At first, I thought that you insight was valuable and well- reasoned. Then I read your sig and thought "should I take advice from a guy who quotes Gene Simmons?".
Then I realized that:
A) I know who Gene Simmons is and used to own the first several KISS albums (gasp);
B) My sig is a quote from Marvin the Martian; and
C) I have been reading Ask The Headhunter for several months and find Nick Corcodilos insightful and refreshingly honest (e.g., he says that most people do not get jobs through headhunters and that one should not focus all their efforts through them). I think that reading Nick, who also has engineering-specific columns at EE Times is time well-spent.
So, given the above, my conclusion is that your insight is brilliant;-}
Various things that I have read confirm what you say. It seems ironic that a technical person's resume should not be thorough and detailed, but we live in the age of advertising, soundbites and newsbites, and people not having time to do justice to a given task. It seems doubly ironic that a technical person's resume should be written by someone who's good at the psychology of effective advertising, but this again seems to be true.
Yet, IIRC, a few weeks ago, there was an item here at Slashdot about someone who found that the standard search/hiring processes were frequently netting him the wrong people. Go figure.
Damn, I wish that I had read this earlier - I hope that you are still "listening". Slashdot is a good place to look for some things, BUT NOT LEGAL ADVICE, especially about an important issue like this.
Let me preface this by saying that I am not a lawyer and this post does not constitute legal advice.
I am Canadian and 5 1/2 years ago I went through what you are going through . The most important piece of advice that I can give you is SEE A LAWYER. If you don't know one, get a reference to a good lawyer from friends or family. It won't cost you that much for an initial consultation (maybe $80-$150). It is worth it's weight in gold for the piece of mind of knowing where you stand. Once you know exactly what your rights and the employers obligations are, you can make an informed decision about signing.
The situation that you describe is common these days - the company is looking to limit all liabilities with respect to you employment in order to avoid being blindsided with a costly lawsuit in the future. I worked for a company where that (lawsuit) happened and it cost them big time both financially and in terms of distraction of key management. In exchange for that they offer you a severance package over and above the legal minimum, (which, IIRC, here in Ontario is a paltry one week's pay for each year of service plus vacation pay outstanding). You are legally entitled to your provincially mandated minimum and under no obligation to sign ANYTHING for that minimum.
I don't know what you have been offered but it should be at least one month's pay for each year of service plus vacation pay outstanding. Still, do not sign based on what I just said - get a lawyer to review the terms and advise you. Your lawyer will have a big fat reference book which lists settlements in Canada by industry/job classification/experience. He can tell you whether the financial terms are 'fair' and whether the legal terms are reasonable. The employer is required to give you some time for you to get their 'offer' reviewed by a lawyer. You should not have to sign 'on the spot'.
Also, note that you have a golden one-time (per layoff) opportunity to direct a fairly large chunk of you severance package into your retirement savings (over and a above your allowable annual amount) without income tax deductions under these circumstances. Get the info from your employer or Revenue Canada. You will never see that money - it goes from directly from your employer into the retirement plan that you designate BUT IT IS TAX FREE and once of the few 'gifts' that you'll get.
Best of luck finding a job. Layoffs suck and are a jolt to the system but always keep in mind that you will get another job and probably be better off for it.
Finally, and in case I didn't mention it, this post does not constitute legal advice - please GET A LAWYER TO REVIEW THE PACKAGE AND ANYTHING THAT YOU WILL SIGN !
When are we gonna drive our suburbans there? We need to be expending more energy on propulsion solutions and less on looking for places we can't get to
Actually, we need to be expending our energy on expending less energy on things like driving "our suburbans" or the only places that we will eventually be able to go to are those to which we can walk. Maybe that's what you were "driving at", but I'm not sure.
I agree. Consumers' rights are being eroded daily, but erosion is only obvious on a longer time scale. The current trend seems to be that individual rights such as Fair Use are subverted to the interests of businesses with powerful government lobbies. What may have been free and a right to you today, you will pay for in the future. I believe that, long term, it will be very damaging to society as a whole, but on a case by case basis it barely gets noticed. To the individual I would say: "while you are busy earning a living so that you can enjoy you rights and freedoms, do you know who is busy earning a living by chipping away at those rights and freedoms?"
I don't download mp3s.
While you might not download mp3's at all, there is nothing illegal about the format and nothing inherently wrong with the act of downloading mp3's. The casual reader might infer from your comment that there is. I would not make an issue of this were it not for the fact that this rather inaccurate sentiment is repeated throughout the media and discussions in general and continues to assist in propagating the myth that downloading mp3's is illegal. This imprecision of message is very much to the advantage of those (like the recording industry) who wish to control our rights to their own ends rather than in our interest. As you know, the problems arise when one downloads mp3's (or any other format) of copyrighted material but has not secured the copyright holder's permission to do so (I will leave the fuzzy application of the 'fair use' argument aside in this instance). Perhaps you could append such phrases with "not that there's anything wrong with that";-)
As a writer myself (with a book out under copyright), I want my annuity from my act of creation. But do I really need my lifetime plus seventy years? I'd like to see copyright capped at life of the author, or, say, 50 years from filing to expiration.
