishing rights for the music remain with the artist (as Disipline Mobile Group records already does), and the contract would give the artist $1 to $2 per CD. And finally, they would give away at least one song of every album as an MP3 on the record company's web site
On the customer side it's even easier. Set a policy that the suggested retail price of every CD is $10.
Can such a company exist and make money? Absolutly! The only real problem is distribution. The major labels have every square foot of bin space at Tower, Sam Goody etc. reserved and accounted for. It's next to impossible for a new record company to get bin space if they don't crack and join up with the RIAA. So what's the solution?
Remember, the internet changes everything. This is one of the "new economy" concepts that actually works. For the first couple of years the CD will be sold only via the record company's web site as well as other none brick & morter sites like Amazon. If the RIAA is blocking the distribution of ethically produced reasonably priced CDs then use the internet to do an end run around them. The customers are already wired. Look at the number of Napster users, Bear Share users and so on. These are your customers and by definition they already have 'net access. Instead of fearing the web as a tool of "pirates" USE THE WEB to avoid the RIAA cartel completly.
This is a plan that can seriously work. Just as a packet on the internet sees a broken router as damage and routes around it we need to form ethical record companies that see the RIAA as damage so we can route around that mess.
Somebody needs to use this situation as an opportunity to make a LOT of money in a completly ethical manner. The artist will support them, the consumers will support them, the 'net community will support them. All we need is the investment cash and a leader and the recording industry will change forever.
Well let's see, if I meet the beta test date of Sept 30th then I get 33% of my 100,000 shares of stock immediatly vested. If I meet the next beta date of October 31st then I get the next 33% of my shares vested.
So what are my real choices? Either I can hold out and write software that doesn't suck and give up tens of thousands of dollars, or I get the damn thing into beta on time.
If I want to write great code then I work on my sourceforge project. If you want corporate code to be elegant then go bitch at the managers who tell us "You guys always pad your estimates too much. Instead of December I'm going to put you down for the end of September".
This is exactly what Cox sent it's @HOME subscribers today via e-mail
Dear Customer,
This week, we notified Excite @Home that we have exercised our right to terminate our
existing agreement, with the termination to take effect on June 4, 2002. By taking this
action, Cox will have the ability to acquire greater control over our network and to
assume many of the responsibilities currently held by Excite @Home. We anticipate
that we will work together with Excite @Home to smoothly transition these
responsibilities between now and June 4, 2002.
Our number one priority is continuing to deliver reliable high speed Internet service to
you. the recent announcements that Excite @Home has issued regarding its financial
status have strengthened our belief that our notice of termination was necessary to give
us the flexibility we need to make alternative arrangements to provide high speed
Internet service to our customers. By managing more elements in our high speed
Internet service, we will be in a much better position to control the quality of our
service and deliver greater customer satisfaction.
Several months ago, Cox began preparing a strategic plan to exercise a greater degree
of control over many of the components that make up our high speed Internet service.
The current events surrounding Excite @Home have simply accelerated this initiative.
The Cox-managed service to which we will be transitioning may include a role for
Excite @Home; however, any such role will be defined by a new agreement.
At this time, we do not plan to institute any immediate changes to the features and
functions we provide through our existing Cox @Home service, although we do believe
that between now and June 4, 2002, there will be some modifications. Please know that
we will make every effort to make this transition as smooth as possible, and that we will
notify you of any action or changes in advance. Our primary goal is to provide you
with the high quality, reliable, high speed Internet service you have come to enjoy.
1) As has been mentioned before this is the same thing as trying to sue gun companies for what people do with their guns. However . . .
2) If the mp3's are legal to download for free from MP3.com then is it really aganist the law to share something that is readily and legally already available for free?
3) If it isn't legal to share those files then I believe the test for a lawsuit is this: Would a reasonable person think that this is against the law? I would suggest that a reasonable person who downloads an mp3 file legally and freely from MP3.com would reasonably expect that he could share that file.
I'm stunned that so many people are posting comments an a "We're going down in a couple of hours for upgrades" story. Yep, that's what makes the internet great.
No point, just an observation.
