I believe "Do not photograph under pain of severe penalties" was at one point a standard sign on 1950s era train stations and other installations in the USSR and Warsaw Pact countries.
Not 20 years ago, we mocked eastern European countries where people could be stopped at will and their "papers" demanded. Now we've become much the same, with at-will checkpoints on roads and quasi-laws mandating papers for air travel. So far as I know, only pedestrians are still covered by the fourth ammendment. And maybe not even them.
Presumably for lower prices. Bandwidth is cheaper than ever, but is still expensive.
It's not expensive, it's very cheap. Without even shopping around, at serverbeach, 2000 GB of hosted bandwidth starts at $119. Figure 2GB per movie, that's 12 cents per movie. Inconsequential compared to what they will charge.
I think, rather, this is simply an attempt by the studios to "get into" P2P - in other words, to use the buzzword even if it doesn't make a lot of sense from a technical standpoint.
Great, but: 1) The shareholders would oust the executive board immediately and install people who could see past all that "human rights" baggage to do business with 1.2 billion potential customers
I noticed this notion spreading alot this morning during the earlier google story. I simply don't believe it. I don't believe most shareholders would have the gall to stand up and say "censorship now!!" - especially if the American public made it very clear that supporting Communism has costs of its own back home in google's primary market. I believe other companies like Nike and McDonald's have actually taken some steps against child labor and environmental destruction, without being sued by shareholders.
So at the very least, I'm tired of hearing that argument applied to this case without any supporting rationale.
It's just idiotic to send our kids off to die for freedom on one hand, and sell out freedom for a few bucks on the other.
Exactly. All this talk of whether the police should be able to spy on Americans is irrelevant; they can. The only question is whether it should require a warrant. And more importantly, whether the decision to require a warrant is the President's to make.
No, they must be planning to force it into the mainstream. They'd never recoup $10e9 just selling big-iron processors. Maybe they think a smaller manufacturing process will finally make Itanium affordable, or that more investment in compilers will make it work better.
They're only saying you shouldn't configure your system to upload files that you can't legally upload.
I realize the blog doesn't explicitly state that, but come on. You're just choosing the most outlandish interpretation of a vague statement so you can ridicule it. Or do you really think they're arguing copyright holders can't distribute their own files?
Tell me with a straight face anyone seriously expects the NSA get a warrant ahead of time in a world of disposable cell phones.
FISA already grants the power to act without a warrant, so long as they go back to get a warrant from the secret court within 72 hours. (And how could anybody not know that by now?) So that's not a reason.
The question I want to know, is why would someone go pay good money for a Mac, only to install Windows.
Windows has about 95% market share, and Apple has about 3%. Given that, it's simply crazy to question whether people want/need to run Windows. That fact speaks for itself, it's up to you to understand why it is so.
Not necessarily. If publishers could eliminate the market for used books simply by stamping "no resale" on the book, don't you think they would have done so a long time ago?
...something friendly and easy to browse when shopping for hardware.
Those are not very useful. First, because manufacturers change the internals of the devices without changing anything on the packaging, and second because "supported" means different things to different people. Visit the ndiswrapper website and you'll see that there's no easy answer to the question, "will it work for me?" Not because the website's UI is bad, but because it's complicated.
]
I too have a 1.6 GHz T40 which is fine, but that's not what they're talking about. It's the later models (a 2.13 GHz was mentioned) that are clocked too high to run efficiently.
I hope Yonah isn't like that. I'd been thinking of an upgrade. I can live with higher power usage, so long as I can clock it down while unplugged, but a noisy laptop I will not tolerate.
I liked having Apple push for an even-higher-speed Firewire spec
No no no... we already have 95% of everything converted over to a single interface, and it's USB, not firewire. Why mess that up now? I certainly wouldn't mind a USB3 (with backwards compatibility of course)... but even so, it isn't the bottleneck to most of my devices.
I have no idea where you came up with that comment, and yes, I did read your article (typical Washington Times hyperbole). All US soldiers, sailors, and marines serving in a combat zone whether under US or UN perview receive combat pay.
