Your analogy missed the mark, simply because the site we're talking about locked nothing up. The bike is sitting there with almost a sign on it saying "have a ride". You're trying to imply that just because it's on your property and somebody rides it and puts the bike back is in fact stealing.
A website with *public* URL's and nothing else is public library. And what they want is a book store where they can drive revenue. Some other place says "this is a good read, and you can go to the library and read it there for free". So, you send people there, and they go to the library, straight to the book, and have a good read.
Now, linking to the other site isn't downloading the other site's content, and hosting it yourself. *this* would be stealing. The other site is just saying that there is great content accessible in public space, and they should go there to look at it.
If you're book store that's set up like a public lirbary, then you need to change things so that you get the revenue you need. If your site is too public, and you need to make sure people go through *your* channels so you can drive revenue... then that's exactly what they should do.
The people using the deep links aren't stealing anything. A closer analogy is a cinema. It's all about people viewing things. Drive-in's go to a great deal of pain to make sure that the areas where you can view the screen from outside the parking lot fence obscures the view so people can't get freebies. Cinemas create buildings, and regulate entry with people collecting tickets, and removing the windows so people can't see it for free. Public URL's are a drive-in where there's parking spaces right next to the fence where you get an unobstructed view and fantastic reception on the FM station to get the sound. You're not "stealing", you're just not driving the revenue that the vendor would like.
Vendors should protect revenue streams. Real-world businesses protect their own, so should an online one. Being able to freely access something without doing anything (like standing there watching something in the public domain) is in the realm of fair use.
The fools should do it for themselves and their own customers. If I find out that I can view the content I want without going past all the ads, then I'm going to go right to that content. If they built their site correctly, they'd protect themselves from people such as myself missing their ad imprints... it's not about deep linking. It's about human nature, and having plenty of technical facilities on a website to define what really is an is not "public" and "free".
The internet was made to be all about sharing (how nice). If you had something to share, you put it on a site where people can get it. And to make it easier on people, you provide pages to browse more easier to things. But then, commerce came, and things became "private" on the internet. There's plenty of ways to make things secure and private on the internet, and these boneheads didn't do it. They hosted their files in publicly accessible form just like the good ol' days. They have their content freely accessible without any form of guidance through the mechanisms that drive their revenue... in short, they're fools.
...if they don't like it, they should just stop it. By tighting the rules about the referrer header, you can make sure that people browsing your site do so in the exact way you want.
Just look at the more savvy porn sites... they've started using referrers to make sure the images is being loaded from their site, but the more trickier ones are actually making sure that the image you want to look at was first loaded by the detail page that it was meant to be served from. It's made directory browsing terribly hard lately...:)
But either way, these morons would rather throw money at lawyers, and making people shell over money and such things, rather than tightening the technology of their own house. They define the rules, but with all those front doors openly accessible, they don't like it when people use them.
Many shops have doors out in the back alley... if you don't want people to use it, lock it, stupid!
Making child porn illegal is about trying to stop the custom that drives the victimisation of children. They can't police the idea though. But if they try and police the expression of an idea (which drawing are expression, no victimisation is taking place unless you have children in sweat-shops doing your in-betweening), then really they're trying to move on to the policing of the idea itself.
Which is obviously where they're trying to take it, which is absurd. I have the gift of being able to draw, and what if I make my own sketch book of my particular brand of hentai... does that mean that I'm going to get in trouble for expressing whatever disturbed ideas I have in my own head!?... and having my own sketch books in my own posession?...
This is basically trying to turn anyone with a kink and the skills of expression into a Marquis de Sade. Even the good Marquis shouldn't be denied the right to express whatever he has to deal with within the walls of his own skull.
(looks like I need to hide my high-school sketch book with interesting drawings of the Ninja Turtles and April O'Niel... or at the very least, stop the sales of it in the UK)
...the register wasn't actually saying that iTunes was taking a shafting from the consumer public, they're just saying... that maybe those customers that are spending their music dollars somplace else may just want to insert an object of questionable origins into iTune's nether regions!
"I'm not saying that your mother is a whore, just that maybe those people who have had sex with your mother for money... may have a different opinion..."
