I think you've got it spot on: this is so your Aibo can get into changing rooms, or look up ladies' skirts, take some photos, and make a speedy getaway if it gets sussed!
Don't look at it as extra expense, look at it as insurance against having your grand a piece technology stamped on by angry knicker-less dames!
"It is perfectly their right to give whatever they want to give, like you and me."
There is, however, a difference between altruism (where one gives without thought of self-gain) and using someone elses need as an oppurtunity for personal gain, which is what the billion-dollar Microsoft was doing.
Considering their wealth, and the African organisations poverty, what it says about Microsoft is not especially good.
All of this sounds like an unfair contract, why do the artists sign on the dotted, and why don't they look elsewhere, for someone else to make a fair deal with?
If the RIAA's contracts are so corrupt (and that would appear to me, to be the case) then why isn't there any major competition for their, er, services?
It would seem like the "marketplace" is ripe with potential for competitors offering deals that don't treat artists like farm animals.
I use AOL, and I'm not ashamed to say so, as a lot of people who post at/. think I should be.
I never get these pop-ups, and not because of any anti-pop-up device, I hardly get any spam (though their spam filtering is pretty clumsy and unusable, when I do get it.)
If it is f***ed, then that'd be a shame, since it's the only un-metered dial-up isp in the UK that doesn't cut you off after 2 hours, regardless of what you're in the middle of.
I call that a big selling point. At least that's why I stick with them.
Mickey Mouse is arguably nolonger under Trademark Law. Mad Magazine produced a satire of Mickey Mouse under the title Mickey Rodent.
The character is indistingushable from Mickey Mouse. Disney (to my knowlege) didn't sue; it therefore didn't aggressively defend it's trademark, so it's nolonger a trademark (theoretically.)
I'm halfway down the page on this and haven't seen a single mention that here in the sunny old, UK, we've had digital radio for quite some time.
It's about to get a boost in take-up since the recievers have just come down in price from about £300 ($200) to around £125 ($115) for a hi-fi seperate or a standalone radio with stereo speakers.
There's no DRM, that I know of, and no one is complaining about the whole free-access-to-cd-quality-music.
I dunno, you crazy Americans and your **AA's.
I own a copy of a Mad Magazine book called "Inside Mad" copyright 1953.
In it is a 21 page satire of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy and Pluto, entitled "Mickey Rodent."
The Disney characters depicted look exactly like the most modern versions of Mickey, et al. They're indistinguishable from the "official" renderings of the characters.
If Mickey Mouse et al. are Trademarks, the fact that they didn't sue Mad Magazine for this article, would demonstrate that they had lost claim to it, for failing to vigorously defend their Trademark.
It's also an eye-opener, not to mention precedent, on the satirical use of the characters, and the legality of it. (I believe Mad Magazine were not sued over this (though I stand to be corrected.)
For those interested, the Library of Congress Catalog Card Number for this book is: 55-12405
The SBN is: 345-23521-5-060.
It's copyright 1953 by Educational Comics Inc. and 1955 Ballantine Books Inc.
"Now ask yourself this: What's to stop crackers from using a root-kit that operates through handshakes to steal information from your electronic device and then use that information to break into your stuff?"
Perhaps it's time that EULA's were seen for the bogus things they are, whereby cretinous morons get their hands on a new power toy, and feel like they're making up new laws for the universe.
There's a law, a human rights law, both UN and EU at least, that says that no law shall be made retrospectively.
(You can't creat a law that would cause someone to be imprisoned/fined, for comitting an act that took place prior to the law's enactment.)
I have no idea, but I wonder if this principle would be applicable to such revisionist statements, made in EULA's, if it ever went to court, since it's a fairly solid ethical protection in law itself (as opposed to a eula "contract.")