"The GPL not only requires that all source
code must always be published, but also states that all third parties must have the right to make unlimited copies of GPL-licensed software and redistribute them free of charge. Obviously, it is extremely difficult for a software company to generate revenue by distributing a program if everyone has the right to distribute unlimited copies of the same program free of charge."
I may be wrong (and I'd like to be corrected if I am) but my understanding of the GPL is that if MY software is licensed under the GPL then I have a right to sell my software for whatever price I want. I can even restrict the sale of my software by others. The only thing that I must do under the GPL is that I must make my source code available to anyone who buys my software.
Now, if somebody else wants to expand or repair my software they must also include the source code. But, as I understand it, they don't have an automatic right to sell MY software with minimal changes for less than what I charge.
In the GPL preamble it says:
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish)"
In this sentance they seem to be talking "Free as in speech" not "free as in beer". but later in the GPL it states:
"You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, . .."
Perhaps "In any medium" can mean "compiled code?" if this is how Mundie is interpreting the GPL then perhaps he is correct in thinking that the GPL automatically makes all GPL'd code "Free as in beer".
I don't agree with him, but could he have a point from a purly legal perspective?
Slashdot Mirror
The lesson I learned? When companies screw you over go get a lawyer and sue the hell out of them FAST while they still have money to lose. They'll stop victumizing us when we decide to stop being victums. If some a-hole punched a hole in the wall above my head at a meeting I'd have to smile and think "That just cost you a cool quarter million".
My experience:
- It says right on the plans "Run a quad phone line and Cat 5 cable to the office". They forgot both. I should have checked every wire before the insulation when in and the drywall went up.
- Our spiral staircase was delivered. It was suppose to be antique white. We came home one day to find a BLACK spiral staircase installed in the wrong location. 2nd staircase comes in and it's just dropped on our front lawn for 3 weeks AND it's the wrong color (bright white) and is very scratched up. We come home one day and the staircase is missing from our lawn. We open up the front door and it's installed (but still the wrong color). After much arguing we get then to come in and paint it the proper color.
- Our neighbor came home one day to find the wrong kitchen cabinets installed.
- Same neighbor. Double door installed so crooked that it won't close.
- Us AND our neighbor: When nailing the plywood shear walls to the studs the building code says that the heads of the nails cannot penetrate the surface of the plywood. The inspectors HATE THAT. It reduces the structual integrity of the wall. You would think that getting rejected once would be enough for a contractor to learn this lesson. But both of our houses had the framing rejected for the exact same reason.
Just ask anyone who's had a major remodel and you'll hear the same stories. It's up to YOU the owner to catch these mistakes and make sure that they get fixed correctly. So if you're already doing that job then what are you paying the contractor for?Also, don't forget the value of sweat equity. The original reviewer mentioned staining the staircase. That's a good example of a job you can do yourself. Interior paint (especially if it's just solid colors) is another good example. Even if you're having custom faux finshing done you can certainly do the primer coat on the drywall yourself.
And yes, pizza and beer go a long way.
Also, in the companies which do have software QA departments those jobs are seen as "entry level". After all, all those people have to do is use the software to find bugs. Right? Once again, management's lack of understanding of the QA process causes them to under fund and under staff those positions.
In a perfect world, as soon as the business requirements were released the QA department would start designing a test plan full of test cases which touch each variation of each requirement. And if you want to have an even higher level of confidence then you would higher actual programmers in your QA department. They would write test IN CODE that call each method of each class with all the variations of parameter values and actually unit test individual classes and methods.
We havn't even touched on the topic of automated testing tools that drive the GUI with pre-programmed mouse clicks and key strokes. You can build an automated script that can test thousands of regression test in hours instead of days.
But here's the truth folks: As reasonable as these suggestions seem, very few companies implement even a few of them.
The real reason software sucks is because companies don't want to allocate money and resources to this cost center called "QA". And yet, the sooner a bug is caught and fixed the less the cost to fix it. Once again it's a case of the short sightedness of the corporate checkbook that's the real problem.
"If ever you start to feel like your company actually cares about your welfare I find it helpfull to repeat this simple mantra:
Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit!"
Uh oh! So Mozilla allows the users to see content without seeing the pop-up and pop-under adds. If we are to believe the Replay TV lawsuit then Mozilla is a tool which allows users to "steal" content. Sounds like a DMCA violation as well.
