so are the conservatives the predators or the aliens? I would have to think they're the predators, because the aliens use the bodies of their victims to brood their young (closest thing i could think of to welfare).
Han is viewed as a rogue outlaw. Kill or be killed. He was talking to an assassin who pretty much said "i'm about to kill you, han." So Han shot Greedo before Greedo could shoot Han. The edit having Greedo shout first (and miss from two feet) makes Han look more like Aragorn than a rogue outlaw.
You got that right, there's existing case law that says tenants are allowed to setup of WiFi networks that aren't attached to the property owner's network, even if the tenant's netowkr is disruptive to the property owner's network. See the Denver International Airport vs. the airlines case.
Well, go look at any thread on fark.com discussing F9/11 and you'll see this same discussion play out ad nauseum. I did a google search of "kopel 59 deceipts" and one of the top links is "59 decipts in 59 decipts," or something to that effect. My point was that they're both just engaging in political spin. Don't take either one as an ultimate truth. Someone else pointed out the irony in linking to a blog to discredit using someone else's blog (which is why i didn't link to the google search results).
I understand why people call Moore a liar. I just wish they'd realise that the conservative spigots aren't any better than the liberal ones. They use the same tactics (only using information that helps you, ignoring stuff that hurts you. using editorial spin to suit your political agenda, etc).
The same case for distortion and misrepresentations of the facts has been made just as often about the current administration. (note that I'm not saying it isn't true of Moore, I'm just saying it's also true of those he is attacking)
This wanker has been brought up so many times, and refuted just as many. Dave Kopel has very little difference to Michael Moore in that the majority of their content is editorial spin. Micheal Moore's movie has a lot of irrefutable facts. He spins them to suit his agenda. He leaves out stuff that makes it difficult to suit his agenda. Dave Kopel does the exact same thing in the other direction.
You said "People like you are the reason that the RIAA's line of "copyright ends when we say so" stays as the official mantra of the public." Apparently I misinterpreted that as saying I defend the RIAA.
Also, I took you to task for comparing copyright infringement to violating another man's wife.
I already explained the point I was making with the prima nupta example. The OP used two arguments to defend copyright infringement of music: the public says it's ok; and no physical property is stolen so there is no loss. I wasn't likening the acts to each other, just pointing out that majority rule ("if the public decides") isn't always right. I chose that particular example because, like copyright infringement, nothing is physically stolen from you.
Furthermore, I would suggest that if "real" copyright law had a single shred of common fucking sense to it, and you didn't have to get a seperate license every time you wanted to use the material/program/etc. in a seperate/different/modified way, there would be no reason for the GPL
No idea what you're talking about. What separate license? When I download and install GPL software, I agree to the license that if I modify it and distribute those changes I'll distribute the cod eto those changes. I don't get a new license every time I use it. Are you referring to the BS about buying a CD is just a license to listen to it on that CD, so if you want it on tape you have to buy a new license by buying the tape too? That courts have maintained that converting between formats is protected fair use.
Again, it's all about context
No it isn't, copyright infringement is copyright infringement. If one is illegal then so should be the other. Distributing copyrighted works without consent of the author is illegal, whether that work is software, music, literature, photograpy, film, or whatever.
Lets further consider how to release open source software without copyrights. First off, the only way to ensure that modified and redistributed versions stay open (which is a valid wish of the author, even if you personally prefer the BSD license), would be thru contracts. In order to make sure those contracts are in place between you, the author, and everyone obtaining the source, you either need to not make it available for anonymous download/distribution and authorize each distribution explicitly after securing the contract, or you would need to use click-thru licenses. So I really think that copyright is the mechanism that enables open source, rather than open source being a protest of copyright.
Regarding what should be done about it, get involved in the government process, as I've said in two other posts in this thread. Write to your current representatives to tell them what you want them to do. Go visit them in person at their office. Write an opinion piece for your local news paper. Run for office. They only have power as long as people vote for them.
