Modding this comment Troll is once more a case of/. heads in sand. That last sentence alone is worth all the karma points afforded to the majority of other comments in this discussion.
Oh hang on, the comment suggested that perhaps it would be a good idea for a Linux desktop to work out of the box. What a stupid idea. Fscking Troll.
More Blue Peter shenanigans available over at TV Cream.
Obviously John Noakes was the definitive presenter, though I'd suggest that Mark Curry would win the award for being the "oddest" of the "25-odd" presenters. What was Biddy thinking?
The difference between a library and file-sharing would be there is a limited number of books in the library, which must be returned within a short period.
Right, but if I want a particular book, the library can order it for me, and it will arrive within a couple of weeks or so; there is only a "limited number of books" available if you're assuming a short time span. When I order a book from the library I may have to wait a while, but I still get the book.
With file-sharing, since you can create a perfect copy of the original in seconds or minutes, you can pretty much make an unlimited copy of said book for anyone who wants it.
(and in response to the "must return within a short period" above) but, once I've read the information in the book, it doesn't matter whether I physically own that information or not. There are very few books I own - or have borrowed - that I would want to read more than once. So whether you have the book for a short while or whether you own a perfect digital copy forever doesn't matter; once you've read it, you know whodunnit. But I think that's enough about libraries.
Where I'm willing to agree - and probably why trying to make analogies about any other situation is completely useless (and I'm as guilty of that as anyone else) is in trying to extend this idea to music - which, let's face it, is the "killer data" for file sharing apps. People tend to want to listen to the same songs over and over again; sharing digital copies allows them to do this without the artists receiving any cash. Is legislation the way around this? I think we're so litigious a society that it's inevitable, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily the "right" choice.
I wish I could believe that the record industry bigwigs could somehow sit down with the isp bigwigs and negotiate a deal that would put a coupla bucks on everyone's internet bill exclusively for the record bigwigs to allow unlimited digital transfers, but it ain't gonna happen. I'm not even sure it would be a good idea. For a system ostentiably designed to protect the rights of the 'artists', the logistics of who would get what cut would be a nightmare; I could see it possibly taking off with the more realistic aim of simply putting cash in the record industry's coffers. (And before you know it, all industries have similar agreements, and our 'net charges are prohibitively high...)
I don't have an answer, but it seems to me that once the cat's out the bag, you're going to get a few scratches trying to stuff it back in again. If I did have an answer, I wouldn't be babbling here on Slashdot, I'd be selling it for $$$:)
Ultimately I'm glad that I don't have to feel guilty about file sharing; since music has been shit for the last few years there hasn't been anything worth downloading:)
More accurate (issues of insurance aside) would be a situation in which I wasn't allowed to drive a friend's car, because the auto manufacturer hadn't granted him a licence to share the vehicle.
I can borrow a book from a government-sponsored library. I don't hear publishers complaining that this affects their bottom line.
AOL/TW aren't looking to buy an OS, or a company, or that company's employees. They're looking to buy a brand. That makes them *far* from stupid. Joe Public likes brands. Joe Public especially likes brands that AOL/TW tells him to like.
Best commentary I've read on this - and why it's v. bad indeed - is over at The Register.
Haven't we been here before?
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
Didn't we go through all this malarkey in the 1980s with the Sinclair C5? Sir Clive must be sniggering in his coffee - or tea - right now.
How on earth people could have been hyped into suggesting that this was "more important than the Internet" is beyond me. There's life beyond California: it rains - or worse - in some parts of the world.
And the suggestion that this will be useful for people to "haul their 150-pound asses around town" is surely optimistic: I hope they've designed these things to support the weight of the half-ton lard-arses the invention seems designed to promote.
Sacrificing "usability" for "fun" makes you money if you're a web development company without the balls to tell the client that their design looks like crap. Whether the client's site makes cash after you've delivered them their behemoth is secondary... and that, unfortunately, is the state of play in the marketplace.
Why would Microsoft care: well, why, as a consumer, would I buy a PC in a black box when I already have one in a beige box? I understand that to developers they're saying "its just like a PC", but that ain't the tag line on their TV ads.
Why do I "spout off" (or just ask questions) about subjects I know nothing about: well, why would I ask a question about something to which I already knew the answer? Unless, of course, I wanted my ego massaged. Oh, hang on a sec, I'm reading slashdot. My bad.
Oh, I see. So is the PS2 as large as that in real life, or is this because it's the development kit? And does M$ mind the fact that there are pics in the public domain that prove that the Xbox is 'just' a PC?
What's disturbing about this article are the pictures of the Xbox standing upright next to a mid-tower PC... The two machines are damn near the same size!
I'd heard that the Xbox was an unsightly beast, but I had no idea it was *that* big. It'd be like hooking a desktop PC up to your TV. Oh, hang on, that's because it *is* a desktop PC.
Re:Why the bloody hell does the release day matter
on
Gamecube Hits US Early
·
· Score: 1
How on earth could the Gamecube "crush" the Xbox when they're so obviously aiming at different markets?
Gamecube: dozens of kids games; "cute" == kids market sewn up
Xbox: no kids games; "ugly" == looking to take on PS2 in 'adult' market
What scares me is how many people I know who ordinarily slag M$ develop Homer-like drool when discussing the Xbox... I simply don't understand how a cut-down Wintel machine can turn grown adults into blathering Billiclones.
On a related note, unconfirmed reports suggest that "Return to Castle Bluescreen" will be one of the Xbox's most prestigious launch titles.
There's More Than One Way To Do It - and quite often that way doesn't involve Perl. Use the right tool for the right job. If you don't like programming Perl, don't program Perl. It's that simple. Just don't insult me because I choose to.
