My MS Natural is a piece of junk. I spilled about 3 tablespoons of water in it and it no longer works at all. My Model M, however, (with a PS/2 port, other dip AC) has lasted forever and survived two liquid spills and being dropped more times than I care to count. You will have to pry my Model M from my cold, dead hands. I don't care if I have to wire it to a new type of port myself - I will use it.
Windows Secure Audio Path is what's preventing that. Digital Outputs are disabled on any WHQL-signed drivers when playing a 'protected' track. It's required for new WHQL certification of drivers. Sorry.
MS cannot retaliate or threaten to retaliate against an OEM because the OEM is thinking about developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, or licensing any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any product or service that distributes or promotes any Non-Microsoft Middleware.
They also cannot retaliate against them for including a computer with 2 OSes (notably missing is the provision against retaliating due to not installing an MS OS)
MS must provide a uniform license agreement and fee schedule for all it's OEMs, with only a few exceptions.
MS will not restrict in the license agreement installing any other icons or programs on the desktop, distrbuting or promoting non-MS browsers/e-mail readers/media players &c. They also cannot restrict the automatic launching of any 'middleware' (browsers, e-mail readers, media players.)
OEMs may offer users multiple OSes on one machine without retaliation from MS.
Open APIs for any 'middleware' to fully interface with the OS like MS' own 'middleware' does. (This is a big one)
MS must also release any communication protocol necessary to communicate with a MS server OS.
MS cannot retaliate or threaten retaliation against any vendor for developing or selling things that compete with them.
"Set Program Access and Defaults" is required. In addition, the users must be able to enable or disable any automatic launching of MS 'middleware'.
End-users and non-MS 'middleware' products must be able to transparently replace the MS 'middleware'.
An MS OS cannot modify or alter anything that an OEM does to the desktop without first getting confirmation from the user.
HOWEVER:
No provision of the agreement forces MS to disclose anything that might hurt the OS security. (This is very vague and I predict will be the biggest loophole.)
--
I haven't read the rest of the decree, I just wanted to get this up. And IANAL, but I think the interpretations I've provided are reasonable.
The warranty is 90 days, and with proper surge suppression/filtering on the phone line, modem issues are all but suppressed.
Re: 2 shows at once - ever hear of DirecTiVo? Exact same features as you described above, but it's still being actively developed, whereas UTV (as you know) is not. In addition, TiVo has a sensical scheduling engine (distinguish between first run and repeats) and also has a large and active user community developing more useful 'hacks' for it.
Businesswise, I would probably try/want to do so. The issue is that *legally*, I could not. Mod chips aren't illegal in Hong Kong. MS has no business playing government, abusing their monopoly power, and shutting down L-S with a thousand lawyers because their own business model requires X game purchases. That isn't L-S's problem, and I hope the Chinese government throws out Microsoft's lawsuit as the frivolous piece of junk it is.
So MS can shut down an entire company for selling one product they don't like (selling a mod chip is not illegal where Liksang is located) by slapping them with a legal action?
It just goes to show you how abusive MS is, as if you needed any more evidence.
"The box states that there are conditions defined inside. If you don't want to take the chance, don't buy the box. It you do want to take that chance and you later find don't like those conditions, well, thems are the breaks. You were given fair warning."
This post has conditions inside.
By reading this post, you agree to send me $15,000 in small unmarked bills within 24 hours, and you also agree to any other terms I can think up that I will put in my Post Reader License Agreement (PRLA) (that you didn't agree to, by the by.)
What? That's unfair and probably illegal? Then why is it OK for software companies to do it? Point of law (although IANAL): You cannot modify the terms of sale after the sale has occured. Saying "HEY, THERE IS A CONTRACT IN HERE" does not bind you to said contract, just as buying a car and finding a slip of paper in the glove box that said "No warranty, ha ha!" would invalidate your warranty, because, again it is ILLEGAL to modify the terms of a sale after the sale has occured. Companies know these are bullshit. If they thought otherwise, everything would start shipping with EULAs. "This crib not warranted for holding babies. May grow tentacles and eat them." "This Pizza User License Agreement hereby requires that you eat no more than 3 slices at a sitting and must give a positive testimonial if asked about the quality of it." etc etc ad infinitum. Just because the software companies want to will something into existence doesn't mean it's legal (or even sensical.)