I feel that getting actively involved in the process is better than passively breaking the law in the name of civil disobedience. This is especially true when we live in a country where the political process is open to everyone. And also especially true when the people who claim civil disobedience don't take the punishment and fight it in the courts. That's the part that carries effect, and so far everyone is taking a plea bargain and paying off the RIAA.
I get tired of people saying the govrenment isn't going to get ti right so I'm going to break the law and not fight to get it changed. I think that is apathetic.
Maybe slashdotters will boycott the RIAA, but the average member of the uninformed, apathetic public won't.
That's why I inform them, so they cease to be uninformed and apathetic.
yes, I'm wrong about the Constitution defining copyright. I was too focused on responding to the overall tone of eliminating copyright entirely because their are enough p2p users sharing music that society has decided copyright is old and busted.
My post tried to say two things: majority rule has lots of potential to be oppresive of the rights of the minority; and the idea of copyright serves a useful purpose.
The current length of copyrights, and the restrictions on technology, makes them useless as a method to keep works entering the public domain. Continuing to distribute songs illegaly is not changing any laws for the better. Taking an active role in the congressional debate will.
All of you who think there is nothing wrong with offering the entire Sony Music catalog for free download to the entire world is ok, yet bitched about Linksys not releasing their GPL code for the WRT54G can just STFU. Copyright is what gave us the right to keep them in line (by not adhering to the terms of the GPL, plain old copyright law is used to determine the redistribution rights, and it says "you can't do that"). You're stomping all over just like they did, only you're not convincing Congress you're right about it like Linkss was convinced they were wrong about it. Use the same tactics for music that were used with Linksys. Write letters to Congress explaining why 75 years after the authors death hurts the public domain. Vote against representatives who support the INDUCE act. Then write a letter to whomever you did vote for saying why.
The Constitution does not define copyright, it grants Congress the power to define it.
My mistake. All I meant was that the constitution approves of the existence of copyright, which the OP seems to disagree with, imo. My impression of the OP was that copyright is evil and should be totally done away with because we all want to use p2p to share music.
Unjust laws that are obeyed don't get changed.
So if you write some code, and release it under the GPL, and someone else takes your work and distributes it in a proprietary product, you would still go around telling how pursuit of copyright violation is unjust? All I'm saying, is that copyright serves a useful purpose. The current implementation provided by the U.S. Congress does not, but the concept itself does.
Rather than sitting at home illegally distributing copies of copyrighted works (covertly shipping GPL code in your proprietary product) and then taking a plea bargain deal (nullifying the concept of civil disobedience) why not just get your representatives to not support assenine changes to copyright laws?
I knew someone would miss the point of my example. The point was that just because a majority within a group (like the millions of p2p users disitributing copyrighted works without consent of the copyright holder) says something is right, doesn't make it right.
Nice of you leave out the sentence where I say copyright extension is the problem, then go on to explain to me that copyright extension is the problem, Fred.
Exactly where did I defend the RIAA? I haven't bought a single RIAA produced tape, record, or CD in a good 5 years or so. My email signature even has a link to boycott-riaa.com. I also don't download their songs off p2p networks. I just happen to support the existence of copyrights (you know, the legal framework that the GPL is built on). But I guess you're too busy thinking free.
If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not.
Um, no. Copyright is defined in the Constitution. It grants the creator of the work thr right to control how and when the a copy of the work is created and distributed. If this right did not exist, there would be drastically less incentive to create, and the public domain would become void of artistic works. The problem is that the original terms of copyright have been extended far beyond the point of any usefulness. When you say "if the public decides" you are ignoring the fundamental protection from the tyranny of the majority that the constitution affords us all. Would you sing the sae tune if the public decides they all have the right of prima nupta and line up to have sex with your wife on your wedding night to bless the union? You won't have been robbed of any property or income.
Re:I've got mine on pre-order.
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
You don't think being able to say "you will never pay an electrical utility bill" would bump the value of the house bit?
Or perhaps no one really wants to whip the Llama's ass....
