According to the article, supposedly around 30 of XM's 60 music channels are commercial-free. And I'm highly skeptical that Sirius will always be able to stick to commercial-free by only being $3 more per month.
I think eventually this service will be big enough that it will be like regular AM/FM radio--the content is completely supported by advertising, you just have to purchase a device to listen to it.
Are you living in some alternate dimension? Everyone and their mother has cable or satellite TV, both of which fit your bill for being a failure. The only people that don't have either one are either a)not into TV period or b)unable to afford it.
I don't think it will be an overnight switch, but I can see it being standard on rental trucks in the next couple years.
A good buddy of mine used to work at Budget truck rental checking the trucks in and out. When he was at that location, I think they maybe had 1 truck that had a working radio--the rest had them, but didn't work for 1 reason or another. So what did he hear from practically every person that rented a truck? "Is this radio broken? I can't get it to work." It drove him nuts for a couple of months before he quit because every schmuck going through there to rent a truck had the same comments or question on the radio.
Just on that, I always figured that people used radios a lot when driving rental trucks. And since then, having moved 3 times myself with big rental trucks, I can definitely agree with it. Like I said, I don't see the rental truck companies moving to this en-masse, but I see new rental truck models being produced with them and eventually even partnerships between Uhaul or Budget or whoever and the satellite radio companies.
Granted I don't know exactly what a DVD-R records per second, but would a 2.4x DVD-R burner really be much faster than a 24x CD-R burner? I can understand dealing with 8 or 9 disks being easier than dealing with 60, but I think it would probably actually take longer to do.
When looking at auctions or sometimes when I just need to buy something online, I'll specifically look for companies that accept PayPal. I truly hate the idea of giving my personal and CC info to every single company on the net that has something I might want to buy. I would much rather give the info to 1 company and make payments through them, because it means no CC info ever has to go to the company or person I'm buying from. Many companies I have seen accept credit cards and what-not on their own, but also accept PayPal because they know there is enough people out there like me that will easily decide to shop somewhere else if I'm forced to give them my CC info.
Why hasn't this been mod'd up higher?? Differentiating itself from all of the other typically close-but-no-cigar posts found here, it actually addresses the exact question posed by the submitter exactly.
Amazing, but true.
Moderators use your points and give this guy just credit !
True, true, you're not all idiots. I've certainly known my share of stupid ass MCSE's that were exact pictures of what gave MCSE such a bad name, but I've also known a couple really smart ones.
I suppose its like women and shopping. Sure, you're right in saying that they're not ALL shopaholics, but because so many are, the two are often synonymous.
I am certainly not what you would call "religious", but...
"Fixing defects" IS playing God. People were born with certain characteristics for a reason, be they "normalities" or "defects". Changing them is playing God, no matter whether you feel you are doing it for the good or bad of humanity. Maybe "humanity" means something else to you, but I think "humanity" would be an awfully cold concept if everyone had everything "fixed" and no one had any differences or "defects".
But they ARE marketed for non-infringing uses. When's the last time you saw a banner on musiccity.com that said "DOWNLOAD MORPHEUS AND START PIRATING MP3'S TODAY!!"?
If there exists a law that blatantly contradicts the constitution, is that law actually valid?
Yup, unfortunately. It depends on where the jurisdiction of the law is, but it requires some court (usually the Supreme Court) to overturn it before its actually invalid.
So those Word docs I shared on Morpheus detailing code research constitute copyright violation? What about the MP3s my friend puts up everyday of the music HE creates.
Your ignorant view of fair use is exactly why we have corporations and lawyers attacking it everyday. It's an established legal precedent in the US:
If a device has non-infringing uses and is marketed as such, the fact that it may have infringing uses is completely irrelevant.
See: BetaMax, Diamond RIO.
Sure, there are people out there that will use this legitimate sharing software to illegaly trade files, be it music or photos or movies. But there are people out there that make 10 copies of every movie they buy and give em away to friends. Same idea. You cannot prosecute the legitimate tools; you must prosecute the individuals making illegitimate use of the tools.
See: Metallica, Dr Dre identify individual Napster users violating copyright.
An open proxy server is vulnerable to attack simply because of some administrator's incompetence, ignorance, laziness, or all three. A potential rape victim is vulnerable to attack simply because this world is full of some sick fucks, and nothing more.
I'm certainly not saying just because something is vulnerable to attack that it is OK to attack it. I'm simply saying that the two situations are so completely different that it makes absolutely no sense to try and relate them in an analogy.
