So it's ok to "promote" shooting people, running people down and using / abusing prostitutes (GTA and plenty of others)but it's not ok to "promote" tagging a wall.
Colt manufactures guns. Man opens fire in public with a Colt pistol. Who's at fault? The shooter, of course.
Hmmmmn, nice attempt to start a flamewar. I mean there's nothing like a gun analogy to get people to discuss thing rationally is there?
Anyway, back on topic. I think you need to understand shades of grey - the students are clearly most at fault for being the ones who actually caused the damage.
However, the spy/adware companies are most certainly complicit - they operate in a manner where they encourage and facilitate botnets. To go back to your trollish example, it would be like if Colt were advertising guns as 'man killers' or 'the perfect sniper tool', selling armour piercing bullets, etc etc.
Thirdly, whilst the hospital mightn't take any of the blame for this incident, it certainly raises questions about negligence in allowing a critical network to be so open. Returning to your analogy, it would be like a gun shop not properly securing its merchandise and then shrugging its shoulders when there was a massacre using firearms stolen from said shop.
Re:Yes, 'cuz that's what teenaged music fans want.
on
Songbird Flies Today
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Yes, 'cuz that's what teenaged music fans want...
Source code.
Well - thats pretty much answered in the article:
The opportunity to innovate is stymied by architecture........Justin Frankel created a collaborative jamming service, and you can't do that inside any commercial media player now. You'll be able to do those kinds of things inside Songbird.
How many people write extensions for firefox? Not many, but how many people enjoy said extensions?
The source being available mightent directly benefit most people who use an open source program, but they sure as hell benefit from others having access to the source....
Let me pretend to be a mac fanboy for a second....
on
Songbird Flies Today
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Waaaah! I'm going to dismiss this product out of hand without downloading it or even reading the review.
It's like placing a stack of burned DVDs on your windowsill, with a big sign saying "Meatloaf and the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra", and everyone else on the street doing the same. Maybe somebody will wander past and take one of them. Maybe you'll wander past someone else's window and help yourself to some of their "Bon Jovi: Crush" CD-Rs. Sure, it's private copying, but it's pretty blatant what the intent is.
Dear God.
Meatloaf with the MSO + Bon Jovi: Crush.
These are your examples?
The french have different copyright laws to the USA. Some are stronger (ie Moral Rights are perpetual in France), some are weaker.
Nothing is as simple as it seems
I can't help but wonder if that's just going to give legitimate fair-use copying a bad name.
I'm not sure you understand the issues involved here - this ruling has stated that p2p is legitimate fair-use copying.
Apple has added the intel processor to their lineup, but they haven't abandoned the PPC architecture. Although Steve et al. have implied a complete switch
But starting next year we will begin introducing Macs with Intel processors in them and over time these transitions will again occur.*snip* two years from now, our plan is that transition will be mostly complete. And we think it will be complete by the end of 2007.
Maybe they can go back - but Steve sure as hell abandonded PPC during the keynote.
Am I the only one wondering why this line is included?
Probably not.
To explain, after some guy took a picture of a topless woman using his mobile phone (on a public beach) a while ago, there was an outbreak of hysteria, leading to several councils banning cameras in swimming pools (and the some beaches) to save the children from perverts. Essentially the line is there to remind you that a pool and the beach are also public spaces (it's also important to note how important swimming spaces are to Australian life & culture)
I agree that things generally aren't that different.
However, you quote:
You don't need permission to photograph a public building from inside the building
and we were talking about private buildings (shopping centres).
Another quote from the link you provided:
If you are going to shoot on private property, get permission to enter and use the location for shooting and to show the premises in your work, in order to avoid trespass and invasion of privacy claims by the property owner.
So I'm afraid in that respect, things are slightly different in Australia - the concept of public space is different between the countries.
The article mentions being 'hauled away by security' for taking photos inside Eastland shopping center. Well, that one's understandable. The shopping center is private property... can't take photos without the property owner's permission.