Let's sit back and watch as the lawsuits start rolling in.
Yeah, well if the record companies so concerned about the artist then perhaps the record companies should foot the bill of promoting the product themselves.
This is so transparent. The RIAA is tired of paying the payola system that they themselves helped set up. There is ABSOLUTLY NOTHING about this complaint that actually helps the artist. It's just another way for the record companies to cut more of their cost and rack in even more of their ill gotten cash while doing nothing to help the people who actually write and perform the music.
>Of course legal software costs money, unless its Open Source Open Source software does not HAVE to be free. It is perfectly OK to charge for your open source software. You just need to provide the source code with it and allow anyone who wants to use/modify your code to have the same rights that your have. So we really need to be carefull when talking about Free software and Open Source software. They're still 2 different things.
OK, I don't see how that has anything to do with refusing to release documents. However this:
4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
. . . seems like it would apply. I could understand how the store's customer records would be considered "papers and effects".
So I'm confused, how exactly does this relate to the 1st? Freedom of the press? That's usually considered to be the press's right to maintain secrecy of it's sources, not it's customer list.
We were talking about the latest RIAA atrocities and I offered up my oft-repeated idea of a new record company that's founded with the idea of "Don't screw the artist, don't screw the customer". The foundation of this idea is:
My friend responded to my idea this way: "But if we don't screw the artist and we don't screw the customer, then WHO ARE WE GOING TO SCREW?"
She went on to say "I'm joking of course. but that's how the record companies think. It is completly foreign to them to think that they can make more money by giving up their iron fisted control of the medium. They absolutly believe that if they don't control every aspect of the recording, distribution, promotion, and sale of "their" music then their business will collapse."
This is why the RIAA is not swayed by studies that show that people who describe themselves as "avid Napster users" buy 4 to 6 times more CD's than the average consumer. This is why they don't understand why record sales are this year are 43% of what they were when Napster was alive. This is why they think that Tower records sells more Recordable CDs than pre-recorded CDs because of "piracy".
They don't realize that the reason we're not buying albums is because THE MUSIC SUCKS! I'm sorry but I really don't want to buy any CD by Britney or Cristina or N'Sync or O'Town or any other headphone wearing pop icon manufactured band. And oddly enough, even when they shoot themselves in their own wallet (like when Capitol paid Maria Carey upteen million dollars to "Get The Hell Out Of Our Label") then they STILL don't get it.
So don't be surprised if these articles fall on deaf ears at the record companies. Remember what guitarist Adrian Legg says about record company executives and deafness: "It's actually quite a benefit for them as it allows them to make sound business decisions without being distracted by something so trivial as the tunes".
Modded to a 5 funny!?? For a goatse.cx link? Geez Oh Petes, Please meta-moderate this down
Software: We took data while running Linux on both computers. Although it should be possible to do this experiment with the new release of ping for Windows, because the authors were unfamiliar with Windows, Linux was chosen.
Unfamilier with Windows? Where's my checkbook? I want to send my kids to this school! That's not sarcasm, I mean it. I think the fact that the teachers and students were more familar with Linux than Windows is awesome!
I once spent 6 years of my life fixing photocopiers (Thank god I write code now). I can say that the comment above is absolutly not true. The technology used in all black and white photocopiers, and in all color copiers that use toner rather than a photographic process, does not have a high enough resolution to accuratly embed a serial number into the "pixels" of a copy.
It's hard enough just to get the black areas dark enough and the white areas bright enough much less having to worry about modifying individual pixels.
Moreover, most photocopiers work by shining a bright light on the original and using the reflected light off the page to effect the static charge on a selenium covered drum. The original is not scanned, modified, and re-broadcast onto the drum.
The new digital copiers do scan the original one time and then use a laser to "print" the page on the drum from memory, but then you have to ask yourself:
It's unfortunate that Gilmore makes these outrageous claims in an otherwise well thought out article. It seems to push him from the "well-informed protector of our rights" to "crackpot". I wish he would write about what he understands instead of resulting to conspiracy theories. There is enough evil in the RIAA without having to make up conspiracies.