I may be wrong, but I believe Cold Fusion and Cold Fusion Studio have been using WebDAV for a while (since 4.0 at least) for editing server-side files. I'm not sure whether CF Studio uses its own WebDAV implementation to talk to the CF server or if it uses IE's, but in 2 years or so of using it, I've never had any problems (although it was never used on any NT machines, just 98 and then later 2000).
I don't think his point was whether or not this story even mentioned Microsoft or not. I think it was more along the lines of, replace "Linux companies" with "Microsoft" in this story, and the editors would have a whole different tone.
But does that even surprise, let alone phase, any regular reader of this site anymore?
I think most NAT routers support this in some way or another.
I have a D-Link unit and when I first set it up, I had 2 additional PCs hooked up to my modem. I setup the D-Link unit, told it to clone the MAC of my main PC, then called the cable company and told them I didn't use the other two PCs anymore. No more extra charges and much less headache.
I'm not sure what version of DOCSIS Cox Cable uses in Las Vegas, but I can tell you for sure that they limit bandwidth, both up and down. Whether this is done with the CMTS or some other system, I don't know. But if DOCSIS 1.1 products are just not getting certified, then maybe they're using DOCSIS 1.0 out here and using some add-on that allows them to do QoS.
Wow, weird. You're paying $100/mo for 1Mbps up/down and you're not on cable or DSL? Heh, even on the cable modems out here in Vegas (which have their issues but are generally better than most), you can barely get 1Mbps up/down for $100/mo. And they just started it so you could only get that price as a "residential" customer--which means a DOCSIS modem and no static IP. But! Get their commercial service, pay 3x more and get the same 1Mbps--the only difference being that you have a reliable modem and can now get a static IP!
And I suppose if someone was so convinced that their ISP committed false advertising and/or fraud, they could certainly take them to civil court. Maybe its not criminal court, but its doing something about it nonetheless.
Slightly offtopic, anybody know what the DOCSIS spec says in relation to static IPs? Are they possible at all with DOCSIS? Or does my provider just not want static IPs on the DOCSIS modems?
Take drugs, practice witchcraft, hell, kill someone for crying out loud.
The point, as I guess it obviously wasn't clear enough, was that there's always gonna be a small group of people out there claiming that something, -anything-, is evil and harmful in some way and it must be stopped because of it. Whether its Harry Potter or Alice in Wonderland or whatever story is next in line for some extremist rants, theres always going to be someone or some group thats going to chastize and comdemn it. But you ask the typical, level-headed person and they'll be regarded as classic, quality children's stories.
And its probably the same people bitching about Harry Potter that bitched about Alice in Wonderland.
To this day, I have yet to hear of one single story of a person influenced by Alice in Wonderland practicing some sort of evil satanic witchcraft. Something tells me I won't ever hear of Harry Potter influencing anything like that, either.
Disclaimer: No I have not read the Harry Potter books, nor do I intend to. It just strikes me as funny that books sold as childrens books (and lets get real--a book that truly promoted something so heinous as satanic witchcraft would never get out as a childrens book) could be turned around so easily and looked at as manuals of evil. Some people really do just need to get a life.
Except that all of their Internet access flows through one central point. Which makes it extremely easy to block anything. Which about makes your entire idea useless. So they can't block the websites you're trying to get to. Now they just block the "central node" or whatever of your tunnelling system. So what? Setup another? They block another. They've got the resources and I bet are much more willing to keep playing the cat-and-mouse game if it makes sure you aren't seeing anything you shouldn't be. Sure there may be some other way that the most hardcore could use to get through to whatever they wished, but it will never happen en-masse. This is simply because once everyone starts doing it, it won't be long before theres a way to block it. And once people start playing games and trying to get around their censoring software, they'll go right to firewall, if they havent already. The website you want to see doesn't operate on port 80? Tough.
I'm not saying its right or I agree with it-- I would certainly hate to live in a country such as that. But at the same time, these people have lived in that type of culture their whole life. I find it hard to believe that their government censoring the Net comes as big shock to them. I think this whole thing is a much bigger deal to people of our society, where the thought of censoring the Net is such an unheard of thought that we can only react this way when it happens.
Re:Who didn't realize this after reading the GPL?
on
Freedom or Power?
·
· Score: 2
I see what you're saying now. For some reason, I can't see licensing my code under a license which allows someone else to dictate the terms in the future. Either way, this is yet another reason why I would never ever release something under the GPL.
