But the courts have been remarkably well-disposed toward this insanity, so the RIAA might win.
Don't kid yourself. This is merely a bidding contest, the item up for bids being the judge.
=P
On a serious note, does AOL Time Warner block this site, considering they're part of the recording industry as well (and obviously why they're not part of the suit)?
You have a very good point when it comes to backing off of the Microsoft hounding. But, in this case, it doesn't apply.
Linux folks are touting the KDE fix simply because it's a victory for the OSS philosophy. Sure, it's not something Joe Public can download without thinking, but it IS there for those who need it NOW and can do so.
Secondly, this "testing" argument is baloney. If you abstract your libraries correctly and break them down well, "testing" is not much of an issue. Microsoft isn't known for writing well modularized code nor systems packages, which is why you have to reboot as much as you do and feasibly a reason why patches take longer.
Summary: KDE shouldn't be screaming, "we kick ur a$$ n00b," but give merit where it is due. Microsoft, on the other hand, has simply added to their long and growing list of holes, and again shows us the poor design of their code. Oh, and that their marketing/PR team will say whatever they can to make things look OK to Aunt Francis.
Anything that is going to break multiple programs will be in a library, by definition. If a programmer is worth his salt, that library will be abstracted and broken down enough so that as long as a function does exactly what it's supposed to do all the time, any breakage is the fault of the calling application.
Thus, you consider the library function that needs to be fixed, and ensure that after the fix, the function does exactly what it's supposed to.
Problem solved.
Moral of the story: If you break down your functions enough and abstract things correctly, any fixes should be a piece of cake.
Why do people assume that all the things patches break are due to hardware?? I've heard this "excuse" too many times...
I think it's very safe to say that most patches have nothing to do with hardware. Most of them have to do with the way data is handled in memory or on the disk.
And regarding Microsoft releasing patches, the vast majority of those they release are software only, with very few relating to hardware issues -- hardware problems are typically handled by the driver manufacturers.
-Microsoft isn't limited to closed source only: they aren't excluded from this policy of OSS only.
-Just so you know, incase you really bought into that libertarian BS in college, true free markets never have and never will exist. The idea of consumers putting their money where good products come from is great. But, like communism, isn't possible in reality, at least with the current set of standard business/gov't/human morals.
If BRM came into existance, people would just download Mozilla. If the OS forced someone to use a certain browser (on Windows, certainly IE), the anti-trust folks would be all over it. Even if you were forced to use a certain browser, there are two solutions:
Solution 1: Software can be hacked. Period. Patches will be made to offer other browser options (remember the "take IE out of Windows" patches?), or at the very least, patches to disable BRM.
Solution 2: Linux
However, you do raise a funny point - I'm sure someone'll try at some point.
The parent of my message was talking about downloading the image, but not displaying it.
And yes, there are issues with not knowing if the user is on Lynx, etc., but that won't stop anyone. Just look at all the browser compatibility issues these days.
I'm just interested to see these guys try and figure out a way of client side security. =D Like the RIAA, this should be an interesting show.
He's a marketing troll who found "HTML For Dummies," loves poor analogies, and can't back up his facts, many of which are obviously incorrect, as you pointed out.
This isn't about the business, it's about the consumer.
I think one of the things you might consider looking at is that your attitude is very similar to that of other companies who blame their poor business models on the behaviour of their customers.
Let me explain.
You claim that web surfers are stealing from you when they deny your ads. You seem to agree that ads are OK because surfers decided to view the website, that was their CHOICE.
However, like with any other business, nobody is forcing you into your line of work. Stay with me here. Nobody made you put up company.com, and nobody makes you pay your bandwidth fees. You choose to exist. You can't gripe about customers ripping you off: you decided to do business, and if the customer doesn't peruse your ads, that's not his fault.
One common misconception about Internet businesses is that they have to use ads to stay afloat. Well, no. In any other typical market, the price of convenience of offering a product online would be added to the cost of the product. If Joe Public wanted to drive around town to buy a high quality DVD player, he could. Or, he could spend 1/16 the time, look it up online, buy it and have it shipped to his house. He pays extra for the convenience of shipping, and he should pay extra for the product being available on the website.
