The Bloods and the Crips are two rival gangs. The bloods wear red, the crips wear blue. They have a concept called Turf that i'm not even going to pretend to understand, and a whole subtle insignia pattern is involved with entering and exiting these gangs' turf. I do not know the current things since the only person i've known who knew from experience i have not seen in half a decade, however, suffice to say that you do not mess with either group, and they have a name for themselves that has no need of replacing, much like the cypherpunks (which isnt to say cypherpunks are a gang per se, but metaphor is easily used in this comparison)
believe it or not, there are actually groups out there who still call themselves cypherpunks. like it or not, they're real people. your post is like reading the LA times saying "the bloods and the crips are sooo cliche...." and demanding that they be called something else in print.
THis way, even the guy in the 30 year old shack on theat island in the middle of the arctic circle talking to penguins could read the messages. I wonder if theyre also upgrading all the hardware too?
I hope so...he needs a Pentium 4. Then he can get rid of his space heaters. Yay for efficiency!
i seriously doubt they'd extradite Dmitry for this. For one, it was not illegal in russia, for another, it was not for a crime committed outside of russia where it was not a criminal act. So regardless of whether Russia extradites foreigners to the US, I don't see any reason why they would hand him over.
browsers have a "minimum font size" setting in most cases. I know Mozilla does, and I think IE has it hidden in there. You may want to consider looking into this. And for the crowd who only cares as to what group can see their page if it might apply to them, the way I see it, there are a lot more mobile devices these days that can use the internet, and most won't have a fancy browser. Therefore I make my pages at least navigable in Lynx as a guideline. While they're prettier in Mozilla, a good looking site can be made "readable" in other browsers if you use the right methods.
MS didn't get big by bullying people around, it got big because it made computers into something average people can make really good use of. That is why people are buying Windows machines, it's not because they're unaware of Linux's existence. Today, it is not ready.
Sorry, I'm afraid you contradict yourself in that statement. Microsoft bullied its way into the position int the beginning of GUI clones with Win95. Recall the version that was used as an example running win95 ontop of DRdos? Microsoft clawed its way deeper into the pit of monopoly that it calls home, and as a result hardware manufacturers can't find it profittable to make linux versions of their software when such a small percecntage of the people use linux compared to windows. So don't go resting on microsoft's laurels...they're fraught with lawyers and thorns from the past. The difference is that now they own the thorns they haven't destroyed, except for linux and apple. people could do the same things Windows can do for quite a while before Windows on a mac. (note: i am not a mac user)
The settlement could involve AOL acquiring peng like they did with Nullsoft, Netscape, ICQ, etc. Let someone else build the idea, and once it's proven, buy the company and incorporate it. This saves AOL the burden of spending on R&D, but gives them a new market.
why not? worked for microsoft *groans as his karma is mercilessly slaughtered for mentioning it*
Copyright holders often do not take good care of works they are not activly issuing
I second this. I recall the troubles when I was working years ago at a software company when we were trying to make a new version of a certain early-nineties software hit game...it was hell for them to even try to get the code running again. Granted it was done, but even only several years later it became difficult to get it to where it was feasable to even begin working on code.
To their credit, after the project they did good archiving of the result, but who knows after the company was sold 3 times after I left...the current owners are probably at square one again.
I already do buy it all used/indy (mostly indy). He was implying that there were monies from the players going to the AA's too, which is true for example on DVD chips and in many places CDR media. I do buy all my music from sources which do not supply the RIAA, particularly indy/local groups. Amoeba has wonderful selections on Haight, too, btw.
"I'd much rather pay additional fees in my media and components (as I already do) than be prevented (in some way someone will break) from making a copy."
Personally, i'd rather not pay the extra fees at all...I don't want any of my money going to the ??AAs that I can avoid.
my main issue for home users, to clarify my point, is that many people with prebuilt boxes from OEMs have software modems that do not like linux, whether they came from the manufacturer or they had the neighbor kid install it.
"Certainly (the Samba team) knows a lot more about the Microsoft protocol than the people who Microsoft sends to the (annual) CIFS conferences. The people they've sent along haven't had a clue, but I don't know if they were just people who happened to be walking up the corridor when the manager decided he needed someone to go along."
Good to know that at least somebody understands it...
but lets see someone pull off a 7 minute install and get a fully working hardware set on a Compaq or god forbid a Gateway...who knows what crap hardware much of Lindows' potential market has.