As well, I'm sure a good number of free software licenses started from the GPL, or at least some of the ideals of the GPL. Tons of alternatives to the GPL have sprung up, I'm guessing in reaction to many of the GPL's suffocating restrictions. While maybe not word-for-word, essentially these licenses took the GPL, removed the clauses they didn't like, changed some verbage and voila! So while you may not be able to label your software as licensed under the GPL, you can still license it under terms which are very similar, but less restrictive.
Re:Who didn't realize this after reading the GPL?
on
Freedom or Power?
·
· Score: 2
Yes, yes, I know this is flamebait, but I had to bite anyway.
you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version
Gee, to me that sounds like I have the option of following the terms and conditions of the current version and completely ignoring any future changes.
Re:O'Reilly's ``Freedom zero'' is a vacuous.
on
Freedom or Power?
·
· Score: 2
This is the worst rambling I've seen in quite some time. You'd think with all the typing you did, you would have been able to say something. Apparently not.
Stallman's definition is completely absurd, because it is saying that something which I put effort and resources into creating can be used by anyone else in anyway they see fit.
Bullshit.
If this "freedom" existed for users, developers would have very little, if any, incentive at all to create software. I would be willing to bet that the majority of free software out there wouldn't have ever been released had the developers not had the ability to license it as they see fit.
The real freedom that must be granted to users is the freedom of choice. Arguably, this freedom does and does not exist, but that is another debate altogether. Microsoft has the ability to get Windows pre-loaded on that new box I buy from Dell, but I still have the freedom to install any software I like on my new box--provided I am willing to abide by the terms of the creator of said software. Those truly concerned with having absolute freedom over their software are absolutely free to either find another application or OS to solve the problem or write their own.
Bottom-line, free software is definitely good for the betterment of society. But at the same time, when you get people like Stallman pushing this absolutely absurd notion that I don't have the freedom to license my software how I see fit, it does much more harm than good to the free software movement.
How come I'm not considered a "real" engineer? I got my license from Microsoft.
Sounds like you answered your own question.
If you think software engineering isn't any harder than administrating some NT machines or even a whole NT network, you're obviously without the necessary experience to accurately make that judgement in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the article, supposedly around 30 of XM's 60 music channels are commercial-free. And I'm highly skeptical that Sirius will always be able to stick to commercial-free by only being $3 more per month.
I think eventually this service will be big enough that it will be like regular AM/FM radio--the content is completely supported by advertising, you just have to purchase a device to listen to it.
Failure?
Are you living in some alternate dimension? Everyone and their mother has cable or satellite TV, both of which fit your bill for being a failure. The only people that don't have either one are either a)not into TV period or b)unable to afford it.
I don't think it will be an overnight switch, but I can see it being standard on rental trucks in the next couple years.
A good buddy of mine used to work at Budget truck rental checking the trucks in and out. When he was at that location, I think they maybe had 1 truck that had a working radio--the rest had them, but didn't work for 1 reason or another. So what did he hear from practically every person that rented a truck? "Is this radio broken? I can't get it to work." It drove him nuts for a couple of months before he quit because every schmuck going through there to rent a truck had the same comments or question on the radio.
Just on that, I always figured that people used radios a lot when driving rental trucks. And since then, having moved 3 times myself with big rental trucks, I can definitely agree with it. Like I said, I don't see the rental truck companies moving to this en-masse, but I see new rental truck models being produced with them and eventually even partnerships between Uhaul or Budget or whoever and the satellite radio companies.
Granted I don't know exactly what a DVD-R records per second, but would a 2.4x DVD-R burner really be much faster than a 24x CD-R burner? I can understand dealing with 8 or 9 disks being easier than dealing with 60, but I think it would probably actually take longer to do.
When looking at auctions or sometimes when I just need to buy something online, I'll specifically look for companies that accept PayPal. I truly hate the idea of giving my personal and CC info to every single company on the net that has something I might want to buy. I would much rather give the info to 1 company and make payments through them, because it means no CC info ever has to go to the company or person I'm buying from. Many companies I have seen accept credit cards and what-not on their own, but also accept PayPal because they know there is enough people out there like me that will easily decide to shop somewhere else if I'm forced to give them my CC info.
Why hasn't this been mod'd up higher?? Differentiating itself from all of the other typically close-but-no-cigar posts found here, it actually addresses the exact question posed by the submitter exactly.
Amazing, but true.