When I was a kid, my dad's youngest brother would tell me how 'llama' is one of the hardest words to fart, because of the 'm' in the middle. Llama has been one of the funniest words in existence for me since then.
Re:You mean windows is better than linux at someth
on
ATI Updates Linux Drivers
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I'm beginning to think the only way we'll see easy driver installation on Linux is if people fork the stable kernel series - while Linus and the gang make all the changes they like to the unstable series, a separate team is preserving ABI compatibility whilst backporting non breaking changes.
You mean like Red Hat has been doing for at least 5 years? (I am not implying Red Hat is the only major distro to do this, I simply don't have the experience with any others to know either way)
I agree that it would not have had an effect at the application level, however, the new MicrosoftApps company would have incentive to sell products for Linux/BSD, as opposed to a disincentive, which is what happens today.
Ever see a version of MS Office, IE, Outlook for anything other then a MS operating system
I feel a more appropriate comparison would be to ask if you think Microsoft cares if there are Linux apps that read/write in Office formats. We're talking about a codec, not a media player.
Many of MS's new enhancements to software require other MS products in the backend to work or work to higher level. Sure, you can use Outlook without Exchange but you do not get many of the features. You can use the security features of the new MS Office version coming down the line IF you have an AD environment and the requires MS backend to support it. The list goes on and on..
Making a forward reference to the next quote, if Judge Jackson's ruling to split the company had stood, all the products you mention would be under the applications company. Since the monopoly is held by the desktop OS, all the apps like Outlook, AD, IIS, and Exchange, would be free to keep their dependence on each other.
Did you forget what happened in 2000? This was the whole point of Judge Jackson's and various states suggesting MS should be split apart as a remedy for the monopoly verdict. Market forces and competition are severly warped when a monopoly exists.
I didn't forget. I agree with the spirit of splitting up the company. But that wouldn't have an effect at the codec level. It would have an effect at the application level, and that wouldn't prevent Microsoft Application Company from tying the apps together. It would just prevent them from tying the apps to the OS.
It's fine by me. I was just pointing out that they won't get to access the content legally because they're choosing not to, that any company or developer could offer a plugin if they just pay the license fee. They could probably even offer the binary codec for free. And people will complain that it's not Free. Which is their right, and their choice. Which is my point.
The issue isn't Microsoft refusing license revenue, it's the Microsoft holds an enforcable patent and demands a license at all. The GPL explicitly does not provide any distribution rights in that case, unless you, as the distributor, have a license to redistribute not only the the patented technology, but also the license to redistribute the patented technology.
That doesn't mean Linux, BSD, or an open source media player won't ever be able to legally play this content. It just means an open source codec will never exist. So what? nVidia makes binary drivers which are redistributable. Why can't a third company make a closed source plugin with an open source middleware? Because there's not enough of a market of linux/bsd users who will buy it. Perhaps a distributor would, like Suse, and include in their deluxe retail version.
I was referencing your fear that set top box manufacturers won't ust Linux or BSD because of this one available codec for content providers to use when providing blue-ray DVDs. Why does it matter if those manufacturers use an open source or closed source plugin? Other than a possible price increase to buy the set-top box (which will be so small as to not reasonable be a factor in your choice to purchase it), how will it affect your life, on a personal level?
If the recorders only use one owned by MS, then how are open source media players supposed to use the damn thing since they can't pay royaltys to MS?
Some third company could pay the license and write a closed source plugin for that open source media player, and sell the plugin. Although the third company would probably be run out of business by the screaming masses shouting "your plugin is a derivative work therefor it must be made open source!" So maybe they would write an open source interface to the closed source codec. But people would still whine and bitch because they can't have it for free.
They might even be forced not to use Linux/BSD/etc. if Microsoft won't release or license versions of their codecs for those OSes.
That's just silly. Why would Microsoft refuse licensing revenue? Spreading the codec to as many platforms as possible only helps them (think about the software piracy in China). Any company is allowed to pay for a license and write closed-source software for Linux of *BSD. They just know that the majority of Linux users will never buy it. So they don't bother. Set top box manufacturers probably won't think twice about doing so. And who cares if your set top box is running closed source software? Honsetly, how is that going to adversley affect your life? Are you going to complain that it adds, maybe, $5 to the purchase price?
