"From years of using an Apple//e I still can type the words "catalog" and "pr#3" and "brun fid" with lightning accuracy."
And I also type load"*",8 fast as shit, on a Commodore 64 keyboard. I had to pause and re-train myself to type it on the IBM keyboard. In fact, when I use VICE, I automagically revert to C=64 keyboard mode and type just fine even though the keys are not marked... (Just so you know, "shift"-2 is the " on the Commodore Keyboard, and the * has its own key, roughly in the same place as the ] key on the IBM.)
But ya know what? I don't type that phrase the same way on a C=64 keyboard as I do on a IBM keyboard, or even on my C=128 keyboard (which has the same layout as the 64, but uses more IBM'ish keys)
And when I am eating, I type one handed. When I am on the phone I also type one handed, hell, sometimes one fingered... All of these things change my typing style. DRAMATICALLY.
Of course, you also chose to ignore the second half of my post which is simply, "They have NO RIGHT to limit my fair use of music"...
Even IF (and its a big IF) their magic typing decoder ring accurately identified me 100% of the time, I PAYED for the music. This gives me unlimited right (under US law) to USE the music in any manner which I see fit, as long as it is for personal use. This is called FAIR USE, and has been upheld by the US courts as long as there have been audio cassettes and VCR's, and perhaps even earlier. This "technology" attempts to circumvent the LAW. It attempts to hinder my usage of music that I have PAYED for. I suspect that this is illegal, and if not, it is definately something that the market will not stand for. If I purchase a song, either via CD, Cassette, Record, or file transfer, I have unlimited free use of that song on any equipment I wish to use it. I can make unlimited copies of that song, as long as said copies are for my personal use. Trust me, I have many LEGITIMATE fair use reasons to do so. I personally own an RCA Lyra mp3 player. (Copy One) I listen to music in mp3 format on my computer at work (Copy Two) I listen to music in mp3 format, stored on my notebook, in my car (Copy Three) I listen to music in mp3 format on my home computer (Copy Four) and finally I listen to music via standard Audio CD on my roommate's stereo system in our living room (Copy five) Do any of these violate fair use? NO. Are any of these copies illegal? NO. Does the keyboard copy protection prevent me from doing any of these things? YES!
Not only is this a blatently bad idea, but it comes from the same great minds that brought us Net Nanny.
I do not type consistantly from moment to moment. Heck, I don't even "type" I hunt and peck really fast... Sometimes I type one handed... sometimes two... This software has NO chance of correctly identifying me.
Add that to the great "hit rate" that is consistant with Net Nanny, and you will find that this software will more often than not block legitimate users from accessing the music.
Besides, as another user mentioned, this whole idea is based on a flawed premise. Music purchases are not tied to a single user. I may be buying this music as a gift. I may be buying this music to transfer to my car mp3 player (which has no keyboard) Or my Lyra (also no keyboard)
When I buy music, I get FAIR USE RIGHTS... BY LAW... Technology such as this is taking away my rights. I will never purchase any music that I can no longer exercise my fair use rights. If I can not copy the music to multiple media forms/playback devices, then I do not buy it. It's that simple. Until the music industry understands this (or is FORCED to acknowledge this) they will continue to throw good money after bad attempting to develop technologies that infringe on customers LEGAL rights.
Copying music is NOT a crime. This is the reality. The RIAA is the fiction...
Well, as most companies would have it, they'll probably (eventually) release a Mac version, just to keep people happy.
IE for the Mac already exists, and in fact, is the MOST standards compliant Web Browser on the market today (better than Oprah, IE Win, Mozilla, etc)
Office for the Mac exists as well. In fact, if you had been following other discussions here on/. you would be aware that MS has long used the "We'll pull Office from the Mac" threat to keep Apple in line...
I agree that software piracy and music/video piracy are looked at completely differently by society. In fact, software piracy is not only commonplace, it is accepted as THE way to do things by most people. I have YET to work at any company (or consult for any company) that doesn't pirate software. Granted, my consultation has been limited to Small Buisinesses for the most part, but even the local Chamber of Commerce pirates MS Office, and the US Navy had no problems pirating Windows... (On my ship at least) Still, to the public, computers are pretty much a miracle, a "magic box" as it where, and most of the population seems to think that the normal rules don't apply (nor does common sense... ask any tech support person, and they will tell you, people automatically forget common sense when they come near a computer)
Music and movies, on the other hand, are a part of the general population's daily lives. These issues are far older than computers. People have been conditioned by the industries to think that any copying is illegal. Most people are under the impression that creating cassette tape mixes from CD's is illegal... Some think copying VHS tapes is illegal. (I am talking about copying for personal use... which of course, it is NOT illegal... but most people THINK it is... due to massive ad campaigns and legal battles to try and stop things like VCR's and other recording devices.)
So, you take a public that is largely unaware of their legal rights, and you mention something about music and computers and copying, the thoughts are "Isn't it illegal to copy music?" and "Computers are scary, unknown magic boxes, they must be bad" (Fear of the unknown is a proven human trait) Is it any wonder then that the common person thinks that copying music with a computer is one of the 7 deadly sins?
Anyway... Not sure what my point is... I had one, and maybe it got expressed in there somewhere, and maybe not...
The DVD format is so advanced, it does not exit any player which uses all features (yet).
Sorry to say it bud, but nearly all PLAYERS support these features. Lets go down your list:
Over 2 hours of high-quality digital video - Every DVD I own has at least 2 hours of video
Support for widescreen movies on standard or widescreen TVs (4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratios). - Most DVD's I own come in both formats. Some require you to flip sides, some make it a menu option (Bug's Life - Menu, Devil's Advocate - Flip disc)
Up to 8 tracks of digital audio - Every DVD I own has more than one track. Some have 4 or 5 tracks
Up to 32 subtitle/karaoke tracks. - "The Wedding Singer" hase several Karaoke tracks
Automatic "seamless" branching of video - not sure what this is exactly, but I know my Pioneer DVD player supports it (says so in the manual)
Up to 9 camera angles - supported - Ghostbusters has this (as do a few pornos I have too... hehe)
Menus and simple interactive features - Every DVD I own...
Multilingual identifying text for title name - Haven't seen this one on any of my DVD's but don't think it would be that big a hit in Region One anyway
Instant rewind and fast forward - Every DVD I own
Instant search to title... - Every DVD I own
Durable - Every DVD I own
Not susceptible to magnetic fields. - Every DVD I own
Compact size - Every DVD I own
Noncomedogenic - Is this even a word?
It is the disc's themselves that do not necisarily HAVE the features. Some do, Some don't. As far as I know, most PLAYERS support ALL the features. Some players are skimpy on things like Dolby Digital optical outputs (my Pioneer has em, the Apex DVD player does not) but the "features" of the DVD format are pretty much ALL supported by MOST players. Going down your list, I know for a fact that my (ancient) Pioneer 500 DVD player supports every single one of the features you list.
Also, SDI (as I read the article) does not seem to have any built in resolution limitations. If you convert the SDI signal to a PAL signal, then yes, you will once again be downgrading the data.