No. In order for DRM to work, content must only play in DRM players. Then you can't burn the music to a traditional easy-to-copy CD at all.
man, you're more ignorant than I thought. The fact is, it's impossible to plug the analog hole. Circumvention is a reality, not a breach of their rights. And if I can't copy my CD, then I'm not being given my rights, either, since in 1993 they passed a law that it was illegal to try to bring suit against me for making myself a copy. Therefore the technology cannot be made illegal without violating my rights and making rights desired by the public at large and disliked by very few people null. Therefore, the government is not protecting the people should they make DRM required, or if they make it illegal to do so.
I can't hear music from anyone who feels like recording something just by clicking a mouse. Good artists, whether with a record company or not, tend to not release their music for free on the internet. And the people who do buy CDs from unsigned artists tend to not want to undercut the artist by releasing their work for free on the internet. 'Cause let's face it, the unsigned artist is going to make sales locally, from people they see in person, not some anonymous napster user on the other side of the country.
DRM has the potential to change all that.
That's right...with DRM you can try to listen to any music you want to and hear absolutely nothing! you're an ignorant troll, anthony. move along.
DRM is not a person. DRM does not stop you from archiving your CDs to mp3. DRM is not a law. DRM merely allows companies to protect technologically that which they can already protect legally. That's a good thing, because it encourages people to release content in formats they otherwise would be forced to avoid.
FUD if i ever saw it. DRM makes it a pain in the ass to archive your CDs to MP3 and to play them on other boxes, and to reinstall your OS, and oh yeah...it also makes it a pain in the ass to run what you want to. It also makes it pointless because I don't want a vapor copy of something that I could have hardcopy of. Why would I purchase an MP3 or MPEG4 when I could just buy a DVD or CD and then make it myself, making it less suceptible to loss? DRM is nothing more than a system of control that they want to implement to make it a pain in the ass to use your fair use. you can't resell a digital file of a song, but you can resell a CD. It's pure marketing evil. Look beyond the surface...theres a lot more to it than just protecting their works
Slashdot Mirror
The Bloods and the Crips are two rival gangs. The bloods wear red, the crips wear blue. They have a concept called Turf that i'm not even going to pretend to understand, and a whole subtle insignia pattern is involved with entering and exiting these gangs' turf. I do not know the current things since the only person i've known who knew from experience i have not seen in half a decade, however, suffice to say that you do not mess with either group, and they have a name for themselves that has no need of replacing, much like the cypherpunks (which isnt to say cypherpunks are a gang per se, but metaphor is easily used in this comparison)
Now we'll have the australian hackers back working on Linux for PCs again instead! Woohoo!
believe it or not, there are actually groups out there who still call themselves cypherpunks. like it or not, they're real people. your post is like reading the LA times saying "the bloods and the crips are sooo cliche...." and demanding that they be called something else in print.
I liked it when they sent me free floppies...those i could use for something more than my can of coke
and meanwhile everyone clicks all three of those links and they all become simultaneously slashdotted! yay! i mean, awww....
THis way, even the guy in the 30 year old shack on theat island in the middle of the arctic circle talking to penguins could read the messages. I wonder if theyre also upgrading all the hardware too?
I hope so...he needs a Pentium 4. Then he can get rid of his space heaters. Yay for efficiency!
aha! but what about Tungsten jewelry? http://www.trewtungsten.com/collection.html
i seriously doubt they'd extradite Dmitry for this. For one, it was not illegal in russia, for another, it was not for a crime committed outside of russia where it was not a criminal act. So regardless of whether Russia extradites foreigners to the US, I don't see any reason why they would hand him over.
browsers have a "minimum font size" setting in most cases. I know Mozilla does, and I think IE has it hidden in there. You may want to consider looking into this. And for the crowd who only cares as to what group can see their page if it might apply to them, the way I see it, there are a lot more mobile devices these days that can use the internet, and most won't have a fancy browser. Therefore I make my pages at least navigable in Lynx as a guideline. While they're prettier in Mozilla, a good looking site can be made "readable" in other browsers if you use the right methods.
...but it's not like 99.6% of all 15-year old guys haven't already seen a naked woman on video, in a magazine, or (hopefully ;-D) in person.
.4% have seen it in national geographic and emphatically deny that it counts
and the other
MS didn't get big by bullying people around, it got big because it made computers into something average people can make really good use of. That is why people are buying Windows machines, it's not because they're unaware of Linux's existence. Today, it is not ready.
