First of all, I didn't say that Vista was for all sophisticated users, and certainly not for all developers. I also said if you're happy with XP, stick with it. That applies to whatever OS you're currently using. What I was saying is that Vista is not for unsophisticated users.
I do not like learning new ways of doing things just for the sake of it... I don't want to re-learn the basics when I could be spending my time learning cool new features that I actually want to use.
That was kind of my point. A lot of what has changed in Vista that people complain about has changed because they've added "cool new features" that are actually useful. But most people don't even want to learn new things if it benefits them. They just want everything to stay the same.
So don't tar all "sophisticated" users or developers with the same brush. Just because you like to tinker and play doesn't mean we all don't have anything better to do. Some of us learn something new when there's an actual benefit to doing so.
Exactly what "brush" do you think I was trying to "tar" you with? I said that developers are willing to learn new stuff, and that the "new stuff" in Vista provides the benefit of additional functionality. You responded that you're willing to learn new stuff when there's a benefit to doing so. It sounds like we're saying the same thing, only you're attacking me for saying it.
I also don't need features that actually prevent me from doing things because I MIGHT be violating a copyright.
Oddly enough, I've never encountered anything of the sort. Sounds like SlashFUD.
As for Vista making better use of your RAM, that might be how the technology was written but it's not very good at doing so from an end user's perspective. If making better use of your RAM means slowing down the machine that kinda defeats the purpose.
Vista runs quite nicely on my laptop, a relatively moderate (by today's standards) 32-bit dual-core with 2 GB of RAM. If I want even better performance, I can turn off Aero. The simple fact is that once I took a few minutes (literally, just a few minutes) to familiarize myself with the basic changes in Vista, I found that I'm quite productive working with it. However, I would not expect my sister, who hates technology and has reluctantly learned the basics of using email in XP, to learn new ways of doing things, and I would therefore not recommend she switch.
I really don't understand what you're so upset about. If you don't want to use Vista, then don't.
There are those who simply don't happily comply with arbitrary rules when there is no logical reason for the rule, and I'm one of those people.
Arbitrary rules like the inexplicable drop in speed limit you described or the shorter yellow light associated with red light cameras that others have pointed out are the exception, not the rule. I have no problem with you or anyone disregarding the rules in those cases. But, if you roll the dice, you take your chances. I have no sympathy for you if you get ticketed.
Needless to say, speed traps have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with income. Actually, it's a bit of both. Reckless drivers are a legitimate concern, and the police should be doing something about it. I have no problem with them getting some funding from their efforts.
...though it is a resource pig. I'm using over a gig of ram right now just for Outlook, a few putty sessions, Pidgin and Firefox.
No it's not. It's actually making better use of your RAM.
In my opinion, Vista is only for sophisticated users. Sophisticated users (developers, for example) tend to already go for high end systems, and are willing (and able) to learn new stuff. Ordinary users are resistant to change. They don't want to learn a new way of doing things, and switching to Vista would force them to do that (as would switching to Linux or OSX). There are generally (though not always) pretty good reasons for Vista changing the way these things are done (ie. additional functionality), but those who refuse to learn something new should just stick with what they know.
All that said, after having used it for two months I really don't see any compelling new feature or reason to upgrade from XP...
I'm inclined to agree. If you're happy with XP, stick with it. But if you're out looking for a new computer, unlike most Slashdotters (who have likely never even tried Vista), I'd happily recommend getting one with Vista -- as long as the person I'm recommending it to is willing to put in the effort to learn something new.
This says absolutely nothing about Vista security.
Actually, the fact that Vista held its own against every attack the contestants attempted against it for days, and only finally fell when the contest organizers modified the rules to allow exploitable third-party applications in, says a lot about Vista security. It's just that what it says about Vista security is opposite to what most Slashdottians would like it to say.
Okay, I really feel old now. Do "The Kids These Days" really say things like "I've been geeked"? And if so, why? Where the fsck did such a stupid saying come from?
Think of it as a continuum from "not at all disappeared" to "disappeared". Saying that it has "all but disappeared" means that it has traveled along that continuum from "not at all disappeared" toward "disappeared", passing all points along the way, but stopping just short of "disappeared".