You are correct that the shopping centre is private property, but incorrect that this means you cannot take photos there without the property owner's permission (I am going to make a huge punt and guess you are not an expert in Australian law)
The Summary Offences Act 1988 states: 'public place' means (a) a place (whether or not covered by water) or (b) a part of a premises, that is open to the public, or is used by the public
As much as the shopping center operaters would love to control everything, they opeate a public space.
That the article fails to mention the difference between photots inside someone's property, and from outside the property, is poor journalism.
What you fail to mention is that US!=The rest of the world. Things work differently in Australia.
The guy who patented interaction with a spread sheet, or Microsoft?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmn,
Tough choice - I'm going to go with live-by-the-sword-die-by-the-sword Microsoft.
Seriously - software patents are wrong, alot of people who wield them do so unethically, but its hard to have sympathy for a company licensing stealth patented tech.
Remember we're talking about 3rd world applications here - and you're talking about pushing all the processing to the other end of a network. Many third world countries have good cell phone penetration, but not so high (and so cheap) that you'd want to rely on using it 24/7 for everything
In addition, MS says
specially configured cellular phone into a computer by connecting it to a TV and a keyboard. [emphasis mine]
Uh-huh. Thanks Bill. My eyes hurt just thinking about it.
Anyone who's ever used a TV as a monitor know they're virtually impossible to read for long periods of time. Look at the way Media Centre type applications have to use huge, high contrast text.
This is just MS trying to shoot down the competition, with any sort of idea they can, whilst they scramble to think of some other way of squashing it.
So, in summary, no - it makes no sense, its a much better idea to incorporate a cell phone into a light weight laptop then vice versa.
You mean Obligatory offtopic pro-mac (and doesn't understand the issues invloved) troll?
I've just switched to Macs after 17 years of PC ownership* (Dos, then Windows, then Linux). Boy, am I feeling smug right at this moment.
1) PC stands for 'Personal Computer' this is what your mac is. 2) Mac Bioses are flashable. 3) You were just as safe under linux (if not safer) then you are under a Mac.
* I first typed 'ownershit' by mistake - Thinking about it, this might actually be a more accurate word to describe the joys of being a PC user.
You get what you pay for - buy a decent PC with physical bios protection (ie a jumper you need to switch before flashing the bios) and run linux on it. You will be safer then you are now.
Why do (some) mac people feel the need to but into any discussion with their pro-mac trolls?
At least understand the facts before you do this again...
I suspect that you're right - but for all the wrong reasons.
Apple hasn't so much created a technology as they have a lifestyle that specifically includes iTunes and an iPod, not any old mp3 player and download service.
Apple have created neither a technology nor a lifestyle, they've popularised a technology and tapped into a lifestyle. The download serice is far less important then you think too - ipods were huge in Australia prior to the itunes launch.
Everyone I know (in the Netherlands) with an iPod has either ripped or pirated mp3s on it.
No competitor has come close. Google will be no different in that regard. Apple comes with a cachet that Google annot approach when it comes to "coolness" with Joe Sixpack.
Apple got in first, but they've really only tapped a tiny fraction of the potential market. If google licenses fairplay or (gasp) sells non-drm'd mp3s.... then who knows?
Unlikely because Apple is unlikely to license the former & the music industry is extremely unlikely to allow the latter.
I mean we're going to have one guy (Jobs) essentially controlling two companies that will between them produce the content, the distribution network, the playback codec and the playback device.
Are you talking about Sony?
Sorry, I meant to say:
I mean we're going to have one guy (Jobs) essentially controlling two companies that will between them produce content we like, the distribution network, the playback codec and the playback device.
I should have said "There's no more innovation in proprietary software then OSS software (or vice versa)
Sure, maybe not on the desktop or with Samba but I certainly see it with Firefox. Firefox has had a lot of great things (like tabs) before IE does. In fact, IE is in a major state of catch up right now.
Interesting example - I think however you're in the wrong thread (you're looking for the Microsoft vs OSS innovation thread, this is the proprietary vs OSS innovation thread).
Firefox is mildly innovative, but the first browser (I think) that had tabs was Opera, and they borrowed them from other windowing software that used tabs, I think they first appeared in OS/2 as a minor innovation for preference dialogues.
So - you see, as Newtown (and someone else in this thread) pointed out: "If I have seen further [than certain other men] it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." holds true for everyone.