Take home message: language advocacy is a bad thing... but not doing it in Perl is worse;)
Doomed to a lifetime of right click hell
on
MS DOS: A Eulogy
·
· Score: 1
Try setting the read only attribute on a bunch of files in different subdirectories using the GUI...
Now try attrib +r *.*/S and tell me that DOS is redundant...
Slashdot Mirror
Oh hang on, the comment suggested that perhaps it would be a good idea for a Linux desktop to work out of the box. What a stupid idea. Fscking Troll.
Obviously John Noakes was the definitive presenter, though I'd suggest that Mark Curry would win the award for being the "oddest" of the "25-odd" presenters. What was Biddy thinking?
Right, but if I want a particular book, the library can order it for me, and it will arrive within a couple of weeks or so; there is only a "limited number of books" available if you're assuming a short time span. When I order a book from the library I may have to wait a while, but I still get the book.
With file-sharing, since you can create a perfect copy of the original in seconds or minutes, you can pretty much make an unlimited copy of said book for anyone who wants it.(and in response to the "must return within a short period" above) but, once I've read the information in the book, it doesn't matter whether I physically own that information or not. There are very few books I own - or have borrowed - that I would want to read more than once. So whether you have the book for a short while or whether you own a perfect digital copy forever doesn't matter; once you've read it, you know whodunnit. But I think that's enough about libraries.
Where I'm willing to agree - and probably why trying to make analogies about any other situation is completely useless (and I'm as guilty of that as anyone else) is in trying to extend this idea to music - which, let's face it, is the "killer data" for file sharing apps. People tend to want to listen to the same songs over and over again; sharing digital copies allows them to do this without the artists receiving any cash. Is legislation the way around this? I think we're so litigious a society that it's inevitable, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily the "right" choice.
I wish I could believe that the record industry bigwigs could somehow sit down with the isp bigwigs and negotiate a deal that would put a coupla bucks on everyone's internet bill exclusively for the record bigwigs to allow unlimited digital transfers, but it ain't gonna happen. I'm not even sure it would be a good idea. For a system ostentiably designed to protect the rights of the 'artists', the logistics of who would get what cut would be a nightmare; I could see it possibly taking off with the more realistic aim of simply putting cash in the record industry's coffers. (And before you know it, all industries have similar agreements, and our 'net charges are prohibitively high...)
I don't have an answer, but it seems to me that once the cat's out the bag, you're going to get a few scratches trying to stuff it back in again. If I did have an answer, I wouldn't be babbling here on Slashdot, I'd be selling it for $$$ :)
Ultimately I'm glad that I don't have to feel guilty about file sharing; since music has been shit for the last few years there hasn't been anything worth downloading :)
More accurate (issues of insurance aside) would be a situation in which I wasn't allowed to drive a friend's car, because the auto manufacturer hadn't granted him a licence to share the vehicle.
I can borrow a book from a government-sponsored library. I don't hear publishers complaining that this affects their bottom line.
Surely with a Nelson box, Fox would be aware exactly how much you'd been watching the show, because of the micropayment system built into your TV :)
It'll hit my SimCity. Space Debris always hits my SimCity.
Best commentary I've read on this - and why it's v. bad indeed - is over at The Register.
Didn't we go through all this malarkey in the 1980s with the Sinclair C5? Sir Clive must be sniggering in his coffee - or tea - right now.
How on earth people could have been hyped into suggesting that this was "more important than the Internet" is beyond me. There's life beyond California: it rains - or worse - in some parts of the world.
And the suggestion that this will be useful for people to "haul their 150-pound asses around town" is surely optimistic: I hope they've designed these things to support the weight of the half-ton lard-arses the invention seems designed to promote.
Sacrificing "usability" for "fun" makes you money if you're a web development company without the balls to tell the client that their design looks like crap. Whether the client's site makes cash after you've delivered them their behemoth is secondary... and that, unfortunately, is the state of play in the marketplace.
"it says in your blueprints that you're using a 1 inch vent nozzle here, but we've just measured it and it's 2.54. You're grounded, mister!"
Why do I "spout off" (or just ask questions) about subjects I know nothing about: well, why would I ask a question about something to which I already knew the answer? Unless, of course, I wanted my ego massaged. Oh, hang on a sec, I'm reading slashdot. My bad.
Oh, I see. So is the PS2 as large as that in real life, or is this because it's the development kit? And does M$ mind the fact that there are pics in the public domain that prove that the Xbox is 'just' a PC?
I'd heard that the Xbox was an unsightly beast, but I had no idea it was *that* big. It'd be like hooking a desktop PC up to your TV. Oh, hang on, that's because it *is* a desktop PC.
Gamecube: dozens of kids games; "cute" == kids market sewn up
Xbox: no kids games; "ugly" == looking to take on PS2 in 'adult' market
What scares me is how many people I know who ordinarily slag M$ develop Homer-like drool when discussing the Xbox... I simply don't understand how a cut-down Wintel machine can turn grown adults into blathering Billiclones.
On a related note, unconfirmed reports suggest that "Return to Castle Bluescreen" will be one of the Xbox's most prestigious launch titles.
...if only to find a movie whose script fulfills the promise of its title.
Take home message: language advocacy is a bad thing... but not doing it in Perl is worse ;)
Try setting the read only attribute on a bunch of files in different subdirectories using the GUI...
Now try attrib +r *.* /S and tell me that DOS is redundant...
I read the Hobbit when I was eight, had no idea it was pitched at the same level as "Janet and John go camping".
Microsoft is lovely (Score 5: Nice)
Bill Gates is friendly . IIS is good .
etc, etc...
If M$'s reason for keeping out other browsers is that they don't follow the W3C standards, then what is the excuse for this? [validator.w3.org]