I was reading your post while listening to some mp3's of a band from mp3.com and had an interesting thought: even though they made their work available for free and you do not, they have a potential profit advantage over you. There seems to a large dichotomy here between writers and musicians/performers in that a writer earns virtually all of his/her reward for creation of a work from the sale of published copies, save the occasional book that gets turned into a movie (please correct me if I'm wrong) and very little from performance. A musician/performer, on the other hand, has an opportunity to earn substantial and even greater reward from (his/her) repeated performance of the work over the long term. Perhaps the copyright period should be substantially longer for written works than for musical works. Where I see an immediate inequity with the foregoing is when the writer of a piece of music is not a performing musician (which happens quite often).
There is some comfort to be taken in the fact that this has erupted before. The copying machine and the VCR both caused firestorms. Things worked out. Not necessarily perfectly, but decently for all concerned. There is hope that this newest will as well.
I'm afraid that I do not share you optimism. More recent events show that things do not always work out in the consumer's interest. The recording industry was able to virtually kill DAT (digital audio tape), which at the time of introduction was a fantastic format. And big business lobbying has matured and grown much more powerful since that time. To me, the future looks bleak on the 'rights of consumers' front.
If you haven't already, I urge you to check out the EFF [eff.org]. Think about it, and if you agree with them, consider contributing. We need a lobby that has at least a significant fraction of the power of the entertainment lobby if we want the idea of "fair use" to continue to exist.
I agree, but also urge people to be more discerning about whom they vote for and whose interests they represent. Government is being bought and paid for on a regular basis. And real campaign finance reform is essential in order to get a government "for the people".
and their lawyers would probably make the case for contributory infringement if a big rock is used the circumvent the aforementioned copy protection scheme. What do lawyers and the recording industry have to lose - they're are all going to hell anyway, aren't they?;-}
IANAL, but I think that under the DMCA, wouldn't the Dremel tool would be considered a circumvention device (the same goes for sledgehammers and big rocks) and therefore illegal? Stores like Home Depot would pull them off the shelves for fear of being ruled contributory infringers.
Scientists today announced the discovery of a new element (#119). Breaking with current tradition, they have already named it. It will be known as " Fuukoffium" (pronounced foo-coffee-um), named after the scientist that discovered it - Dr. Uliano Fuukoff. It currently has no known use and is quite dangerous to all carbon based life forms, but only has a half-life approaching the square root of 0.
In reaction to the discovery, Microsoft marketing announced that it has decided to rename Palladium, which has the phonetically-challenged abbreviation Pd, to Fuukoffium (abbrev. Fu) because, in the words of a spokesman, "the abbreviation F-U seemed to convey so perfectly how people feel about the new OS".
NASA plans to read terrorist's minds at airports, blah, blah, blah...
Means:
NASA looking for huge budget increase.
Incidentally, the headline says "NASA plans to read terrorist's minds at airports". Why only one terrorist, why does he have more than one mind (schizophrenia?) and if they already know that he's a terrorist, isn't the process redundant?
Is this journalist out of public school yet? It says in the first paragraph:
...agreement with Microsoft to update computer systems for City Hall and the Police Department free of charge
Yet it is not free according to the second paragraph - it has strings attached and an undisclosed cost.
The second paragraph says:
The only requirement the computer giant has made of the city is
then lists 2 requirements:
(1) that New Orleans let Microsoft use it as a model for marketing the system to other governmental bodies once it is up and running, said Greg Meffert, the city's technology officer.
(2)Eventually, he added, the city will have to purchase software from the company, but he said it would be a "minuscule" expense.
So there are at least 2 requirements and a cost. Also, define "minuscule". If I were a taxpayer in the Big Easy, I'd sure as hell want a number. Big numbers always seem minuscule to public officials spending someone else's money.
Because these services are considered a gift, the city won't have to publicly bid the project, he said.
Some real hardcore and in-depth journalism here. It sounds more like the real story might be that Microsoft has found a way to do an end-run on the public tendering process. Also, if MS wants a real proving ground, they should be paying the City of New Orleans to compensate for the inevitable problems while they host the trial. Instead, the 'start button' for the trial will probably bring up a EULA box releasing MS from all liabilities and the Mayor will have to click the button.
This just sounds like a variation on a common practice - the 'free gift'. The phrase 'free gift' is one of the most insidious and abused phrases in modern language, yet people fall for it all the time.
Scientists today announced the discovery of a new element (#119). Breaking with current tradition, they have already named it. It will be known as " Fuukoffium" (pronounced foo-coffee-um), named after the scientist that discovered it - Dr. Uliano Fuukoff. It currently has no known use and is quite dangerous to all carbon based life forms, but only has a half-life approaching the square root of 0.
In reaction to the discovery, Microsoft marketing announced that it has decided to rename Palladium, which has the phonetically-challenged abbreviation Pd, to Fuukoffium (abbrev. Fu) because, in the words of a spokesman, "the abbreviation F-U seemed to convey so perfectly how people feel about the new OS".
Just yesterday I was wondering whether the UPC spec allowed for growth/extension - I guess I have my answer. I'm amazed at the short-sightedness.