Moderators use your points and give this guy just credit !
True, true, you're not all idiots. I've certainly known my share of stupid ass MCSE's that were exact pictures of what gave MCSE such a bad name, but I've also known a couple really smart ones.
I suppose its like women and shopping. Sure, you're right in saying that they're not ALL shopaholics, but because so many are, the two are often synonymous.
I am certainly not what you would call "religious", but...
"Fixing defects" IS playing God. People were born with certain characteristics for a reason, be they "normalities" or "defects". Changing them is playing God, no matter whether you feel you are doing it for the good or bad of humanity. Maybe "humanity" means something else to you, but I think "humanity" would be an awfully cold concept if everyone had everything "fixed" and no one had any differences or "defects".
Even at 25-35 HP, according to his math, that still makes 1.6-2.3 KW. More than an alternator, according to you.
Also, there was no mention of replacing the battery. In fact, I believe it was: You'll need a battery for the short runs, though.
Maybe read the post a little harder next time before responding in a such a know-it-all tone?
But they ARE marketed for non-infringing uses. When's the last time you saw a banner on musiccity.com that said "DOWNLOAD MORPHEUS AND START PIRATING MP3'S TODAY!!"?
If there exists a law that blatantly contradicts the constitution, is that law actually valid?
Yup, unfortunately. It depends on where the jurisdiction of the law is, but it requires some court (usually the Supreme Court) to overturn it before its actually invalid.
So those Word docs I shared on Morpheus detailing code research constitute copyright violation? What about the MP3s my friend puts up everyday of the music HE creates.
Your ignorant view of fair use is exactly why we have corporations and lawyers attacking it everyday. It's an established legal precedent in the US:
If a device has non-infringing uses and is marketed as such, the fact that it may have infringing uses is completely irrelevant.
See: BetaMax, Diamond RIO.
Sure, there are people out there that will use this legitimate sharing software to illegaly trade files, be it music or photos or movies. But there are people out there that make 10 copies of every movie they buy and give em away to friends. Same idea. You cannot prosecute the legitimate tools; you must prosecute the individuals making illegitimate use of the tools.
See: Metallica, Dr Dre identify individual Napster users violating copyright.
What a dumbass analogy.
An open proxy server is vulnerable to attack simply because of some administrator's incompetence, ignorance, laziness, or all three. A potential rape victim is vulnerable to attack simply because this world is full of some sick fucks, and nothing more.
I'm certainly not saying just because something is vulnerable to attack that it is OK to attack it. I'm simply saying that the two situations are so completely different that it makes absolutely no sense to try and relate them in an analogy.
I may be wrong, but I believe Cold Fusion and Cold Fusion Studio have been using WebDAV for a while (since 4.0 at least) for editing server-side files. I'm not sure whether CF Studio uses its own WebDAV implementation to talk to the CF server or if it uses IE's, but in 2 years or so of using it, I've never had any problems (although it was never used on any NT machines, just 98 and then later 2000).
I don't think his point was whether or not this story even mentioned Microsoft or not. I think it was more along the lines of, replace "Linux companies" with "Microsoft" in this story, and the editors would have a whole different tone.
But does that even surprise, let alone phase, any regular reader of this site anymore?
I think most NAT routers support this in some way or another.
I have a D-Link unit and when I first set it up, I had 2 additional PCs hooked up to my modem. I setup the D-Link unit, told it to clone the MAC of my main PC, then called the cable company and told them I didn't use the other two PCs anymore. No more extra charges and much less headache.
I'm not sure what version of DOCSIS Cox Cable uses in Las Vegas, but I can tell you for sure that they limit bandwidth, both up and down. Whether this is done with the CMTS or some other system, I don't know. But if DOCSIS 1.1 products are just not getting certified, then maybe they're using DOCSIS 1.0 out here and using some add-on that allows them to do QoS.
Wow, weird. You're paying $100/mo for 1Mbps up/down and you're not on cable or DSL? Heh, even on the cable modems out here in Vegas (which have their issues but are generally better than most), you can barely get 1Mbps up/down for $100/mo. And they just started it so you could only get that price as a "residential" customer--which means a DOCSIS modem and no static IP. But! Get their commercial service, pay 3x more and get the same 1Mbps--the only difference being that you have a reliable modem and can now get a static IP!
And I suppose if someone was so convinced that their ISP committed false advertising and/or fraud, they could certainly take them to civil court. Maybe its not criminal court, but its doing something about it nonetheless.