Sorry to say it, but the things you envision as happening in the "future" are already old hat to those of us who have played in the alleyways of the net for years. I personally have many copies of "Multi-CD Software" and "hours of porn footage" Not to mention that most movies are available online either at the same time as the release, or even prior to release (Granted, the movies tend to be of the "I smuggled a camera into the theater" quality, but not always, and this has less to do with the technology/bandwidth involved, and more to do with the movie industry's tight controls on film distribution.)
Also, I take your "y2k" analogy with a ton of salt. To be honest, no one knows what might have happened had "y2k" not been hyped in the extreme. I know for a fact (as an ex-y2k consultant) that there where many businesses, large and small, who would have been required to do without computers had they not taken steps to fix bugs. Also, a good many other bugs (not y2k related) were uncovered by my y2k investigations, and this has lead (at least in the cases of MY customers) to companies who have better computer infrastructures then before.
My point?
Piracy is just as big a deal NOW as it was back in 1983 when I would get together with my buddies and copy 5 1/4" C=64 games. (Or I would download all 8 sides of "Pool of Radience" over a 300 baud link... that took me the better part of a WEEK, but I still did it rather than cough up $45) So, has anything really changed? No... Bandwidth grows (Now I can dl "Pool of Radience" for the C=64 in under a minute, yeah I really did this not long ago.. VICE is your friend) but so do programs... So now people spend a few days assembling the many pieces of "Baldur's Gate" (Took me about a week... go figure) Is piracy MORE rampant now ? no... Is it less? no... It's pretty much the same as it ever was... Same with music. I used to have hundreds of copied audio cassettes (copied from other cassettes) Sure, the quality pretty much sucked, but what did I care, CD's where unheard of, and the origional tapes didn't sound that much better than my copies, and my copies sounded a hell of a lot better than the radio... (not to mention I had shit you just don't get to hear on the radio...) Now I have many gigabytes of MP3's.. Sure the quality is a little bit worse than CD, but not much... And I still have shit you just don't get to hear on the radio.
So, piracy is and always has been a part of society. "What will they say?" Same shit they always have...
You may want to consider TradeServerTM as a Linux migration path from Microsoft ExchangeTM. TradeServer combines the full funtionality and inter-operability of Bynari's TradeclientTM, as well as Microsoft's OutlookTM client, using standards based non-proprietary protocols.
Sounds to me like they are NOT implimenting the Exchange protocol under GNU/Linux, but are instead making YAMC (Yet another Mail CLient) that talks to Exchange via non-proprietary protocols (ie: POP3 et al) So.... Whats so special about this? Not much... It sounds like they have an open source version of Outlook's "Net Folders" maybe... Outlook CAN be configured to share Scheduling information via POP3 instead of using Exchange Server's Free/Busy stuff... (In fact, thats the way I always configure it... Linux smtp/pop3 server, Outlook 98/2000 clients using Net Folders. No need for the big $$$ Exchange server)
So, what is this program really? It seems to be an Outlook compatible client. That is a neat step in the right direction, but has NOTHING to do with Exchange.
The IETF is in control of the Kerberos specification completely. The old specification just happened to have a "blank check" in it. Basically, there is a data field in the (current) Kerberos specification that is defined simply as "insert data here" with no specific controls over the format of the data used, nor its purpose. This "open" data field has been unused in current Kerberos implimentations, because no vendors saw a need for it. Therefore there is no defacto standard for what data can be put in this field. Microsoft decided it would use that field for Windows NT 5 authentication information, so that they could "imbed" Windows authentication into Kerberos (one could argue that they are only using Kerberos as a "wrapper" for their normal NT authentication, and as such, they don't really use Kerberos anyway...) What the IETF is now proposing, is an "official" definition of what can go into this "open" data field. Of course, the new specification will define the data field in such a way that Microsoft's current "implimentation" of Kerberos will no longer conform to the specification. The IETF can only do this because it is completely in control of the Kerberos specification already.
As for the first question, it has no effect at all against the recent legal action MS pulled against/. because all MS is claiming is copyright infringement. I do not know if these claims are true or false, but I do know that IF a MS document describing their usage of the "open" data field in Kerberos is copyrighted, it does not matter if the IETF changes the format of that field. The document would STILL be copyrighted.
What about the option that adds itself to the registry, causing it to execute on bootup? This would be impossible under *nix unless the trojan was executed as root. So, back to my origional point, the *nix security model is a sandbox (to borrow from java) A user can run a trojan which can and will affect that user's data. It cannot affect the system as a whole. This is the difference I was pointing out. The Windows.vbs makes changes to the registry, causing it to run on bootup and allowing it to selfpropigate easier than otherwise. Under *nix, the trojan would get a one shot run, screw with a single user's data, and die. Sure, it might mail itself to all the people in that user's address book, IF the user HAD an address book in the format recognized by the trojan in the first place. This is why the *nix world doesn't see major trojans like this storming through our networks. We isolate each users data. One user running rm -rf / cannot take out the system, unless that user is root. One user typing format c: takes down a Windows box fairly quickly, with only an "are you sure?" to stop them...
The biggest difference is and has always been the security model. On a *nix system, the trojan still would not have been very effective since it would have to be executed as Root to have the same extensive and damaging effects as it's Windows counterpart. This is the security flaw inherent in Windows. Normal users with normal permissions can completely hose the OS. *nix keeps that from happening in general. Granted, there are clueless new *nix users who run day to day as Root, and these people deserve what they get if they run a trojan and it hoses them. But with Windows, there is no choice... You always run as "Root" under windows... No matter what... This is the bug in MS software, and this is why these Trojans always hit the MS community and not the *nix community.
-Count Zero
Re:I just chipped in $27, how about you?
on
Pay Lars
·
· Score: 1
Thank you, I downloaded and am currently listening to your work. I like it... It's a bit off from my more "happy raver" tastes, but is reminiscient of my earlier Techno-Industrial roots... (Also, for some strange reason, it reminds me of the soundtrack to the Sega Genesis version of the Shadowrun game... (the "guitar" sounds like the same instrument used in the game))
I had the same experience as many Slashdot readers, when I attempted to chip in a few bucks for Lars... So I did what any self respecting Slashdotter would, and dropped paylars.com a brief note explaining to them why they should use Apache and Linux instead of IIS and NT... Here is the e-mail conversation that ensued...
------ From: countzero@cyberdeck.org
You should have used a Free server such as Apache, since your licenses for IIS are not up to the load generated by Slashdot and other forums who have linked to you... I strongly recommend you investigate interprise class server solutions such as Linux and Apache, instead of the inferior Microsoft products that you are currently using. The use of Microsoft products is causing you to loose money, since people are unable to complete the checkout process due to insufficient licenses. (so you loose money twice, once due to the lost sale, and again, when you spend money on more licenses... when does the circle end? and who is the only winner? You guessed it, Microsoft.)
------ Hi,
Thanks for your message. You are completely correct - we would have used a free server such as Apache, in fact we would have built all of our sites open source from the beginning, but there's only four of us and we all (unfortunately) had a lot of Microsoft experience, and no Linux/Apache/MySQL/etc. experience. At this point, because August Nelson is self-funded (no VC, no scammy IPO in the works, though we are trying to raise some smart money) we aren't in a position to train ourselves or hire someone else to help us make the transition to open source.
The open source vs. MS debate is basically the same as MP3 vs. SDMI. It's centralized control vs. empowerment of the individual. It's freedom of thought vs. somebody telling you (and charging you a lot of money for) what to think. We want to empower the individual, we want to think for ourselves.