There was recent news out of Redmond that they were finding it hard to convince users that the upgrade to the latest Office suite is worth the money. This is because they know that back in 2000 they had a word processor that was more than good enough for 95% of users. All the rest are teeny weeny productivity improvements that anyone that spends less than X hours a day using will simply not appreciate.
It's like photoshop 5 compared to the latest versions... mostly productivity that only pros can truly make great use of (e.g. editing text as text is only handy if you're doing design revisions and have clients that have flip-floppy minds). Otherwise, P5 really is better than what most people need.
But to this end, OO.o really is more than what is needed by 95% of users. MS knows this too. For these reasons, Office has a fight on its hands from here in.
...there's not too many ways to reinvent the creation of a text based document that remains relevant to all that use it.
"This has been replicated over 300 times. Maybe 500. Old news"
this is the statement of an asshole. Why make an almost asinine comment like this?... a 17 year old applied himself in a very unsual way that shows intelligence, aptitude, application, and determination. Researched, developed and built a remarkable machine. Sure, it's been demonstrated since the 20's, but you probably read about it in a book at best. Or looked up on wikipedia that it was first done in the 20's.
Most people just read about things. Others do things. Knowing things and not doing is borderline redundant. Hearing of something being done for a long time and never even remotely applying yourself even within 1%, and then criticising and reducing the absolutely remarkable efforts of others is borderline criminal. Get a life, but more importantly, get some perspective.
I'd love to see a picture of your fusion machine, or anything even remotely demonstrating the independent application of intelligence. People that make these kinds of comments rarely partake in anything of the kind.
...china doesn't restrict the internet that this representative uses, to him, his internet is a free as a bird, he can also download illegal mp3's and movies about democracy... so he can go to the UN and have plausible deniability!
--------------
Q.E.D.
I wont deny that 600 clams is expensive, and possibly even 'too' expensive... but marketing is more complex than that, and Sony is throwing the PS3 in more than one battle. Regards marketing, there's a lot to be said for simply being the most expensive. Sounds strange, but it's true. Just because you are the most expensive means that many people will buy it. So, throw that in with the better tech, and you have a machine that really is worth $600 and will also sell at $600.
Regards your PC... not really. It wont play games better, because it's generic, trying to play through generic engines. Consoles are better for games Mhz for Mhz because the developers know what they're writing for, and they know how they can push the machine. It's like the old Commodore64, there was a hard limit as to the amount of sprites you could have on the screen. But one game (commando or something, a top view action scroller) literally doubled the sprites on the screen as they managed to chase the machine drawing the screen with it scanning, giving them a higher limit. This kind of pushing the boundary you can't get when you need to work on a dozen chipsets by a squillion manufacturers. PS3 developers know the machine, and know the playing environemnt... a clear advantage.
As for BlueRay... just like the PS2 with DVD, they're putting the blueRay in the new beast, and it'll be the cheapest blueRay player on the market. The PS2 was in part the whirlwind success because it was the cheapest consumer DVD player on the market. If anyone wanted DVD, could get the PS2 and the DVD player in the same bundle cheaper than any other player. That's awesome. So when PS3 is here, anyone thinking of getting a BlueRay player is daft not to consider the PS3, because they get a cheaper player, and an uber games machine in the same bundle.
...it's great for the PS3, and it's great for the BlueRay format. And I for one also hope that blueRay takes off, simply because it's better technology with a much more potential for the future... not some rehash of the current DVD format. So for all these reasons and more, the PS3 is going to be wonderful, and in all actuality, quite reasonably priced.
Only thing MS has done right is get out there first... and because there's a lot of water under the bridge now, this may actually help the PS3. The greater public is more likely to percieve the PS3 as the "next gen" to the X360... anways, only time will tell.
In all truth, I actually want Nintendo to win... where gameplay comes first.
I don't understand why people get mad at "$600 gaming systems" when it's just a factor of what the unit is. Sony would love to sell the machine for $50, but the fact is, they can't. They're already selling you a machine that cost them more than $600 to make!...gaming machines are actually one of the few items out there where you are actually getting more than you pay for. It's hardly a sign of corporate arrogance or greed (well... you can get to the greed part when you look at the profits of the games, but not the machine itself).
