"I wish fewer people would vote. Imagine what this country would be like if only people who understood the ramifications of their actions voted. I can guarantee that any person with a brain that watched the presidential debates would not have voted for Bush, but he still won. Why? Because people are too fucking stupid to vote."
Those people who voted for Bush knew exactly what they were voting for. Calling them stupid makes you appear stupid for not understanding that these people actually agree with Bush's agenda.
" Welcome to America. You must be new here. EVERYTHING Congress (and the executive branch, as well) does is done as favors to big business. That's what pays for their campaigns and they don't forget it. "
You may want to look at how much labor unions and PACs contribute to election campaigns. Texas law specifically forbid corporate donations, which is why Delay is in trouble. But, go ahead, keep blieving the/. urban myth that big business owns the govt.
"Actually, the vast majority of research - particularly in potential drug therapies - is done with public (NIH grants) and not-for-profit funds (think March of Dimes, Juvenile Diabetes, Jerry Lewis, William Gates Foundation, etc.) by universities and such."
"Actually, the U.S. government wouldn't have to invoke eminent domain if they wanted to do something like this. Most of the basic research that leads to these drugs, vaccines, etc. is paid for by the federal government."
got any evidence to support this outrageous statement? Change "Most of the" to "Occasionally." If you don't think pharamceutical companies do basic research, you are crazy.
"That seems like exactly the right thing to do to me, actually. Not that I think that copyright infringement is something that necessarily should be allowed, mind you, but if somebody's done something wrong, then it's the job of the police to investigate - not private companies'. And the fact that Antipiratbyrån seems to have planted evidence in the past (search for it, I'm too lazy to look up the story; Slashdot covered it) just shows again why this is important. "
So you think ISPs should protect spammers as well, I guess, based on your arguement.
" Then they shouldn't sign a deal with the recording industry were said insudtry gets 70-80% of the revenue generated.
Sure an artist might get a coupl of million for a million albums sold. Of course their sponsers just got 3-4 times that."
Try going to a group of venture capitalists with a risky business venture and see how much of a cut you get. They're taking all the risk because a band just declares bankruptcy if they don't make it. Record companies deserve the lions share of profit since they take all the risk.
"According to MS, while you can give people free software or computers, they won't have the expertise to use it."
But labor is dirt cheap, so training people to administer free software, even if it's more difficult to administer, should be cost effective, and still save you money.
"I just bought my wife a dual core (3800 model) and it's just as responsive as my dual Opteron. I'm seriously considering selling my dual CPU box and getting a dual core myself just to have fewer fans in the box and generate less heat.
I had been considering an Intel dual core but it sounds like I need to aim for an AMD instead."
We replaced the pocessors in our dual-cpu boxes, with dual core chips, effectively giving us quad processor machines.
"Fucking duh is the entire point of the story. Why as a Linux user do I have to Google for an hour and then hope I can do the proper chicken sacrifice to make the drivers work? The OSS world has shown it can make kickass databases, web servers, kernels, mail servers, languages, etc, but we still can't get drivers installed. I'm likely to agree with the author that there are roadblocks not of our making that is causing this. "
The roadblock is money. There's no incentive to support a niche market for consumer hardware running Linux. It's not a conspiracy, just simple economics.
"You will know when Apple has gained monopoly marketshare when they leverage MacOS X on Intel by forcing iPod users to drop Windows. Somehow, I think Apple demanding certain manufacturing agreements with industry players doesn't quite measure up to a "portable mp3 music player" monopoly. --M"
Add these to your list: proprietary closed DRM format that no one can license who wants to make a compatible player no support for DRM formats supplied by competitors who sell music online.
Trying to leverage iPod to cause people to switch from windows is a ridiculous benchmark to determine whether they're a monopoly. In reality, their behavior clearly indicates they're leveraging their mnopolies in online music and mp3 players.