Switching to an open source enterprise solution is one of our top technical priorities. Perhaps we could contact you in the future to help us make that happen?
Thanks again for your message, and feel free to contact me in the future.
Mark Erickson President - August Nelson, Inc. www.augustnelson.com www.orangealley.com
merickso@augustnelson.com
------ Would you mind if I posted our conversation to Slashdot.org ? there have been some comments there regarding your usage of IIS, and I think that it would be beneficial to you if this letter was posted there to address these issues... I personally am very pleased with what your company does, and would be very interested in helping in any way possible.
------ You have absolute permission to post this correspondence to Slashdot. I would love to figure out a way for us to transition to open source, so keep in touch.
Cheers,
Mark
I just chipped in $27, how about you?
on
Pay Lars
·
· Score: 1
I just checked my personal MP3 archive, and found that someone had uploaded Garage Inc. to it. I am not a fan of Metallica. In fact, I pretty much hate their music. BUT... I think that this whole "paylars.com" thing has its merit. I would be very willing to pay a fair price to download mp3's of an artist's music, or pay on an honor system for mp3's that I received in some other manner (Napster for instance)
I am a big fan of music in general, and I firmly believe in paying artists for their work. In fact, I am one of those people who hears an MP3 of music by the group "Dune" and then proceeds to purchase every "Dune" CD/Concert Ticket/T-Shirt I can get my hands on... I love to support the artists I enjoy. I also like to try before I buy. MP3's have allowed me to globally expand my musical tastes. I would never have heard of Dune, nor would they have ever gotten one red cent of my money, had I not downloaded an MP3 of one of their songs from some "wares" MP3 site.
I would, however, prefer that more of my money went to the artists themselves, and I see some sort of online MP3 distribution method being the only good way to do this. Only online can any artist, with minimal expense, distribute art to millions of potential fans. So some will copy the music and not pay... So what? The true fans WILL pay, and the percentage of "lost" revenue is negligible, since the fact is, it is an unknown quantity. You have no idea if I would have EVER bought your CD, or payed for your MP3, or if I even have a copy or have ever heard of you. Fact is, the only thing anyone knows for sure is when you DO pay. "Lost revenues" due to piracy are simply a myth.
Let me pay the artist for his work. Not the "record" company (who makes CD's not records anyway...) Not the "producer" who produces nothing... The ARTIST... let me pay them. How? well, online is the only way I can think of... Automated MP3 distribution with Credit Card payments that automatically get dumped in the artist's account... The artist doesn't have to worry about being technical or running a website, the artist can simply play music and be rewarded. And you know what? the cheaper it is, the more people will go ahead and pay... A price balance will be reached, and fans get to support the artists they love, and "record labels" get to be the pieces of paper on mildewing 45's in my attic, not multi-billion dollar dinosaurs.
oh yeah, the point, I spent $27 on paylars.com for music that I never listen to... why? to support the concept of online MP3 distribution by major artists.
To me it is a sad comment on the state of the gaming industry today that I have, at this very moment, a Commodore 128 system up and running on a desk right next to my P-II 333 system. (And in the same room I also have a Playstation, N64, and Sega Genesis.)
Why is my Commodore 128 still hooked up? Because there are a TON of GREAT games available for it. Titles like Pool of Radiance, Elite, Ultima I-IV, Neuromancer, Defender of the Crown, et al. Why are there no modern games being created that follow in the footsteps of these masterpieces? These games are all non-linear, fairly open-ended, had (by todays standards) poor graphics, but engaging storylines and hours (nay, YEARS) of re-play value.
Good graphics and sound do not a good game make. Very few games on the market these days (and no console games) come close to the high standards of these early games. Games that required intelligence, not reflexes. Games that had plot and storyline, not high-polygon counts. Games that had non-linear plotlines. (A few modern PC games follow this lead, Baldur's Gate is a good example.) Why is it that games of this caliber are so rare these days? (and non-existant on console systems?)
Final Fantasy et al are a joke in my opinion. I own FF VII, and it is so linear as to be boring. I want to play a ROLE PLAYING GAME, not watch a movie. The whole Final Fantasy series is nothing more than a hand-held walk through a poorly translated Anime film. (And I like Anime)
I hardly consider 450,000 hosts out of 36 million to be a huge amount. In fact, it comes to 1.25% of the hosts. I thought this odd when I read the original BugTraq/Security Focus article on this subject. A big deal was made of the fact that 450 thousand hosts where vulnerable to common exploits, but nobody bothered to note that this was less than 2% of the tested hosts.
I think it was a neat project, I was very interested in the "super hack" that occurred on one of the participating scan servers, and I think the groups recommendation for an IDDN is a worthwhile project.
But I still am actually reassured, not scared, by the fact that less than 2% of the hosts in their fairly sizable test group were "wide open" (as I would consider any host that is vulnerable to a common exploit)
This is one of the many reasons I do not subject myself to the idiocy that is television. I find it very disturbing that someone who is capable of coming up with $700,000 would also be stupid enough to think that Pepsi was really giving away a harrier jet. Of course, I still think Pepsi could be sued for violating some sort of truth in advertising law. But that is not the point. I just find it hard to believe that this is an actual event, and not some joke news item. Are people really this stupid? I need to contact this guy, I have some great ideas for other things he could do with that $700,000.
Swamp land, Moon acreage, SPAM in space, or a big lot of virtual acreage in CyberYuga. I wonder if he would go for any of these things?
uh, d00dz and kiddi3z, they announced this earlier...around 9:55 Pacific time, a message was posted regarding something to the effect of "because of the obscene nature of this board, it will be shut down in one hour".
If that is true, it would only imply that the Message Board would be taken down. (Unless they are admitting that their whole website was obscene, unlikely...)
But the fact of the matter is, the box is down. No ping response, no nothing. Gone. Even if MS took the site down themselves (doubtful) this still makes them look bad. They posted a challange, then when things got a little messy, they shutdown and go home? I doubt that even MS is that stupid.
Most likely, someone found an overflow that actually did crash the box. Now it is offline so that MS can fix the bug. Once the bug is fixed, they will bring it back most likely. Of course, this approach will make it very hard for us to continue to break this site, if it is down all the time, I can't try attacks.
I think it is a very one sided, non-real world test anyway. Much like the Mindcraft benchmarks. (Who runs quad processor, quad nick servers? I dunno, probably the same people who run HTTP only servers.) I mean, no wonder it's down, they have to upload any web-site modifications via floppy! (Or I guess they could have a second nic connected to their internal LAN, but it's still non-realworld) How does this help test Windows 2000 security? It does not. It only tests IIS 5 security, and despite what Microsoft would like to claim, IIS 5 is NOT Windows 2000. It is a seperate product shipped in a distribution along with Windows 2000. (Much like Apache shipped with your favorite Linux distro)
To test Windows2000 security, do a default install. This is how 90% of the NT server admins will set this product up. So many NT server's are vulnerable to well known exploits due to the fact that the majority of NT "Administrators" can't do more than point and click Next> Next> Next>
How many NT sites still have the AdvWorks demo database installed? That thing is FULL of holes. Read BugTraq.