Disney is a supertanker of a company and it'll take more than a seat on the board or even being nominally in charge of animation to turn it around from the pile of crap it has become.
I think if anyone can turn around disney, then Lasseter with Steve Jobs backing will be the ones to do it.
What I think we should be more worried about is the creation of the most vertically integrated entertainment duopoly since paramount case of 1948 broke up the old vertical monopolists.
I mean we're going to have one guy (Jobs) essentially controlling two companies that will between them produce the content, the distribution network, the playback codec and the playback device.
So, in 2006, Samba is finally able to do what windows was able in 2000?
Five years to reverse engineer a difficult, obfuscated protocol is quite frankly amazing.
And you see - they don't really have to offer full compatability immediately - but if they do it before win2k ends its lifecycle, SAMBA + *nix offers companies dependant on AD a way out without having to go the win2k3 route.
Way to innovate, OSS community!
Way to troll dJOEK!
There is virtually no innovation in software, proprietary or OSS - everyone is just copying everyone elses ideas & making incremental improvements...
I mean we're all using the same desktop paradigm from 30 years ago - and the only substatial innovation I've seen in that is overlapping windows (from maybe 25 years ago)
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, but we've all seen Google China's tiananmen search vs The US version
However it's interesting to note that something censored in the US is censored all over the world
Not comparing what's been censored. Just where.
Sounds more like a trojan to me.
Unlike viruses and worms, Trojans do not reproduce by infecting other files nor do they self-replicate.
I would say (from the description in tfa) that this piece of malware is more similar to a virus then a worm or a trojan.
Why?
1) It appears to self propagate (Trojans do not do this).
2) It appears to attach to other executables (worms are stand alone)
So we have a self-propagating piece of code that attaches itself to other executables. Quacks like a virus if you ask me.
You have to execute it yourself, and that is why it is _not_ a virus.
Unlike viruses and worms, Trojans do not reproduce by infecting other files nor do they self-replicate.
I would say (from the description in tfa) that this piece of malware is more similar to a virus then a worm or a trojan.
Why?
1) It appears to self propagate (Trojans do not do this).
2) It appears to attach to other executables (worms are stand alone)
So we have a self-propagating piece of code that attaches itself to other executables. Quacks like a virus if you ask me.
So it's ok to "promote" shooting people, running people down and using / abusing prostitutes (GTA and plenty of others)but it's not ok to "promote" tagging a wall.
GTA was banned in Australia too
Hmmmm we have a very weird society.
I'm not sure whether you're talking about the USA or Australia - you seem a little confused. (but yes, they're both quite weird)
This is how I remember tetris ;-)
I would'nt expect them to have to obey ALL of the laws of the U.S. and the localality where they are setting up shop,
Why not? Are US laws so unreasonable?
IIRC Swedish companies have to follow swedish and local laws.
Colt manufactures guns. Man opens fire in public with a Colt pistol. Who's at fault? The shooter, of course.
Hmmmmn, nice attempt to start a flamewar. I mean there's nothing like a gun analogy to get people to discuss thing rationally is there?
Anyway, back on topic. I think you need to understand shades of grey - the students are clearly most at fault for being the ones who actually caused the damage.
However, the spy/adware companies are most certainly complicit - they operate in a manner where they encourage and facilitate botnets. To go back to your trollish example, it would be like if Colt were advertising guns as 'man killers' or 'the perfect sniper tool', selling armour piercing bullets, etc etc.
Thirdly, whilst the hospital mightn't take any of the blame for this incident, it certainly raises questions about negligence in allowing a critical network to be so open. Returning to your analogy, it would be like a gun shop not properly securing its merchandise and then shrugging its shoulders when there was a massacre using firearms stolen from said shop.
Source code.
Well - thats pretty much answered in the article:How many people write extensions for firefox? Not many, but how many people enjoy said extensions?
The source being available mightent directly benefit most people who use an open source program, but they sure as hell benefit from others having access to the source....
Waaaah! I'm going to dismiss this product out of hand without downloading it or even reading the review.