"In July, three colleagues and I introduced H.R. 5211, the Peer to Peer Piracy Prevention Act. The bill ensures that copyright owners won't face liability for using reasonable, limited self-help to prevent the theft of their works on peer-to-peer (P2P) networks. "
After accepting massive kickbacks^U incentive payments^U campaign contributions^U goodwill from the RIAA and MPAA, 3 other hosers and myself came up with this great idea to legalize vigilanteism!
{legislator "vote for me" babble deleted}
Self-Help Is Necessary to Effectively Stop Illegal Downloading
Because I said so. Nyah nyah.
For legitimate online business models to take hold, illegal P2P downloading must be made more difficult, and copyright owners need effective sticks to accomplish that goal.
Because Lord knows they couldn't come up with a compelling business model by themselves.
{...}
Accordingly, I believe copyright owners should be free to use reasonable, limited self-help measures to thwart P2P piracy if they can do so without causing harm.
Um, it's not very effective at preventing piracy if it doesn't cause harm, now is it? In other words: "I feel that the money RIAA is paying me is more than enough to justify them being allowed to do whatever they like to YOUR computer."
The safe harbor from liability contained in the bill gives them this ability - making clear that in certain, carefully described scenarios, they cannot be sued for availing themselves of self-help methods.
Yes, "availing themselves of self-help methods" is the biggest lawyerspeak I've ever been able to come up with. Aren't you proud of me? Anyway, you can't sue them because you were doing something illegal to begin with! So:P. Just like it's OK to have a loaded gun tied to your door so that if someone tries to get into your house, they get shot! (What? That's not OK? Oh, well, it should be.)
In drafting the bill, I have tried to ensure that only reasonable self-help technologies would be immunized, that the public would be protected from harm, and that over-reaching or abuses by copyright owners who avail themselves of self-help would be severely punished.
I have done the bare minimum to try and hide the fact that I am a happy puppet for the almighty (c).
A Crucial Limitation: The Bill Immunizes Only Targeted, Non-Invasive Self-Help
"I put this in here to try to shut you whiny types up."
Obviously, it is critical that a liability safe harbor be appropriately limited. The bill imposes a variety of limitations on the self-help measures it immunizes.
Hey, I'm not a total idiot!
{...} The bill says copyright owners get immunity from liability under any theory, but only for impairing the "unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction" of their own works on public P2P networks.
Of course I didn't define P2P network. Bah, who needs something like that? Anything RIAA doesn't like is a 'public' P2P network as far as my wallet^H^H^H^H^H^H^H I am concerned!
{...} For instance, if her actions have some other effect - such as knocking a corporate network offline, or wiping out files - she will remain liable under whatever previous theory was available.
Which was none, just FYI, because the copyright holders have purchased protections against being sued by having enough lawyers to smack anyone who dares to disagree into submission. Oh, and only corporate networks count. If they break your home network because they think your video of Grandma's birthday party is a video of Britney Spears, that's all well and good also, Besides, nobody likes your grandmother.
So copyright owners must tread very carefully to make sure they can avail themselves of the safe harbor.
Yes, we wouldn't them overstepping their Constitutional or other legal boundaries, now would we?
Some, in the media and among the piracy profiteers, claim that the bill is not limited in this way.
How dare you question me, you 'piracy profiteer!'
They claim that the bill gives a copyright owner immunity for anything she does, no matter how illegal, as long as one effect is to stop piracy on a P2P network.
Oh, wait. It pretty much does.
According to their "logic", the bill would allow a copyright owner to burn down a P2P pirate's house if one effect of the arson is to stop the pirate's illegal file trading.
Right, that isn't this legislation, but will be tacked on as amendments to the It's For The Children (IFTC) Act of 2003 and the The Terroists Have Already Won (TTHAW) Act of 2003.
Clearly, the bill says nothing of the sort, and no judge or disinterested party could read it that way.
Unless they were sane.
The bill immunizes one thing, and one thing only: limited self-help the only effect of which is to stop the piracy of the copyright owner's work on a public P2P network.
Because we all agree that copyright must be protected above all else! God save the RIAA!
{...} The bill specifically states that the safe harbor does not allow a copyright owner to delete or alter any file or data on the computer of a file trader. Thus, a copyright owner can't send a virus to a P2P pirate.