Sorry, I'm afraid you contradict yourself in that statement. Microsoft bullied its way into the position int the beginning of GUI clones with Win95. Recall the version that was used as an example running win95 ontop of DRdos? Microsoft clawed its way deeper into the pit of monopoly that it calls home, and as a result hardware manufacturers can't find it profittable to make linux versions of their software when such a small percecntage of the people use linux compared to windows. So don't go resting on microsoft's laurels...they're fraught with lawyers and thorns from the past. The difference is that now they own the thorns they haven't destroyed, except for linux and apple. people could do the same things Windows can do for quite a while before Windows on a mac. (note: i am not a mac user)
The settlement could involve AOL acquiring peng like they did with Nullsoft, Netscape, ICQ, etc. Let someone else build the idea, and once it's proven, buy the company and incorporate it. This saves AOL the burden of spending on R&D, but gives them a new market.
why not? worked for microsoft *groans as his karma is mercilessly slaughtered for mentioning it*
Copyright holders often do not take good care of works they are not activly issuing
I second this. I recall the troubles when I was working years ago at a software company when we were trying to make a new version of a certain early-nineties software hit game...it was hell for them to even try to get the code running again. Granted it was done, but even only several years later it became difficult to get it to where it was feasable to even begin working on code.
To their credit, after the project they did good archiving of the result, but who knows after the company was sold 3 times after I left...the current owners are probably at square one again.
I already do buy it all used/indy (mostly indy). He was implying that there were monies from the players going to the AA's too, which is true for example on DVD chips and in many places CDR media. I do buy all my music from sources which do not supply the RIAA, particularly indy/local groups. Amoeba has wonderful selections on Haight, too, btw.
"I'd much rather pay additional fees in my media and components (as I already do) than be prevented (in some way someone will break) from making a copy."
Personally, i'd rather not pay the extra fees at all...I don't want any of my money going to the ??AAs that I can avoid.
my main issue for home users, to clarify my point, is that many people with prebuilt boxes from OEMs have software modems that do not like linux, whether they came from the manufacturer or they had the neighbor kid install it.
"Certainly (the Samba team) knows a lot more about the Microsoft protocol than the people who Microsoft sends to the (annual) CIFS conferences. The people they've sent along haven't had a clue, but I don't know if they were just people who happened to be walking up the corridor when the manager decided he needed someone to go along."
Good to know that at least somebody understands it...
but lets see someone pull off a 7 minute install and get a fully working hardware set on a Compaq or god forbid a Gateway...who knows what crap hardware much of Lindows' potential market has.
I second this...I live in North Texas and a large chunk of the state is local to me as well...the entirety of roughly 12 area codes or so.
as long as it was done after 7pm on a weekday or on the weekend...otherwise all the people who were roaming to see the concert were screwed...
oh, fuck it. this isn't worth the effort...nobody of any intellect will read this deep anyway.
No. In order for DRM to work, content must only play in DRM players. Then you can't burn the music to a traditional easy-to-copy CD at all.
man, you're more ignorant than I thought. The fact is, it's impossible to plug the analog hole. Circumvention is a reality, not a breach of their rights. And if I can't copy my CD, then I'm not being given my rights, either, since in 1993 they passed a law that it was illegal to try to bring suit against me for making myself a copy. Therefore the technology cannot be made illegal without violating my rights and making rights desired by the public at large and disliked by very few people null. Therefore, the government is not protecting the people should they make DRM required, or if they make it illegal to do so.
I can't hear music from anyone who feels like recording something just by clicking a mouse. Good artists, whether with a record company or not, tend to not release their music for free on the internet. And the people who do buy CDs from unsigned artists tend to not want to undercut the artist by releasing their work for free on the internet. 'Cause let's face it, the unsigned artist is going to make sales locally, from people they see in person, not some anonymous napster user on the other side of the country. DRM has the potential to change all that.
That's right...with DRM you can try to listen to any music you want to and hear absolutely nothing! you're an ignorant troll, anthony. move along.
Ha! Do you really think the artist is going to be the one making this decision?
Yes, I do.
well you're wrong.
DRM is not a person. DRM does not stop you from archiving your CDs to mp3. DRM is not a law. DRM merely allows companies to protect technologically that which they can already protect legally. That's a good thing, because it encourages people to release content in formats they otherwise would be forced to avoid.
FUD if i ever saw it. DRM makes it a pain in the ass to archive your CDs to MP3 and to play them on other boxes, and to reinstall your OS, and oh yeah...it also makes it a pain in the ass to run what you want to. It also makes it pointless because I don't want a vapor copy of something that I could have hardcopy of. Why would I purchase an MP3 or MPEG4 when I could just buy a DVD or CD and then make it myself, making it less suceptible to loss? DRM is nothing more than a system of control that they want to implement to make it a pain in the ass to use your fair use. you can't resell a digital file of a song, but you can resell a CD. It's pure marketing evil. Look beyond the surface...theres a lot more to it than just protecting their works