"If the media sharks were remotely interested in actually putting an end to this terrible crime, they'd sign these "pirates" on as local distributors for a cut of their profits! The people get their movies at a price they can afford, the newly ordained distributors can conduct their business under more pleasant conditions, and the police can save their efforts for those who continue to prefer breaking the law and, gasp, actual murderers!"
Yes, but if they did do that, the reasonably priced products might find their way into the marketplaces of the Northern Economic Bloc, and they don't want that to happen.
True, it was fluff, I saw the interview on tv, on the BBC World show, Click Online.
The show itself is lightweight, which may explain the fluffiness of the interview.
I would suggest, though, that having a lightweight interview like this does not bar more heavy interviews, it adds to them, and, because of it's style, reaches another audience, raising the profile of Linux, and non-MS OSes, etc.
It doesn't have to be a blistering interview to do that, either, it just has to say, this is here, it exists, and the BBC deems it important/newsworthy enough to cover.
It serves as a doorway to the restaurant, not the steak dinner.
Slashdot Mirror
"How long before someone..."
- Sets up shop as an Aibo Psychiatrist?
Not too long now, I reckon.
I think you've got it spot on: this is so your Aibo can get into changing rooms, or look up ladies' skirts, take some photos, and make a speedy getaway if it gets sussed!
Don't look at it as extra expense, look at it as insurance against having your grand a piece technology stamped on by angry knicker-less dames!
Sony thinks of everything.
"It is perfectly their right to give whatever they want to give, like you and me."
There is, however, a difference between altruism (where one gives without thought of self-gain) and using someone elses need as an oppurtunity for personal gain, which is what the billion-dollar Microsoft was doing.
Considering their wealth, and the African organisations poverty, what it says about Microsoft is not especially good.
"but there's no reason why Alice shouldn't be allowed to sell her copy to Bob for $15."
;)
You're right.
They're called region-disabled DVD Players.
Good point.
If you want to stop someone doing something, just get them to tell you about it.
All of this sounds like an unfair contract, why do the artists sign on the dotted, and why don't they look elsewhere, for someone else to make a fair deal with?
If the RIAA's contracts are so corrupt (and that would appear to me, to be the case) then why isn't there any major competition for their, er, services?
It would seem like the "marketplace" is ripe with potential for competitors offering deals that don't treat artists like farm animals.
Hmmm...
But what about the child's right to life?
It's not exactly their fault they have a "dumb sh1t" gun-owning parent.
The argument that "arming everyone makes the world a safer place" is an argument I just don't buy.
See my sig.
I use AOL, and I'm not ashamed to say so, as a lot of people who post at /. think I should be.
I never get these pop-ups, and not because of any anti-pop-up device, I hardly get any spam (though their spam filtering is pretty clumsy and unusable, when I do get it.)
If it is f***ed, then that'd be a shame, since it's the only un-metered dial-up isp in the UK that doesn't cut you off after 2 hours, regardless of what you're in the middle of.
I call that a big selling point. At least that's why I stick with them.
You are ,of course, absolutely right.
"While I completely agree that p2p piracy (last time I used it was..."
Can we stop calling it piracy and call it something more realistic, and proportionate, like bootlegging or something???
What's the status regarding PGP8, and Zimmerman? Has he had any input into it or reviewed it?
Does he endorse it?
Mickey Mouse is arguably nolonger under Trademark Law. Mad Magazine produced a satire of Mickey Mouse under the title Mickey Rodent.
The character is indistingushable from Mickey Mouse. Disney (to my knowlege) didn't sue; it therefore didn't aggressively defend it's trademark, so it's nolonger a trademark (theoretically.)
I'm halfway down the page on this and haven't seen a single mention that here in the sunny old, UK, we've had digital radio for quite some time.
It's about to get a boost in take-up since the recievers have just come down in price from about £300 ($200) to around £125 ($115) for a hi-fi seperate or a standalone radio with stereo speakers.
There's no DRM, that I know of, and no one is complaining about the whole free-access-to-cd-quality-music.
