All Linux users are affected here, because the adoption of Linux by the Big Names helps the entire Linux world move forward. It helps ease the dependence on Microsoft's problems, as well. (I don't want to see mass amount of enterprise customers going, "What?! This Lunix stuff is illegal! Help me Microsoft, please!")
In the end, it helps everyone who uses a computer, especially those using open-source software.
Don't take me as a Linux zealot, either--I'm a Mac OS X guy (zealor, meh, whatever, I like it), and dig the whole Unix thing. Bottom line is that if SCO get their way, it/could/ put a bad taste in Big Names' mouths when it comes to OSS, and that's quite uncool. (Where would teh Intarweb be without Unix and Linux?)
Just like you couldn't mod an Xbox without a mod chip, right? Or break CSS? Or coordinate a massive attack on the two largest towers in the world and fly/two/ planes into them? These guys are idiots.
Tell a geek he or she can't do something, and that something will get done.
I used the PDF because it was verifiable as real. Lowering the resolution and changing the format gets me called a Photoshopper in Slashdot threads.;-)
By Federal guidelines, I get three years for possession of Rohypnol, the so-called "date rape drug". It's part of a law introduced in 1996. Bootlegging Metallica's/And Justice for All/ record now carries a stiffer penalty than illegally possessing the drugs to rape a woman. This is progress, indeed.
What the hell is wrong with people?
"Hey, man. What are you in for?"
"I killed three people. Family and their dog. Got life, no parole. You?"
"I gave my friend Jim a copy of Hybrid's new album."
Not happening. Get realistic. Anyone outside of Slashdot know about Ogg? No? Okay. Next.
2. "I want raw CD audio rips!"
Not happening until all or most mainstream high-bandwidth ISPs remove transfer caps.
On a related note, transfer caps suck. I was lucky enough not to get one imposed with my 1.5Mbit residential service.
3. "I want every possible feature under the Sun, including complete album art collections and sheet music. Otherwise, it's not worth it."
Not happening, either. Rights to reprint and retransmit sheet music transcriptions for distribution-controlled recordings are licensed to sheet music companies like Cherry Lane, etc. Print music publishers are already here, so if you want to give out over the Web what they sell, the price will go up. Sorry. (Sites like OLGA don't reprint, so to speak, copyrighted transcriptions, for reference. It's a bit of a grey area, or at least, it has been a grey area in the past few years with agencies like the Harry Fox Agency suing tab and lyric sites left and right. I won't get into whether I agree or don't agree with it, but I/do/ think it's a bit stifling for music fans.)
I'll address the "every feature under the Sun" part in the next few seconds.
4. "I want all of this for a quarter per song."
This is ridiculous. You can't have every feature and more for a quarter per song. Yeah, $18 or $20 for a CD is/really/ high, but $10 for complete records and a buck for single songs, well, that's really good. Want sheet music? Price goes up. Want the highest possible rips? Price goes up. Want someone to take the time to get all of the album art, from head to toe, in a high-quality format for you? Price goes up. An obscure format that won't make nearly, NEARLY as much money as mainstream formats like MP3? Price goes up, if it happens at all.
I don't like the modern music industry, but I see it changing soon enough. A dollar isn't a lot to pay for a good song. (You ARE buying good stuff, right? If I catch you with an Edwin McCain or Celine Dion track, I'm coming to your house and kicking your ass.)
As you guys have pointed out, the Lite version is an independent thing.
Sadly, it doesn't negate anything I said above it.
If people are so pissed off about DRM and the price of CDs, why are you patronizing the labels in the first place? Boycott the product, because stealing it (regardless of it YOU think it's stealing or not, the people who have the legal distribution rights DO, and that's what matters here in the end) doesn't help the cause.
Firing a gun isn't illegal, either, but firing a gun at someone else/is./
Heh.
Imagine: A robber tries to swipe someone's CD collection, the owner shoots, misses, and the robber shoots back. Does the robber get to claim self-defense?
Not intended as flamebait... I find it an interesting question.
Here's a question that popped into my head while reading this story:
Is this legal? If so, should we really advocate it?
If people are stealing music, and a company attempts to block the people from whom the music is being stolen, with the intent of protecting the identity of the pirates, isn't there some line that's being crossed somewhere?
And even if it/is/ in that legal grey area and isn't clearly illegal, isn't it a really stupid move regardless? It seems like by hiding the people pirating the distribution-prohibited music, it helps give the RIAA/more/ reason to jack up CD prices and impose arm-bending DRM practices.
No, I don't think music piracy is the big reason why CD sales are falling. It's a larger issue than just p2p apps, but it gives the RIAA/cause/ that they can wave around like a flag in the newspapers and on TV news programs that don't do the proper amount of research into the issue.
I digress.