The mob is just a business like any other. Every business-person makes their own decision regarding how immoral/illegal they're willing to act in order to make a profit. Some stop just past shady insider trading practices, others go all the way past fraudulent accounting, while others still go all the way to violent crimes, either explicitly or implicitly.
The RIAA and MPAA fall somewhere between Enron (and their ilk) and the diamond industry (probably leaning closer to the Enron side), but certainly with a number of mob-style tactics thrown in, without going all the way to actual violence.
Um, did you read the content of that link? It says exactly what I said, but with the addition of a poorly worded headline.
To quote the article (with some of my own emphasis added):
Microsoft has stopped automatically distributing a prerequisite piece of software for Vista Service Pack 1, following some customer complaints that it had caused system problems.
And, to quote my previous post (with similar emphasis):
A handful of people had a problem with a patch that happens to be a prerequisite to SP1, so Microsoft stopped releasing that patch via automatic update...
Ignore the headline. Read the article. Start with the first paragraph. It explains that, despite what the headline says, SP1 was not recalled. What was removed from automatic update, but still otherwise available, was KB937287. SP1 itself wasn't actually publicly available yet, although it was available to MSDN subscribers, most of whom had no problem at all with either KB937287 or SP1.
So, for example, after MLK Jr wrote his "I have a Dream" speech and delivered it from the steps of the Lincoln memorial, the TV and radio networks who recorded it at the time have copyright over their recordings of it, but who has copyright over the speech itself - surely MLK's heirs ?
Before delivering the speech, MLK wrote it down and registered it with the copyright office. Therefore he owned the speech as it was written (but had no ownership of the public delivery of that speech), while those who recorded it owned their specific recordings. This means that the TV/radio stations can rebroadcast their specific recordings of the speech, but they could not create a new recording of the content of that speech without permission from MLK or his representatives.
However, MLK owning that speech does not mean that he owned the facts in the speech. In other words, I could present the same ideas in a different speech, and I would hold the copyright to my speech.
Surely I can't make a cover version of "Dark Side of the Moon" without getting permission from Messrs. Pink and Floyd.
Actually, you don't need their permission, however you are required to get a mechanical license and pay royalties. That's because the words, music, and recording are all individually and separately covered by copyright. You would hold the copyright to your recording of the song, but they would still hold the copyright to the words and music that you used (assuming you didn't change them significantly).
After all - I need do nothing to cause anything original that I write or say to be copyright...
Actually, you do have to do something to copyright a work -- you have to "fix" it. In other words, write it down or record it in some way. If you're not recording it, then you have nothing to copyright. If someone else is recording it, then they have something to copyright. However, even if you did record it in some way, it's not the content that would be protected by copyright, but your recording of that content that would be protected.
You can't copyright facts, but you can copyright a presentation of facts.
If it was the simplest concept ever, why did it take so long to be copyrighted?:) Copyright laws were in force for a few centuries before Cage thought that it'd be cute and well deserved to copyright silence.
Actually, it's been done many times before. Cage was not the first. There's a great article about this case which also discusses some of the earlier variations on the same theme here.
It's also worth mentioning that Batt paid the Cage estate to, in his words, extend a hand of friendship, and that the settlement does not let the Cage estate collect any future royalties. Basically, the settlement recognizes that Batt's silence is "original" silence.
Ummm, were you off-world last month when enough people had trouble with Vista SP1 MS recalled it?
The problem was not with SP1, and Microsoft did not recall anything.
A handful of people had a problem with a patch that happens to be a prerequisite to SP1, so Microsoft stopped releasing that patch via automatic update, although it was still available for manual install to anyone wanting to install it.
...it doesn't seem like a particularly bright idea to derive, reference, and co-credit a song that I've put on a recorded piece of work that I sell without contacting the representatives to the copyright holders.
Don't get me wrong. I agree with what you're saying. It wasn't the best idea to go forward with this joke without first making sure that there wouldn't be legal hassles. At the very least, he should've gotten licensed to record it as a cover song -- which is easy to do, costs very little, and doesn't even require permission from the estate.