Oh, wait, thanks to a nice little loophole, yes they can, especially if said virus just "disables" P2P software by writing some values to the registry, which is a "database", not a "file", after all. Right?
{...} The bill further states that, except in certain necessary circumstances, copyright owners cannot rely on the safe harbor if their anti-piracy actions impair the availability of other files or data within the P2P network.
"Certain necessary circumstances" includes protecting their own copyrighted works. But pay no attention to that fact, please.
The bill denies protection to a copyright owner if her anti-piracy action causes any economic loss to any person other than the P2P pirate.
Ah, yes, the impossible to prove 'economic loss.' How much 'economic loss' is involved in you having to reformat your hard drive after the latest RIAA-Virus 'accidentally' 'disables' a few key things for your OS? None. Sucker.
Thus, the bill protects ISPs, P2P network users, and the Internet public at large against any cognizable harm that could result from the use of self-help technologies.
There's no risk!* (*Where risk as defined as losing actual dollars, something that courts almost never declare has happened when computers are involved.)
{...} The P2P piracy bill provides such incentives by subjecting transgressing copyright owners to more liability than they have under current law.
Of course it doesn't add any criminal penalties for doing these illegal things. After all, these are big corporations we have to look out for.
{...} An aggrieved party - perhaps a P2P user or an ISP - can sue the copyright owner for any remedy available under current law.
Of course, they won't win, because they'll be buried in lawyers faster than they can say "boo"
{...} To ensure that aggrieved parties always have at least one remedy available, the bill provides a new civil remedy beyond those authorized by current law.
Which, again, no sane person would even attempt to get, unless they enjoy being devoured by packs of rabid lawyers.
{...} Accordingly, it gives copyright owners extremely strong incentives to only use self-help measures that clearly qualify for the bill's safe harbor. If they stay within the limits, they are safe. But if they go further, they face even greater penalties than they would under current law.
Actually enforcing any of those penalties, of course, is impossible, so the people padding my wallet are safe either way!
{...}However, I don't claim to have drafted a perfect bill, and I welcome suggestions for improvements.
In standard/. "I never need to read the articles" mindset, this argument is totally irrelevant. *Suppliers* of crypto have to register, not users, and *Suppliers* only have to register once. $200 to MS to give away Internet Explorer in South Africa is a drop in the bucket.
When other 2-factor systems are much cheaper and more portable (think "This system doesn't have your palm, you can't use it"), why would someone WANT a biometric, palm-scanning whizbang mouse? RSA SecurID (keychain with a changing number, synchronized to a login controller) is a much better solution because it's got client software for many OSes, you can login to any machine that's set up properly just with the fob, and it doesn't freak people out like a palm-scanning mouse will, IMO.
Um, Universal is a customer of Downloadcard, which you find out if you read the article. Maybe they're having a tiff or something, but look here, and see: "Cards manufactured in English, French and German offer several exclusive Universal Records rock tracks to fans in many foreign territories."
I think what has acutally happened is that Downloadcard is mad that Universal is taking their toys and going home and not using their service anymore.
1. Give away someone else's software with your new computers, with a monthly fee that doesn't go to you, but in fact goes to someone else.
2. ????????
3. Profit!!
And was not at all thrilled. I'm perfectly willing to pay for stuff I listen to, that's fine. However, PressPlay (the service I tested) is absolutely ridiculous. Firstly, you can only listen to music in low-bitrate streams, unless you use up one of your precious 'download' credits to download it. Now, you'd think that downloading a track lets you do anything with it, right? Wrong. You download a DRM-crippled piece of garbage track. To get a REAL audio track, you have to use one of your (even-scarcer) "burn" credits. Oh, subscribe to PressPlay and "download" a few hundred tracks? Better keep paying them, because as soon as you cancel your subscription, your tracks become worthless. I haven't even gone into the service itself - the music available is crap. Everything they have is either old or from obscure random artists. It was totally unacceptable, and I think RIAA needs to look at their own services and create a service that provides any music file you want in a format that's portable (MP3/OGG) for one low price per track or monthly subscription for x tracks. None of this tiered-pricing crap.
Speaking of the BBC, one thing many US citizens don't know about is that they offer ad-free, free news through http://news.bbc.co.uk - no, it's not US-centric like most US news sources, but it gives a nice perspective on lots of global issues, stuff you might not even hear about in US news. (And if you really, really still want just US news, click the "Americas" link.) What does this have to do with running Linux? Well, not much, I just thought that this was useful information.