This is really stupid of KaZaA to do, bottom line, I'd say.:-/
Define "works". Without pop-up blocking, good standards support (or at least occasional efforts not to create your own class of standards), and remotely decent security, I say a browser/doesn't work./
That is, unless you like patching IE every few weeks because of some new, idiotic security hole that pops up.
Let's also not forget Microsoft's public policy of not disclosing known security holes until they've already finished working on them (which could translate to "too late" if you're unlucky):
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/08/28/com pu ter.bugs.ap/ http://www.securityfocus.com/news/28 1
I'd say IE not "works", but "works badly". Some people, I suppose, are willing to settle for the latter. I am not.
Slashdot Mirror
Still wrong. He said "fully intact", and there are only twenty-one complete copies in the entire world. From the site:
"It is one of forty-eight surviving copies and one of twenty-one complete copies in the world."
Step 1: Zero hard drive.
Step 2: Do it again.
Step 3: Download massive amounts of pornography. Get it from sites like Bangedup.com, Steakandcheese.com, and Consumptionjunction.com.
Step 4: Visit goatse.cx. You know what to do.
Step 5: Let the RIAA have a good ol' time looking through your computer.
All Linux users are affected here, because the adoption of Linux by the Big Names helps the entire Linux world move forward. It helps ease the dependence on Microsoft's problems, as well. (I don't want to see mass amount of enterprise customers going, "What?! This Lunix stuff is illegal! Help me Microsoft, please!")
/could/ put a bad taste in Big Names' mouths when it comes to OSS, and that's quite uncool. (Where would teh Intarweb be without Unix and Linux?)
In the end, it helps everyone who uses a computer, especially those using open-source software.
Don't take me as a Linux zealot, either--I'm a Mac OS X guy (zealor, meh, whatever, I like it), and dig the whole Unix thing. Bottom line is that if SCO get their way, it
Because not every QuickTime movie uses AAC from a good source recording.
I could ask the same question about the majority of WMP files I find out on teh Intarweb, and I'd get the same answer.
Not really. IE would come out with a plug-in of their own, but instead of taking it in the mouth, you'd take it in the ass.
/already/ bends you over when you use it.
Oh, wait. My bad--it
Just like you couldn't mod an Xbox without a mod chip, right? Or break CSS? Or coordinate a massive attack on the two largest towers in the world and fly /two/ planes into them? These guys are idiots.
Tell a geek he or she can't do something, and that something will get done.
I used the PDF because it was verifiable as real. Lowering the resolution and changing the format gets me called a Photoshopper in Slashdot threads. ;-)
[a few minutes later]
We came, we saw, we kicked its ASS!
It looks like you're trying to compete with our products! Would you like to:
[] Make a better product and make us look like fools
[] Make a better product but watch it fail as we FUD you to death
[] Sell yourself to us
Sadly, though, you just sent this message to everyone in your address book:
To: [multiple recipients]
From: perimorph
Attachments: govtbill.pif
Subject: Check this out
perimorph! This is that game we were talking about. You'll be amazed, no lie.
Check it out when you have the time!
later, %N
--End of message
Though, this isn't on the main page . . . Not as big of a hit, but still, cool nonetheless.
:-)
I hope Smallbits doesn't hate me now.
I just got Slashdotted.
So far, I'm holding up, thanks to Smallbits, my host. AWESOME host, also host of Bungie.org.
I am going to make a t-shirt that says: "I've been Slashdotted. Have you?"
Ah, whoops. I meant to say "would carry", not "now carries". (Yes, I RTFA. Got ahead of myself.)
Woot! Troll moderation!
Well, if it's any consolation, I'm pissed that it's gonna look like that, too. If you're gonna use XML, make it human-readable. That's the point.
He was modded down because, as another poster put it, he's full of shit.
There's no "secret middle layer API" in Mac OS X. Go get an ADC account, a few books on programming for the Mac, and find out for yourself.
Here's the chapter that wasn't included in the book:
8 ga78g7879927eg02g8w 0d9n9qa .n gjqw92nnf90n2202nnnalaosd29fh
Chapter X: Opening XML-based Word Files
This is surprisingly easy to do in OO.org! Follow these easy steps and you'll be trading files with the upcoming Office suite in no time!
Step one: Obtain the fatchanceinhell library from the OO.org servers.
Step two: Drag your XML-based word file onto the OO.org icon and release as the icon highlights.
Step three: When the document opens and all you see is this:
<dict>
<key>MicrosoftXMLData</key>
<data>00000a
982eg92gj2enmgeg9e9g29egnrn79
. .
jafansfo8qnfqkqn987464naklasd09gn7e3b
dhgkldw
</data>
</dict>
Stick your head up your ass and wonder why you ever thought it would work.
The end.
Goddamnit, there's a "BSD is dying" joke in here somewhere, but I just can't find it!