I just think that the representatives of the estate should've taken it as a tribute and let it be. It's not even a song. All he really "copied" is a basic concept which happens to be about the simplest concept ever. And, actually, he didn't even copy Cage's concept exactly, as Cage's concept wasn't silence, it was the lack of silence. His point in creating the original piece was that there is no such thing as silence, and he made this point by performing a piece that had no notes being played, yet still there was sound (birds chirping outside, cars driving by, planes flying overhead, people fidgeting, coughing, etc). None of that appears in Batt's piece.
I got flagged coming home from Vegas because I was flying standby. Of course, I was only flying standby because I missed my original flight (I only arrived an hour early, which turned out to be not early enough due to unreal lineups at check-in and security) and they put me on standby for another flight. Apparently, this makes me high-risk.
A rest is only meaningful if it exists between two notes. Is it? What about one long rest, until a part has a note on the last note of the song?
Assuming there are other parts as well, then that rest is defined as the period between the start of the song, which in turn is defined by the notes played by the other parts, and the start of that final note. Again, the rest is defined by the notes. In this case, those notes include the ones played by other parts.
What about the notion that rests actually define when the note is played, and when it ends? The rest ends when the next note begins. It starts when the previous note ends. In the case of rests at the very beginning of the first bar prior to the playing of the very first note, those rests are merely placeholders for the sake of counting. The song doesn't truly begin until the first note is played. Again, the note defines the rest. I mean, I last played my guitar a couple days ago. After I stopped playing my last note, did I start playing a rest? Am I still playing that rest? If I were to write out the sheet music to what I last played, would I need 100 pages of rests at the end of the song?
I understand what you're getting at, but certainly an artist who is granted limited copyright on a work that is specifically centered on the theme of total silence for now matter how length of time, having not been written before, is novel and deserves some level of protection.
I agree that it is novel and deserving of protection, but only as a performance piece. It doesn't even exist as an audio piece. Would you listen to a recording of it? I know I wouldn't, although I wouldn't mind seeing a video of its performance. The performance defines the song. He sat down at the piano, he lifted the cover, he sat there, counting the time, turning pages, and finally he closed the cover and took a bow (or something like that -- I don't remember the exact nature of the performance).
It's a performance, not a song.
If you want to make the case that Cage's estate was out trolling for dollars, sure, but how can anyone claim that the incident stands as an example of copyright law run amok?
Personally, I'm not claiming that. This isn't about the problems of copyright (and there are many), this is about the problems of a greedy estate that doesn't understand the concept of a tribute (not to mention a good joke).
The thing is, to me.. rests in music are as important as the notes. Cage made an interesting point; what if the rest is the whole song?
This isn't really relevant to the rest of your post or the topic in general, but a rest is only meaningful if it exists between two notes. Without notes on either side of it, there effectively is no rest. I mean, what's the difference between "playing" a rest and not playing anything at all if there are no notes to define the rest?
Cage's song has no beginning and no ending, and effectively no middle either. It doesn't actually exist, at least as an audio piece. It does exist as a performance piece, and copyright should only apply to it as such.
But there isn't a general answer. In order for anyone to give an accurate assessment of the situation all factors must be taken into account.
I think that's the point. He doesn't want us to assess the situation for him, he wants us to identify what the factors are that he should take into account to do the assessment himself.
If he leaves the assessment to the SlashHorde, the factors that will be used will include religious bias. He's trying to eliminate that.
Actually, ignore my comment about the Firewire button -- I've been up since 3:00 am. It just occurred to me that the button I'm thinking of actually enables/disables Bluetooth, not Firewire. My bad. I don't have the laptop in front of me right now, and of course I don't use either Firewire or Bluetooth, so I've never actually used the button in question. There's also a button to enable/disable wi-fi -- which I do use, and it seems to me that only works when the laptop is unlocked. Again, I don't have the laptop here to verify that.
So, going back to my original post, maybe there should be a button like the one I described, since this is the nature of Firewire and not a Windows problem as TFA suggests.
Ya know, for folks like you Bruce there should just be an automatic moderation of +10 "well known and trusted to be insightful and informative" to any post you make...
They should just give him his own personal karma rating.
"You see, this serious security problem was designed in from the start, so therefore... it's not a problem! Ta-da!"
He didn't say it's not a problem, he said it's not a bug or vulnerability in the traditional sense.
It's also not a Windows issue, because it's the nature of Firewire itself. Which is why this hack can also be done on Linux and OSX, although TFA doesn't bother to mention this.
