Wow, I can't think of a more beautiful thing you stupid politicians could be doing.
I'm going to write a letter right now to you all telling you how wonderful an idea this is, to force other countries to adopt our laws so they can pay for entertainment, Why don't we force them to wear gold stars and send infringers to death camps?
Honestly, with the amount of HIV, poverty, malaria, influenza, strife, famine, and general nastiness out there in the world, I'm glad my hard earned tax dollars are going to supposed a 3rd party that doesn't give a rat's ass on this, and is instead out to make money for itself to support a bloated and outdated business model.
And us Americans wonder why the rest of the world hates us.
oh wait
I'm the idiot. This guy is just using slashdot to troll for traffic for his obviously dead and boring article. I'm sure you put a lot of time into it man, and I'm sure you have a lot of friends who would allow your post to go through, but don't use slashdot as your own personal marketing repository to increase your google clicks.
Why are people posting these lowbrow, "how to make a PC" posts? Aren't there geek forums on hardocp / anandtech / ars where people can parade their own PC creations? I mean what in the world is so educational and mindsharing about this posting?
It might as well just be
"build your own Dell system for $200 off in Dell Small Business"
What's the big idea?
Isn't there google for these things?
these posts only further slashdot into the realm of those mainstream wannabe geeks who think that making yet another PC puts them on the alpha stack.
gives slashdot a bad name! MODERATE THESE OUT IN THE FUTURE PLS.
The problem is that Tivo's between a rock and a hard place. If it passes off DRM to content providers, it faces the wrath of its consumer base. If it tries to set its own authorization, it faces suing out of existence on the grounds that it's failing to comply with enforcing copyrights of televised material. Bad place to be.
actually....
Jobs does get paid, don't believe all the apple marketing holy crusader fluff you hear about the guy. He's a smart guy, smart guys know how to play the game, and con the uneducated masses into thinking how charitable and selfless they are:
for example, off the company's 10Q.
" In March 2002, the Company entered into a Reimbursement Agreement with its CEO, Mr. Steven P. Jobs, for the reimbursement of expenses incurred by Mr. Jobs in the operation of his private plane when used for Apple business. The Reimbursement Agreement became effective for expenses incurred by Mr. Jobs for Apple business purposes since he took delivery of the plane in May 2001. The Company recognized a total of $169,000 and $220,000 in expenses pursuant to the Reimbursement Agreement during the third quarters of 2005 and 2004, respectively, and $650,000 and $542,000 in expenses for the first nine months of 2005 and 2004, respectively. All expenses recognized pursuant to the Reimbursement Agreement have been included in selling, general, and administrative expenses in the condensed consolidated statements of operations."
Can someone live off of 1.x Million dollars? Even in Silly Valley?
Americans need to quit this ludicrous whining and appreciate that their tax dollars are actually some of the best investments they make.
ok at the expense of sounding too reasonable and level headed, since when are tax dollars the best investments we can make. I seem to recall orange, CA's municipality going bankrupt because they thought they could take some easy money off wall street with the tax savings they had.
And what about spending all that money on things like government kickbacks, and payouts to people who sit in their jobs all day pushing paper around. Obviously you've never worked in the California state educational system.
an additional thing to recognize is that Venice doesn't get hit with category 5 hurricanes every 5-10 years.
It's like playing "pass the lightning rod" amongst boy scouters in a thunderstorm. When Timmy gets it, someone else gets to pick it up.
Eventually someone wises up, or you run out of boy scouts.
The people here in support of this ruling might as well just take the money that the **AA's pay you to mouth your gibberish and go home.
This decision is going to be applied out of context by the **AA's as much as they can get away with. They're going to sue the pants off any companies that they can prove to the courts are creating infringing technologies or software, and keep doing it until someone raises a flag. Then they'll take them to court, get stopped in circuit courts, then appeal to Supreme, where their bought out zombie drones will again all vote for them unanimously, in the interests of protecting corporate revenues. And what is Grokster going to do? They're not going to sit and take it up the wazoo, they're going to collect all the information on file sharers on all their networks, then turn it over in a plea bargain to the **AA networks.
Who's going to want to innovate anymore, when now it's easier for your competition to sue you and figure out ways of leeching profit from you in court? Innovation will fall by the wayside, and other countries with more sane law systems will prosper.
This case is a threat not only to freedom of private use, but to the US' entreprenurial spirits and desires to push the technological envelopes!
back in high school those of us who didn't have pocketchange to drop the bills on one of those uber powerful HP48 laptop calculators were in a similar disadvantage. Dumb profs allowed people to bring these into exams (SAT's and AP tests in particular) along with built in dictionaries and all those neato cartridges that have everything they need on them. Unfair advantage? Yes. Makes them an idiot in the long run? perhaps. Bitterness at being poor and unable to buy one, definitely.