...I wont be boycotting them. Killing a business like this really does suck in a big way, but I value Sony's fight against Microsoft to be more important. I instead ask that if you're buying a console next year, make it a PS3, or at the very least, a Wii... just not... you know... that other console.
Sony does do this type of thing anywhere near as much as Microsoft, and I resent MS literally trying to buy the game market... so, don't be boycotting Sony... for I think that in the long run it would be cutting your nose to spite your face.
If Sony loses the console war, all diversity in the market will be gone, and will effect far more companies than just lik-sang.
This news is old by about 17 years. Back in the era of the "nintendo entertainment system", and the "sega mastersystem", they had square controllers... before the days of truly ergonomic controllers (the sega mega-drive (genesis) was the first). Excessive use of these controllers brought on what was coined as "nintendo thumb". Partially because the square box jammed a corner into your thumb, but it seems to be pretty much the same thing.
Java never sold itself as the fasted gun in the west.
And of course you'll write Java to take advantage of HotSpot and the GC running when it needs to. Why?... because for the time being (up until the GC turns over) you end up with an app that can rub noses with C++. This article does prove that.
You need to add all the other great features of Java... the most important being that it's a very pragmatic system to code in (no need to explicitly free memory etc etc), Java is a fantastic thing.
The fact that it can HotSpot and have parts of an application go toe to toe with C++... it makes me a truly happy Java programmer.
It's another topic, but people also deny its cross platform nature, but it does deliver on this promise. I needed to quickly run a complex IDE (IntelliJ's IDEA) on a linux box, but no Linux version of it. By simply copying the Jars from a windows box and starting it up, it was usable without a problem.
It feels really good to have them attack.
Only that the general community should be wary until we see if they're a wolf in wolf's clothing.
I forget the other company, but there's one posted to/. regularly that just go after the small-ish that have only enough money to settle, not fight. that is the kind of company only in it for the money. This seems like the kind of sling david could use to get goliath in the happy-sacks.
Microsoft do deserve all the lawsuits they get.
And yes, every other piece of software has plugins, but it would be fantastic if they just levelled their guns at those that don't play nice with other kiddies.
We know that this alone isn't going to to smeg all for the overall demise of MS, but the more fronts they have to fight on... well... the more fronts they have to fight on!
Let them spend money fighting OpenOffice/Linux for small business, let them fight linux/unix/J2EE (Oracle, Sun, IBM, BEA, yadda, yadda) for big business, let them fight Sony/Nintendo for gaming... they have a lot of clams in the bank, but it's one fight at a time.
The side of good needs a few more white knights...
...anyone else got any layin' around they're not using?
...Is it possible that all of this is because in the world of open source, there's no smegging money in it?... sure, you can have support services, but for a product that is getting easier and easier to use, and doesn't have any enterprise market share?...
Some moron on this list said... "I use Mandrake, and I actually like it quite a bit. If I were to pay for anything it'd be RedHat though".
WTF!?... Wow. Some of you people abolutely stagger me. Another said, that he'd help out the company, but it was annoying to have to register to get at the distro. You sh!ts still expect to have the cake and eat it too.
Society has a heap of problems, could it be that most of them start by your average slashdotter?...
But it must be good.
To be in a position where you can enter a market and undercut prices until you're in the box seat.
With the accumulated profits, pick another tougher market and pay your way to the box seat in that one.
Take these profits......ad infinitum. This is the monopoly.
It is true that computers are tools and that people need to get a job done, but people should be a little militant against the monopolist, and look for viable alternatives at every turn.
The social problems looming in the belly of Microsoft are so very scary.
Wish people would stop saying that a non open Java means it can't be distributed. Wrong.
SuSE 8.0 personal came with two VM's in it. 1.1 & 1.2. They were loaded up, 1.2 was set to the path and ready to rock.
And cut the BS about opening java. People already have an awesome community process with the JCP. But, people see something as being "wrong" so at the moment they're blaming a lack of open source. It'd open up, and then all the peanuts would have to find something else to blame.
Java should not be opened, nope. Sun's doing a great job, and should be given a whole pile of credit for fostering the community that it has.