It's just like the MP3 situation. The vast majority of people, even geeks that are pro-Free Software, must use MP3, because many of their devices do not support Ogg Vorbis or another high quality Free codec.
Seems to me like they chose to buy the wrong player. Nobody forced them to. And nobody is forcing companies or independent developers to write illegal MP3 codecs for Linux and BSD. Companies are choosing not to because there's no market, because the users won't buy it.
Microsoft isn't forcing anything on you. It's unfortunate that there won't be a legal open source implmentation. But quit whining that you're being forced to use illegal implementations. Maybe you should start a lobby group to get rid of software patents that make the implementations illegal in the first place. Or maybe vote for representatives who oppose the DMCA and support legislation to restore the balance of fair use rights.
I just can't figure out why people would be victim to identity theft.
It's not as calculated a crime as you might think. There are three pieces of information to identify you: name; date of birth; and social security number. When some service company asks for your social security number there's no verification on the information you provide. So people can just make up a number, run up a big bill and leave it unpaid. This happened to me. When signing up for new service, I received a letter stating I owed them seeral thousand dollars. I called to report I never lived at the address on the letter, and the guy I spoke with noticed (not sure why the computer didn't) that the name/date of birth were different and cleared me in their system. I ended up calling local police, secret service (i forget who told me to call them think it was the local police), social security (in case the guy was making claims using my SS#) and the credit bureaus. Remarkably, my credit report was unaffected. Frustratingly, none of the government offices had any real reaction.
The problem with identity theft is that it's rediculously difficult to clear your name in 'the system.' I know someone who's record will forever have prostituion and drug charges due to her sister constantly giving cops her name instead. It's at the point where it's easier to get a new identity than it is to clear yours.
Turns out he's not the guy I was thinking of. I'm not sure the name of the guy. I'm pretty sure he had a chair and a toothbrush that were stylish yet impractical. I think he did some home wares for target, too.
Isn't he the guy famous for making stuff which is considered artistic and pretty (like go to and art gallery and admire) but functionally useless? Is it supposed to be a foreshadowing of Longhorn?
When this model was first announced, it sounded like all the power management would be preconfigured (suspend-to-ram and suspend-to-disk, cpu throttling, powering down the fan and disk). Is that the case? That's the biggest thing keeping linux off my laptops right now. Also, I seem to recall that the internal wifi hardware (intel 2x00) would not be supported, can anyone comment on that?
Slashdot Mirror
so are the conservatives the predators or the aliens? I would have to think they're the predators, because the aliens use the bodies of their victims to brood their young (closest thing i could think of to welfare).
Han is viewed as a rogue outlaw. Kill or be killed. He was talking to an assassin who pretty much said "i'm about to kill you, han." So Han shot Greedo before Greedo could shoot Han. The edit having Greedo shout first (and miss from two feet) makes Han look more like Aragorn than a rogue outlaw.
well at least he seems to have made a partial concession on such a controversial edit. Show's he has at least one tiny spec of respect.
You got that right, there's existing case law that says tenants are allowed to setup of WiFi networks that aren't attached to the property owner's network, even if the tenant's netowkr is disruptive to the property owner's network. See the Denver International Airport vs. the airlines case.
, other than a whiny Slashdot editor.
Well, you got that wrong.
Well, go look at any thread on fark.com discussing F9/11 and you'll see this same discussion play out ad nauseum. I did a google search of "kopel 59 deceipts" and one of the top links is "59 decipts in 59 decipts," or something to that effect. My point was that they're both just engaging in political spin. Don't take either one as an ultimate truth. Someone else pointed out the irony in linking to a blog to discredit using someone else's blog (which is why i didn't link to the google search results).
I understand why people call Moore a liar. I just wish they'd realise that the conservative spigots aren't any better than the liberal ones. They use the same tactics (only using information that helps you, ignoring stuff that hurts you. using editorial spin to suit your political agenda, etc).