Like the poster above, I'm curious what happened to the 2-D technology that was supposed to revolutionize bar coding. Once in a great while, I see what looks like a 2-D bar code, but not very often. I remember reading a dead tree article about 2-D bar coding a good 8+ years ago. IIRC, they had come up with some fairly esoteric technologies involving dots of varying size and shape that could hold what was then considered an amazing amount of data (more than what the poster suggests) with superior error detection/correction schemes. I assume that UPC has some crude level of error detection, even if it's just a parity bit.
RFID technology has come a long way and is far cheaper than it used to be. Some time ago, I heard that someone (Motorola?) announced an RFID system where the tags themselves cost less than a cent. But I suppose that RFID is a solution for a different problem, where more flexibility is needed, and I'm sure that ink is still cheaper.
I hear that all releases of Windows resolve to the Pink Floyd tune "Money". The only detectable difference between them is that with each successive release, the volume is higher.
With Palladium, I suspect that there will be more variety. Normally, it will still be "Money" at about 120db, but if you click on an mp3, you'll hear the "Dragnet" theme and sounds of wailing police sirens followed by the Monty Python ditty "There's Nothing Quite as Wonderful as Money".
Re:Right, And this part truly makes my blood boil!
on
Meet the Spammers
·
· Score: 1
My post was specific to the porn e-mail / lack of law issue, not the general case to which you speak. True, I am sick and tired of all the spam and advertising in general and quite frankly, I couldn't give a rat's ass about the "rights of the ad agencies" that try to invade my daily life in every way possible. And, as has been stated many times at Slashdot, corporations do not have 'rights', individuals do.
The major point that I'm was trying to get across is that it infuriates me that government these days shamelessly spend much of their time enacting legislation to protect and extend the interests of their corporate sponsors but do almost nothing to protect the rights, freedoms and security of citizens, especially children. Thus, you can go to jail for reverse engineering a piece of code just to understand it, but it's not illegal to send an e-mail advertising hardcore pornography without regard to the fact that a child might be the recipient. I know that it's redundant to say, but these days government does not act in the interests of it's electorate except when forced.
what if I don't want my child exposed to violence, but the Scooby Doo movie has an Army ad at the beginning
Somewhat offtopic, but I think most kids' movies (I can't comment on Scooby Doo - I haven't seen it) and television contain more violence than any army add that you might see. Also, you can be a pacifist and still acknowledge the need for an army for defensive purposes. It is the (sometimes covertly) offensive use of armies that you really should be concerned about.
Right, And this part truly makes my blood boil!
on
Meet the Spammers
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Legally speaking, sending a 7-year-old an e-mail advertising hardcore pornography might be a nuisance, but it's not a crime, said Timothy Healy, chief of the FBI's Internet Fraud Complaint Center, based in Fairmont, W.Va. "There's not much we can do," he said.Why the hell isn't it illegal? Our elected officials should take 5 minutes off from passing all the legislation to protect the **AA's (and their other big businesses customers) to pass a law with very stiff penalties.
It should take about 5 minutes to pass - I can't imagine anyone hoping to get re-elected opposing it. Something like: the penalty for the first offence is 50 years without parole. Second offence gets the chair. The onus would be on the spammers to ensure that they didn't do it - that should put a crimp in their style.
It's seen as a tactic to influence Judge Kollar-Kotelly's deliberation on the more stringent restrictions asked for by nine states attorneys general
No! Really? They wouldn't try to do that, would they?
One of the problems with such a protracted legal process is that it allows the guilty to apply influence after the case has been made, the facts determined and guilt found. The whole process is contemptable. If I get a speeding ticket, I can't get a reduced penalty by going to court and saying "look, I'm not speeding now".
If a site doesn't work without Javascript, the site designer and programmers are incompetent, careless, or stupid, and I'd be foolish to use the site with Javascript enabled anyway.
A bit harsh. Personally I would not blame the programmers so much - they are generally "just following orders" (cough). I blame their business people who are often greedy, slimy and greasy and will do anything to screw you out of a buck. And that is what it's all about.
Therefore boycotting, which is effectively what you are doing, is the solution. I, like you, surf with javascript, active x, and other damned nuisances turned OFF. And I've been flash-free for years. I will only selectively allow javascript if I am very sure the site is trustworthy and worthy of my time and effort. I almost NEVER get pop-ups.
One truism of human nature is "no gain, no pain". If there is no financial or other compelling reason to do something, then they won't. They want your money and will do anything to get it. If it isn't working, they will eventually get the message and stop. They may even become slightly more co-operative (like AOL).
Far more people need to boycott, or refuse to use (it doesn't have to be an organized effort) sites that treat them like fresh meat. Also they need to:
1) stop buying RIAA product - find alternatives- there are so many good independent artists out there!
2) use alternatives to ms products
3) turn off clear channel (I mean, radio)
4) turn off video advertise-arama (television)
5) tell telemarketers that they will never do business with a company that tries to solicit them over their personal telephone
6) etc, etc, etc...
Yet most people are not willing to give up the slightest bit of perceived comfort, convenience, coolness, or (my god man) something that they are told is 'free' (truly one of the most insidious words in the English language) in order to send a message that they won't take this garbage any more. So they are drawn like lemmings into the soup.