All information broadcast wirelessly requires some finite bandwidth and power. Two transmitters broadcasting in the same space at the same time can jam each other. Someone needs to enforce rules and specifications about how transcevers interoperate, whether broadcast, pont to point, or whatever. Otherwise, incompatible technologies will interfere with each other. Also, what's to stop someone from taking huge chunks of bandwdith for square miles without a regulating agency?
"It is obvious now that the Microsoft monopoly, which began sometime around 1983 and culminated with its dominance of most areas of computing by 1998, has created more problems for consumers than it has solved."
No it is not obvious and probably not true./. is a good place to peddle this kind of FUD, however.
Id much rather plug a tuner card into my computer and have iTunes record the show for me, rather than paying $2 for something I could have gotten for free. I won't even mention synching with my DVR since Jobs won't support any device that isn't an Apple device. Who the hell wants to own most tv shows anyway. I usually delete them after Im through watching them.
I think the gap is because the iPod is busy storing statistics on the songs you're listening to. If I was a conspiacy nut, I'd think Apple was uploading this info when you sync your iPod to figure out how to sell you more songs on iTMS
" Hmm... do you think it could possibly be because, unlike Microsoft, Apple doesn't have (and abuse) a monopoly on desktop operating systems?"
They've certainly abused their monopoly on mp3 players and online mp3 sales to lock real out of the market. Real can't sell a DRMed song that will play on an iPod.
"Many people, including myself, simple use their DVR/TIVO to record the pay-per-view movie then watch the movie at their convenience as often as they want for as long as they want, all for $4. One is only limited by the size of their hard drive."
What you are doing violates the spirit of copyright. Time shifting a show and watching it once at your own convenience is different than archiving it and watching it multiple times. The latter is copyright infringement, and in my opinion, theft. Maybe the MPAA isn't so evil. The customers don't seem to even realize what they're doing is wrong.
"so many bands nowadays are picked up or formed by majors (RIAA labels) secretly, then they are put on an "indie" label for their first cd. then once the indie/punk/insert_somewhat_underground_genre_here crowd loves them, they release the next album on the major.
then when they are on mtv/radio, the people who just buy into whatever they hear love them, and so does the underground (or at least those who'd like to theink they are) crowd. "
If a group of people only like a band because it's on an indie label, it says they're a bunch of posers anyway. So if the the music industry has to trick these people to like music, what's the harm?
" The Supreme Court changed the rules and the RIAA is trying to use it to prop up their broken business model."
The constitution protects copyrighted works. period. Congress made exceptions for analog recording becuase they didn't see this as a threat to copyright. Clearly digital copying is a threat because there is no point in buying a tune from Apple if you got a perfect copy from your satellite receiver. Basically allowing digital copying of copyrighted material is unconstitutional, but no one here gets it.
" Seems to me that these XM recording devices are rather like having a VCR for your radio. If it's legal for consumers to time-shift their television entertainment by recording it, why shouldn't the same apply to radio?"
I don't think the recording industry is worried about time shifting, but instead of people building their music collections from satellite radio without paying Apple, Real, Yahoo, etc, for the songs. It's a valid concern, but/.ers are not interested in arguements that take away free stuff.
Reord companies own the music. They should be able to decide what it costs Apple to sell a song. Apple then can add whatever cost they want on top of that. Why is this even an issue?
Apple deserves it for screwing over companies like Real with their proprietary DRM scheme. Apparently, it isn't so fun when they're on the receiving end of getting screwed by a monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
"I wish fewer people would vote. Imagine what this country would be like if only people who understood the ramifications of their actions voted. I can guarantee that any person with a brain that watched the presidential debates would not have voted for Bush, but he still won. Why? Because people are too fucking stupid to vote."
Those people who voted for Bush knew exactly what they were voting for. Calling them stupid makes you appear stupid for not understanding that these people actually agree with Bush's agenda.