Slashdot Mirror
Your analogy missed the mark, simply because the site we're talking about locked nothing up. The bike is sitting there with almost a sign on it saying "have a ride". You're trying to imply that just because it's on your property and somebody rides it and puts the bike back is in fact stealing.
A website with *public* URL's and nothing else is public library. And what they want is a book store where they can drive revenue. Some other place says "this is a good read, and you can go to the library and read it there for free". So, you send people there, and they go to the library, straight to the book, and have a good read.
Now, linking to the other site isn't downloading the other site's content, and hosting it yourself. *this* would be stealing. The other site is just saying that there is great content accessible in public space, and they should go there to look at it.
If you're book store that's set up like a public lirbary, then you need to change things so that you get the revenue you need. If your site is too public, and you need to make sure people go through *your* channels so you can drive revenue... then that's exactly what they should do.
The people using the deep links aren't stealing anything. A closer analogy is a cinema. It's all about people viewing things. Drive-in's go to a great deal of pain to make sure that the areas where you can view the screen from outside the parking lot fence obscures the view so people can't get freebies. Cinemas create buildings, and regulate entry with people collecting tickets, and removing the windows so people can't see it for free. Public URL's are a drive-in where there's parking spaces right next to the fence where you get an unobstructed view and fantastic reception on the FM station to get the sound. You're not "stealing", you're just not driving the revenue that the vendor would like.
Vendors should protect revenue streams. Real-world businesses protect their own, so should an online one. Being able to freely access something without doing anything (like standing there watching something in the public domain) is in the realm of fair use.
The fools should do it for themselves and their own customers. If I find out that I can view the content I want without going past all the ads, then I'm going to go right to that content. If they built their site correctly, they'd protect themselves from people such as myself missing their ad imprints... it's not about deep linking. It's about human nature, and having plenty of technical facilities on a website to define what really is an is not "public" and "free".
The internet was made to be all about sharing (how nice). If you had something to share, you put it on a site where people can get it. And to make it easier on people, you provide pages to browse more easier to things. But then, commerce came, and things became "private" on the internet. There's plenty of ways to make things secure and private on the internet, and these boneheads didn't do it. They hosted their files in publicly accessible form just like the good ol' days. They have their content freely accessible without any form of guidance through the mechanisms that drive their revenue... in short, they're fools.
...if they don't like it, they should just stop it. By tighting the rules about the referrer header, you can make sure that people browsing your site do so in the exact way you want.
:)
Just look at the more savvy porn sites... they've started using referrers to make sure the images is being loaded from their site, but the more trickier ones are actually making sure that the image you want to look at was first loaded by the detail page that it was meant to be served from. It's made directory browsing terribly hard lately...
But either way, these morons would rather throw money at lawyers, and making people shell over money and such things, rather than tightening the technology of their own house. They define the rules, but with all those front doors openly accessible, they don't like it when people use them.
Many shops have doors out in the back alley... if you don't want people to use it, lock it, stupid!
Making child porn illegal is about trying to stop the custom that drives the victimisation of children. They can't police the idea though. But if they try and police the expression of an idea (which drawing are expression, no victimisation is taking place unless you have children in sweat-shops doing your in-betweening), then really they're trying to move on to the policing of the idea itself.
Which is obviously where they're trying to take it, which is absurd. I have the gift of being able to draw, and what if I make my own sketch book of my particular brand of hentai... does that mean that I'm going to get in trouble for expressing whatever disturbed ideas I have in my own head!?... and having my own sketch books in my own posession?...
This is basically trying to turn anyone with a kink and the skills of expression into a Marquis de Sade. Even the good Marquis shouldn't be denied the right to express whatever he has to deal with within the walls of his own skull.
(looks like I need to hide my high-school sketch book with interesting drawings of the Ninja Turtles and April O'Niel... or at the very least, stop the sales of it in the UK)
...the register wasn't actually saying that iTunes was taking a shafting from the consumer public, they're just saying... that maybe those customers that are spending their music dollars somplace else may just want to insert an object of questionable origins into iTune's nether regions!
"I'm not saying that your mother is a whore, just that maybe those people who have had sex with your mother for money... may have a different opinion..."