I dunno, you crazy Americans and your **AA's.
Hmmm...
I own a copy of a Mad Magazine book called "Inside Mad" copyright 1953.
In it is a 21 page satire of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy and Pluto, entitled "Mickey Rodent."
The Disney characters depicted look exactly like the most modern versions of Mickey, et al. They're indistinguishable from the "official" renderings of the characters.
If Mickey Mouse et al. are Trademarks, the fact that they didn't sue Mad Magazine for this article, would demonstrate that they had lost claim to it, for failing to vigorously defend their Trademark.
It's also an eye-opener, not to mention precedent, on the satirical use of the characters, and the legality of it. (I believe Mad Magazine were not sued over this (though I stand to be corrected.)
For those interested, the Library of Congress Catalog Card Number for this book is: 55-12405
The SBN is: 345-23521-5-060.
It's copyright 1953 by Educational Comics Inc. and 1955 Ballantine Books Inc.
The feature is signed:
"Walt Dizzy, copied-right! 1954 by Bill Elder"
Yeah, ok, ok, maybe not using AOL, but missing the [/b] tag, is.
[hangs head in shame.]
AOL in the UK, is the only unlimited dial-up provider that doesn't cut you off after 2 hours online.
That's why I use it, not because it's family-friendly, or whatever. In fact I never use their "channels" or content.
I can set Kazaa (Lite) away to download a 128MB file and forget about it, and not have to go through any hassle re-connecting.
That's a sign of my naivity, I guess.
I just don't get why they can't use the exact same system as over-the-air radio broadcasts.
Why does it have to be any different?
"Now ask yourself this: What's to stop crackers from using a root-kit that operates through handshakes to steal information from your electronic device and then use that information to break into your stuff?"
They're called gloves, man.
The Political Compass
Perhaps it's time that EULA's were seen for the bogus things they are, whereby cretinous morons get their hands on a new power toy, and feel like they're making up new laws for the universe.
Perhaps there needs to be provision in law for open source software, such as a specially formulated copyright-type thing, that costs no money, and needs only be advertised my some alternate "®" or "(TM)" or "©" and a date, instead of an EULA, and isn't revisionable.
There's a law, a human rights law, both UN and EU at least, that says that no law shall be made retrospectively.
(You can't creat a law that would cause someone to be imprisoned/fined, for comitting an act that took place prior to the law's enactment.)
I have no idea, but I wonder if this principle would be applicable to such revisionist statements, made in EULA's, if it ever went to court, since it's a fairly solid ethical protection in law itself (as opposed to a eula "contract.")
"If the media sharks were remotely interested in actually putting an end to this terrible crime, they'd sign these "pirates" on as local distributors for a cut of their profits! The people get their movies at a price they can afford, the newly ordained distributors can conduct their business under more pleasant conditions, and the police can save their efforts for those who continue to prefer breaking the law and, gasp, actual murderers!"
Yes, but if they did do that, the reasonably priced products might find their way into the marketplaces of the Northern Economic Bloc, and they don't want that to happen.
"Tough shit. It's called due process and is guaranteed by the Constitution. Deal with it."
But, they don't wanna!
Unbelievable.
True, it was fluff, I saw the interview on tv, on the BBC World show, Click Online.
The show itself is lightweight, which may explain the fluffiness of the interview.
I would suggest, though, that having a lightweight interview like this does not bar more heavy interviews, it adds to them, and, because of it's style, reaches another audience, raising the profile of Linux, and non-MS OSes, etc.
It doesn't have to be a blistering interview to do that, either, it just has to say, this is here, it exists, and the BBC deems it important/newsworthy enough to cover.
It serves as a doorway to the restaurant, not the steak dinner.
One person's Troll is another's fair comment, I guess.
I mean this sentiment has been echoed, more elaborately, throughout this discussion.
I thought "Troll" was something that was deliberately posted to inflame, without having any inherent merit.