On my system, my memory usage is as follows (with both browsers loaded to www.slashdot.org, everyone's home page):
phoenix.exe 18,924 K
setiathome-3.03.i386-winnt-cmdline.exe 15,320 K
explorer.exe 14,244 K
So, it's not all that lean if it's using even more RAM than IE. In my tests, it actually seems to be slower than IE 6 (XP w/SP1) is at rendering the same things. Color me unimpressed.
Since the link is/.ed, I can't tell if it addresses this or not, but if it just strips out the region coding from the playback, how does it deal with RPC2 disks (that query the drive for what region it's currently running under, and if it gives the wrong answer, bye bye movie)? If it can't handle RPC2 DVDs (most new ones are like this - if you try to play an RPC2 disc on a player that has been modified and it tells the disc the wrong region, you see the annoying map screen), it's not much use to be honest.
I can hear it now -- the voice of a thousand Slashdotters crying "Why wasn't this opt-in," even though it was an accident and has been fixed. Hey, anyone fighting spam ahs to be good, right?
Sure, they make games for political commentary. Using something originally intended for entertainment to send a political viewpoint was especially popular in communist Russia, where criticizing the government was forbidden -- so there was a case of a famous playwright (the name is escaping me), who made his plays social commentary hidden through clever metaphors. It was, of course, apparent to the audience what was going on, just like it is in these games.
Surely, that does also show how our society continues catering to the lowest common denominator - instead of having an intelligent debate about something, we'll make a pretty game about it. The endless dumbing down of homo sapiens.
A little of this technology already exists at some places. At my University, we can pay for laundry using a smart chip on our ID cards, and we can call a telephone number to hear the status of each washer and dryer in each laundromat and how much time is remaining in the cycle, if any. A web-based interface is the next logical step.
Slashdot Mirror
My MS Natural is a piece of junk. I spilled about 3 tablespoons of water in it and it no longer works at all. My Model M, however, (with a PS/2 port, other dip AC) has lasted forever and survived two liquid spills and being dropped more times than I care to count. You will have to pry my Model M from my cold, dead hands. I don't care if I have to wire it to a new type of port myself - I will use it.
Windows Secure Audio Path is what's preventing that. Digital Outputs are disabled on any WHQL-signed drivers when playing a 'protected' track. It's required for new WHQL certification of drivers. Sorry.
MS cannot retaliate or threaten to retaliate against an OEM because the OEM is thinking about developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, or licensing any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any product or service that distributes or promotes any Non-Microsoft Middleware.
They also cannot retaliate against them for including a computer with 2 OSes (notably missing is the provision against retaliating due to not installing an MS OS)
MS must provide a uniform license agreement and fee schedule for all it's OEMs, with only a few exceptions.
MS will not restrict in the license agreement installing any other icons or programs on the desktop, distrbuting or promoting non-MS browsers/e-mail readers/media players &c. They also cannot restrict the automatic launching of any 'middleware' (browsers, e-mail readers, media players.)
OEMs may offer users multiple OSes on one machine without retaliation from MS.
Open APIs for any 'middleware' to fully interface with the OS like MS' own 'middleware' does. (This is a big one)
MS must also release any communication protocol necessary to communicate with a MS server OS.
MS cannot retaliate or threaten retaliation against any vendor for developing or selling things that compete with them.
"Set Program Access and Defaults" is required.
In addition, the users must be able to enable or disable any automatic launching of MS 'middleware'.
End-users and non-MS 'middleware' products must be able to transparently replace the MS 'middleware'.
An MS OS cannot modify or alter anything that an OEM does to the desktop without first getting confirmation from the user.
HOWEVER:
No provision of the agreement forces MS to disclose anything that might hurt the OS security. (This is very vague and I predict will be the biggest loophole.)
--
I haven't read the rest of the decree, I just wanted to get this up. And IANAL, but I think the interpretations I've provided are reasonable.
The warranty is 90 days, and with proper surge suppression/filtering on the phone line, modem issues are all but suppressed.
Re: 2 shows at once - ever hear of DirecTiVo? Exact same features as you described above, but it's still being actively developed, whereas UTV (as you know) is not. In addition, TiVo has a sensical scheduling engine (distinguish between first run and repeats) and also has a large and active user community developing more useful 'hacks' for it.