Stay with me...
This is no different than any other normal market. The cokes in a Serv-A-Bar in a condo in Pango Pango are $12 for a reason -- convenience. There isn't a device which displays an add for 10 seconds before letting you buy a coke for $8.
Of course, I'd rather stare at an add for 10 second as opposed to pay $4 more. BUT, that's my choice.
What this all comes down to is the fact that you *should* try and advertise to make products cheaper. Ads, typically, are a tiny nuisance, and if you can spread that out to everyone, even folks who don't buy, to drive down costs, fine -- that is commonplace in our world. That's why we have ads up on the windows of the local Quicky-Mart, even if you only use the restroom or drive through the parking lot.
What this does NOT give you is the right to complain when users deny you your ads. This is called "consumer choice." If the consumer doesn't like something and he has an option to change it, he will out of self interest. If the customer doesn't want your ads, drop them and raise your prices. Businesses are here to satisfy the consumer, not the other way around. Claiming that your business will die because customers are stealing is rediculous. You tried a scheme to lower prices, it didn't work.
This is capitalism. Bad business models aren't protected by default.
Well, while they could implement Javascript code to detect if the image was there, if someone went ahead and coded an ad-blocker to your specifications, they would probably have thought of this already and instructed the browser to return that the image exists.
The amusing thing is that people are still learning there is no such thing as client side security. Not that Microsoft, the RIAA, MPAA, etc. etc. aren't trying.
why isn't anyone talking about it other than in slashdot????
20/20 will not be covering this issue as it has nothing to do with rape, murder, kidnapping, or anything else equally negative, nor are we getting $20 million for advertis^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfunding.
I wonder how they would solve that kind of problem. I can imagine a system in which your implant asks you if you would like to accept someone's connection. If neural networking became very common, this might become very annoying, but if you think about it, it wouldn't be difficult once we got used to it. Think about how natural driving is. I doubt it would be much harder to make quick decisions about what incoming connections/requests are OK.
Software to prevent overload would be pretty easy to install as well.
-------
Here's a thought- what about force feedback? Imagine falling off the level in Quake and *feeling* that sensation. Or of being blown up and feeling some sort of out-of-body sensation (or pain for the masochists). The implementations of porn take on a whole new meaning.
I think I can honestly say that if I can be given an 80% change of no ill-side effects, I'll be the first to have this put in my head.
I hope it doesn't take them long to figure out a system of stimulating the brain without placing a bunch of hardware in the brain - that way, we can keep the 'modules' outside of the skull and continue upgrading our systems without major surgery.
The Internet was once a place where you could post anything without worry. Now, the governments of the world are trying their technologically feeble minds at making laws to control it.
I wonder how long it is before they release restrictions on these implants, but make all kinds of laws telling us what we can and cannot put in our bodies.
I suppose what it comes down to is what kind of woman she is. Personally, I cannot stand people who go with the "social norm," and I have a feeling that that special someone (when I finally meet her... *sigh*) will feel the same way.
I would rather give my future wife something that had thought and some form of originality in it signifying my love instead of giving her something society expects. A ring is traditional (for all I know, anyway), but a diamond isn't (it hasn't been a "tradition" for long at all).
What is more important: a diamond that is expected by the lemmings in society or something that the husband feels is appropriate to symbolize his love?
I hope this isn't too redundant, I haven't browsed everything...
No, it is NOT a tradition. It's only been going on for 1-2 generations, which I would not consider a "tradition." The marketing of and social outlook on diamonds would have you think otherwise, though...
Slashdot Mirror
It's about time someone writes a book:
"How to Get Rich Fast: The Tao of Sueing"
Or does that already exist? =\
But the courts have been remarkably well-disposed toward this insanity, so the RIAA might win.
Don't kid yourself. This is merely a bidding contest, the item up for bids being the judge.
=P
On a serious note, does AOL Time Warner block this site, considering they're part of the recording industry as well (and obviously why they're not part of the suit)?
Well, they can buy congress, what's taking on some of the biggest tech companies in the world?
Talk about fighting an uphill battle.
I wonder how long it will take them to change their minds.
Read the article...
You have a very good point when it comes to backing off of the Microsoft hounding. But, in this case, it doesn't apply.