" Welcome to America. You must be new here. EVERYTHING Congress (and the executive branch, as well) does is done as favors to big business. That's what pays for their campaigns and they don't forget it.
/. urban myth that big business owns the govt.
"
You may want to look at how much labor unions and PACs contribute to election campaigns. Texas law specifically forbid corporate donations, which is why Delay is in trouble. But, go ahead, keep blieving the
"Actually, the vast majority of research - particularly in potential drug therapies - is done with public (NIH grants) and not-for-profit funds (think March of Dimes, Juvenile Diabetes, Jerry Lewis, William Gates Foundation, etc.) by universities and such."
_ files/Iglehart_Slides.pdf. 03.2005.1142.cfmh ot_topics/detail.asp?id=22
Who starts these urban legends?
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/uploaded
http://www.phrma.org/publications/publications/17
http://www.bain.com/bainweb/Consulting_Expertise/
"Actually, the U.S. government wouldn't have to invoke eminent domain if they wanted to do something like this. Most of the basic research that leads to these drugs, vaccines, etc. is paid for by the federal government."
got any evidence to support this outrageous statement? Change "Most of the" to "Occasionally." If you don't think pharamceutical companies do basic research, you are crazy.
"That seems like exactly the right thing to do to me, actually. Not that I think that copyright infringement is something that necessarily should be allowed, mind you, but if somebody's done something wrong, then it's the job of the police to investigate - not private companies'. And the fact that Antipiratbyrån seems to have planted evidence in the past (search for it, I'm too lazy to look up the story; Slashdot covered it) just shows again why this is important.
"
So you think ISPs should protect spammers as well, I guess, based on your arguement.
" Then they shouldn't sign a deal with the recording industry were said insudtry gets 70-80% of the revenue generated.
Sure an artist might get a coupl of million for a million albums sold. Of course their sponsers just got 3-4 times that."
Try going to a group of venture capitalists with a risky business venture and see how much of a cut you get. They're taking all the risk because a band just declares bankruptcy if they don't make it. Record companies deserve the lions share of profit since they take all the risk.
"Just because people use the products or are even advocates of it doesnt mean they are bias in their work."
/.?
They've got a picture of broken Windows and Gates as a Borg, and you're saying there's no bias on
"According to MS, while you can give people free software or computers, they won't have the expertise to use it."
But labor is dirt cheap, so training people to administer free software, even if it's more difficult to administer, should be cost effective, and still save you money.
"I just bought my wife a dual core (3800 model) and it's just as responsive as my dual Opteron. I'm seriously considering selling my dual CPU box and getting a dual core myself just to have fewer fans in the box and generate less heat.
I had been considering an Intel dual core but it sounds like I need to aim for an AMD instead."
We replaced the pocessors in our dual-cpu boxes, with dual core chips, effectively giving us quad processor machines.
"Fucking duh is the entire point of the story. Why as a Linux user do I have to Google for an hour and then hope I can do the proper chicken sacrifice to make the drivers work? The OSS world has shown it can make kickass databases, web servers, kernels, mail servers, languages, etc, but we still can't get drivers installed. I'm likely to agree with the author that there are roadblocks not of our making that is causing this.
"
The roadblock is money. There's no incentive to support a niche market for consumer hardware running Linux. It's not a conspiracy, just simple economics.
" If you want to say "Made for iPod", pay the money. If you don't, then say something else."
So then you agree that Microsoft should charge all hardware makers so they can say Windows certified on their marketing brochures.
"You will know when Apple has gained monopoly marketshare when they leverage MacOS X on Intel by forcing iPod users to drop Windows. Somehow, I think Apple demanding certain manufacturing agreements with industry players doesn't quite measure up to a "portable mp3 music player" monopoly. --M"
Add these to your list:
proprietary closed DRM format that no one can license who wants to make a compatible player
no support for DRM formats supplied by competitors who sell music online.