Anyway, until Microsoft puts a Win2k default install server up for evaluation, they are not even helping themselves test security. (Forget the arguments about weather we should help MS or not, this test doesn't let us help MS as it is anyway, so it's a moot point.)
-Steve
P.S. As of 1:57pm CST www.windows2000test.com is still not answering pings or connections on Port 80. So I would say it is DOWN.
Maybe I am just obtuse, but aren't there already "open standards" for "Instant Messaging"?
I am pretty sure that IRC is open standards based, and if a DCC chat is not an "Instant" message, than I don't know what is. My IRC client alerts me when people on my alert list log on and off. Granted, if I am not on a server with a nick-serv, I may get alerted to a logon by someone using a nick that is not a buddy of mine. I still fail to understand what the big deal is about ICQ and AIM. I don't use either. If you want to chat with me, come find me on EF-Net, I'll be the guy called CountZer0.
If it's a features issue, it would be VERY easy to make an IRC client that acted just like AIM. (esp if you used a server-net that had a nick-serv)
As far as Microsoft embracing and extending "open" protocols, doesn't anyone remember their failed IRC client "Comic Chat"? You could use it to connect to any IRC server, but if you used it on MS Comic Chat servers, then everyone had a dorky avatar and graphical emotes. Nothing new about MS using open protocols for its own gain. Anyway, maybe someone can clue me in as to what all the fuss is about.
Yes I have tried ICQ and AIM, so I am speaking from a position of knowledge. These things just didn't impress me. They both seem to be limited versions of IRC clients. AIM is at least moderately useful in that it allows me to chat with clueless morons who insist on using AOL. Then again, why would I want to chat with clueless morons?
Certainly not, but Asimov's Laws of Robotics are commonly regarded as Science Fact, and have a clear influence on Robot and Artificial Intelligence design now and in the future.
He (and many other Science Fiction authors) has made us think about technologies that are either in their infancy or not yet invented, and this has altered the way we have gone about implementing certain technologies. Science Fiction is often an early influence of future Scientists. When new technologies are introduced, often the only terms we have capable of describing them come from Science Fiction literature. The media plays a large role in this, why else is the Gibsonian term "Cyberspace" nearly synonymous with "The Internet" although in fact, the Gibsonian Cyberspace is actually much more than the current technology level of the Internet. When we do finally have a "shared consensual hallucination" that is our interface to the global computer network, what will we call it? Cyberspace, of course. A word created by a Science Fiction author. (Who, interestingly enough had never even used a computer when he wrote "Neuromancer")
Science Fiction and Science Fact are so intermingled in today's world, and this will only become increasingly true as Science Fact continues to catch up with Science Fiction. As a matter of fact, the very idea that Science Fact is attempting to "catch up" with Science Fiction only illustrates my point further. Therefore, a working knowledge of Science Fiction is imperative to living in and understanding today's technologies, as well as tomorrows. As such, I believe that all schools should offer courses in Science Fiction, if for no other reason then to help non-geeks understand the terms used to describe technology.
I will always remember my Science Fiction class in High School. That and Mythology where my two favorite classes. I am glad to see a college that is beginning to take a serious look at Science Fiction, and that emphasizes the link between Science Fiction and Science Fact. So much of what the general public thinks about Science Fact is in actuality derived from Science Fiction. How many non-geeks watch a movie and think that Mac's are the world's most popular computer? Or that "hackers" float around "virtual cities" to crack into corporate computer systems that have high-voltage electricity arcing between the towers? Artistic License makes for some neat special effects and a nice escape for those of us who know the truth, but can often confuse the unwashed masses who have no clue about technology.
I would love to be one of the first people to earn a Doctorate in Science Fiction. But alas, I shall just have to be satisfied with the label "Geek" as I can not afford to attend college in the UK.
I don't pay for software, I steal it always. why pay when you don't have to? ah, well
I am an idealist. I am also a software pirate. I blatently pirate anything that Micro$oft has ever created. But I do pay for software that I use, and that I like. Even when I "don't have to"
For example, I download a copy of a game from one of my sites. If I like the game, if I play it often, I go out and purchase the game. Why? Because I want the company that made the game to prosper and make more good games that I can enjoy.
I purchase Linux distros. I purchase Loki software products (Civ:CTP for Linux) Why? Esp. when I have high speed (T-1) access to FTP sites with every commercial software product ever released? Because I believe in supporting the work of indeviduals and companies who create useful and entertaining software. I will not pay for Software That Sucks(tm) even if I am forced to use it to be able to use Software That Doesn't Suck(tm) (ie: I will pay for a game, then take it home and run it on a machine running a pirated copy of Windows.)
I liken it to Robin Hood. Steal from the rich, and give to the poor. I have gigabytes of MP3's on my system. Some of which are from my own personal CD collection, the majority are tracks I have downloaded from the Internet. Yet I still went out last night and purchased Moby's latest CD. Why? I know I can download it from my friends in #t1mp3 (EF-Net) But Moby makes great music, and I wish to support him. So I buy the CD. (Of course, the first thing I did upon getting home was use Audio Catalyst to rip it to mp3 and put it in my archive. Others might listen to the mp3's and decide that they like Moby too, and go out and purchase his CD. Or they might just pirate it. Their choice, at least I am allowing others to experience his music.)
Am I right? Probably not. Can I sleep at night? Most definately.
Support Software That Doesn't Suck(tm) Go buy a copy of Civ:Call To Power (for linux)
Legality has nearly nothing to do with day to day life. Get a clue. My ex-wife had an abortion that was paid for by Medicare(aid)? All she had to do was have the doctor lie on his form and say that the abortion was a medical necessity. The doctor actually told her about this option, and was the one who suggested she allow the government to pay for the abortion. Wake up.
Nearly everything the government does is *ILLEGAL*
Too bad the majority of the people in the US would rather let their "duly elected" officials do most of their thinking for them.
Are you saying that it's ok for all those companies to have the same name in the phone book, but not to have the domains www.metropolitanauto.com, www.metropolitaninsurance.com, www.metropolitanopera.com, and www.metropolitancatering.com registered because they would cause confusion online?
No, that is not what I am saying. Those domain names do not infringe on trademarks. They are not confusing as they all relate to different markets. If I were to register metropolitanoperas.com or some other derivation thereof, I could expect to be sued by the legitimate owner of the Metropolitan Opera for the use of a confusing derivative of his properly trademarked material.
The Metropolitan Opera, Metropolitan Life Insurance, Metropolitan Auto Repair, and Metropolitan Catering can all exist without the existence of any of them being considered an infringement on the trademark of any other;
The big difference here is that the four Metropolitan companies you mention are all engaged in different businesses. Trademark laws take in to account the customer's perception of a name, and also the activities of the entity using the name. Metropolitan Auto Repair could sue me (successfully) if I started a company in the same customer space called Metropolitan Car Service. The law makes it clear that if customer confusion would result, then the origional owner of the trademark can stop the use of a confusing derivation of the trademark. Important aspects are the "same customer space" ie: I can open up Metropolitan Car Service here in Florida (assuming there is not already a company similarly named here) but I could not do so in the same state as Metropolitan Auto Repair. Since the Internet crosses such geographic boundaries, and is essentially a SINGLE customer space, the laws will side with the oldest trademark holder who is ingaged in a similar business where customer confusion would result from the new usage of the trademark derivative.