This is why my laptop has a big button on the side that enables/disables Firewire, and it's disabled by default on boot. I'd have to "opt in" to this vulnerability.
You want more daylight? Get up earlier. Need more time to work? Work summer hours.
In other words, act exactly like you're respecting DST, but without changing your clock. Saves you 10 whole seconds of effort annually, and avoids all that inconvenience of having everyone else's schedule synchronized with yours.
When I was a kid and used to phreak..... um, I mean, when I heard about people doing this..... it was all about connecting to long-distance BBSes for free and downloading games. What this kid is doing is just sick.
There's hackers/crackers/phreaks, and then there's people who are just plain assholes.
Slashdot Mirror
That was kind of my point. A lot of what has changed in Vista that people complain about has changed because they've added "cool new features" that are actually useful. But most people don't even want to learn new things if it benefits them. They just want everything to stay the same.
So don't tar all "sophisticated" users or developers with the same brush. Just because you like to tinker and play doesn't mean we all don't have anything better to do. Some of us learn something new when there's an actual benefit to doing so.Exactly what "brush" do you think I was trying to "tar" you with? I said that developers are willing to learn new stuff, and that the "new stuff" in Vista provides the benefit of additional functionality. You responded that you're willing to learn new stuff when there's a benefit to doing so. It sounds like we're saying the same thing, only you're attacking me for saying it.
I also don't need features that actually prevent me from doing things because I MIGHT be violating a copyright.Oddly enough, I've never encountered anything of the sort. Sounds like SlashFUD.
As for Vista making better use of your RAM, that might be how the technology was written but it's not very good at doing so from an end user's perspective. If making better use of your RAM means slowing down the machine that kinda defeats the purpose.Vista runs quite nicely on my laptop, a relatively moderate (by today's standards) 32-bit dual-core with 2 GB of RAM. If I want even better performance, I can turn off Aero. The simple fact is that once I took a few minutes (literally, just a few minutes) to familiarize myself with the basic changes in Vista, I found that I'm quite productive working with it. However, I would not expect my sister, who hates technology and has reluctantly learned the basics of using email in XP, to learn new ways of doing things, and I would therefore not recommend she switch.
I really don't understand what you're so upset about. If you don't want to use Vista, then don't.
Arbitrary rules like the inexplicable drop in speed limit you described or the shorter yellow light associated with red light cameras that others have pointed out are the exception, not the rule. I have no problem with you or anyone disregarding the rules in those cases. But, if you roll the dice, you take your chances. I have no sympathy for you if you get ticketed.
Needless to say, speed traps have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with income. Actually, it's a bit of both. Reckless drivers are a legitimate concern, and the police should be doing something about it. I have no problem with them getting some funding from their efforts.
...though it is a resource pig. I'm using over a gig of ram right now just for Outlook, a few putty sessions, Pidgin and Firefox.No it's not. It's actually making better use of your RAM.
In my opinion, Vista is only for sophisticated users. Sophisticated users (developers, for example) tend to already go for high end systems, and are willing (and able) to learn new stuff. Ordinary users are resistant to change. They don't want to learn a new way of doing things, and switching to Vista would force them to do that (as would switching to Linux or OSX). There are generally (though not always) pretty good reasons for Vista changing the way these things are done (ie. additional functionality), but those who refuse to learn something new should just stick with what they know.
All that said, after having used it for two months I really don't see any compelling new feature or reason to upgrade from XP...I'm inclined to agree. If you're happy with XP, stick with it. But if you're out looking for a new computer, unlike most Slashdotters (who have likely never even tried Vista), I'd happily recommend getting one with Vista -- as long as the person I'm recommending it to is willing to put in the effort to learn something new.
Actually, the fact that Vista held its own against every attack the contestants attempted against it for days, and only finally fell when the contest organizers modified the rules to allow exploitable third-party applications in, says a lot about Vista security. It's just that what it says about Vista security is opposite to what most Slashdottians would like it to say.
This is Slashdot. Odds are he's never been around any female not called "Mom".
Okay, I really feel old now. Do "The Kids These Days" really say things like "I've been geeked"? And if so, why? Where the fsck did such a stupid saying come from?
Oh, and get off my lawn.
It actually makes sense.