As an aside, it is amazing how many sites use javascript for trivial things (like a 2 item menu). When a site that I might want to use is javascript infected on the front page, I usually pop open the source, find the page links, and cut and paste the link into my browser (same goes for flash). Then, I often find that all internal pages have no javascript, or if they do, it's trivial. As a bonus, it probably drives the nuts when they look at their stats.
Lily's been waiting for a chance to dust this one off. The time is nigh:
"You can't do that, it's my computer!" he told Ernestine at Microsoft.
"Mr. Veedle, that's so cute!", she snorted " No, no, no, you're dealing with Microsoft. We are not subject to city, state, or federal legislation. We are omnipotent!"
Finally, a well-written article that highlights the downside of spam.
Are you implying that there is an upside to spam?
Yeah, we all know that email is a "powerful new marketing tool"
Is it really? What's the business case? As with telemarketing, I've never met anyone who will admit to spending any money as a result of this type of solicitation.
I have an email address that I've never given out, and 90% of the messages I receive are spam. The email address on this posting ONLY receives spam... mostly in some funky character set that I can't bother to being to read. This address gets about 40 a day (and likely more after this posting).
I have had similar experiences. Just wait until big business orders the government pass a law making it a felony to have more than one e-mail account.
So, industry self-regulation? Well that doesn't seem to work - and it didn't work with Enron (or WoldCom or Andersen or...)
Industry "self-regulation" was a term invented by capitalists to avoid public pressure on governments to pass legislation. It is one of the 10 biggest lies known to mankind.
So I think it's time that we hit them where it hurts. Pass -strong- laws. Pass laws that permit individuals to sue in certain circumstances.
I wish it were so simple. But, in the absence of enforcement, laws don't work on the unscrupulous. Pathological liars and cheaters and aggressors (i.e. a disproportionately large percentage of big businessmen/women) will ignore or circumvent laws or and/or buy politicians. You have to hit them where it really hurts - the wallet - refuse to buy anything from them.
They passed laws to control the misuse of FAX machines... and although not perfect, they do help. Then again, how many people do you know that have a fax machine at home? Betcha most people have unplugged theirs due to FAX Spam.
First you say the law helped, but then you subtly suggest that a different tactic is what actually worked (people unplug their machines, therefore no sales are generated due to non-delivery of faxes). And, based on my experience, I don't agree that any laws worked.
A tough one to answer well in less than 20 pages, but I'll try. For all you nit-pickers, I'm going to leave a lot out and generalize a lot. I don't have time to write a book on the subject(s) and many already exist.
HDTV - High Definition Television - a whole bunch of formats devised by a committee (ATSC) composed of companies with conflicting interests
SDTV - Standard Definition Television - generally agreed to be 525 (487 visible) lines by 720 pixels in NTSC countries and 625 (577 visible) lines by 720 pixels in PAL countries
3) Digital Video Encoding Standards for TV (video plus timing, color & other info encoded in one data stream):
ITU-R-BT.601 - One of many digital video encoding formats for studio distribution, but the de facto standard (sometimes incorrectly called D1). All modern studios use this for internal distribution and routing.
- many others...
4) Composite Analog Video Encoding Standards for TV (video plus timing, color & other info encoded in one signal):
NTSC - National Television Standards Committee standard for analog video encoding. Over 40% of the world uses this in one aberration or another. NTSC is also know as "Never Twice the Same Color" and achieved that moniker because it is inherently crappy (one only has to look once at a PAL broadcast to forever remember that). Used in North America and numerous other places in the world.
PAL - Phase Alternate Line standard. Over 40% of the world uses this in one aberration or another. Quality as way better than NTSC. It's used in most of western Europe and numerous other places in the world. Also called "Perfection At Last" and "Pay A Lot for quality".
SECAM - Sequential Couleur a Memoire - Devised in France and used there and much of the former USSR. Secam is also known as "System Essentially Contrary to American Methods".
5) Component (Base Band) Analog Video - several component signals needed (needs 3 or more signals for video and sync)
RGB - Color components - Red Green Blue (sync on green or separate)
YUV - Color difference components - Y: luminance, U: B-Y, V: R-Y (sync on Y or separate)
Several others....
Answers:
They want digital tuners in TV's. But they didn't say they wanted HDTV tuners in TV's. At first I thought there wasn't a difference, but now I'm not sure.
DTV is a medium for communication of broadcast television. It can carry SDTV - the format that you watch now 487 visible (out of 525 total) interlaced lines in NTSC countries, 577 visible (out of 625) interlaced lines in PAL countries, with the 4:3 screen aspect ratio that we all know, or HDTV in all its many flavors. HDTV like any modern technology specified by an large industry committee, has enough formats to make you gag, 18 of which are on the short list and 3-4 of which will probably finally be used. HDTV happened to arrive about the same time as DTV (technology being the enabler) and it is easy to see why people confuse them. By the way, HDTV can be broadcast analog, but it's a pig on bandwidth. Japan did some analog HDTV many years ago, but I think that they would rather not be reminded. For many reasons, it was not a success.
Couldn't you digitize a NTSC signal as easily as a HDTV signal and pipe it through a digital tuner?