The same case for distortion and misrepresentations of the facts has been made just as often about the current administration. (note that I'm not saying it isn't true of Moore, I'm just saying it's also true of those he is attacking)
This wanker has been brought up so many times, and refuted just as many. Dave Kopel has very little difference to Michael Moore in that the majority of their content is editorial spin. Micheal Moore's movie has a lot of irrefutable facts. He spins them to suit his agenda. He leaves out stuff that makes it difficult to suit his agenda. Dave Kopel does the exact same thing in the other direction.
Also, I took you to task for comparing copyright infringement to violating another man's wife.
I already explained the point I was making with the prima nupta example. The OP used two arguments to defend copyright infringement of music: the public says it's ok; and no physical property is stolen so there is no loss. I wasn't likening the acts to each other, just pointing out that majority rule ("if the public decides") isn't always right. I chose that particular example because, like copyright infringement, nothing is physically stolen from you.
Furthermore, I would suggest that if "real" copyright law had a single shred of common fucking sense to it, and you didn't have to get a seperate license every time you wanted to use the material/program/etc. in a seperate/different/modified way, there would be no reason for the GPL
No idea what you're talking about. What separate license? When I download and install GPL software, I agree to the license that if I modify it and distribute those changes I'll distribute the cod eto those changes. I don't get a new license every time I use it. Are you referring to the BS about buying a CD is just a license to listen to it on that CD, so if you want it on tape you have to buy a new license by buying the tape too? That courts have maintained that converting between formats is protected fair use.
Again, it's all about context
No it isn't, copyright infringement is copyright infringement. If one is illegal then so should be the other. Distributing copyrighted works without consent of the author is illegal, whether that work is software, music, literature, photograpy, film, or whatever.
Lets further consider how to release open source software without copyrights. First off, the only way to ensure that modified and redistributed versions stay open (which is a valid wish of the author, even if you personally prefer the BSD license), would be thru contracts. In order to make sure those contracts are in place between you, the author, and everyone obtaining the source, you either need to not make it available for anonymous download/distribution and authorize each distribution explicitly after securing the contract, or you would need to use click-thru licenses. So I really think that copyright is the mechanism that enables open source, rather than open source being a protest of copyright.
Regarding what should be done about it, get involved in the government process, as I've said in two other posts in this thread. Write to your current representatives to tell them what you want them to do. Go visit them in person at their office. Write an opinion piece for your local news paper. Run for office. They only have power as long as people vote for them.
I feel that getting actively involved in the process is better than passively breaking the law in the name of civil disobedience. This is especially true when we live in a country where the political process is open to everyone. And also especially true when the people who claim civil disobedience don't take the punishment and fight it in the courts. That's the part that carries effect, and so far everyone is taking a plea bargain and paying off the RIAA.
I get tired of people saying the govrenment isn't going to get ti right so I'm going to break the law and not fight to get it changed. I think that is apathetic.
Maybe slashdotters will boycott the RIAA, but the average member of the uninformed, apathetic public won't.
That's why I inform them, so they cease to be uninformed and apathetic.
yes, I'm wrong about the Constitution defining copyright. I was too focused on responding to the overall tone of eliminating copyright entirely because their are enough p2p users sharing music that society has decided copyright is old and busted.
My post tried to say two things: majority rule has lots of potential to be oppresive of the rights of the minority; and the idea of copyright serves a useful purpose.
The current length of copyrights, and the restrictions on technology, makes them useless as a method to keep works entering the public domain. Continuing to distribute songs illegaly is not changing any laws for the better. Taking an active role in the congressional debate will.
