Don't you get a DOS shell? At least in Win2K you get a command line where you can do stuff like ipconfig/release or xcopy, I'm assuming WinXP does the same.
So instead of real DOS it may be something that is just a DOS-emulator, but as long as you can get to something that looks and feels like a DOS command line, and does most or all of what DOS does, is DOS really dead? Granted, the machine is not actually running the "Disk Operating System," but it is running something that for all intents and purposes does the same thing (except act as the main OS).
I think you could argue that Buddhist Monks came up with rough ideas about particle physics hundreds if not thousands of years ago. Maybe it's a stretch, but to cite but one example (from "The Secret Oral Teachings in Tibetan Buddhist Sects"):
"The tangible world is movement, say the Masters, not a collection of moving objects, but movement itself. There are no objects 'in movements', it is the movement which constitutes the objects which appear to us: they are nothing but movement... This movement is a continued and infinitely rapid succession of flashes of energy (in Tibetan tsal or shoug). All objects perceptible to our senses, all phenomena of whatever kind and whatever aspect they assume, are constituted by a rapid succession of instantaneous events."
There are better examples out there, but the idea that the tangible world is made up of movement, which itself is made up of flashes of energy (particles, let's say) is pretty spot on to have come up with before even Newtonian physics.
Since you and all your friends can go to the library and check out a book as many times as you want, for free, and pass it around, for free, and read it at home, and discuss it for free, etc., without the author or publishing house getting anything from this whole exchange except a fraction of the original sale of the book, I guess I would like to hear a better justification of how all us poor dumb consumers are thieves when it comes to MP3s, but not books.
Don't worry about it. The RIAA is an anachronism - 20 years from now they will be have gone the way of typewriter factories in a PC market. Technology is getting good enough that bands simply won't need to sign their lives away merely to get a good recording and good distribution.
You are right about one thing: they are slitting their throats with this kind of stuff. Even if their wildest dreams came true, and you couldn't rip/burn/share songs anymore... your PC would suddenly lose a lot of entertainment value.
I don't see the Dells of the world sitting idly by while sales wither of their multi-media add-ons, all because nobody wants to spend money for essentially unusable upgrades. (Besides gamers - who's going to drop that extra $200 for Bitchen Speakers if you can't listen to music?)
There are also the hordes of MP3 device makers, blank CD makers, ISPs (I would be willing to bet Napster / KaZaA has had a substantial effect on broadband subscriptions), and others who will lose money if the RIAA sues their products and services out of existence.
Bottom line, as I said, the RIAA will go away by itself eventually anyway. But I think they are going to piss enough people off that they help expedite the process.
Me too. Read what I said. I said I'd rather see people up in arms an getting interested in a cause than letting their rights slowly erode, which is what happens too often.
Fine, maybe the DMCA itself is not to blame. But it certainly does highlight the fact that the entertainment industry is able to circumvent justice through strongarm tactics.
Whether lining the pockets of overtly crooked politicians (why aren't they being led away in handcuffs!?!?!) in order to pass legislation allowing RIAA hackers to come after you if they *think* you *might* be swapping pirated MP3s, or nuisance-suing entire companies out of existence with caches of LawyerBots, the point is that these people (DMCA supporters, RIAA, MPAA, etc.) don't want justice, they want royalties.
I have to be suspicious of anything that gives behemoth corporations more power to squash ordinary people. So I guess I would rather see hysteria over the the possibility of our rights being taken away than the blithe, indifferent ignorance that usually accompanies it.
Not to beat a fairly dead horse, but I thought at least I could let my elected official know my opinion (happens to be Lloyd Doggett of Texas, USA).
Congressman Doggett,
I am writing you to express my disgust with a bill introduced by Representative Howard Berman of California (and, sadly, cosponsored by fellow Texan Lamar Smith) that would allow computer hackers to attack any person or companies computers and networks merely for being suspected of copyright infringement. Specifically, I am referring to the woefully misnamed "Legislation to Promote Technology Solutions to P2P Piracy."
Ordinarily, if a someone were to intentionally and maliciously bring down another person's or business' computer network, they would be prosecuted and jailed. What this bill will do is make computer network attacks LEGAL, as long as the institution launching the attacks is doing so under the auspices of "protecting intellectual property."
Mr. Doggett, I'm sure you agree that the legalization of vigilante tactics against suspected wrong-doers has no place in our country. What's worse is the clear effect that the entertainment industry's dollar has had on the introduction of this legislation (please visit http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00008094&cycle=2002 to see who contributes the most to Mr. Berman's campaigns).
I hope you will consider these facts when it comes time to vote on this matter. I hate to think that in this day and age, planned attacks on American citizens (via their computers or otherwise) would be condoned and supported at such high levels of government.
Thank you,
[Name omitted for./ post]
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you get a DOS shell? At least in Win2K you get a command line where you can do stuff like ipconfig /release or xcopy, I'm assuming WinXP does the same.