So there's no easy answer. Unfortunatly, the real answer is to spend a year or two coding in C++ or Java and becoming familier with OOP concepts. Then you'll be able to answer your own question.
Well done. Well freakin' done.
However, the last article on the M$ counter offer said that they would provide $1.2 billion of which $900 million of that would be Microsoft software products. That leaves $300 million for hardware which means that apparently Microsoft thinks it can best help the schools by charging 3 times what the hardware cost for their software (and coincidentally putting that $900 Million back into their own pockets)
If the average computer runs roughly $1200 for a hot shot system then it seems to me that the schools can buy a copy of Windows 98 or 2k and MS Office at the local software store for a LOT less than $3600.
The real reason for that counter offer is that it puts 3/4 of the settlement cash right back in Microsoft's pockets.
Give the money directly to the schools and let them decide. Apple, Linux, Even PC's with Windows is OK, but the schools should be making the decision, not Microsoft.
He should have just said; "No thanks, I really don't have time to do the interview". The terse, and mostly uninformative, answers came across as simply being rude.
We ran cat5 in our house during a remodel. Be sure to put temporary connectors on each end and test every cat 5 wire before the drywall goes up. Also, be sure to leave plenty of extra wire in the blue box.
Also, make sure the wires go where you expect them to go. I totally missed that the electrician put all the cables in except one, the one to my front room with my TV/Stereo. So the idea of having my MP3 server play through my stereo is now no longer available unless I want to rip up the walls and route new wires.
Take photos of the wiring in the walls before the insulation goes in and the drywall goes up. Drywallers have a habit of plastering over anything that isn't moving too quickly. I've had entire AC boxes plastered over. With the photos you can check to see if you're missing any outlets and if so the photos will tell you where to cut through the plaster.
Don't let the electrician wire the outlets. Unless they know how to do it they will wire them wrong. Wire your outlets to wireing spec T568B. Be sure it's "B" and not "A". And don't untwist the pairs more than 1/2 an inch. Our contractor wired every one of them wrong and had 4 to 5 inches of untwisted wire. I was amazed that any of them worked.
While you're wiring it would be nice of all the ends of the cat5 cables came to a central point. We have an attic where they all terminate as does the cable TV cable, the phone lines, and a power outlet. That way I have my cable modem going to a Linux box running my firewall that goes to an 8 way hub. The hub outputs go to a patch bay with all the cat5 cables for each room.
But watch those contractors. And take those photos. I wish I had taken my own advice.
Certainly they are not taking in the entire $39.95 each month. The local provider (Cox Cable in my town) obviously takes a portion of that montly bill, but Excite! must still be receiving a ton of money each month.
Moreover, they have a monopoly. In my neighborhood I don't have a choice between Cox and Roadrunner. It's either Cox@Home or a phone modem (we're too far away from the CO for DSL). So they can't be losing customers since there's no compitition. And even if their competition is DSL then their competitors are going out of business as well (whatever happened to Covad?)
Sombody's got to be taking some money home with them at night.
This is so true. My wife and I love watching it with friends who are newbies to IC. When one of the judges says something as subtle "a little less salt would have allowed the essence of the urchin roe to assert itself more" we can jump up and react: "Oh My God! He's Toast! That's it, there's NO WAY he can win now". Our friends just stare and think "What happened? I missed it".
The subtlety of the judging combined with the flamboyance of Chairman Kaga along with the absolute seriousness of the contestents and the commentators is what makes it such an amazing show. (sure they joke around some, but when it comes to the food, they mean business).
In any case, SHATNER! How good could it be?
So, what will come of all of this? I think that some of these major artist who, in spite of the RIAA, have been able to get rich off of their talents will form a new record company. This company must follow the credo: "Don't screw the artist; don't screw the customer"
The contracts for the artist would specifically state that the artist recordings are NOT "work for hire", the contract would specifically state that the publishing rights for the music remain with the artist (as Disipline Mobile Group records already does), and the contract would give the artist $1 to $2 per CD. And finally, they would give away at least one song of every album as an MP3 on the record company's web site
On the customer side it's even easier. Set a policy that the suggested retail price of every CD is $10.