It's like placing a stack of burned DVDs on your windowsill, with a big sign saying "Meatloaf and the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra", and everyone else on the street doing the same. Maybe somebody will wander past and take one of them. Maybe you'll wander past someone else's window and help yourself to some of their "Bon Jovi: Crush" CD-Rs. Sure, it's private copying, but it's pretty blatant what the intent is.
Dear God.
Meatloaf with the MSO + Bon Jovi: Crush.
These are your examples?
The french have different copyright laws to the USA. Some are stronger (ie Moral Rights are perpetual in France), some are weaker.
Nothing is as simple as it seems
I can't help but wonder if that's just going to give legitimate fair-use copying a bad name.
I'm not sure you understand the issues involved here - this ruling has stated that p2p is legitimate fair-use copying.
Its not implied - its stated. Look at Steve Job's words at the keynote where he announce the intel macs Maybe they can go back - but Steve sure as hell abandonded PPC during the keynote.
To explain, after some guy took a picture of a topless woman using his mobile phone (on a public beach) a while ago, there was an outbreak of hysteria, leading to several councils banning cameras in swimming pools (and the some beaches) to save the children from perverts. Essentially the line is there to remind you that a pool and the beach are also public spaces (it's also important to note how important swimming spaces are to Australian life & culture)
Online opinion has a reasonable overview of this.
However, you quote:and we were talking about private buildings (shopping centres).
Another quote from the link you provided:So I'm afraid in that respect, things are slightly different in Australia - the concept of public space is different between the countries.
You are correct that the shopping centre is private property, but incorrect that this means you cannot take photos there without the property owner's permission (I am going to make a huge punt and guess you are not an expert in Australian law)
This wiki has a reasonablly good explanation:As much as the shopping center operaters would love to control everything, they opeate a public space.
That the article fails to mention the difference between photots inside someone's property, and from outside the property, is poor journalism.
What you fail to mention is that US!=The rest of the world. Things work differently in Australia.
The guy who patented interaction with a spread sheet, or Microsoft?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmn,
Tough choice - I'm going to go with live-by-the-sword-die-by-the-sword Microsoft.
Seriously - software patents are wrong, alot of people who wield them do so unethically, but its hard to have sympathy for a company licensing stealth patented tech.
I'd love to be able to search IMDB of Gracenote from google toolbar
You can search both of those using Firefox's search engine add-ons (along with thousands more)
Not that google's tool bar isn't nice and all - but its much better to use something open source that doesn't censor results for opressive regimes
Nope - this makes virtually no sense at all.
Remember we're talking about 3rd world applications here - and you're talking about pushing all the processing to the other end of a network. Many third world countries have good cell phone penetration, but not so high (and so cheap) that you'd want to rely on using it 24/7 for everything
In addition, MS saysUh-huh. Thanks Bill. My eyes hurt just thinking about it.
Anyone who's ever used a TV as a monitor know they're virtually impossible to read for long periods of time. Look at the way Media Centre type applications have to use huge, high contrast text.
This is just MS trying to shoot down the competition, with any sort of idea they can, whilst they scramble to think of some other way of squashing it.
So, in summary, no - it makes no sense, its a much better idea to incorporate a cell phone into a light weight laptop then vice versa.
Obligatory smug Mac user comment
You mean Obligatory offtopic pro-mac (and doesn't understand the issues invloved) troll?
I've just switched to Macs after 17 years of PC ownership* (Dos, then Windows, then Linux). Boy, am I feeling smug right at this moment.
1) PC stands for 'Personal Computer' this is what your mac is.
2) Mac Bioses are flashable.
3) You were just as safe under linux (if not safer) then you are under a Mac.
* I first typed 'ownershit' by mistake - Thinking about it, this might actually be a more accurate word to describe the joys of being a PC user.
You get what you pay for - buy a decent PC with physical bios protection (ie a jumper you need to switch before flashing the bios) and run linux on it. You will be safer then you are now.
Why do (some) mac people feel the need to but into any discussion with their pro-mac trolls?
At least understand the facts before you do this again...
I suspect that you're right - but for all the wrong reasons.
Apple hasn't so much created a technology as they have a lifestyle that specifically includes iTunes and an iPod, not any old mp3 player and download service.