There was recent news out of Redmond that they were finding it hard to convince users that the upgrade to the latest Office suite is worth the money. This is because they know that back in 2000 they had a word processor that was more than good enough for 95% of users. All the rest are teeny weeny productivity improvements that anyone that spends less than X hours a day using will simply not appreciate.
It's like photoshop 5 compared to the latest versions... mostly productivity that only pros can truly make great use of (e.g. editing text as text is only handy if you're doing design revisions and have clients that have flip-floppy minds). Otherwise, P5 really is better than what most people need.
But to this end, OO.o really is more than what is needed by 95% of users. MS knows this too. For these reasons, Office has a fight on its hands from here in.
...there's not too many ways to reinvent the creation of a text based document that remains relevant to all that use it.
this is the statement of an asshole. Why make an almost asinine comment like this?... a 17 year old applied himself in a very unsual way that shows intelligence, aptitude, application, and determination. Researched, developed and built a remarkable machine. Sure, it's been demonstrated since the 20's, but you probably read about it in a book at best. Or looked up on wikipedia that it was first done in the 20's.
Most people just read about things. Others do things. Knowing things and not doing is borderline redundant. Hearing of something being done for a long time and never even remotely applying yourself even within 1%, and then criticising and reducing the absolutely remarkable efforts of others is borderline criminal. Get a life, but more importantly, get some perspective.
I'd love to see a picture of your fusion machine, or anything even remotely demonstrating the independent application of intelligence. People that make these kinds of comments rarely partake in anything of the kind.
...china doesn't restrict the internet that this representative uses, to him, his internet is a free as a bird, he can also download illegal mp3's and movies about democracy... so he can go to the UN and have plausible deniability! -------------- Q.E.D.
I wont deny that 600 clams is expensive, and possibly even 'too' expensive... but marketing is more complex than that, and Sony is throwing the PS3 in more than one battle. Regards marketing, there's a lot to be said for simply being the most expensive. Sounds strange, but it's true. Just because you are the most expensive means that many people will buy it. So, throw that in with the better tech, and you have a machine that really is worth $600 and will also sell at $600.
...it's great for the PS3, and it's great for the BlueRay format. And I for one also hope that blueRay takes off, simply because it's better technology with a much more potential for the future... not some rehash of the current DVD format. So for all these reasons and more, the PS3 is going to be wonderful, and in all actuality, quite reasonably priced.
Regards your PC... not really. It wont play games better, because it's generic, trying to play through generic engines. Consoles are better for games Mhz for Mhz because the developers know what they're writing for, and they know how they can push the machine. It's like the old Commodore64, there was a hard limit as to the amount of sprites you could have on the screen. But one game (commando or something, a top view action scroller) literally doubled the sprites on the screen as they managed to chase the machine drawing the screen with it scanning, giving them a higher limit. This kind of pushing the boundary you can't get when you need to work on a dozen chipsets by a squillion manufacturers. PS3 developers know the machine, and know the playing environemnt... a clear advantage.
As for BlueRay... just like the PS2 with DVD, they're putting the blueRay in the new beast, and it'll be the cheapest blueRay player on the market. The PS2 was in part the whirlwind success because it was the cheapest consumer DVD player on the market. If anyone wanted DVD, could get the PS2 and the DVD player in the same bundle cheaper than any other player. That's awesome. So when PS3 is here, anyone thinking of getting a BlueRay player is daft not to consider the PS3, because they get a cheaper player, and an uber games machine in the same bundle.
Only thing MS has done right is get out there first... and because there's a lot of water under the bridge now, this may actually help the PS3. The greater public is more likely to percieve the PS3 as the "next gen" to the X360... anways, only time will tell.
In all truth, I actually want Nintendo to win... where gameplay comes first.
I don't understand why people get mad at "$600 gaming systems" when it's just a factor of what the unit is. Sony would love to sell the machine for $50, but the fact is, they can't. They're already selling you a machine that cost them more than $600 to make! ...gaming machines are actually one of the few items out there where you are actually getting more than you pay for. It's hardly a sign of corporate arrogance or greed (well... you can get to the greed part when you look at the profits of the games, but not the machine itself).