Trying to leverage iPod to cause people to switch from windows is a ridiculous benchmark to determine whether they're a monopoly. In reality, their behavior clearly indicates they're leveraging their mnopolies in online music and mp3 players.
All information broadcast wirelessly requires some finite bandwidth and power. Two transmitters broadcasting in the same space at the same time can jam each other. Someone needs to enforce rules and specifications about how transcevers interoperate, whether broadcast, pont to point, or whatever. Otherwise, incompatible technologies will interfere with each other. Also, what's to stop someone from taking huge chunks of bandwdith for square miles without a regulating agency?
"It is obvious now that the Microsoft monopoly, which began sometime around 1983 and culminated with its dominance of most areas of computing by 1998, has created more problems for consumers than it has solved."
/. is a good place to peddle this kind of FUD, however.
No it is not obvious and probably not true.
Id much rather plug a tuner card into my computer and have iTunes record the show for me, rather than paying $2 for something I could have gotten for free. I won't even mention synching with my DVR since Jobs won't support any device that isn't an Apple device. Who the hell wants to own most tv shows anyway. I usually delete them after Im through watching them.
I think the gap is because the iPod is busy storing statistics on the songs you're listening to. If I was a conspiacy nut, I'd think Apple was uploading this info when you sync your iPod to figure out how to sell you more songs on iTMS
and annoying as hell. Apples only workaround is to rip the album as one track.
" Hmm... do you think it could possibly be because, unlike Microsoft, Apple doesn't have (and abuse) a monopoly on desktop operating systems?"
They've certainly abused their monopoly on mp3 players and online mp3 sales to lock real out of the market. Real can't sell a DRMed song that will play on an iPod.
" How about making an O/S that is secure to begin with? Charging people or supplying add-ons to fix one's own problems?"
Name an OS that is? (No Linux, BSD, Solaris, AIX, and MacOS are not secure)
"Many people, including myself, simple use their DVR/TIVO to record the pay-per-view movie then watch the movie at their convenience as often as they want for as long as they want, all for $4. One is only limited by the size of their hard drive."
What you are doing violates the spirit of copyright. Time shifting a show and watching it once at your own convenience is different than archiving it and watching it multiple times. The latter is copyright infringement, and in my opinion, theft. Maybe the MPAA isn't so evil. The customers don't seem to even realize what they're doing is wrong.
"so many bands nowadays are picked up or formed by majors (RIAA labels) secretly, then they are put on an "indie" label for their first cd. then once the indie/punk/insert_somewhat_underground_genre_here crowd loves them, they release the next album on the major.
then when they are on mtv/radio, the people who just buy into whatever they hear love them, and so does the underground (or at least those who'd like to theink they are) crowd. "
If a group of people only like a band because it's on an indie label, it says they're a bunch of posers anyway. So if the the music industry has to trick these people to like music, what's the harm?
" The Supreme Court changed the rules and the RIAA is trying to use it to prop up their broken business model."
The constitution protects copyrighted works. period. Congress made exceptions for analog recording becuase they didn't see this as a threat to copyright. Clearly digital copying is a threat because there is no point in buying a tune from Apple if you got a perfect copy from your satellite receiver. Basically allowing digital copying of copyrighted material is unconstitutional, but no one here gets it.
" Seems to me that these XM recording devices are rather like having a VCR for your radio. If it's legal for consumers to time-shift their television entertainment by recording it, why shouldn't the same apply to radio?"
/.ers are not interested in arguements that take away free stuff.
I don't think the recording industry is worried about time shifting, but instead of people building their music collections from satellite radio without paying Apple, Real, Yahoo, etc, for the songs. It's a valid concern, but
Reord companies own the music. They should be able to decide what it costs Apple to sell a song. Apple then can add whatever cost they want on top of that. Why is this even an issue?
Apple deserves it for screwing over companies like Real with their proprietary DRM scheme. Apparently, it isn't so fun when they're on the receiving end of getting screwed by a monopoly.