All of you who think there is nothing wrong with offering the entire Sony Music catalog for free download to the entire world is ok, yet bitched about Linksys not releasing their GPL code for the WRT54G can just STFU. Copyright is what gave us the right to keep them in line (by not adhering to the terms of the GPL, plain old copyright law is used to determine the redistribution rights, and it says "you can't do that"). You're stomping all over just like they did, only you're not convincing Congress you're right about it like Linkss was convinced they were wrong about it. Use the same tactics for music that were used with Linksys. Write letters to Congress explaining why 75 years after the authors death hurts the public domain. Vote against representatives who support the INDUCE act. Then write a letter to whomever you did vote for saying why.
My mistake. All I meant was that the constitution approves of the existence of copyright, which the OP seems to disagree with, imo. My impression of the OP was that copyright is evil and should be totally done away with because we all want to use p2p to share music.
Unjust laws that are obeyed don't get changed.
So if you write some code, and release it under the GPL, and someone else takes your work and distributes it in a proprietary product, you would still go around telling how pursuit of copyright violation is unjust? All I'm saying, is that copyright serves a useful purpose. The current implementation provided by the U.S. Congress does not, but the concept itself does.
Rather than sitting at home illegally distributing copies of copyrighted works (covertly shipping GPL code in your proprietary product) and then taking a plea bargain deal (nullifying the concept of civil disobedience) why not just get your representatives to not support assenine changes to copyright laws?
I knew someone would miss the point of my example. The point was that just because a majority within a group (like the millions of p2p users disitributing copyrighted works without consent of the copyright holder) says something is right, doesn't make it right.
Nice of you leave out the sentence where I say copyright extension is the problem, then go on to explain to me that copyright extension is the problem, Fred.
Exactly where did I defend the RIAA? I haven't bought a single RIAA produced tape, record, or CD in a good 5 years or so. My email signature even has a link to boycott-riaa.com. I also don't download their songs off p2p networks. I just happen to support the existence of copyrights (you know, the legal framework that the GPL is built on). But I guess you're too busy thinking free.
Um, no. Copyright is defined in the Constitution. It grants the creator of the work thr right to control how and when the a copy of the work is created and distributed. If this right did not exist, there would be drastically less incentive to create, and the public domain would become void of artistic works. The problem is that the original terms of copyright have been extended far beyond the point of any usefulness. When you say "if the public decides" you are ignoring the fundamental protection from the tyranny of the majority that the constitution affords us all. Would you sing the sae tune if the public decides they all have the right of prima nupta and line up to have sex with your wife on your wedding night to bless the union? You won't have been robbed of any property or income.
You don't think being able to say "you will never pay an electrical utility bill" would bump the value of the house bit?
When I was a kid, my dad's youngest brother would tell me how 'llama' is one of the hardest words to fart, because of the 'm' in the middle. Llama has been one of the funniest words in existence for me since then.
You mean like Red Hat has been doing for at least 5 years? (I am not implying Red Hat is the only major distro to do this, I simply don't have the experience with any others to know either way)
true enough.
I feel a more appropriate comparison would be to ask if you think Microsoft cares if there are Linux apps that read/write in Office formats. We're talking about a codec, not a media player.
Many of MS's new enhancements to software require other MS products in the backend to work or work to higher level. Sure, you can use Outlook without Exchange but you do not get many of the features. You can use the security features of the new MS Office version coming down the line IF you have an AD environment and the requires MS backend to support it. The list goes on and on..
Making a forward reference to the next quote, if Judge Jackson's ruling to split the company had stood, all the products you mention would be under the applications company. Since the monopoly is held by the desktop OS, all the apps like Outlook, AD, IIS, and Exchange, would be free to keep their dependence on each other.
Did you forget what happened in 2000? This was the whole point of Judge Jackson's and various states suggesting MS should be split apart as a remedy for the monopoly verdict. Market forces and competition are severly warped when a monopoly exists.
I didn't forget. I agree with the spirit of splitting up the company. But that wouldn't have an effect at the codec level. It would have an effect at the application level, and that wouldn't prevent Microsoft Application Company from tying the apps together. It would just prevent them from tying the apps to the OS.
It's fine by me. I was just pointing out that they won't get to access the content legally because they're choosing not to, that any company or developer could offer a plugin if they just pay the license fee. They could probably even offer the binary codec for free. And people will complain that it's not Free. Which is their right, and their choice. Which is my point.