Slashdot Mirror
"From years of using an Apple
And I also type load"*",8 fast as shit, on a Commodore 64 keyboard. I had to pause and re-train myself to type it on the IBM keyboard. In fact, when I use VICE, I automagically revert to C=64 keyboard mode and type just fine even though the keys are not marked
But ya know what? I don't type that phrase the same way on a C=64 keyboard as I do on a IBM keyboard, or even on my C=128 keyboard (which has the same layout as the 64, but uses more IBM'ish keys)
And when I am eating, I type one handed. When I am on the phone I also type one handed, hell, sometimes one fingered... All of these things change my typing style. DRAMATICALLY.
Of course, you also chose to ignore the second half of my post which is simply, "They have NO RIGHT to limit my fair use of music"
Even IF (and its a big IF) their magic typing decoder ring accurately identified me 100% of the time, I PAYED for the music. This gives me unlimited right (under US law) to USE the music in any manner which I see fit, as long as it is for personal use. This is called FAIR USE, and has been upheld by the US courts as long as there have been audio cassettes and VCR's, and perhaps even earlier. This "technology" attempts to circumvent the LAW. It attempts to hinder my usage of music that I have PAYED for. I suspect that this is illegal, and if not, it is definately something that the market will not stand for. If I purchase a song, either via CD, Cassette, Record, or file transfer, I have unlimited free use of that song on any equipment I wish to use it. I can make unlimited copies of that song, as long as said copies are for my personal use. Trust me, I have many LEGITIMATE fair use reasons to do so. I personally own an RCA Lyra mp3 player. (Copy One) I listen to music in mp3 format on my computer at work (Copy Two) I listen to music in mp3 format, stored on my notebook, in my car (Copy Three) I listen to music in mp3 format on my home computer (Copy Four) and finally I listen to music via standard Audio CD on my roommate's stereo system in our living room (Copy five) Do any of these violate fair use? NO. Are any of these copies illegal? NO. Does the keyboard copy protection prevent me from doing any of these things? YES!
Any Questions?
-CZ
Not only is this a blatently bad idea, but it comes from the same great minds that brought us Net Nanny.
... BY LAW... Technology such as this is taking away my rights. I will never purchase any music that I can no longer exercise my fair use rights. If I can not copy the music to multiple media forms/playback devices, then I do not buy it. It's that simple. Until the music industry understands this (or is FORCED to acknowledge this) they will continue to throw good money after bad attempting to develop technologies that infringe on customers LEGAL rights.
I do not type consistantly from moment to moment. Heck, I don't even "type" I hunt and peck really fast... Sometimes I type one handed... sometimes two... This software has NO chance of correctly identifying me.
Add that to the great "hit rate" that is consistant with Net Nanny, and you will find that this software will more often than not block legitimate users from accessing the music.
Besides, as another user mentioned, this whole idea is based on a flawed premise. Music purchases are not tied to a single user. I may be buying this music as a gift. I may be buying this music to transfer to my car mp3 player (which has no keyboard) Or my Lyra (also no keyboard)
When I buy music, I get FAIR USE RIGHTS
Copying music is NOT a crime. This is the reality. The RIAA is the fiction...
-Count Zero
Well, as most companies would have it, they'll probably (eventually) release a Mac version, just to keep people happy.
IE for the Mac already exists, and in fact, is the MOST standards compliant Web Browser on the market today (better than Oprah, IE Win, Mozilla, etc)
Office for the Mac exists as well. In fact, if you had been following other discussions here on
-CZ
I agree that software piracy and music/video piracy are looked at completely differently by society. In fact, software piracy is not only commonplace, it is accepted as THE way to do things by most people. I have YET to work at any company (or consult for any company) that doesn't pirate software. Granted, my consultation has been limited to Small Buisinesses for the most part, but even the local Chamber of Commerce pirates MS Office, and the US Navy had no problems pirating Windows... (On my ship at least) Still, to the public, computers are pretty much a miracle, a "magic box" as it where, and most of the population seems to think that the normal rules don't apply (nor does common sense... ask any tech support person, and they will tell you, people automatically forget common sense when they come near a computer)
Music and movies, on the other hand, are a part of the general population's daily lives. These issues are far older than computers. People have been conditioned by the industries to think that any copying is illegal. Most people are under the impression that creating cassette tape mixes from CD's is illegal... Some think copying VHS tapes is illegal. (I am talking about copying for personal use... which of course, it is NOT illegal... but most people THINK it is... due to massive ad campaigns and legal battles to try and stop things like VCR's and other recording devices.)
So, you take a public that is largely unaware of their legal rights, and you mention something about music and computers and copying, the thoughts are "Isn't it illegal to copy music?" and "Computers are scary, unknown magic boxes, they must be bad" (Fear of the unknown is a proven human trait) Is it any wonder then that the common person thinks that copying music with a computer is one of the 7 deadly sins?
Anyway... Not sure what my point is... I had one, and maybe it got expressed in there somewhere, and maybe not...
-CZ
Sorry to say it bud, but nearly all PLAYERS support these features. Lets go down your list:
Over 2 hours of high-quality digital video - Every DVD I own has at least 2 hours of video
Support for widescreen movies on standard or widescreen TVs (4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratios). - Most DVD's I own come in both formats. Some require you to flip sides, some make it a menu option (Bug's Life - Menu, Devil's Advocate - Flip disc)
Up to 8 tracks of digital audio - Every DVD I own has more than one track. Some have 4 or 5 tracks
Up to 32 subtitle/karaoke tracks. - "The Wedding Singer" hase several Karaoke tracks
Automatic "seamless" branching of video - not sure what this is exactly, but I know my Pioneer DVD player supports it (says so in the manual)
Up to 9 camera angles - supported - Ghostbusters has this (as do a few pornos I have too... hehe)
Menus and simple interactive features - Every DVD I own...
Multilingual identifying text for title name - Haven't seen this one on any of my DVD's but don't think it would be that big a hit in Region One anyway
Instant rewind and fast forward - Every DVD I own
Instant search to title ... - Every DVD I own
Durable - Every DVD I own
Not susceptible to magnetic fields. - Every DVD I own
Compact size - Every DVD I own
Noncomedogenic - Is this even a word?
It is the disc's themselves that do not necisarily HAVE the features. Some do, Some don't. As far as I know, most PLAYERS support ALL the features. Some players are skimpy on things like Dolby Digital optical outputs (my Pioneer has em, the Apex DVD player does not) but the "features" of the DVD format are pretty much ALL supported by MOST players. Going down your list, I know for a fact that my (ancient) Pioneer 500 DVD player supports every single one of the features you list.
Also, SDI (as I read the article) does not seem to have any built in resolution limitations. If you convert the SDI signal to a PAL signal, then yes, you will once again be downgrading the data.
Just my thoughts on your thoughts...
-CZ
Sorry to say it, but the things you envision as happening in the "future" are already old hat to those of us who have played in the alleyways of the net for years. I personally have many copies of "Multi-CD Software" and "hours of porn footage" Not to mention that most movies are available online either at the same time as the release, or even prior to release (Granted, the movies tend to be of the "I smuggled a camera into the theater" quality, but not always, and this has less to do with the technology/bandwidth involved, and more to do with the movie industry's tight controls on film distribution.)