But only Spacely Sprockets, right?
Businesswise, I would probably try/want to do so. The issue is that *legally*, I could not. Mod chips aren't illegal in Hong Kong. MS has no business playing government, abusing their monopoly power, and shutting down L-S with a thousand lawyers because their own business model requires X game purchases. That isn't L-S's problem, and I hope the Chinese government throws out Microsoft's lawsuit as the frivolous piece of junk it is.
So MS can shut down an entire company for selling one product they don't like (selling a mod chip is not illegal where Liksang is located) by slapping them with a legal action?
It just goes to show you how abusive MS is, as if you needed any more evidence.
"The box states that there are conditions defined inside. If you don't want to take the chance, don't buy the box. It you do want to take that chance and you later find don't like those conditions, well, thems are the breaks. You were given fair warning."
This post has conditions inside.
By reading this post, you agree to send me $15,000 in small unmarked bills within 24 hours, and you also agree to any other terms I can think up that I will put in my Post Reader License Agreement (PRLA) (that you didn't agree to, by the by.)
What? That's unfair and probably illegal? Then why is it OK for software companies to do it?
Point of law (although IANAL): You cannot modify the terms of sale after the sale has occured. Saying "HEY, THERE IS A CONTRACT IN HERE" does not bind you to said contract, just as buying a car and finding a slip of paper in the glove box that said "No warranty, ha ha!" would invalidate your warranty, because, again it is ILLEGAL to modify the terms of a sale after the sale has occured. Companies know these are bullshit. If they thought otherwise, everything would start shipping with EULAs. "This crib not warranted for holding babies. May grow tentacles and eat them." "This Pizza User License Agreement hereby requires that you eat no more than 3 slices at a sitting and must give a positive testimonial if asked about the quality of it." etc etc ad infinitum.
Just because the software companies want to will something into existence doesn't mean it's legal (or even sensical.)
"In July, three colleagues and I introduced H.R. 5211, the Peer to Peer Piracy Prevention Act. The bill ensures that copyright owners won't face liability for using reasonable, limited self-help to prevent the theft of their works on peer-to-peer (P2P) networks. "
:P. Just like it's OK to have a loaded gun tied to your door so that if someone tries to get into your house, they get shot! (What? That's not OK? Oh, well, it should be.)
After accepting massive kickbacks^U incentive payments^U campaign contributions^U goodwill from the RIAA and MPAA, 3 other hosers and myself came up with this great idea to legalize vigilanteism!
{legislator "vote for me" babble deleted}
Self-Help Is Necessary to Effectively Stop Illegal Downloading
Because I said so. Nyah nyah.
For legitimate online business models to take hold, illegal P2P downloading must be made more difficult, and copyright owners need effective sticks to accomplish that goal.
Because Lord knows they couldn't come up with a compelling business model by themselves.
{...} Accordingly, I believe copyright owners should be free to use reasonable, limited self-help measures to thwart P2P piracy if they can do so without causing harm.
Um, it's not very effective at preventing piracy if it doesn't cause harm, now is it? In other words: "I feel that the money RIAA is paying me is more than enough to justify them being allowed to do whatever they like to YOUR computer."
The safe harbor from liability contained in the bill gives them this ability - making clear that in certain, carefully described scenarios, they cannot be sued for availing themselves of self-help methods.
Yes, "availing themselves of self-help methods" is the biggest lawyerspeak I've ever been able to come up with. Aren't you proud of me? Anyway, you can't sue them because you were doing something illegal to begin with! So
In drafting the bill, I have tried to ensure that only reasonable self-help technologies would be immunized, that the public would be protected from harm, and that over-reaching or abuses by copyright owners who avail themselves of self-help would be severely punished.
I have done the bare minimum to try and hide the fact that I am a happy puppet for the almighty (c).
A Crucial Limitation: The Bill Immunizes Only Targeted, Non-Invasive Self-Help
"I put this in here to try to shut you whiny types up."
Obviously, it is critical that a liability safe harbor be appropriately limited. The bill imposes a variety of limitations on the self-help measures it immunizes.
Hey, I'm not a total idiot!
{...} The bill says copyright owners get immunity from liability under any theory, but only for impairing the "unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction" of their own works on public P2P networks.