5a) I'm alive to write this post. 6a) God keeps me alive and typing. 7a) This action to keeping me alive is the same as a direction to cause it. 8a) Keeping slashdotters alive is a good thing. 9a) God is good.
this whole argument has been used time and time again, let's not rehash.
problematically they're unable to adapt to this new development.
There's a business term called marketing nearsightedness, you can only see what's up close and in front of you.
These businesses think all they do is sell CD's. Anything that's not, is not a model they can assimilate into their business plans.
If you look at it from the POV of the businesses, they have these huge organizations where there's massive overhead between the artist and the receiver. Much of this goes to marketing, paying for coffee, internet usage by interns, the like. But the problem is that they all are publicly listed stocks and they have fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make sure they return value. This value of course is reflected in the stock price. These companies are on a hot plate to fix a problem which has been verily disruptive ever since it came into being. In the good ole days, sharing a CD was limited to those who were on solid lists, knew couriers or simply picked a large barrelled pistol and robbed a Tower Records. Nowadays, it's almost an expected experience that people have when they sign onto broadband. By suing these sharing networks, the industry is trying to alleviate its "systemic" risk, allowing at least perceptions of control to come into play. Albeit this is a false sense of control, Sharman et al couldn't possibly be considered liable for what downloaders of their software do, but they're going to make a case for it regardless.
In a back room somewhere, some finance intern has calculated that by liquidating all these software developers in a successful law suit will apply the current value of those companies and bring the music industry to a break-even point which will in turn allow them to make their stock numbers. Allowing the CEO's and likewise glorified fattened calves to keep their jobs and drive their $100,000 motorcars, live in their million dollar homes, and guarantee their children into Harvard and Yale through endownment donations.
actually what I learned in b-skool was that viral marketing was merely a manner of transferring marketing information from person to person, as opposed to direct marketing which is from the mothership to the consumer directly. Many established brands use this (Ferrari, LVMH), and many upstarts as well, friendster, orkut. Places like slashdot are perfect for this sort of thing.
Buzz marketing is not supposed to look like marketing.
Yeah I'm surprised at the insightful myself, my girlfriend definitely would not agree.
1) This could be a very bad trend, if the MPAA and anti-piracy groups get their way. If the marketer doesn't do their due diligence and check with their law groups, then this "buzz" and viral marketing could get those who downloaded said video prosecuted for downloading something that was intentionally uploaded for marketing purposes. Downloading things such as fc3.x86.iso is safe because it's already known content. If i downloaded desperatehousewives.s1e21.avi, how would I know if this was a marketing release or not?
2) maybe pirate groups should create another meta tag for videos = screeners, telecines, marketing videos.
3) If it really was distributed on purpose, then there should have been a disclaimer, or some sort of "tag" at the end, a title page indicating that the full series would come up soon, with showtimes and the like. Otherwise, what's the point of the first episodes excepting to bring the viewers up to a point where they know the storyline will eventually be regardless?
4) The whole "quality of video" analysis doesn't sell me on the purposeful leak theory.
I recently moved into public sector after working in a pretty hard core dot com. There I did java server development, wrote API's, control protocols, low level server stuff.
Now I'm in a small (3 person) funded org, where I'm the webmaster, web developer, IT, DBA, help desk guy.
It's quite a change, where I go from 100 hour weeks to where my boss kicks me out at 7.
If you can cut through how slow everything works, then by all means, public sector is the way to go. But to me it's like going from the Marines to the boy scouts. I'm continuously having to drive myself, I'm heavily underutilized. And the busywork I am given drives me nuts. It's like asking a brain surgeon to mop the floor. Ok maybe I'm exagerrating, but it's quite annoying.
So to me it depends on the type of person you are.
If you're happy living the life of easy work but still can drive yourself forward with your own work and moral ethics, then I'd do it.
This job actually lets me have more free time to work at church and also work on outside software development. But good luck to me finding a real job in the real world again.
I was thinking about doing this same thing about a year ago when I was laid off. I was warned against it for several reasons:
1) Risk. There's too much risk involved if you strike out into business for yourself with no backup capital. Sure there's the "back to the wall" feeling but that can only drive you technically and it's not going to apply in terms of finding clients.
2) Business strategy. You'll need that before anyone hires you. When a company hires an organization for consulting, they want to see the overall organization. Are they going to be around in 5 years? How stable are they?
3) Not show-friends, it's show-business (Jerry Maguire). I have friends that I would work with, and then I have friends that I'd just keep as friends. And in the first year of the business, make sure that you're all of one mind.
Disclaimer: I don't have an MBA, a PhD, and now work in the public sector for the state of CA.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, I can't think of a more beautiful thing you stupid politicians could be doing.