Also, I take your "y2k" analogy with a ton of salt. To be honest, no one knows what might have happened had "y2k" not been hyped in the extreme. I know for a fact (as an ex-y2k consultant) that there where many businesses, large and small, who would have been required to do without computers had they not taken steps to fix bugs. Also, a good many other bugs (not y2k related) were uncovered by my y2k investigations, and this has lead (at least in the cases of MY customers) to companies who have better computer infrastructures then before.
My point?
Piracy is just as big a deal NOW as it was back in 1983 when I would get together with my buddies and copy 5 1/4" C=64 games. (Or I would download all 8 sides of "Pool of Radience" over a 300 baud link... that took me the better part of a WEEK, but I still did it rather than cough up $45) So, has anything really changed? No... Bandwidth grows (Now I can dl "Pool of Radience" for the C=64 in under a minute, yeah I really did this not long ago.. VICE is your friend) but so do programs... So now people spend a few days assembling the many pieces of "Baldur's Gate" (Took me about a week... go figure) Is piracy MORE rampant now ? no... Is it less? no... It's pretty much the same as it ever was... Same with music. I used to have hundreds of copied audio cassettes (copied from other cassettes) Sure, the quality pretty much sucked, but what did I care, CD's where unheard of, and the origional tapes didn't sound that much better than my copies, and my copies sounded a hell of a lot better than the radio... (not to mention I had shit you just don't get to hear on the radio...) Now I have many gigabytes of MP3's.. Sure the quality is a little bit worse than CD, but not much... And I still have shit you just don't get to hear on the radio.
So, piracy is and always has been a part of society. "What will they say?" Same shit they always have...
-CZ
Sounds to me like they are NOT implimenting the Exchange protocol under GNU/Linux, but are instead making YAMC (Yet another Mail CLient) that talks to Exchange via non-proprietary protocols (ie: POP3 et al) So.... Whats so special about this? Not much... It sounds like they have an open source version of Outlook's "Net Folders" maybe... Outlook CAN be configured to share Scheduling information via POP3 instead of using Exchange Server's Free/Busy stuff... (In fact, thats the way I always configure it... Linux smtp/pop3 server, Outlook 98/2000 clients using Net Folders. No need for the big $$$ Exchange server)
So, what is this program really? It seems to be an Outlook compatible client. That is a neat step in the right direction, but has NOTHING to do with Exchange.
I'll answer your second question first:
/. because all MS is claiming is copyright infringement. I do not know if these claims are true or false, but I do know that IF a MS document describing their usage of the "open" data field in Kerberos is copyrighted, it does not matter if the IETF changes the format of that field. The document would STILL be copyrighted.
The IETF is in control of the Kerberos specification completely. The old specification just happened to have a "blank check" in it. Basically, there is a data field in the (current) Kerberos specification that is defined simply as "insert data here" with no specific controls over the format of the data used, nor its purpose. This "open" data field has been unused in current Kerberos implimentations, because no vendors saw a need for it. Therefore there is no defacto standard for what data can be put in this field. Microsoft decided it would use that field for Windows NT 5 authentication information, so that they could "imbed" Windows authentication into Kerberos (one could argue that they are only using Kerberos as a "wrapper" for their normal NT authentication, and as such, they don't really use Kerberos anyway...) What the IETF is now proposing, is an "official" definition of what can go into this "open" data field. Of course, the new specification will define the data field in such a way that Microsoft's current "implimentation" of Kerberos will no longer conform to the specification. The IETF can only do this because it is completely in control of the Kerberos specification already.
As for the first question, it has no effect at all against the recent legal action MS pulled against
What about the option that adds itself to the registry, causing it to execute on bootup? This would be impossible under *nix unless the trojan was executed as root. So, back to my origional point, the *nix security model is a sandbox (to borrow from java) A user can run a trojan which can and will affect that user's data. It cannot affect the system as a whole. This is the difference I was pointing out. The Windows .vbs makes changes to the registry, causing it to run on bootup and allowing it to selfpropigate easier than otherwise. Under *nix, the trojan would get a one shot run, screw with a single user's data, and die. Sure, it might mail itself to all the people in that user's address book, IF the user HAD an address book in the format recognized by the trojan in the first place. This is why the *nix world doesn't see major trojans like this storming through our networks. We isolate each users data. One user running rm -rf / cannot take out the system, unless that user is root. One user typing format c: takes down a Windows box fairly quickly, with only an "are you sure?" to stop them...
-CZ
The biggest difference is and has always been the security model. On a *nix system, the trojan still would not have been very effective since it would have to be executed as Root to have the same extensive and damaging effects as it's Windows counterpart. This is the security flaw inherent in Windows. Normal users with normal permissions can completely hose the OS. *nix keeps that from happening in general. Granted, there are clueless new *nix users who run day to day as Root, and these people deserve what they get if they run a trojan and it hoses them. But with Windows, there is no choice... You always run as "Root" under windows... No matter what... This is the bug in MS software, and this is why these Trojans always hit the MS community and not the *nix community.
-Count Zero
Thank you, I downloaded and am currently listening to your work. I like it... It's a bit off from my more "happy raver" tastes, but is reminiscient of my earlier Techno-Industrial roots... (Also, for some strange reason, it reminds me of the soundtrack to the Sega Genesis version of the Shadowrun game... (the "guitar" sounds like the same instrument used in the game))
Too bad I can't pay for it, or I would...
-CZ
I had the same experience as many Slashdot readers, when I attempted to chip in a few bucks for Lars... So I did what any self respecting Slashdotter would, and dropped paylars.com a brief note explaining to them why they should use Apache and Linux instead of IIS and NT... Here is the e-mail conversation that ensued...
------
From: countzero@cyberdeck.org
You should have used a Free server such as Apache, since your licenses for IIS are not up to the load generated by Slashdot and other forums who have linked to you... I strongly recommend you investigate interprise class server solutions such as Linux and Apache, instead of the inferior Microsoft products that you are currently using. The use of Microsoft products is causing you to loose money, since people are unable to complete the checkout process due to insufficient licenses. (so you loose money twice, once due to the lost sale, and again, when you spend money on more licenses... when does the circle end? and who is the only winner? You guessed it, Microsoft.)
------
Hi,
Thanks for your message. You are completely correct - we would have used a free server such as Apache, in fact we would have built all of our sites open source from the beginning, but there's only four of us and we all (unfortunately) had a lot of Microsoft experience, and no Linux/Apache/MySQL/etc. experience. At this point, because August Nelson is self-funded (no VC, no scammy IPO in the works, though we are trying to raise some smart money) we aren't in a position to train ourselves or hire someone else to help us make the transition to open source.
The open source vs. MS debate is basically the same as MP3 vs. SDMI. It's centralized control vs. empowerment of the individual. It's freedom of thought vs. somebody telling you (and charging you a lot of money for) what to think. We want to empower the individual, we want to think for ourselves.
Switching to an open source enterprise solution is one of our top technical priorities. Perhaps we could contact you in the future to help us make that happen?
Thanks again for your message, and feel free to contact me in the future.