I think you mean to DTV. Sort of, but it's very complicated and expensive and I'm not sure why you would want to do this. When the original base band video was encoded to NTSC (or Pal or SECAM) that already disposed of some quality - the encoding is not losses. Converting it to digital afterwards is like converting and mp3 to a wav. The quality has been lost already. If you want to get the best out of NTSC on your video screen , you want a quality tuner/decoder that outputs RGB (or YUV) and then input it into a high quality RGB or YUV television monitor (not pc monitor!). Or just use your analog TV for analog signals.
DishNet and DirecTV already use digital signals to broadcast NTSC-quality stuff to US televisions, and cable companies aren't using any of the airwaves (they use cable). Also, cable companies are selling digital cable now to people with NTSC televisions (analog tuners).
I've forgotten the exact number, but something like 35% of the population of the US can not get cable (think rural). Also, cable companies get their 'cable network' feeds (CNN, Discovery, etc.) from satellite but get local stuff from broadcasters' terrestrial (over the air antenna) transmissions.
Cable and dish companies even force you to keep your TV on channel 3 anyway and use a converter, so why not just use a monitor, or the video/audio-in ports on your TV and bypass ALL tuners?.
You still need something to switch (select channel/feed) and decode the (analog or digital signals) to video. It can be a receiver, a VCR, a set-top box or (maybe someday) a network card with a built-in video encoder.
I don't see the big deal here.
Here it is: The consumer gets screwed by hidden taxation and the government makes billions. For more, please read my post here:.
Slashdot Mirror
Then I realized that:
A) I know who Gene Simmons is and used to own the first several KISS albums (gasp);
B) My sig is a quote from Marvin the Martian; and
C) I have been reading Ask The Headhunter for several months and find Nick Corcodilos insightful and refreshingly honest (e.g., he says that most people do not get jobs through headhunters and that one should not focus all their efforts through them). I think that reading Nick, who also has engineering-specific columns at EE Times is time well-spent.
So, given the above, my conclusion is that your insight is brilliant ;-}
Yet, IIRC, a few weeks ago, there was an item here at Slashdot about someone who found that the standard search/hiring processes were frequently netting him the wrong people. Go figure.
I saw Dragon Balls on the menu the last time I went out for Chinese food. They said that it tastes like chicken.
Let me preface this by saying that I am not a lawyer and this post does not constitute legal advice.
I am Canadian and 5 1/2 years ago I went through what you are going through . The most important piece of advice that I can give you is SEE A LAWYER. If you don't know one, get a reference to a good lawyer from friends or family. It won't cost you that much for an initial consultation (maybe $80-$150). It is worth it's weight in gold for the piece of mind of knowing where you stand. Once you know exactly what your rights and the employers obligations are, you can make an informed decision about signing.
The situation that you describe is common these days - the company is looking to limit all liabilities with respect to you employment in order to avoid being blindsided with a costly lawsuit in the future. I worked for a company where that (lawsuit) happened and it cost them big time both financially and in terms of distraction of key management. In exchange for that they offer you a severance package over and above the legal minimum, (which, IIRC, here in Ontario is a paltry one week's pay for each year of service plus vacation pay outstanding). You are legally entitled to your provincially mandated minimum and under no obligation to sign ANYTHING for that minimum.
I don't know what you have been offered but it should be at least one month's pay for each year of service plus vacation pay outstanding. Still, do not sign based on what I just said - get a lawyer to review the terms and advise you. Your lawyer will have a big fat reference book which lists settlements in Canada by industry/job classification/experience. He can tell you whether the financial terms are 'fair' and whether the legal terms are reasonable. The employer is required to give you some time for you to get their 'offer' reviewed by a lawyer. You should not have to sign 'on the spot'.
Also, note that you have a golden one-time (per layoff) opportunity to direct a fairly large chunk of you severance package into your retirement savings (over and a above your allowable annual amount) without income tax deductions under these circumstances. Get the info from your employer or Revenue Canada. You will never see that money - it goes from directly from your employer into the retirement plan that you designate BUT IT IS TAX FREE and once of the few 'gifts' that you'll get.
Best of luck finding a job. Layoffs suck and are a jolt to the system but always keep in mind that you will get another job and probably be better off for it.
Finally, and in case I didn't mention it, this post does not constitute legal advice - please GET A LAWYER TO REVIEW THE PACKAGE AND ANYTHING THAT YOU WILL SIGN !
Actually, we need to be expending our energy on expending less energy on things like driving "our suburbans" or the only places that we will eventually be able to go to are those to which we can walk. Maybe that's what you were "driving at", but I'm not sure.
I agree. Consumers' rights are being eroded daily, but erosion is only obvious on a longer time scale. The current trend seems to be that individual rights such as Fair Use are subverted to the interests of businesses with powerful government lobbies. What may have been free and a right to you today, you will pay for in the future. I believe that, long term, it will be very damaging to society as a whole, but on a case by case basis it barely gets noticed. To the individual I would say: "while you are busy earning a living so that you can enjoy you rights and freedoms, do you know who is busy earning a living by chipping away at those rights and freedoms?"
I don't download mp3s.