Think of it as a continuum from "not at all disappeared" to "disappeared". Saying that it has "all but disappeared" means that it has traveled along that continuum from "not at all disappeared" toward "disappeared", passing all points along the way, but stopping just short of "disappeared".
The mob is just a business like any other. Every business-person makes their own decision regarding how immoral/illegal they're willing to act in order to make a profit. Some stop just past shady insider trading practices, others go all the way past fraudulent accounting, while others still go all the way to violent crimes, either explicitly or implicitly.
The RIAA and MPAA fall somewhere between Enron (and their ilk) and the diamond industry (probably leaning closer to the Enron side), but certainly with a number of mob-style tactics thrown in, without going all the way to actual violence.
Um, did you read the content of that link? It says exactly what I said, but with the addition of a poorly worded headline.
To quote the article (with some of my own emphasis added):
Microsoft has stopped automatically distributing a prerequisite piece of software for Vista Service Pack 1, following some customer complaints that it had caused system problems.And, to quote my previous post (with similar emphasis):
A handful of people had a problem with a patch that happens to be a prerequisite to SP1, so Microsoft stopped releasing that patch via automatic update...Ignore the headline. Read the article. Start with the first paragraph. It explains that, despite what the headline says, SP1 was not recalled. What was removed from automatic update, but still otherwise available, was KB937287. SP1 itself wasn't actually publicly available yet, although it was available to MSDN subscribers, most of whom had no problem at all with either KB937287 or SP1.
Before delivering the speech, MLK wrote it down and registered it with the copyright office. Therefore he owned the speech as it was written (but had no ownership of the public delivery of that speech), while those who recorded it owned their specific recordings. This means that the TV/radio stations can rebroadcast their specific recordings of the speech, but they could not create a new recording of the content of that speech without permission from MLK or his representatives.
However, MLK owning that speech does not mean that he owned the facts in the speech. In other words, I could present the same ideas in a different speech, and I would hold the copyright to my speech.
Surely I can't make a cover version of "Dark Side of the Moon" without getting permission from Messrs. Pink and Floyd.Actually, you don't need their permission, however you are required to get a mechanical license and pay royalties. That's because the words, music, and recording are all individually and separately covered by copyright. You would hold the copyright to your recording of the song, but they would still hold the copyright to the words and music that you used (assuming you didn't change them significantly).
Actually, you do have to do something to copyright a work -- you have to "fix" it. In other words, write it down or record it in some way. If you're not recording it, then you have nothing to copyright. If someone else is recording it, then they have something to copyright. However, even if you did record it in some way, it's not the content that would be protected by copyright, but your recording of that content that would be protected.
You can't copyright facts, but you can copyright a presentation of facts.
Actually, it's been done many times before. Cage was not the first. There's a great article about this case which also discusses some of the earlier variations on the same theme here.
It's also worth mentioning that Batt paid the Cage estate to, in his words, extend a hand of friendship, and that the settlement does not let the Cage estate collect any future royalties. Basically, the settlement recognizes that Batt's silence is "original" silence.
The problem was not with SP1, and Microsoft did not recall anything.
A handful of people had a problem with a patch that happens to be a prerequisite to SP1, so Microsoft stopped releasing that patch via automatic update, although it was still available for manual install to anyone wanting to install it.
...it doesn't seem like a particularly bright idea to derive, reference, and co-credit a song that I've put on a recorded piece of work that I sell without contacting the representatives to the copyright holders.Don't get me wrong. I agree with what you're saying. It wasn't the best idea to go forward with this joke without first making sure that there wouldn't be legal hassles. At the very least, he should've gotten licensed to record it as a cover song -- which is easy to do, costs very little, and doesn't even require permission from the estate.
I just think that the representatives of the estate should've taken it as a tribute and let it be. It's not even a song. All he really "copied" is a basic concept which happens to be about the simplest concept ever. And, actually, he didn't even copy Cage's concept exactly, as Cage's concept wasn't silence, it was the lack of silence. His point in creating the original piece was that there is no such thing as silence, and he made this point by performing a piece that had no notes being played, yet still there was sound (birds chirping outside, cars driving by, planes flying overhead, people fidgeting, coughing, etc). None of that appears in Batt's piece.