Slightly offtopic, anybody know what the DOCSIS spec says in relation to static IPs? Are they possible at all with DOCSIS? Or does my provider just not want static IPs on the DOCSIS modems?
Take drugs, practice witchcraft, hell, kill someone for crying out loud.
The point, as I guess it obviously wasn't clear enough, was that there's always gonna be a small group of people out there claiming that something, -anything-, is evil and harmful in some way and it must be stopped because of it. Whether its Harry Potter or Alice in Wonderland or whatever story is next in line for some extremist rants, theres always going to be someone or some group thats going to chastize and comdemn it. But you ask the typical, level-headed person and they'll be regarded as classic, quality children's stories.
And its probably the same people bitching about Harry Potter that bitched about Alice in Wonderland.
To this day, I have yet to hear of one single story of a person influenced by Alice in Wonderland practicing some sort of evil satanic witchcraft. Something tells me I won't ever hear of Harry Potter influencing anything like that, either.
Disclaimer: No I have not read the Harry Potter books, nor do I intend to. It just strikes me as funny that books sold as childrens books (and lets get real--a book that truly promoted something so heinous as satanic witchcraft would never get out as a childrens book) could be turned around so easily and looked at as manuals of evil. Some people really do just need to get a life.
Except that all of their Internet access flows through one central point. Which makes it extremely easy to block anything. Which about makes your entire idea useless. So they can't block the websites you're trying to get to. Now they just block the "central node" or whatever of your tunnelling system. So what? Setup another? They block another. They've got the resources and I bet are much more willing to keep playing the cat-and-mouse game if it makes sure you aren't seeing anything you shouldn't be. Sure there may be some other way that the most hardcore could use to get through to whatever they wished, but it will never happen en-masse. This is simply because once everyone starts doing it, it won't be long before theres a way to block it. And once people start playing games and trying to get around their censoring software, they'll go right to firewall, if they havent already. The website you want to see doesn't operate on port 80? Tough.
I'm not saying its right or I agree with it-- I would certainly hate to live in a country such as that. But at the same time, these people have lived in that type of culture their whole life. I find it hard to believe that their government censoring the Net comes as big shock to them. I think this whole thing is a much bigger deal to people of our society, where the thought of censoring the Net is such an unheard of thought that we can only react this way when it happens.
I see what you're saying now. For some reason, I can't see licensing my code under a license which allows someone else to dictate the terms in the future. Either way, this is yet another reason why I would never ever release something under the GPL.
As well, I'm sure a good number of free software licenses started from the GPL, or at least some of the ideals of the GPL. Tons of alternatives to the GPL have sprung up, I'm guessing in reaction to many of the GPL's suffocating restrictions. While maybe not word-for-word, essentially these licenses took the GPL, removed the clauses they didn't like, changed some verbage and voila! So while you may not be able to label your software as licensed under the GPL, you can still license it under terms which are very similar, but less restrictive.
Yes, yes, I know this is flamebait, but I had to bite anyway.
you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version
Gee, to me that sounds like I have the option of following the terms and conditions of the current version and completely ignoring any future changes.
This is the worst rambling I've seen in quite some time. You'd think with all the typing you did, you would have been able to say something. Apparently not.
Stallman's definition is completely absurd, because it is saying that something which I put effort and resources into creating can be used by anyone else in anyway they see fit.
Bullshit.
If this "freedom" existed for users, developers would have very little, if any, incentive at all to create software. I would be willing to bet that the majority of free software out there wouldn't have ever been released had the developers not had the ability to license it as they see fit.
The real freedom that must be granted to users is the freedom of choice. Arguably, this freedom does and does not exist, but that is another debate altogether. Microsoft has the ability to get Windows pre-loaded on that new box I buy from Dell, but I still have the freedom to install any software I like on my new box--provided I am willing to abide by the terms of the creator of said software. Those truly concerned with having absolute freedom over their software are absolutely free to either find another application or OS to solve the problem or write their own.
Bottom-line, free software is definitely good for the betterment of society. But at the same time, when you get people like Stallman pushing this absolutely absurd notion that I don't have the freedom to license my software how I see fit, it does much more harm than good to the free software movement.
How come I'm not considered a "real" engineer? I got my license from Microsoft.
Sounds like you answered your own question.
If you think software engineering isn't any harder than administrating some NT machines or even a whole NT network, you're obviously without the necessary experience to accurately make that judgement in the first place.