Linux folks are touting the KDE fix simply because it's a victory for the OSS philosophy. Sure, it's not something Joe Public can download without thinking, but it IS there for those who need it NOW and can do so.
Secondly, this "testing" argument is baloney. If you abstract your libraries correctly and break them down well, "testing" is not much of an issue. Microsoft isn't known for writing well modularized code nor systems packages, which is why you have to reboot as much as you do and feasibly a reason why patches take longer.
Summary: KDE shouldn't be screaming, "we kick ur a$$ n00b," but give merit where it is due. Microsoft, on the other hand, has simply added to their long and growing list of holes, and again shows us the poor design of their code. Oh, and that their marketing/PR team will say whatever they can to make things look OK to Aunt Francis.
Reality to Bob:
Anything that is going to break multiple programs will be in a library, by definition. If a programmer is worth his salt, that library will be abstracted and broken down enough so that as long as a function does exactly what it's supposed to do all the time, any breakage is the fault of the calling application.
Thus, you consider the library function that needs to be fixed, and ensure that after the fix, the function does exactly what it's supposed to.
Problem solved.
Moral of the story: If you break down your functions enough and abstract things correctly, any fixes should be a piece of cake.
Why do people assume that all the things patches break are due to hardware?? I've heard this "excuse" too many times...
I think it's very safe to say that most patches have nothing to do with hardware. Most of them have to do with the way data is handled in memory or on the disk.
And regarding Microsoft releasing patches, the vast majority of those they release are software only, with very few relating to hardware issues -- hardware problems are typically handled by the driver manufacturers.
Someone crack this troll's SSL connection, quick! Before Microsoft has a chance to release a patch 5 months from now!
=D
Reality to Bob:
-Microsoft isn't limited to closed source only: they aren't excluded from this policy of OSS only.
-Just so you know, incase you really bought into that libertarian BS in college, true free markets never have and never will exist. The idea of consumers putting their money where good products come from is great. But, like communism, isn't possible in reality, at least with the current set of standard business/gov't/human morals.
If BRM came into existance, people would just download Mozilla. If the OS forced someone to use a certain browser (on Windows, certainly IE), the anti-trust folks would be all over it. Even if you were forced to use a certain browser, there are two solutions:
Solution 1: Software can be hacked. Period. Patches will be made to offer other browser options (remember the "take IE out of Windows" patches?), or at the very least, patches to disable BRM.
Solution 2: Linux
However, you do raise a funny point - I'm sure someone'll try at some point.
I agree. There is a difference between making a fair, unbiased choice, and choosing a philosophy.
There is nothing that says Microsoft can't go open source. Open source is not limited to non-commercial entities only.
It's a philosophy, a way of doing things, not a limitation on who can join.
Welcome to the United States of America (T), where you can patent ideas and sue people for improving things.
The parent of my message was talking about downloading the image, but not displaying it.
And yes, there are issues with not knowing if the user is on Lynx, etc., but that won't stop anyone. Just look at all the browser compatibility issues these days.
I'm just interested to see these guys try and figure out a way of client side security. =D Like the RIAA, this should be an interesting show.
Well, what do you expect?
He's a marketing troll who found "HTML For Dummies," loves poor analogies, and can't back up his facts, many of which are obviously incorrect, as you pointed out.
This isn't about the business, it's about the consumer.
I think one of the things you might consider looking at is that your attitude is very similar to that of other companies who blame their poor business models on the behaviour of their customers.
Let me explain.
You claim that web surfers are stealing from you when they deny your ads. You seem to agree that ads are OK because surfers decided to view the website, that was their CHOICE.
However, like with any other business, nobody is forcing you into your line of work. Stay with me here. Nobody made you put up company.com, and nobody makes you pay your bandwidth fees. You choose to exist. You can't gripe about customers ripping you off: you decided to do business, and if the customer doesn't peruse your ads, that's not his fault.
One common misconception about Internet businesses is that they have to use ads to stay afloat. Well, no. In any other typical market, the price of convenience of offering a product online would be added to the cost of the product. If Joe Public wanted to drive around town to buy a high quality DVD player, he could. Or, he could spend 1/16 the time, look it up online, buy it and have it shipped to his house. He pays extra for the convenience of shipping, and he should pay extra for the product being available on the website.