I'm going to write a letter right now to you all telling you how wonderful an idea this is, to force other countries to adopt our laws so they can pay for entertainment,
Why don't we force them to wear gold stars and send infringers to death camps?
Honestly, with the amount of HIV, poverty, malaria, influenza, strife, famine, and general nastiness out there in the world, I'm glad my hard earned tax dollars are going to supposed a 3rd party that doesn't give a rat's ass on this, and is instead out to make money for itself to support a bloated and outdated business model.
And us Americans wonder why the rest of the world hates us.
oh wait
I'm the idiot. This guy is just using slashdot to troll for traffic for his obviously dead and boring article. I'm sure you put a lot of time into it man, and I'm sure you have a lot of friends who would allow your post to go through, but don't use slashdot as your own personal marketing repository to increase your google clicks.
Why are people posting these lowbrow, "how to make a PC" posts? Aren't there geek forums on hardocp / anandtech / ars where people can parade their own PC creations? I mean what in the world is so educational and mindsharing about this posting?
It might as well just be
"build your own Dell system for $200 off in Dell Small Business"
What's the big idea?
Isn't there google for these things?
these posts only further slashdot into the realm of those mainstream wannabe geeks who think that making yet another PC puts them on the alpha stack.
gives slashdot a bad name! MODERATE THESE OUT IN THE FUTURE PLS.
The problem is that Tivo's between a rock and a hard place. If it passes off DRM to content providers, it faces the wrath of its consumer base. If it tries to set its own authorization, it faces suing out of existence on the grounds that it's failing to comply with enforcing copyrights of televised material. Bad place to be.
Jobs does get paid, don't believe all the apple marketing holy crusader fluff you hear about the guy. He's a smart guy, smart guys know how to play the game, and con the uneducated masses into thinking how charitable and selfless they are:
for example, off the company's 10Q.
" In March 2002, the Company entered into a Reimbursement Agreement with its CEO, Mr. Steven P. Jobs, for the reimbursement of expenses incurred by Mr. Jobs in the operation of his private plane when used for Apple business. The Reimbursement Agreement became effective for expenses incurred by Mr. Jobs for Apple business purposes since he took delivery of the plane in May 2001. The Company recognized a total of $169,000 and $220,000 in expenses pursuant to the Reimbursement Agreement during the third quarters of 2005 and 2004, respectively, and $650,000 and $542,000 in expenses for the first nine months of 2005 and 2004, respectively. All expenses recognized pursuant to the Reimbursement Agreement have been included in selling, general, and administrative expenses in the condensed consolidated statements of operations."
Can someone live off of 1.x Million dollars? Even in Silly Valley?
Americans need to quit this ludicrous whining and appreciate that their tax dollars are actually some of the best investments they make.
ok at the expense of sounding too reasonable and level headed, since when are tax dollars the best investments we can make. I seem to recall orange, CA's municipality going bankrupt because they thought they could take some easy money off wall street with the tax savings they had. And what about spending all that money on things like government kickbacks, and payouts to people who sit in their jobs all day pushing paper around. Obviously you've never worked in the California state educational system.
an additional thing to recognize is that Venice doesn't get hit with category 5 hurricanes every 5-10 years.
It's like playing "pass the lightning rod" amongst boy scouters in a thunderstorm. When Timmy gets it, someone else gets to pick it up.
Eventually someone wises up, or you run out of boy scouts.
last I checked,
Pirate Bay was just a host for trackers
no actual content.
I doubt they're affected by this.
The people here in support of this ruling might as well just take the money that the **AA's pay you to mouth your gibberish and go home.
This decision is going to be applied out of context by the **AA's as much as they can get away with. They're going to sue the pants off any companies that they can prove to the courts are creating infringing technologies or software, and keep doing it until someone raises a flag. Then they'll take them to court, get stopped in circuit courts, then appeal to Supreme, where their bought out zombie drones will again all vote for them unanimously, in the interests of protecting corporate revenues. And what is Grokster going to do? They're not going to sit and take it up the wazoo, they're going to collect all the information on file sharers on all their networks, then turn it over in a plea bargain to the **AA networks.
Who's going to want to innovate anymore, when now it's easier for your competition to sue you and figure out ways of leeching profit from you in court? Innovation will fall by the wayside, and other countries with more sane law systems will prosper.
This case is a threat not only to freedom of private use, but to the US' entreprenurial spirits and desires to push the technological envelopes!
back in high school those of us who didn't have pocketchange to drop the bills on one of those uber powerful HP48 laptop calculators were in a similar disadvantage.
Dumb profs allowed people to bring these into exams (SAT's and AP tests in particular) along with built in dictionaries and all those neato cartridges that have everything they need on them.
Unfair advantage? Yes. Makes them an idiot in the long run? perhaps. Bitterness at being poor and unable to buy one, definitely.
I would branch off your idea at 4,
5a) I'm alive to write this post.