Also:
-Paying in cash
-Flying standby
I got flagged coming home from Vegas because I was flying standby. Of course, I was only flying standby because I missed my original flight (I only arrived an hour early, which turned out to be not early enough due to unreal lineups at check-in and security) and they put me on standby for another flight. Apparently, this makes me high-risk.
Assuming there are other parts as well, then that rest is defined as the period between the start of the song, which in turn is defined by the notes played by the other parts, and the start of that final note. Again, the rest is defined by the notes. In this case, those notes include the ones played by other parts.
What about the notion that rests actually define when the note is played, and when it ends? The rest ends when the next note begins. It starts when the previous note ends. In the case of rests at the very beginning of the first bar prior to the playing of the very first note, those rests are merely placeholders for the sake of counting. The song doesn't truly begin until the first note is played. Again, the note defines the rest. I mean, I last played my guitar a couple days ago. After I stopped playing my last note, did I start playing a rest? Am I still playing that rest? If I were to write out the sheet music to what I last played, would I need 100 pages of rests at the end of the song? I understand what you're getting at, but certainly an artist who is granted limited copyright on a work that is specifically centered on the theme of total silence for now matter how length of time, having not been written before, is novel and deserves some level of protection.I agree that it is novel and deserving of protection, but only as a performance piece. It doesn't even exist as an audio piece. Would you listen to a recording of it? I know I wouldn't, although I wouldn't mind seeing a video of its performance. The performance defines the song. He sat down at the piano, he lifted the cover, he sat there, counting the time, turning pages, and finally he closed the cover and took a bow (or something like that -- I don't remember the exact nature of the performance).
It's a performance, not a song.
If you want to make the case that Cage's estate was out trolling for dollars, sure, but how can anyone claim that the incident stands as an example of copyright law run amok?Personally, I'm not claiming that. This isn't about the problems of copyright (and there are many), this is about the problems of a greedy estate that doesn't understand the concept of a tribute (not to mention a good joke).
This isn't really relevant to the rest of your post or the topic in general, but a rest is only meaningful if it exists between two notes. Without notes on either side of it, there effectively is no rest. I mean, what's the difference between "playing" a rest and not playing anything at all if there are no notes to define the rest?
Cage's song has no beginning and no ending, and effectively no middle either. It doesn't actually exist, at least as an audio piece. It does exist as a performance piece, and copyright should only apply to it as such.
I think that's the point. He doesn't want us to assess the situation for him, he wants us to identify what the factors are that he should take into account to do the assessment himself.
If he leaves the assessment to the SlashHorde, the factors that will be used will include religious bias. He's trying to eliminate that.
Actually, ignore my comment about the Firewire button -- I've been up since 3:00 am. It just occurred to me that the button I'm thinking of actually enables/disables Bluetooth, not Firewire. My bad. I don't have the laptop in front of me right now, and of course I don't use either Firewire or Bluetooth, so I've never actually used the button in question. There's also a button to enable/disable wi-fi -- which I do use, and it seems to me that only works when the laptop is unlocked. Again, I don't have the laptop here to verify that.
So, going back to my original post, maybe there should be a button like the one I described, since this is the nature of Firewire and not a Windows problem as TFA suggests.
Yeah, I didn't think of it at the time. It's an Acer Aspire. Can't quite remember the model number right now (I'm at work, it's at home).
You mean the one that only works when the computer is unlocked?
They should just give him his own personal karma rating.
"Karma: I'm Bruce fucking Perens".
He didn't say it's not a problem, he said it's not a bug or vulnerability in the traditional sense.
It's also not a Windows issue, because it's the nature of Firewire itself. Which is why this hack can also be done on Linux and OSX, although TFA doesn't bother to mention this.
This is why my laptop has a big button on the side that enables/disables Firewire, and it's disabled by default on boot. I'd have to "opt in" to this vulnerability.
In other words, act exactly like you're respecting DST, but without changing your clock. Saves you 10 whole seconds of effort annually, and avoids all that inconvenience of having everyone else's schedule synchronized with yours.
When I was a kid and used to phreak..... um, I mean, when I heard about people doing this..... it was all about connecting to long-distance BBSes for free and downloading games. What this kid is doing is just sick.
There's hackers/crackers/phreaks, and then there's people who are just plain assholes.