Of course I didn't define P2P network. Bah, who needs something like that? Anything RIAA doesn't like is a 'public' P2P network as far as my wallet^H^H^H^H^H^H^H I am concerned!
{...} For instance, if her actions have some other effect - such as knocking a corporate network offline, or wiping out files - she will remain liable under whatever previous theory was available.
Which was none, just FYI, because the copyright holders have purchased protections against being sued by having enough lawyers to smack anyone who dares to disagree into submission. Oh, and only corporate networks count. If they break your home network because they think your video of Grandma's birthday party is a video of Britney Spears, that's all well and good also, Besides, nobody likes your grandmother.
So copyright owners must tread very carefully to make sure they can avail themselves of the safe harbor.
Yes, we wouldn't them overstepping their Constitutional or other legal boundaries, now would we?
Some, in the media and among the piracy profiteers, claim that the bill is not limited in this way.
How dare you question me, you 'piracy profiteer!'
They claim that the bill gives a copyright owner immunity for anything she does, no matter how illegal, as long as one effect is to stop piracy on a P2P network.
Oh, wait. It pretty much does.
According to their "logic", the bill would allow a copyright owner to burn down a P2P pirate's house if one effect of the arson is to stop the pirate's illegal file trading.
Right, that isn't this legislation, but will be tacked on as amendments to the It's For The Children (IFTC) Act of 2003 and the The Terroists Have Already Won (TTHAW) Act of 2003.
Clearly, the bill says nothing of the sort, and no judge or disinterested party could read it that way.
Unless they were sane.
The bill immunizes one thing, and one thing only: limited self-help the only effect of which is to stop the piracy of the copyright owner's work on a public P2P network.
Because we all agree that copyright must be protected above all else! God save the RIAA!
{...} The bill specifically states that the safe harbor does not allow a copyright owner to delete or alter any file or data on the computer of a file trader. Thus, a copyright owner can't send a virus to a P2P pirate.
Oh, wait, thanks to a nice little loophole, yes they can, especially if said virus just "disables" P2P software by writing some values to the registry, which is a "database", not a "file", after all. Right?
{...} The bill further states that, except in certain necessary circumstances, copyright owners cannot rely on the safe harbor if their anti-piracy actions impair the availability of other files or data within the P2P network.
"Certain necessary circumstances" includes protecting their own copyrighted works. But pay no attention to that fact, please.
The bill denies protection to a copyright owner if her anti-piracy action causes any economic loss to any person other than the P2P pirate.
Ah, yes, the impossible to prove 'economic loss.' How much 'economic loss' is involved in you having to reformat your hard drive after the latest RIAA-Virus 'accidentally' 'disables' a few key things for your OS? None. Sucker.
Thus, the bill protects ISPs, P2P network users, and the Internet public at large against any cognizable harm that could result from the use of self-help technologies.
There's no risk!* (*Where risk as defined as losing actual dollars, something that courts almost never declare has happened when computers are involved.)
{...} The P2P piracy bill provides such incentives by subjecting transgressing copyright owners to more liability than they have under current law.
Of course it doesn't add any criminal penalties for doing these illegal things. After all, these are big corporations we have to look out for.
{...} An aggrieved party - perhaps a P2P user or an ISP - can sue the copyright owner for any remedy available under current law.
Of course, they won't win, because they'll be buried in lawyers faster than they can say "boo"
{...} To ensure that aggrieved parties always have at least one remedy available, the bill provides a new civil remedy beyond those authorized by current law.
Which, again, no sane person would even attempt to get, unless they enjoy being devoured by packs of rabid lawyers.
{...} Accordingly, it gives copyright owners extremely strong incentives to only use self-help measures that clearly qualify for the bill's safe harbor. If they stay within the limits, they are safe. But if they go further, they face even greater penalties than they would under current law.
Actually enforcing any of those penalties, of course, is impossible, so the people padding my wallet are safe either way!
{...}However, I don't claim to have drafted a perfect bill, and I welcome suggestions for improvements.
Which I will promptly file in my shredder.
"Don't steal music."
In standard /. "I never need to read the articles" mindset, this argument is totally irrelevant. *Suppliers* of crypto have to register, not users, and *Suppliers* only have to register once. $200 to MS to give away Internet Explorer in South Africa is a drop in the bucket.