6a) God keeps me alive and typing.
7a) This action to keeping me alive is the same as a direction to cause it.
8a) Keeping slashdotters alive is a good thing.
9a) God is good.
this whole argument has been used time and time again, let's not rehash.
yeah it's a really dumb way to implement things, i totally agree. But i'm trying to say it's a big game of CYA.
problematically they're unable to adapt to this new development. There's a business term called marketing nearsightedness, you can only see what's up close and in front of you. These businesses think all they do is sell CD's. Anything that's not, is not a model they can assimilate into their business plans.
If you look at it from the POV of the businesses, they have these huge organizations where there's massive overhead between the artist and the receiver. Much of this goes to marketing, paying for coffee, internet usage by interns, the like. But the problem is that they all are publicly listed stocks and they have fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make sure they return value. This value of course is reflected in the stock price. These companies are on a hot plate to fix a problem which has been verily disruptive ever since it came into being. In the good ole days, sharing a CD was limited to those who were on solid lists, knew couriers or simply picked a large barrelled pistol and robbed a Tower Records. Nowadays, it's almost an expected experience that people have when they sign onto broadband.
By suing these sharing networks, the industry is trying to alleviate its "systemic" risk, allowing at least perceptions of control to come into play. Albeit this is a false sense of control, Sharman et al couldn't possibly be considered liable for what downloaders of their software do, but they're going to make a case for it regardless.
In a back room somewhere, some finance intern has calculated that by liquidating all these software developers in a successful law suit will apply the current value of those companies and bring the music industry to a break-even point which will in turn allow them to make their stock numbers. Allowing the CEO's and likewise glorified fattened calves to keep their jobs and drive their $100,000 motorcars, live in their million dollar homes, and guarantee their children into Harvard and Yale through endownment donations.
Yay Capitalism.
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/
has a linky on this happening with a fiona apple album. Perhaps trend is starting?
actually what I learned in b-skool was that viral marketing was merely a manner of transferring marketing information from person to person, as opposed to direct marketing which is from the mothership to the consumer directly. Many established brands use this (Ferrari, LVMH), and many upstarts as well, friendster, orkut. Places like slashdot are perfect for this sort of thing. Buzz marketing is not supposed to look like marketing. Yeah I'm surprised at the insightful myself, my girlfriend definitely would not agree.
1) This could be a very bad trend, if the MPAA and anti-piracy groups get their way. If the marketer doesn't do their due diligence and check with their law groups, then this "buzz" and viral marketing could get those who downloaded said video prosecuted for downloading something that was intentionally uploaded for marketing purposes. Downloading things such as fc3.x86.iso is safe because it's already known content. If i downloaded desperatehousewives.s1e21.avi, how would I know if this was a marketing release or not?
2) maybe pirate groups should create another meta tag for videos = screeners, telecines, marketing videos.
3) If it really was distributed on purpose, then there should have been a disclaimer, or some sort of "tag" at the end, a title page indicating that the full series would come up soon, with showtimes and the like. Otherwise, what's the point of the first episodes excepting to bring the viewers up to a point where they know the storyline will eventually be regardless?
4) The whole "quality of video" analysis doesn't sell me on the purposeful leak theory.
I recently moved into public sector after working in a pretty hard core dot com. There I did java server development, wrote API's, control protocols, low level server stuff. Now I'm in a small (3 person) funded org, where I'm the webmaster, web developer, IT, DBA, help desk guy. It's quite a change, where I go from 100 hour weeks to where my boss kicks me out at 7. If you can cut through how slow everything works, then by all means, public sector is the way to go. But to me it's like going from the Marines to the boy scouts. I'm continuously having to drive myself, I'm heavily underutilized. And the busywork I am given drives me nuts. It's like asking a brain surgeon to mop the floor. Ok maybe I'm exagerrating, but it's quite annoying. So to me it depends on the type of person you are. If you're happy living the life of easy work but still can drive yourself forward with your own work and moral ethics, then I'd do it. This job actually lets me have more free time to work at church and also work on outside software development. But good luck to me finding a real job in the real world again.
I was thinking about doing this same thing about a year ago when I was laid off. I was warned against it for several reasons: 1) Risk. There's too much risk involved if you strike out into business for yourself with no backup capital. Sure there's the "back to the wall" feeling but that can only drive you technically and it's not going to apply in terms of finding clients. 2) Business strategy. You'll need that before anyone hires you. When a company hires an organization for consulting, they want to see the overall organization. Are they going to be around in 5 years? How stable are they? 3) Not show-friends, it's show-business (Jerry Maguire). I have friends that I would work with, and then I have friends that I'd just keep as friends. And in the first year of the business, make sure that you're all of one mind. Disclaimer: I don't have an MBA, a PhD, and now work in the public sector for the state of CA.