By Federal guidelines, I get three years for possession of Rohypnol, the so-called "date rape drug". It's part of a law introduced in 1996. Bootlegging Metallica's /And Justice for All/ record now carries a stiffer penalty than illegally possessing the drugs to rape a woman. This is progress, indeed.
What the hell is wrong with people?
"Hey, man. What are you in for?"
"I killed three people. Family and their dog. Got life, no parole. You?"
"I gave my friend Jim a copy of Hybrid's new album."
"Whoa . . . You're one hardcore mother&*(Y!%@."
Adobe: "We'd give you the new version of Premiere, but we decided not to write it for you. Sorry."
Apple: "We'd give you a cut of the business we're about to take from you on our platform, but we decided not to write the check. Sorry."
Yeah, I know, probably not like that, but still, it was sorta funny.
Quickly, before my coffee's ready:
/do/ think it's a bit stifling for music fans.)
/really/ high, but $10 for complete records and a buck for single songs, well, that's really good. Want sheet music? Price goes up. Want the highest possible rips? Price goes up. Want someone to take the time to get all of the album art, from head to toe, in a high-quality format for you? Price goes up. An obscure format that won't make nearly, NEARLY as much money as mainstream formats like MP3? Price goes up, if it happens at all.
/human torch
1. "I want Ogg!"
Not happening. Get realistic. Anyone outside of Slashdot know about Ogg? No? Okay. Next.
2. "I want raw CD audio rips!"
Not happening until all or most mainstream high-bandwidth ISPs remove transfer caps.
On a related note, transfer caps suck. I was lucky enough not to get one imposed with my 1.5Mbit residential service.
3. "I want every possible feature under the Sun, including complete album art collections and sheet music. Otherwise, it's not worth it."
Not happening, either. Rights to reprint and retransmit sheet music transcriptions for distribution-controlled recordings are licensed to sheet music companies like Cherry Lane, etc. Print music publishers are already here, so if you want to give out over the Web what they sell, the price will go up. Sorry. (Sites like OLGA don't reprint, so to speak, copyrighted transcriptions, for reference. It's a bit of a grey area, or at least, it has been a grey area in the past few years with agencies like the Harry Fox Agency suing tab and lyric sites left and right. I won't get into whether I agree or don't agree with it, but I
I'll address the "every feature under the Sun" part in the next few seconds.
4. "I want all of this for a quarter per song."
This is ridiculous. You can't have every feature and more for a quarter per song. Yeah, $18 or $20 for a CD is
I don't like the modern music industry, but I see it changing soon enough. A dollar isn't a lot to pay for a good song. (You ARE buying good stuff, right? If I catch you with an Edwin McCain or Celine Dion track, I'm coming to your house and kicking your ass.)
Flame ON!
As you guys have pointed out, the Lite version is an independent thing.
Sadly, it doesn't negate anything I said above it.
If people are so pissed off about DRM and the price of CDs, why are you patronizing the labels in the first place? Boycott the product, because stealing it (regardless of it YOU think it's stealing or not, the people who have the legal distribution rights DO, and that's what matters here in the end) doesn't help the cause.
Firing a gun isn't illegal, either, but firing a gun at someone else /is./
... I find it an interesting question.
Heh.
Imagine: A robber tries to swipe someone's CD collection, the owner shoots, misses, and the robber shoots back. Does the robber get to claim self-defense?
Not intended as flamebait
Here's a question that popped into my head while reading this story:
/is/ in that legal grey area and isn't clearly illegal, isn't it a really stupid move regardless? It seems like by hiding the people pirating the distribution-prohibited music, it helps give the RIAA /more/ reason to jack up CD prices and impose arm-bending DRM practices.
/cause/ that they can wave around like a flag in the newspapers and on TV news programs that don't do the proper amount of research into the issue.
:-/
Is this legal? If so, should we really advocate it?
If people are stealing music, and a company attempts to block the people from whom the music is being stolen, with the intent of protecting the identity of the pirates, isn't there some line that's being crossed somewhere?
And even if it
No, I don't think music piracy is the big reason why CD sales are falling. It's a larger issue than just p2p apps, but it gives the RIAA
I digress.
This is really stupid of KaZaA to do, bottom line, I'd say.
Define "works". Without pop-up blocking, good standards support (or at least occasional efforts not to create your own class of standards), and remotely decent security, I say a browser /doesn't work./
m pu ter.bugs.ap/8 1
That is, unless you like patching IE every few weeks because of some new, idiotic security hole that pops up.
Let's also not forget Microsoft's public policy of not disclosing known security holes until they've already finished working on them (which could translate to "too late" if you're unlucky):
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/08/28/co
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/2
I'd say IE not "works", but "works badly". Some people, I suppose, are willing to settle for the latter. I am not.
Fire + gasoline == big-ass fire
Seems like the spammer did the worst possible thing he could have done, heh.
Imagine if Bush had actually attacked Iraq in addition to bitching at them, for example.
. . .