Mark Erickson
President - August Nelson, Inc.
www.augustnelson.com
www.orangealley.com
merickso@augustnelson.com
------
Would you mind if I posted our conversation to Slashdot.org ? there have been some comments there regarding your usage of IIS, and I think that it would be beneficial to you if this letter was posted there to address these issues... I personally am very pleased with what your company does, and would be very interested in helping in any way possible.
------
You have absolute permission to post this correspondence to Slashdot. I would love to figure out a way for us to transition to open source, so keep in touch.
Cheers,
Mark
I just checked my personal MP3 archive, and found that someone had uploaded Garage Inc. to it. I am not a fan of Metallica. In fact, I pretty much hate their music. BUT... I think that this whole "paylars.com" thing has its merit. I would be very willing to pay a fair price to download mp3's of an artist's music, or pay on an honor system for mp3's that I received in some other manner (Napster for instance)
I am a big fan of music in general, and I firmly believe in paying artists for their work. In fact, I am one of those people who hears an MP3 of music by the group "Dune" and then proceeds to purchase every "Dune" CD/Concert Ticket/T-Shirt I can get my hands on... I love to support the artists I enjoy. I also like to try before I buy. MP3's have allowed me to globally expand my musical tastes. I would never have heard of Dune, nor would they have ever gotten one red cent of my money, had I not downloaded an MP3 of one of their songs from some "wares" MP3 site.
I would, however, prefer that more of my money went to the artists themselves, and I see some sort of online MP3 distribution method being the only good way to do this. Only online can any artist, with minimal expense, distribute art to millions of potential fans. So some will copy the music and not pay... So what? The true fans WILL pay, and the percentage of "lost" revenue is negligible, since the fact is, it is an unknown quantity. You have no idea if I would have EVER bought your CD, or payed for your MP3, or if I even have a copy or have ever heard of you. Fact is, the only thing anyone knows for sure is when you DO pay. "Lost revenues" due to piracy are simply a myth.
Let me pay the artist for his work. Not the "record" company (who makes CD's not records anyway...) Not the "producer" who produces nothing... The ARTIST... let me pay them. How? well, online is the only way I can think of... Automated MP3 distribution with Credit Card payments that automatically get dumped in the artist's account... The artist doesn't have to worry about being technical or running a website, the artist can simply play music and be rewarded. And you know what? the cheaper it is, the more people will go ahead and pay... A price balance will be reached, and fans get to support the artists they love, and "record labels" get to be the pieces of paper on mildewing 45's in my attic, not multi-billion dollar dinosaurs.
oh yeah, the point, I spent $27 on paylars.com for music that I never listen to... why? to support the concept of online MP3 distribution by major artists.
-Count Zero
To me it is a sad comment on the state of the gaming industry today that I have, at this very moment, a Commodore 128 system up and running on a desk right next to my P-II 333 system. (And in the same room I also have a Playstation, N64, and Sega Genesis.)
Why is my Commodore 128 still hooked up? Because there are a TON of GREAT games available for it. Titles like Pool of Radiance, Elite, Ultima I-IV, Neuromancer, Defender of the Crown, et al. Why are there no modern games being created that follow in the footsteps of these masterpieces? These games are all non-linear, fairly open-ended, had (by todays standards) poor graphics, but engaging storylines and hours (nay, YEARS) of re-play value.
Good graphics and sound do not a good game make. Very few games on the market these days (and no console games) come close to the high standards of these early games. Games that required intelligence, not reflexes. Games that had plot and storyline, not high-polygon counts. Games that had non-linear plotlines. (A few modern PC games follow this lead, Baldur's Gate is a good example.) Why is it that games of this caliber are so rare these days? (and non-existant on console systems?)
Final Fantasy et al are a joke in my opinion. I own FF VII, and it is so linear as to be boring. I want to play a ROLE PLAYING GAME, not watch a movie. The whole Final Fantasy series is nothing more than a hand-held walk through a poorly translated Anime film. (And I like Anime)
-Count Zero
I hardly consider 450,000 hosts out of 36 million to be a huge amount. In fact, it comes to 1.25% of the hosts. I thought this odd when I read the original BugTraq/Security Focus article on this subject. A big deal was made of the fact that 450 thousand hosts where vulnerable to common exploits, but nobody bothered to note that this was less than 2% of the tested hosts.
I think it was a neat project, I was very interested in the "super hack" that occurred on one of the participating scan servers, and I think the groups recommendation for an IDDN is a worthwhile project.
But I still am actually reassured, not scared, by the fact that less than 2% of the hosts in their fairly sizable test group were "wide open" (as I would consider any host that is vulnerable to a common exploit)
-Count Zero-
This is one of the many reasons I do not subject myself to the idiocy that is television. I find it very disturbing that someone who is capable of coming up with $700,000 would also be stupid enough to think that Pepsi was really giving away a harrier jet. Of course, I still think Pepsi could be sued for violating some sort of truth in advertising law. But that is not the point. I just find it hard to believe that this is an actual event, and not some joke news item. Are people really this stupid? I need to contact this guy, I have some great ideas for other things he could do with that $700,000.
Swamp land, Moon acreage, SPAM in space, or a big lot of virtual acreage in CyberYuga. I wonder if he would go for any of these things?
-CZ
This looks like a perfect target for my NoSkilz Website Haxor.
Go to http://www.cyberdeck.org/cgi-bin/noski lz.cgi
Fill in the form, and enjoy the thrill of defacing web pages.
-Steve
uh, d00dz and kiddi3z, they announced this earlier...around 9:55 Pacific time, a message was posted regarding something to the effect of "because of the obscene nature of this board, it will be shut down in one hour".
If that is true, it would only imply that the Message Board would be taken down. (Unless they are admitting that their whole website was obscene, unlikely...)
But the fact of the matter is, the box is down. No ping response, no nothing. Gone. Even if MS took the site down themselves (doubtful) this still makes them look bad. They posted a challange, then when things got a little messy, they shutdown and go home? I doubt that even MS is that stupid.
Most likely, someone found an overflow that actually did crash the box. Now it is offline so that MS can fix the bug. Once the bug is fixed, they will bring it back most likely. Of course, this approach will make it very hard for us to continue to break this site, if it is down all the time, I can't try attacks.
I think it is a very one sided, non-real world test anyway. Much like the Mindcraft benchmarks. (Who runs quad processor, quad nick servers? I dunno, probably the same people who run HTTP only servers.) I mean, no wonder it's down, they have to upload any web-site modifications via floppy! (Or I guess they could have a second nic connected to their internal LAN, but it's still non-realworld) How does this help test Windows 2000 security? It does not. It only tests IIS 5 security, and despite what Microsoft would like to claim, IIS 5 is NOT Windows 2000. It is a seperate product shipped in a distribution along with Windows 2000. (Much like Apache shipped with your favorite Linux distro)
To test Windows2000 security, do a default install. This is how 90% of the NT server admins will set this product up. So many NT server's are vulnerable to well known exploits due to the fact that the majority of NT "Administrators" can't do more than point and click Next> Next> Next>
How many NT sites still have the AdvWorks demo database installed? That thing is FULL of holes. Read BugTraq.
Anyway, until Microsoft puts a Win2k default install server up for evaluation, they are not even helping themselves test security. (Forget the arguments about weather we should help MS or not, this test doesn't let us help MS as it is anyway, so it's a moot point.)