Apple have created neither a technology nor a lifestyle, they've popularised a technology and tapped into a lifestyle. The download serice is far less important then you think too - ipods were huge in Australia prior to the itunes launch.
Everyone I know (in the Netherlands) with an iPod has either ripped or pirated mp3s on it.
No competitor has come close. Google will be no different in that regard. Apple comes with a cachet that Google annot approach when it comes to "coolness" with Joe Sixpack.
Apple got in first, but they've really only tapped a tiny fraction of the potential market. If google licenses fairplay or (gasp) sells non-drm'd mp3s.... then who knows?
Unlikely because Apple is unlikely to license the former & the music industry is extremely unlikely to allow the latter.
Good deal.
Sounds like a great idea!
Sounds like a nice counterpart to MIT's OpenCourseWare.
Unfortunately not... MIT's OpenCourseWare is well... Open.
Stanford on iTunes however requires an expensive piece of software (OS X or Windows) to use it.
I don't have a Mac, I don't run Windows - how am I supposed to access this?
I guess this what you can expect from a University that puts a 1 page FAQ in a PDF (why dear god, why?)
Good for some people I acknowledge, but no OpenCourseWare.
I mean we're going to have one guy (Jobs) essentially controlling two companies that will between them produce the content, the distribution network, the playback codec and the playback device.
;-)
Are you talking about Sony?
Sorry, I meant to say:
I mean we're going to have one guy (Jobs) essentially controlling two companies that will between them produce content we like, the distribution network, the playback codec and the playback device.
See - sony no longer fits the description
There's no innovation in OSS?
I should have said "There's no more innovation in proprietary software then OSS software (or vice versa)
Sure, maybe not on the desktop or with Samba but I certainly see it with Firefox. Firefox has had a lot of great things (like tabs) before IE does. In fact, IE is in a major state of catch up right now.
Interesting example - I think however you're in the wrong thread (you're looking for the Microsoft vs OSS innovation thread, this is the proprietary vs OSS innovation thread).
Firefox is mildly innovative, but the first browser (I think) that had tabs was Opera, and they borrowed them from other windowing software that used tabs, I think they first appeared in OS/2 as a minor innovation for preference dialogues.
So - you see, as Newtown (and someone else in this thread) pointed out: "If I have seen further [than certain other men] it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." holds true for everyone.
Iironically, Newton probably borrowed & incrementally improved upon earlier saying from others.
Disney is a supertanker of a company and it'll take more than a seat on the board or even being nominally in charge of animation to turn it around from the pile of crap it has become.
Kinda reminds of Michael Dell saying (about Apple) "What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders"
I think if anyone can turn around disney, then Lasseter with Steve Jobs backing will be the ones to do it.
What I think we should be more worried about is the creation of the most vertically integrated entertainment duopoly since paramount case of 1948 broke up the old vertical monopolists.
I mean we're going to have one guy (Jobs) essentially controlling two companies that will between them produce the content, the distribution network, the playback codec and the playback device.
The potential for abuse is frightening
So, in 2006, Samba is finally able to do what windows was able in 2000?
Five years to reverse engineer a difficult, obfuscated protocol is quite frankly amazing.
And you see - they don't really have to offer full compatability immediately - but if they do it before win2k ends its lifecycle, SAMBA + *nix offers companies dependant on AD a way out without having to go the win2k3 route.
Way to innovate, OSS community!
Way to troll dJOEK!
There is virtually no innovation in software, proprietary or OSS - everyone is just copying everyone elses ideas & making incremental improvements...
I mean we're all using the same desktop paradigm from 30 years ago - and the only substatial innovation I've seen in that is overlapping windows (from maybe 25 years ago)
Security on a home netowrk doesn't really interest me.
;-)
I know - thats why I'm posting this from your home PC.
I'd like to be able to "just share" the files without setting up users etc, etc.
Just post your requirements here I'll set them up for you... after all I don't want your home net to be locked down
Seriously - just because you would like software to be shipped insecure (and easy) by default doesn't mean that it should be. Have a look at this guide - Samba-3: A Simple Anonymous Read-Write Server