So instead of real DOS it may be something that is just a DOS-emulator, but as long as you can get to something that looks and feels like a DOS command line, and does most or all of what DOS does, is DOS really dead? Granted, the machine is not actually running the "Disk Operating System," but it is running something that for all intents and purposes does the same thing (except act as the main OS).
- Ally McBeal (Television Soundtrack)
- Michael Bolton
- Mariah Carey
- Bing Crosby
- Europe
- Footloose (15th Anniversary Collectors' Edition) (Various)
- Engelbert Humperdinck
And That's just up to the H's. I'm sorry, but they can pry my Bing out of my cold dead hands.PS - "Zinglebert Bambledack!"
...but remember, if you kill him then you'll be unemployed (so said Yoda)...
- "The tangible world is movement, say the Masters, not a collection of moving objects, but movement itself. There are no objects 'in movements', it is the movement which constitutes the objects which appear to us: they are nothing but movement... This movement is a continued and infinitely rapid succession of flashes of energy (in Tibetan tsal or shoug). All objects perceptible to our senses, all phenomena of whatever kind and whatever aspect they assume, are constituted by a rapid succession of instantaneous events."
There are better examples out there, but the idea that the tangible world is made up of movement, which itself is made up of flashes of energy (particles, let's say) is pretty spot on to have come up with before even Newtonian physics.wait. That came out wrong.
And DEN you get deh weemen.
(well, Lotus Domino, actually - BTW, Notes must die!).
I've been able to own a house and travel the world thanks to Notes. But I suppose we often hate and fear technology we don't understand ;-)~
Since you and all your friends can go to the library and check out a book as many times as you want, for free, and pass it around, for free, and read it at home, and discuss it for free, etc., without the author or publishing house getting anything from this whole exchange except a fraction of the original sale of the book, I guess I would like to hear a better justification of how all us poor dumb consumers are thieves when it comes to MP3s, but not books.
Don't worry about it. The RIAA is an anachronism - 20 years from now they will be have gone the way of typewriter factories in a PC market. Technology is getting good enough that bands simply won't need to sign their lives away merely to get a good recording and good distribution.
You are right about one thing: they are slitting their throats with this kind of stuff. Even if their wildest dreams came true, and you couldn't rip/burn/share songs anymore... your PC would suddenly lose a lot of entertainment value.
I don't see the Dells of the world sitting idly by while sales wither of their multi-media add-ons, all because nobody wants to spend money for essentially unusable upgrades. (Besides gamers - who's going to drop that extra $200 for Bitchen Speakers if you can't listen to music?)
There are also the hordes of MP3 device makers, blank CD makers, ISPs (I would be willing to bet Napster / KaZaA has had a substantial effect on broadband subscriptions), and others who will lose money if the RIAA sues their products and services out of existence.
Bottom line, as I said, the RIAA will go away by itself eventually anyway. But I think they are going to piss enough people off that they help expedite the process.
Me too. Read what I said. I said I'd rather see people up in arms an getting interested in a cause than letting their rights slowly erode, which is what happens too often.
Fine, maybe the DMCA itself is not to blame. But it certainly does highlight the fact that the entertainment industry is able to circumvent justice through strongarm tactics. Whether lining the pockets of overtly crooked politicians (why aren't they being led away in handcuffs!?!?!) in order to pass legislation allowing RIAA hackers to come after you if they *think* you *might* be swapping pirated MP3s, or nuisance-suing entire companies out of existence with caches of LawyerBots, the point is that these people (DMCA supporters, RIAA, MPAA, etc.) don't want justice, they want royalties. I have to be suspicious of anything that gives behemoth corporations more power to squash ordinary people. So I guess I would rather see hysteria over the the possibility of our rights being taken away than the blithe, indifferent ignorance that usually accompanies it.
Not to beat a fairly dead horse, but I thought at least I could let my elected official know my opinion (happens to be Lloyd Doggett of Texas, USA). Congressman Doggett, I am writing you to express my disgust with a bill introduced by Representative Howard Berman of California (and, sadly, cosponsored by fellow Texan Lamar Smith) that would allow computer hackers to attack any person or companies computers and networks merely for being suspected of copyright infringement. Specifically, I am referring to the woefully misnamed "Legislation to Promote Technology Solutions to P2P Piracy." Ordinarily, if a someone were to intentionally and maliciously bring down another person's or business' computer network, they would be prosecuted and jailed. What this bill will do is make computer network attacks LEGAL, as long as the institution launching the attacks is doing so under the auspices of "protecting intellectual property." Mr. Doggett, I'm sure you agree that the legalization of vigilante tactics against suspected wrong-doers has no place in our country. What's worse is the clear effect that the entertainment industry's dollar has had on the introduction of this legislation (please visit http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00008094&cycle=2002 to see who contributes the most to Mr. Berman's campaigns).
I hope you will consider these facts when it comes time to vote on this matter. I hate to think that in this day and age, planned attacks on American citizens (via their computers or otherwise) would be condoned and supported at such high levels of government.
Thank you,
[Name omitted for ./ post]