-Steve
P.S.
As of 1:57pm CST www.windows2000test.com is still not answering pings or connections on Port 80. So I would say it is DOWN.
Maybe I am just obtuse, but aren't there already "open standards" for "Instant Messaging"?
I am pretty sure that IRC is open standards based, and if a DCC chat is not an "Instant" message, than I don't know what is. My IRC client alerts me when people on my alert list log on and off. Granted, if I am not on a server with a nick-serv, I may get alerted to a logon by someone using a nick that is not a buddy of mine. I still fail to understand what the big deal is about ICQ and AIM. I don't use either. If you want to chat with me, come find me on EF-Net, I'll be the guy called CountZer0.
If it's a features issue, it would be VERY easy to make an IRC client that acted just like AIM. (esp if you used a server-net that had a nick-serv)
As far as Microsoft embracing and extending "open" protocols, doesn't anyone remember their failed IRC client "Comic Chat"? You could use it to connect to any IRC server, but if you used it on MS Comic Chat servers, then everyone had a dorky avatar and graphical emotes. Nothing new about MS using open protocols for its own gain. Anyway, maybe someone can clue me in as to what all the fuss is about.
Yes I have tried ICQ and AIM, so I am speaking from a position of knowledge. These things just didn't impress me. They both seem to be limited versions of IRC clients. AIM is at least moderately useful in that it allows me to chat with clueless morons who insist on using AOL. Then again, why would I want to chat with clueless morons?
-CZ
BTW, Asimov certainly didn't invent robots.
Certainly not, but Asimov's Laws of Robotics are commonly regarded as Science Fact, and have a clear influence on Robot and Artificial Intelligence design now and in the future.
He (and many other Science Fiction authors) has made us think about technologies that are either in their infancy or not yet invented, and this has altered the way we have gone about implementing certain technologies. Science Fiction is often an early influence of future Scientists. When new technologies are introduced, often the only terms we have capable of describing them come from Science Fiction literature. The media plays a large role in this, why else is the Gibsonian term "Cyberspace" nearly synonymous with "The Internet" although in fact, the Gibsonian Cyberspace is actually much more than the current technology level of the Internet. When we do finally have a "shared consensual hallucination" that is our interface to the global computer network, what will we call it? Cyberspace, of course. A word created by a Science Fiction author. (Who, interestingly enough had never even used a computer when he wrote "Neuromancer")
Science Fiction and Science Fact are so intermingled in today's world, and this will only become increasingly true as Science Fact continues to catch up with Science Fiction. As a matter of fact, the very idea that Science Fact is attempting to "catch up" with Science Fiction only illustrates my point further. Therefore, a working knowledge of Science Fiction is imperative to living in and understanding today's technologies, as well as tomorrows. As such, I believe that all schools should offer courses in Science Fiction, if for no other reason then to help non-geeks understand the terms used to describe technology.
-Count Zero-
I will always remember my Science Fiction class in High School. That and Mythology where my two favorite classes. I am glad to see a college that is beginning to take a serious look at Science Fiction, and that emphasizes the link between Science Fiction and Science Fact. So much of what the general public thinks about Science Fact is in actuality derived from Science Fiction. How many non-geeks watch a movie and think that Mac's are the world's most popular computer? Or that "hackers" float around "virtual cities" to crack into corporate computer systems that have high-voltage electricity arcing between the towers? Artistic License makes for some neat special effects and a nice escape for those of us who know the truth, but can often confuse the unwashed masses who have no clue about technology.
I would love to be one of the first people to earn a Doctorate in Science Fiction. But alas, I shall just have to be satisfied with the label "Geek" as I can not afford to attend college in the UK.
-Count Zero-
(Yes, I am a fan of Gibson)
I am an idealist. I am also a software pirate. I blatently pirate anything that Micro$oft has ever created. But I do pay for software that I use, and that I like. Even when I "don't have to"
For example, I download a copy of a game from one of my sites. If I like the game, if I play it often, I go out and purchase the game. Why? Because I want the company that made the game to prosper and make more good games that I can enjoy.
I purchase Linux distros. I purchase Loki software products (Civ:CTP for Linux) Why? Esp. when I have high speed (T-1) access to FTP sites with every commercial software product ever released? Because I believe in supporting the work of indeviduals and companies who create useful and entertaining software. I will not pay for Software That Sucks(tm) even if I am forced to use it to be able to use Software That Doesn't Suck(tm) (ie: I will pay for a game, then take it home and run it on a machine running a pirated copy of Windows.)
I liken it to Robin Hood. Steal from the rich, and give to the poor. I have gigabytes of MP3's on my system. Some of which are from my own personal CD collection, the majority are tracks I have downloaded from the Internet. Yet I still went out last night and purchased Moby's latest CD. Why? I know I can download it from my friends in #t1mp3 (EF-Net) But Moby makes great music, and I wish to support him. So I buy the CD. (Of course, the first thing I did upon getting home was use Audio Catalyst to rip it to mp3 and put it in my archive. Others might listen to the mp3's and decide that they like Moby too, and go out and purchase his CD. Or they might just pirate it. Their choice, at least I am allowing others to experience his music.)
Am I right? Probably not. Can I sleep at night? Most definately.
Support Software That Doesn't Suck(tm) Go buy a copy of Civ:Call To Power (for linux)
Legality has nearly nothing to do with day to day life. Get a clue. My ex-wife had an abortion that was paid for by Medicare(aid)? All she had to do was have the doctor lie on his form and say that the abortion was a medical necessity. The doctor actually told her about this option, and was the one who suggested she allow the government to pay for the abortion. Wake up.
Nearly everything the government does is *ILLEGAL*
Too bad the majority of the people in the US would rather let their "duly elected" officials do most of their thinking for them.
Are you saying that it's ok for all those companies to have the same name in the phone book,
but not to have the domains www.metropolitanauto.com, www.metropolitaninsurance.com, www.metropolitanopera.com, and www.metropolitancatering.com registered because they would cause confusion online?
No, that is not what I am saying. Those domain names do not infringe on trademarks. They are not confusing as they all relate to different markets. If I were to register metropolitanoperas.com or some other derivation thereof, I could expect to be sued by the legitimate owner of the Metropolitan Opera for the use of a confusing derivative of his properly trademarked material.
-Count Zero-
The Metropolitan Opera, Metropolitan Life Insurance, Metropolitan Auto Repair, and Metropolitan Catering can all exist without the existence of any of them being considered an infringement on the trademark of any other;
The big difference here is that the four Metropolitan companies you mention are all engaged in different businesses. Trademark laws take in to account the customer's perception of a name, and also the activities of the entity using the name. Metropolitan Auto Repair could sue me (successfully) if I started a company in the same customer space called Metropolitan Car Service. The law makes it clear that if customer confusion would result, then the origional owner of the trademark can stop the use of a confusing derivation of the trademark. Important aspects are the "same customer space" ie: I can open up Metropolitan Car Service here in Florida (assuming there is not already a company similarly named here) but I could not do so in the same state as Metropolitan Auto Repair. Since the Internet crosses such geographic boundaries, and is essentially a SINGLE customer space, the laws will side with the oldest trademark holder who is ingaged in a similar business where customer confusion would result from the new usage of the trademark derivative.
-Count Zero-