While you might not download mp3's at all, there is nothing illegal about the format and nothing inherently wrong with the act of downloading mp3's. The casual reader might infer from your comment that there is. I would not make an issue of this were it not for the fact that this rather inaccurate sentiment is repeated throughout the media and discussions in general and continues to assist in propagating the myth that downloading mp3's is illegal. This imprecision of message is very much to the advantage of those (like the recording industry) who wish to control our rights to their own ends rather than in our interest. As you know, the problems arise when one downloads mp3's (or any other format) of copyrighted material but has not secured the copyright holder's permission to do so (I will leave the fuzzy application of the 'fair use' argument aside in this instance). Perhaps you could append such phrases with "not that there's anything wrong with that" ;-)
As a writer myself (with a book out under copyright), I want my annuity from my act of creation. But do I really need my lifetime plus seventy years? I'd like to see copyright capped at life of the author, or, say, 50 years from filing to expiration.
I was reading your post while listening to some mp3's of a band from mp3.com and had an interesting thought: even though they made their work available for free and you do not, they have a potential profit advantage over you. There seems to a large dichotomy here between writers and musicians/performers in that a writer earns virtually all of his/her reward for creation of a work from the sale of published copies, save the occasional book that gets turned into a movie (please correct me if I'm wrong) and very little from performance. A musician/performer, on the other hand, has an opportunity to earn substantial and even greater reward from (his/her) repeated performance of the work over the long term. Perhaps the copyright period should be substantially longer for written works than for musical works. Where I see an immediate inequity with the foregoing is when the writer of a piece of music is not a performing musician (which happens quite often).
There is some comfort to be taken in the fact that this has erupted before. The copying machine and the VCR both caused firestorms. Things worked out. Not necessarily perfectly, but decently for all concerned. There is hope that this newest will as well.
I'm afraid that I do not share you optimism. More recent events show that things do not always work out in the consumer's interest. The recording industry was able to virtually kill DAT (digital audio tape), which at the time of introduction was a fantastic format. And big business lobbying has matured and grown much more powerful since that time. To me, the future looks bleak on the 'rights of consumers' front.
If you haven't already, I urge you to check out the EFF [eff.org]. Think about it, and if you agree with them, consider contributing. We need a lobby that has at least a significant fraction of the power of the entertainment lobby if we want the idea of "fair use" to continue to exist.
I agree, but also urge people to be more discerning about whom they vote for and whose interests they represent. Government is being bought and paid for on a regular basis. And real campaign finance reform is essential in order to get a government "for the people".
More good ideas. Pleas mod this one up!
Did a CEO sign off on element 119 ?
and their lawyers would probably make the case for contributory infringement if a big rock is used the circumvent the aforementioned copy protection scheme. What do lawyers and the recording industry have to lose - they're are all going to hell anyway, aren't they? ;-}
IANAL, but I think that under the DMCA, wouldn't the Dremel tool would be considered a circumvention device (the same goes for sledgehammers and big rocks) and therefore illegal? Stores like Home Depot would pull them off the shelves for fear of being ruled contributory infringers.
In reaction to the discovery, Microsoft marketing announced that it has decided to rename Palladium, which has the phonetically-challenged abbreviation Pd, to Fuukoffium (abbrev. Fu) because, in the words of a spokesman, "the abbreviation F-U seemed to convey so perfectly how people feel about the new OS".
ROFL
NASA plans to read terrorist's minds at airports, blah, blah, blah ...
Means:
NASA looking for huge budget increase.
Incidentally, the headline says "NASA plans to read terrorist's minds at airports". Why only one terrorist, why does he have more than one mind (schizophrenia?) and if they already know that he's a terrorist, isn't the process redundant?
Yet it is not free according to the second paragraph - it has strings attached and an undisclosed cost.
The second paragraph says:
The only requirement the computer giant has made of the city is
then lists 2 requirements:
(1) that New Orleans let Microsoft use it as a model for marketing the system to other governmental bodies once it is up and running, said Greg Meffert, the city's technology officer.
(2)Eventually, he added, the city will have to purchase software from the company, but he said it would be a "minuscule" expense.
So there are at least 2 requirements and a cost. Also, define "minuscule". If I were a taxpayer in the Big Easy, I'd sure as hell want a number. Big numbers always seem minuscule to public officials spending someone else's money.
Because these services are considered a gift, the city won't have to publicly bid the project, he said.
Some real hardcore and in-depth journalism here. It sounds more like the real story might be that Microsoft has found a way to do an end-run on the public tendering process. Also, if MS wants a real proving ground, they should be paying the City of New Orleans to compensate for the inevitable problems while they host the trial. Instead, the 'start button' for the trial will probably bring up a EULA box releasing MS from all liabilities and the Mayor will have to click the button.
This just sounds like a variation on a common practice - the 'free gift'. The phrase 'free gift' is one of the most insidious and abused phrases in modern language, yet people fall for it all the time.
There ought to be a law...
In reaction to the discovery, Microsoft marketing announced that it has decided to rename Palladium, which has the phonetically-challenged abbreviation Pd, to Fuukoffium (abbrev. Fu) because, in the words of a spokesman, "the abbreviation F-U seemed to convey so perfectly how people feel about the new OS".