...I wont be boycotting them. Killing a business like this really does suck in a big way, but I value Sony's fight against Microsoft to be more important. I instead ask that if you're buying a console next year, make it a PS3, or at the very least, a Wii... just not... you know... that other console.
Sony does do this type of thing anywhere near as much as Microsoft, and I resent MS literally trying to buy the game market... so, don't be boycotting Sony... for I think that in the long run it would be cutting your nose to spite your face.
If Sony loses the console war, all diversity in the market will be gone, and will effect far more companies than just lik-sang.
This news is old by about 17 years. Back in the era of the "nintendo entertainment system", and the "sega mastersystem", they had square controllers... before the days of truly ergonomic controllers (the sega mega-drive (genesis) was the first). Excessive use of these controllers brought on what was coined as "nintendo thumb". Partially because the square box jammed a corner into your thumb, but it seems to be pretty much the same thing.
Java never sold itself as the fasted gun in the west.
And of course you'll write Java to take advantage of HotSpot and the GC running when it needs to. Why?... because for the time being (up until the GC turns over) you end up with an app that can rub noses with C++. This article does prove that.
You need to add all the other great features of Java... the most important being that it's a very pragmatic system to code in (no need to explicitly free memory etc etc), Java is a fantastic thing.
The fact that it can HotSpot and have parts of an application go toe to toe with C++... it makes me a truly happy Java programmer.
It's another topic, but people also deny its cross platform nature, but it does deliver on this promise. I needed to quickly run a complex IDE (IntelliJ's IDEA) on a linux box, but no Linux version of it. By simply copying the Jars from a windows box and starting it up, it was usable without a problem.
Personally, Java's the bomb!
I have no problem at all running Windows. In fact, I run it regularly...
...from within VMWare with Linux as the host operating system.
:)
Otherwise my manager starts bitching that "you're not actually testing your apps in windows, are you!!!". prick.
It feels really good to have them attack. Only that the general community should be wary until we see if they're a wolf in wolf's clothing.
I forget the other company, but there's one posted to
Microsoft do deserve all the lawsuits they get.
And yes, every other piece of software has plugins, but it would be fantastic if they just levelled their guns at those that don't play nice with other kiddies. We know that this alone isn't going to to smeg all for the overall demise of MS, but the more fronts they have to fight on... well... the more fronts they have to fight on!
Let them spend money fighting OpenOffice/Linux for small business, let them fight linux/unix/J2EE (Oracle, Sun, IBM, BEA, yadda, yadda) for big business, let them fight Sony/Nintendo for gaming... they have a lot of clams in the bank, but it's one fight at a time.
The side of good needs a few more white knights...
...Is it possible that all of this is because in the world of open source, there's no smegging money in it?... sure, you can have support services, but for a product that is getting easier and easier to use, and doesn't have any enterprise market share?... Some moron on this list said... "I use Mandrake, and I actually like it quite a bit. If I were to pay for anything it'd be RedHat though". WTF!?... Wow. Some of you people abolutely stagger me. Another said, that he'd help out the company, but it was annoying to have to register to get at the distro. You sh!ts still expect to have the cake and eat it too. Society has a heap of problems, could it be that most of them start by your average slashdotter?...
But it must be good. To be in a position where you can enter a market and undercut prices until you're in the box seat. With the accumulated profits, pick another tougher market and pay your way to the box seat in that one. Take these profits... ...ad infinitum. This is the monopoly.
It is true that computers are tools and that people need to get a job done, but people should be a little militant against the monopolist, and look for viable alternatives at every turn.
The social problems looming in the belly of Microsoft are so very scary.
Wish people would stop saying that a non open Java means it can't be distributed. Wrong.
SuSE 8.0 personal came with two VM's in it. 1.1 & 1.2. They were loaded up, 1.2 was set to the path and ready to rock.
And cut the BS about opening java.
People already have an awesome community process with the JCP. But, people see something as being "wrong" so at the moment they're blaming a lack of open source. It'd open up, and then all the peanuts would have to find something else to blame.
Java should not be opened, nope.
Sun's doing a great job, and should be given a whole pile of credit for fostering the community that it has.