That doesn't mean Linux, BSD, or an open source media player won't ever be able to legally play this content. It just means an open source codec will never exist. So what? nVidia makes binary drivers which are redistributable. Why can't a third company make a closed source plugin with an open source middleware? Because there's not enough of a market of linux/bsd users who will buy it. Perhaps a distributor would, like Suse, and include in their deluxe retail version.
I was referencing your fear that set top box manufacturers won't ust Linux or BSD because of this one available codec for content providers to use when providing blue-ray DVDs. Why does it matter if those manufacturers use an open source or closed source plugin? Other than a possible price increase to buy the set-top box (which will be so small as to not reasonable be a factor in your choice to purchase it), how will it affect your life, on a personal level?
Some third company could pay the license and write a closed source plugin for that open source media player, and sell the plugin. Although the third company would probably be run out of business by the screaming masses shouting "your plugin is a derivative work therefor it must be made open source!" So maybe they would write an open source interface to the closed source codec. But people would still whine and bitch because they can't have it for free.
That's just silly. Why would Microsoft refuse licensing revenue? Spreading the codec to as many platforms as possible only helps them (think about the software piracy in China). Any company is allowed to pay for a license and write closed-source software for Linux of *BSD. They just know that the majority of Linux users will never buy it. So they don't bother. Set top box manufacturers probably won't think twice about doing so. And who cares if your set top box is running closed source software? Honsetly, how is that going to adversley affect your life? Are you going to complain that it adds, maybe, $5 to the purchase price?
It's just like the MP3 situation. The vast majority of people, even geeks that are pro-Free Software, must use MP3, because many of their devices do not support Ogg Vorbis or another high quality Free codec.
Seems to me like they chose to buy the wrong player. Nobody forced them to. And nobody is forcing companies or independent developers to write illegal MP3 codecs for Linux and BSD. Companies are choosing not to because there's no market, because the users won't buy it.
Microsoft isn't forcing anything on you. It's unfortunate that there won't be a legal open source implmentation. But quit whining that you're being forced to use illegal implementations. Maybe you should start a lobby group to get rid of software patents that make the implementations illegal in the first place. Or maybe vote for representatives who oppose the DMCA and support legislation to restore the balance of fair use rights.
It's not as calculated a crime as you might think. There are three pieces of information to identify you: name; date of birth; and social security number. When some service company asks for your social security number there's no verification on the information you provide. So people can just make up a number, run up a big bill and leave it unpaid. This happened to me. When signing up for new service, I received a letter stating I owed them seeral thousand dollars. I called to report I never lived at the address on the letter, and the guy I spoke with noticed (not sure why the computer didn't) that the name/date of birth were different and cleared me in their system. I ended up calling local police, secret service (i forget who told me to call them think it was the local police), social security (in case the guy was making claims using my SS#) and the credit bureaus. Remarkably, my credit report was unaffected. Frustratingly, none of the government offices had any real reaction.
The problem with identity theft is that it's rediculously difficult to clear your name in 'the system.' I know someone who's record will forever have prostituion and drug charges due to her sister constantly giving cops her name instead. It's at the point where it's easier to get a new identity than it is to clear yours.
Turns out he's not the guy I was thinking of. I'm not sure the name of the guy. I'm pretty sure he had a chair and a toothbrush that were stylish yet impractical. I think he did some home wares for target, too.
Isn't he the guy famous for making stuff which is considered artistic and pretty (like go to and art gallery and admire) but functionally useless? Is it supposed to be a foreshadowing of Longhorn?
California already decirtified Dieblod's machines due to excessive problems.
When this model was first announced, it sounded like all the power management would be preconfigured (suspend-to-ram and suspend-to-disk, cpu throttling, powering down the fan and disk). Is that the case? That's the biggest thing keeping linux off my laptops right now. Also, I seem to recall that the internal wifi hardware (intel 2x00) would not be supported, can anyone comment on that?