Like the poster above, I'm curious what happened to the 2-D technology that was supposed to revolutionize bar coding. Once in a great while, I see what looks like a 2-D bar code, but not very often. I remember reading a dead tree article about 2-D bar coding a good 8+ years ago. IIRC, they had come up with some fairly esoteric technologies involving dots of varying size and shape that could hold what was then considered an amazing amount of data (more than what the poster suggests) with superior error detection/correction schemes. I assume that UPC has some crude level of error detection, even if it's just a parity bit.
RFID technology has come a long way and is far cheaper than it used to be. Some time ago, I heard that someone (Motorola?) announced an RFID system where the tags themselves cost less than a cent. But I suppose that RFID is a solution for a different problem, where more flexibility is needed, and I'm sure that ink is still cheaper.
"Born Free".
With Palladium, I suspect that there will be more variety. Normally, it will still be "Money" at about 120db, but if you click on an mp3, you'll hear the "Dragnet" theme and sounds of wailing police sirens followed by the Monty Python ditty "There's Nothing Quite as Wonderful as Money".
The major point that I'm was trying to get across is that it infuriates me that government these days shamelessly spend much of their time enacting legislation to protect and extend the interests of their corporate sponsors but do almost nothing to protect the rights, freedoms and security of citizens, especially children. Thus, you can go to jail for reverse engineering a piece of code just to understand it, but it's not illegal to send an e-mail advertising hardcore pornography without regard to the fact that a child might be the recipient. I know that it's redundant to say, but these days government does not act in the interests of it's electorate except when forced.
what if I don't want my child exposed to violence, but the Scooby Doo movie has an Army ad at the beginning
Somewhat offtopic, but I think most kids' movies (I can't comment on Scooby Doo - I haven't seen it) and television contain more violence than any army add that you might see. Also, you can be a pacifist and still acknowledge the need for an army for defensive purposes. It is the (sometimes covertly) offensive use of armies that you really should be concerned about.
It should take about 5 minutes to pass - I can't imagine anyone hoping to get re-elected opposing it. Something like: the penalty for the first offence is 50 years without parole. Second offence gets the chair. The onus would be on the spammers to ensure that they didn't do it - that should put a crimp in their style.
No! Really? They wouldn't try to do that, would they?
One of the problems with such a protracted legal process is that it allows the guilty to apply influence after the case has been made, the facts determined and guilt found. The whole process is contemptable. If I get a speeding ticket, I can't get a reduced penalty by going to court and saying "look, I'm not speeding now".
A bit harsh. Personally I would not blame the programmers so much - they are generally "just following orders" (cough). I blame their business people who are often greedy, slimy and greasy and will do anything to screw you out of a buck. And that is what it's all about.
Therefore boycotting, which is effectively what you are doing, is the solution. I, like you, surf with javascript, active x, and other damned nuisances turned OFF. And I've been flash-free for years. I will only selectively allow javascript if I am very sure the site is trustworthy and worthy of my time and effort. I almost NEVER get pop-ups.
One truism of human nature is "no gain, no pain". If there is no financial or other compelling reason to do something, then they won't. They want your money and will do anything to get it. If it isn't working, they will eventually get the message and stop. They may even become slightly more co-operative (like AOL).
Far more people need to boycott, or refuse to use (it doesn't have to be an organized effort) sites that treat them like fresh meat. Also they need to:
1) stop buying RIAA product - find alternatives- there are so many good independent artists out there!
2) use alternatives to ms products
3) turn off clear channel (I mean, radio)
4) turn off video advertise-arama (television)
5) tell telemarketers that they will never do business with a company that tries to solicit them over their personal telephone
6) etc, etc, etc ...
Yet most people are not willing to give up the slightest bit of perceived comfort, convenience, coolness, or (my god man) something that they are told is 'free' (truly one of the most insidious words in the English language) in order to send a message that they won't take this garbage any more. So they are drawn like lemmings into the soup.
As an aside, it is amazing how many sites use javascript for trivial things (like a 2 item menu). When a site that I might want to use is javascript infected on the front page, I usually pop open the source, find the page links, and cut and paste the link into my browser (same goes for flash). Then, I often find that all internal pages have no javascript, or if they do, it's trivial. As a bonus, it probably drives the nuts when they look at their stats.
"You can't do that, it's my computer!" he told Ernestine at Microsoft.
"Mr. Veedle, that's so cute!", she snorted " No, no, no, you're dealing with Microsoft. We are not subject to city, state, or federal legislation. We are omnipotent!"
(With apologies to Lily Tomlin)
Are you implying that there is an upside to spam?
Yeah, we all know that email is a "powerful new marketing tool"
Is it really? What's the business case? As with telemarketing, I've never met anyone who will admit to spending any money as a result of this type of solicitation.
I have an email address that I've never given out, and 90% of the messages I receive are spam. The email address on this posting ONLY receives spam... mostly in some funky character set that I can't bother to being to read. This address gets about 40 a day (and likely more after this posting).
I have had similar experiences. Just wait until big business orders the government pass a law making it a felony to have more than one e-mail account.
So, industry self-regulation? Well that doesn't seem to work - and it didn't work with Enron (or WoldCom or Andersen or ...)
Industry "self-regulation" was a term invented by capitalists to avoid public pressure on governments to pass legislation. It is one of the 10 biggest lies known to mankind.