Sorry, I was too indirect. I only meant that they wouldn't get combat pay or medical benefits because they wouldn't be fighting in the first place. Back during the campaign, Kerry implied that Bush should have thought twice before leading us into a war that most of our allies disagreed with. Bush scored some political points by implying that Kerry would never defend America without first obtaining permission from some sissy Europeans. In my opinion the Europeans have proved to be right, and we would have been better off listening to them instead of going it alone. I still hope some good will come from the Iraq war, but right now I don't see any realistic outcome that's worth the price already paid in lives and money.
As to actually placing US soldiers under UN command, I don't much like it either. But we sure couldn't have won WWII on our own.
Actually, the economic center of gravity of the world had been steadily moving west.
So we can save our economy just by slowing down the earth's rotation a bit? Actually it would be kind of nice to have a 25 hour day, so long as I get to keep the hour!
I'd suspect that the legal status of someone that's, well, legally dead would be rather iffy.
I'm reminded of the Pharoahs of Egypt, who wanted so badly to "take it with them" that they were buried with great riches and even their own (living) servants. Fast forward a few thousand years to the explorers/theives who plundered the remains. There nobody around to protect whatever ownership rights the mummies thought they had over their loot.
All I can say is, let it go. You don't own anything in perpetuity, not even the water and dirt your body is made of.
How many of the media files have been taken despite being under copyright?
Anybody with a collection of anything can get sued in a dispute over whether they actually own something. That's not a problem affects free licenses in particular. The same holds whether you have a collection of files (whether free or commercially licensed), a museum (works have long and twisted histories), own a newspaper (journalists sometimes plagiarize), or run a pawn shop (people might sell you stolen goods).
What this *does* mean is that Pixar will make any sequels to Toy Story et al, rather than Disney trying to do it with some crappy in-house team.
Who cares? Look at Pixar's track record:
Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Cars. The only sequel is Toy Story 2.
Recycled "franchieses" aren't nearly so important to a company with some actual creativity. I'd much rather see Pixar given a free hand than chained to some sequel assembly line because somebody thinks it's 'safer.'
So were flying cars and human-level AI. We have every reason to believe they should be possible, but so long as we don't know how that doesn't count for a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
Not 20 years ago, we mocked eastern European countries where people could be stopped at will and their "papers" demanded. Now we've become much the same, with at-will checkpoints on roads and quasi-laws mandating papers for air travel. So far as I know, only pedestrians are still covered by the fourth ammendment. And maybe not even them.
I think, rather, this is simply an attempt by the studios to "get into" P2P - in other words, to use the buzzword even if it doesn't make a lot of sense from a technical standpoint.
Maybe they ran out of ideas and decided it was a good time to cash in on Disney's offers before anybody caught on
So at the very least, I'm tired of hearing that argument applied to this case without any supporting rationale.
It's just idiotic to send our kids off to die for freedom on one hand, and sell out freedom for a few bucks on the other.
Exactly. All this talk of whether the police should be able to spy on Americans is irrelevant; they can. The only question is whether it should require a warrant. And more importantly, whether the decision to require a warrant is the President's to make.
It's a miracle. I've never heard *anybody* on slashdot who didn't think they were hot stuff. (Including me of course.)
Thanks for the story, that made me laugh.
I realize the blog doesn't explicitly state that, but come on. You're just choosing the most outlandish interpretation of a vague statement so you can ridicule it. Or do you really think they're arguing copyright holders can't distribute their own files?
Is Pixar a big company? I bet it has a lot fewer employees than most other companies that could fetch such a price.
I hope Yonah isn't like that. I'd been thinking of an upgrade. I can live with higher power usage, so long as I can clock it down while unplugged, but a noisy laptop I will not tolerate.
As to actually placing US soldiers under UN command, I don't much like it either. But we sure couldn't have won WWII on our own.
All I can say is, let it go. You don't own anything in perpetuity, not even the water and dirt your body is made of.
So I have no particular concern for Wikipedia.
Recycled "franchieses" aren't nearly so important to a company with some actual creativity. I'd much rather see Pixar given a free hand than chained to some sequel assembly line because somebody thinks it's 'safer.'
At the price, though, you could just buy wireless peripherials and be done with it.