When other 2-factor systems are much cheaper and more portable (think "This system doesn't have your palm, you can't use it"), why would someone WANT a biometric, palm-scanning whizbang mouse? RSA SecurID (keychain with a changing number, synchronized to a login controller) is a much better solution because it's got client software for many OSes, you can login to any machine that's set up properly just with the fob, and it doesn't freak people out like a palm-scanning mouse will, IMO.
Um, Universal is a customer of Downloadcard, which you find out if you read the article. Maybe they're having a tiff or something, but look here, and see: "Cards manufactured in English, French and German offer several exclusive Universal Records rock tracks to fans in many foreign territories."
I think what has acutally happened is that Downloadcard is mad that Universal is taking their toys and going home and not using their service anymore.
1. Give away someone else's software with your new computers, with a monthly fee that doesn't go to you, but in fact goes to someone else.
2. ????????
3. Profit!!
And was not at all thrilled. I'm perfectly willing to pay for stuff I listen to, that's fine. However, PressPlay (the service I tested) is absolutely ridiculous. Firstly, you can only listen to music in low-bitrate streams, unless you use up one of your precious 'download' credits to download it. Now, you'd think that downloading a track lets you do anything with it, right? Wrong. You download a DRM-crippled piece of garbage track. To get a REAL audio track, you have to use one of your (even-scarcer) "burn" credits. Oh, subscribe to PressPlay and "download" a few hundred tracks? Better keep paying them, because as soon as you cancel your subscription, your tracks become worthless. I haven't even gone into the service itself - the music available is crap. Everything they have is either old or from obscure random artists. It was totally unacceptable, and I think RIAA needs to look at their own services and create a service that provides any music file you want in a format that's portable (MP3/OGG) for one low price per track or monthly subscription for x tracks. None of this tiered-pricing crap.
Speaking of the BBC, one thing many US citizens don't know about is that they offer ad-free, free news through http://news.bbc.co.uk - no, it's not US-centric like most US news sources, but it gives a nice perspective on lots of global issues, stuff you might not even hear about in US news. (And if you really, really still want just US news, click the "Americas" link.) What does this have to do with running Linux? Well, not much, I just thought that this was useful information.
On my system, my memory usage is as follows (with both browsers loaded to www.slashdot.org, everyone's home page):
phoenix.exe 18,924 K
setiathome-3.03.i386-winnt-cmdline.exe 15,320 K
explorer.exe 14,244 K
So, it's not all that lean if it's using even more RAM than IE. In my tests, it actually seems to be slower than IE 6 (XP w/SP1) is at rendering the same things. Color me unimpressed.
Now all I need is a bicycle of my own so I can follow them around and get free internet access.
Since the link is /.ed, I can't tell if it addresses this or not, but if it just strips out the region coding from the playback, how does it deal with RPC2 disks (that query the drive for what region it's currently running under, and if it gives the wrong answer, bye bye movie)? If it can't handle RPC2 DVDs (most new ones are like this - if you try to play an RPC2 disc on a player that has been modified and it tells the disc the wrong region, you see the annoying map screen), it's not much use to be honest.
"Cablevision said it is scrambling to eradicate the bug, identified three weeks ago."
Wow, only 3 weeks to turn off a flag on the boxes. Already I'm impressed with the quality of their engineering.
I want to patent the process of getting a patent. I could be a millionaire.
I can hear it now -- the voice of a thousand Slashdotters crying "Why wasn't this opt-in," even though it was an accident and has been fixed. Hey, anyone fighting spam ahs to be good, right?
/gleffler
Sure, they make games for political commentary. Using something originally intended for entertainment to send a political viewpoint was especially popular in communist Russia, where criticizing the government was forbidden -- so there was a case of a famous playwright (the name is escaping me), who made his plays social commentary hidden through clever metaphors. It was, of course, apparent to the audience what was going on, just like it is in these games.
Surely, that does also show how our society continues catering to the lowest common denominator - instead of having an intelligent debate about something, we'll make a pretty game about it. The endless dumbing down of homo sapiens.
/gleffler
A little of this technology already exists at some places. At my University, we can pay for laundry using a smart chip on our ID cards, and we can call a telephone number to hear the status of each washer and dryer in each laundromat and how much time is remaining in the cycle, if any. A web-based interface is the next logical step.
/gleffler
If an employee isn't pulling their weight, warn them and then fire them. It's as simple as that.
I agree - there are people who can do two things at once.
/gleffler