So I think it's time that we hit them where it hurts. Pass -strong- laws. Pass laws that permit individuals to sue in certain circumstances.
I wish it were so simple. But, in the absence of enforcement, laws don't work on the unscrupulous. Pathological liars and cheaters and aggressors (i.e. a disproportionately large percentage of big businessmen/women) will ignore or circumvent laws or and/or buy politicians. You have to hit them where it really hurts - the wallet - refuse to buy anything from them.
They passed laws to control the misuse of FAX machines... and although not perfect, they do help. Then again, how many people do you know that have a fax machine at home? Betcha most people have unplugged theirs due to FAX Spam.
First you say the law helped, but then you subtly suggest that a different tactic is what actually worked (people unplug their machines, therefore no sales are generated due to non-delivery of faxes). And, based on my experience, I don't agree that any laws worked.
First: Terms and abbreviations:
1)Broadcast Transmission Mediums:(signals, carrier, etc.)
NCA? (No Cool Acronym) - Analog Television
DTV - Digital Television (vs Analog)
2) Formats: (#lines, #pixels, type of scan, etc)
HDTV - High Definition Television - a whole bunch of formats devised by a committee (ATSC) composed of companies with conflicting interests
SDTV - Standard Definition Television - generally agreed to be 525 (487 visible) lines by 720 pixels in NTSC countries and 625 (577 visible) lines by 720 pixels in PAL countries
3) Digital Video Encoding Standards for TV (video plus timing, color & other info encoded in one data stream):
ITU-R-BT.601 - One of many digital video encoding formats for studio distribution, but the de facto standard (sometimes incorrectly called D1). All modern studios use this for internal distribution and routing.
- many others...
4) Composite Analog Video Encoding Standards for TV (video plus timing, color & other info encoded in one signal):
NTSC - National Television Standards Committee standard for analog video encoding. Over 40% of the world uses this in one aberration or another. NTSC is also know as "Never Twice the Same Color" and achieved that moniker because it is inherently crappy (one only has to look once at a PAL broadcast to forever remember that). Used in North America and numerous other places in the world.
PAL - Phase Alternate Line standard. Over 40% of the world uses this in one aberration or another. Quality as way better than NTSC. It's used in most of western Europe and numerous other places in the world. Also called "Perfection At Last" and "Pay A Lot for quality".
SECAM - Sequential Couleur a Memoire - Devised in France and used there and much of the former USSR. Secam is also known as "System Essentially Contrary to American Methods".
5) Component (Base Band) Analog Video - several component signals needed (needs 3 or more signals for video and sync)
RGB - Color components - Red Green Blue (sync on green or separate)
YUV - Color difference components - Y: luminance, U: B-Y, V: R-Y (sync on Y or separate)
Several others ....
Answers:
They want digital tuners in TV's. But they didn't say they wanted HDTV tuners in TV's. At first I thought there wasn't a difference, but now I'm not sure.
DTV is a medium for communication of broadcast television. It can carry SDTV - the format that you watch now 487 visible (out of 525 total) interlaced lines in NTSC countries, 577 visible (out of 625) interlaced lines in PAL countries, with the 4:3 screen aspect ratio that we all know, or HDTV in all its many flavors. HDTV like any modern technology specified by an large industry committee, has enough formats to make you gag, 18 of which are on the short list and 3-4 of which will probably finally be used. HDTV happened to arrive about the same time as DTV (technology being the enabler) and it is easy to see why people confuse them. By the way, HDTV can be broadcast analog, but it's a pig on bandwidth. Japan did some analog HDTV many years ago, but I think that they would rather not be reminded. For many reasons, it was not a success.
Couldn't you digitize a NTSC signal as easily as a HDTV signal and pipe it through a digital tuner?
I think you mean to DTV. Sort of, but it's very complicated and expensive and I'm not sure why you would want to do this. When the original base band video was encoded to NTSC (or Pal or SECAM) that already disposed of some quality - the encoding is not losses. Converting it to digital afterwards is like converting and mp3 to a wav. The quality has been lost already. If you want to get the best out of NTSC on your video screen , you want a quality tuner/decoder that outputs RGB (or YUV) and then input it into a high quality RGB or YUV television monitor (not pc monitor!). Or just use your analog TV for analog signals.
DishNet and DirecTV already use digital signals to broadcast NTSC-quality stuff to US televisions, and cable companies aren't using any of the airwaves (they use cable). Also, cable companies are selling digital cable now to people with NTSC televisions (analog tuners).
I've forgotten the exact number, but something like 35% of the population of the US can not get cable (think rural). Also, cable companies get their 'cable network' feeds (CNN, Discovery, etc.) from satellite but get local stuff from broadcasters' terrestrial (over the air antenna) transmissions.
Cable and dish companies even force you to keep your TV on channel 3 anyway and use a converter, so why not just use a monitor, or the video/audio-in ports on your TV and bypass ALL tuners?.
You still need something to switch (select channel/feed) and decode the (analog or digital signals) to video. It can be a receiver, a VCR, a set-top box or (maybe someday) a network card with a built-in video encoder.
I don't see the big deal here.
Here it is: The consumer gets screwed by hidden taxation and the government makes billions. For more, please read my post here:.
YMMV, E&OE :/}