Can such a company exist and make money? Absolutly! The only real problem is distribution. The major labels have every square foot of bin space at Tower, Sam Goody etc. reserved and accounted for. It's next to impossible for a new record company to get bin space if they don't crack and join up with the RIAA. So what's the solution?
Remember, the internet changes everything. This is one of the "new economy" concepts that actually works. For the first couple of years the CD will be sold only via the record company's web site as well as other none brick & morter sites like Amazon. If the RIAA is blocking the distribution of ethically produced reasonably priced CDs then use the internet to do an end run around them. The customers are already wired. Look at the number of Napster users, Bear Share users and so on. These are your customers and by definition they already have 'net access. Instead of fearing the web as a tool of "pirates" USE THE WEB to avoid the RIAA cartel completly.
This is a plan that can seriously work. Just as a packet on the internet sees a broken router as damage and routes around it we need to form ethical record companies that see the RIAA as damage so we can route around that mess.
Somebody needs to use this situation as an opportunity to make a LOT of money in a completly ethical manner. The artist will support them, the consumers will support them, the 'net community will support them. All we need is the investment cash and a leader and the recording industry will change forever.
So what are my real choices? Either I can hold out and write software that doesn't suck and give up tens of thousands of dollars, or I get the damn thing into beta on time.
If I want to write great code then I work on my sourceforge project. If you want corporate code to be elegant then go bitch at the managers who tell us "You guys always pad your estimates too much. Instead of December I'm going to put you down for the end of September".
Dear Customer,
This week, we notified Excite @Home that we have exercised our right to terminate our existing agreement, with the termination to take effect on June 4, 2002. By taking this action, Cox will have the ability to acquire greater control over our network and to assume many of the responsibilities currently held by Excite @Home. We anticipate that we will work together with Excite @Home to smoothly transition these responsibilities between now and June 4, 2002.
Our number one priority is continuing to deliver reliable high speed Internet service to you. the recent announcements that Excite @Home has issued regarding its financial status have strengthened our belief that our notice of termination was necessary to give us the flexibility we need to make alternative arrangements to provide high speed Internet service to our customers. By managing more elements in our high speed Internet service, we will be in a much better position to control the quality of our service and deliver greater customer satisfaction.
Several months ago, Cox began preparing a strategic plan to exercise a greater degree of control over many of the components that make up our high speed Internet service. The current events surrounding Excite @Home have simply accelerated this initiative. The Cox-managed service to which we will be transitioning may include a role for Excite @Home; however, any such role will be defined by a new agreement.
At this time, we do not plan to institute any immediate changes to the features and functions we provide through our existing Cox @Home service, although we do believe that between now and June 4, 2002, there will be some modifications. Please know that we will make every effort to make this transition as smooth as possible, and that we will notify you of any action or changes in advance. Our primary goal is to provide you with the high quality, reliable, high speed Internet service you have come to enjoy.
2) If the mp3's are legal to download for free from MP3.com then is it really aganist the law to share something that is readily and legally already available for free?
3) If it isn't legal to share those files then I believe the test for a lawsuit is this: Would a reasonable person think that this is against the law? I would suggest that a reasonable person who downloads an mp3 file legally and freely from MP3.com would reasonably expect that he could share that file.
I'm stunned that so many people are posting comments an a "We're going down in a couple of hours for upgrades" story. Yep, that's what makes the internet great. No point, just an observation.
I may be wrong (and I'd like to be corrected if I am) but my understanding of the GPL is that if MY software is licensed under the GPL then I have a right to sell my software for whatever price I want. I can even restrict the sale of my software by others. The only thing that I must do under the GPL is that I must make my source code available to anyone who buys my software.
Now, if somebody else wants to expand or repair my software they must also include the source code. But, as I understand it, they don't have an automatic right to sell MY software with minimal changes for less than what I charge.
In the GPL preamble it says:
In this sentance they seem to be talking "Free as in speech" not "free as in beer". but later in the GPL it states:
Perhaps "In any medium" can mean "compiled code?" if this is how Mundie is interpreting the GPL then perhaps he is correct in thinking that the GPL automatically makes all GPL'd code "Free as in beer".
I don't agree with him, but could he have a point from a purly legal perspective?