Stay with me...
This is no different than any other normal market. The cokes in a Serv-A-Bar in a condo in Pango Pango are $12 for a reason -- convenience. There isn't a device which displays an add for 10 seconds before letting you buy a coke for $8.
Of course, I'd rather stare at an add for 10 second as opposed to pay $4 more. BUT, that's my choice.
What this all comes down to is the fact that you *should* try and advertise to make products cheaper. Ads, typically, are a tiny nuisance, and if you can spread that out to everyone, even folks who don't buy, to drive down costs, fine -- that is commonplace in our world. That's why we have ads up on the windows of the local Quicky-Mart, even if you only use the restroom or drive through the parking lot.
What this does NOT give you is the right to complain when users deny you your ads. This is called "consumer choice." If the consumer doesn't like something and he has an option to change it, he will out of self interest. If the customer doesn't want your ads, drop them and raise your prices. Businesses are here to satisfy the consumer, not the other way around. Claiming that your business will die because customers are stealing is rediculous. You tried a scheme to lower prices, it didn't work.
This is capitalism. Bad business models aren't protected by default.
Well, while they could implement Javascript code to detect if the image was there, if someone went ahead and coded an ad-blocker to your specifications, they would probably have thought of this already and instructed the browser to return that the image exists.
The amusing thing is that people are still learning there is no such thing as client side security. Not that Microsoft, the RIAA, MPAA, etc. etc. aren't trying.
For a computer to determine aggressive incoming data, it has to have some form of AI. AI is hard to program, thus why they're succeptable.
The human brain does not have this limitation.
why isn't anyone talking about it other than in slashdot????
20/20 will not be covering this issue as it has nothing to do with rape, murder, kidnapping, or anything else equally negative, nor are we getting $20 million for advertis^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfunding.
Regards,
Bahbwa Wawa
I can see it now...
You're driving down the road at 70 MPH:
*Vision fades to black*
"We'll be right back to your life, right after these messages."
I just hope by the time these implants become semi-common that humanity has gotten past the intellectual property BS.
I can dream, can't I?
That would be interesting...
I wonder how they would solve that kind of problem. I can imagine a system in which your implant asks you if you would like to accept someone's connection. If neural networking became very common, this might become very annoying, but if you think about it, it wouldn't be difficult once we got used to it. Think about how natural driving is. I doubt it would be much harder to make quick decisions about what incoming connections/requests are OK.
Software to prevent overload would be pretty easy to install as well.
-------
Here's a thought- what about force feedback? Imagine falling off the level in Quake and *feeling* that sensation. Or of being blown up and feeling some sort of out-of-body sensation (or pain for the masochists). The implementations of porn take on a whole new meaning.
I think I can honestly say that if I can be given an 80% change of no ill-side effects, I'll be the first to have this put in my head.
I hope it doesn't take them long to figure out a system of stimulating the brain without placing a bunch of hardware in the brain - that way, we can keep the 'modules' outside of the skull and continue upgrading our systems without major surgery.
That does raise a point.
The Internet was once a place where you could post anything without worry. Now, the governments of the world are trying their technologically feeble minds at making laws to control it.
I wonder how long it is before they release restrictions on these implants, but make all kinds of laws telling us what we can and cannot put in our bodies.
No, but they can love each other 70 years from now.
I suppose what it comes down to is what kind of woman she is. Personally, I cannot stand people who go with the "social norm," and I have a feeling that that special someone (when I finally meet her... *sigh*) will feel the same way.
I would rather give my future wife something that had thought and some form of originality in it signifying my love instead of giving her something society expects. A ring is traditional (for all I know, anyway), but a diamond isn't (it hasn't been a "tradition" for long at all).
What is more important: a diamond that is expected by the lemmings in society or something that the husband feels is appropriate to symbolize his love?
I hope this isn't too redundant, I haven't browsed everything...
No, it is NOT a tradition. It's only been going on for 1-2 generations, which I would not consider a "tradition." The marketing of and social outlook on diamonds would have you think otherwise, though...