"Clearly that is for a few physical albums bought IN THE OTHER COUNTRY. And BROUGHT WITH THEM physically when returning from a trip. And the site uses that as justification in law that it is legal???? HA!"
Right and since that law is the only thing that would make purchasing from allofmp3.com illegal in the first place... Remember you are buying music from a vendor who legally aquired the music under the laws of their nation and is distributing it in compliance with those laws. The default is of course that anything that occurs on foreign soil is soley subject to the laws of THAT nation and subsequent actions occur subject to the laws of the nation in question.
"I would hardly call a discussion forum by laypeople on "WWW.MUSEEKSTER.COM", a foriegn site, as a source of reliable interpretation of US and International law. Nor would I consider it "evidence" in support of the legality of the Russian music sites."
You are attacking the arguer instead of the argument. Any basic logic course will advise you that this invalidates your own argument. If Hitler says that milk contains calcium it does not make the statement any more or less true. If mp3piratez.com says that x is legal because of y, it is no more or less true than if the president of the RIAA said it.
Not at all, the music is aquired legally in the country the site is hosted in. Therefore in the US it is legal to purchase their music once aquired. If I had to break the encryption on a movie to play it on other players and allow second hand sale in Russia, did you think the disc would magically become illegal when I entered the US? Of course not, the laws of the country I was in at the time prevail. I can even sell my now unencrypted disc in the US since second hand sales are legal here, just not breaking the encryption (which I did in Russia).
Go to Amsterdam and smoke some hash, you won't be arrested when you step back on american soil for doing so.
You've got to be kidding. AAC is fairly decent but WMA is lowest quality mainstream compression on the market. Yes it compresses to smaller files than mp3 but it sounds like chit.
If consumers suddenly find themselves unable to , they're not going to buy. They'll tell the industry "screw you" and go get their content some other way.
Sadly the consumer has shown consistantly thus far that he will mumble and groan under his breath then he chalks it up to the "man" and takes another one in the rear. Remember, the generation in power now got up in arms once. It was called Vietnam. The American people united as a loud powerful voice of protest demanding a stop to unjust slaughter. The "man" turned a deaf ear and dispelled the illusion that things will be set right simply because joe sixpack gets pissed.
Joe sixpack is not going to encite serious action in the US without the use of force. And even then Joe has no chance unless there are massive defections of US Military unwilling to engage in a war against the people. The Joe sixpack of 200 years ago might have taken this step to unshackle himself from the bonds of repression and tyranny. The Joe sixpack of today will gather in peacefully ignored protests.
"Our collective information is great, now we just need to do something with it!"
Things like flying to the moon? Sending robots to another planet and then controling them via invisible forces that we have mastered and harnassed to do our bidding. Perhaps you were thinking more like capturing the forces behind the flashes of light in the sky, storing their power, and then harnessing that to send devices floating around our planet so that they can map and pinpoint every position on it within a few centimeters? How about recording the very visions and sound around us and broadcasting it live across the globe?
Those aims are a bit too grand really. Lets stick with simpler things. Perhaps we should master ourselves first. Perhaps learning how neuron chains link in the brain could teach us how to use chains of mneumonics and imagery to train near perfect memories. Perhaps studying eye movements could teach us how to read and retain materials at incredible rates. Perhaps studying the electrochemical processes of the brain could allow us to implant an interface device in a monkey's brain and we could study how the brain learns to interface with the device and control a robotic arm. Maybe we could learn further about lack of need for a soul to define intelligence when we place a pile of rat neurons on a sensor plate that is in turn connected to a flight simulator; then watch the neurons successfully figure out how to keep the plane airborne... and perhaps greater significance could be placed on the fact that they were able to determine that keeping the plane airborne is an objective in the first place.
It seems to me, that we have done quite a bit with that information. How do you think it got there in the first place?
"They spent 75% of their time using Outlook dealing with emails. Less than a quarter of the time went into using a development environment or testing tools."
While your core point is probably on target, programmers are a bad example. If a programmer is able to spend 25% of his time on actual development he is doing pretty good. Not because of distractions, but simply because the mind would overheat. There are occasion hardcore sessions where one mind melds with the machine for hours solid but they probably do not offset the days where nerf wars rule.
"When the non-techie finds out that the desktop version can't do more than 10 clieants"
Non-techies do not know what clients, desktops, and servers really are. They may be aware of some of the terms but they certainly do not know what they mean. The average user can not administrate a desktop anymore than they can a server. Even if they can manage to admin the desktop they typically can not handle a workgroup configuration.
That point aside, the prompts and configuration options one is presented with when installing the OS (another thing the average user can't handle on a desktop edition) are quite different. For instance, it is not difficult to assign a role to server unless you don't know what is meant by role and are unfamiliar with the terminology used to describe any of the roles. God forbid you need the server to do something that seems to fall inbetween two of them.
Windows configuration is hardly intuitive or easy, it is just clickable and has wide software/hardware vendor support.
"He wasn't suggesting that the company would try to use XP as a server. MS' server OSs don't have that 10 concurrent connection limit. Your statement is correct, but not relevant:)"
Really? I was under the impression I was responding directly to his question (repasted here for easy reference). For the server OS it is more directly relevant to mention that they only include 10 cals and would require the purchase of an additional cal pack to support this office. The cost of the additional cals would pay for an outside IT guy to setup the entire solution.
Zeinfeld said:
"i think its far more likely they'd either use a windows desktop version (not sure where you hit the crippling with that though)"
True but you are overlooking one additional point. Windows is the monopoly and it IS being leveraged to not only stifle competition but to create additional monopolies. If this move is successful then windows will have established WMP as a monopoly.
Do not confuse the journalists with the scientists. Further, the "something" is the quantum state of the photon and this is the result they expected to achieve so apparently they DO have some level of understanding.
A 12 user setup is not enterprise class. The cost of the local IT shop sending an onsite guy out is more like $55/hour and setting up a Samba server that will take care of a shop of this size just as well as AD will take less than 4 hours. The cost of the two additional cals they will need is as much as the IT guy will cost them.
Spoken like someone walking straight out of a corporate configuration.
"Its a matter of ease of deployment and use."
No, it's actually a matter of stability. Use is identical between the two when functioning properly.
"Most likely, this little law office isn't going to have an IT guy and most of the day-to-day will fall on the office manager"
False. This shop will not have an IT guy on the payroll but they will certainly have a local tech shop that takes care of their needs. They probably won't have an Office Manager but their probably will be a secretary that fills that role and they all tell about their problems. She in turn will call the computer guys.
"In that situation, the cheapy solution makes absolutely no sense whatsoever."
Using Samba is less expensive. But in this scenerio the quality of the solution is what makes samba a superior choice.
"they can have a _supported_ solution"
Surely you don't suggest they spend hours on the phone with Microsoft trying to add a user to the server? Of course not, they shoot an email to the computer guy. He charges them 50 bucks and sets up the new computer, configures it with all the software they use, puts it on the network and maps network drives/priters. And also adds the user to the server. This involves about 30 seconds of their time instead of hours.
"Instead of managing 11 machines' passwords, she manages the domain."
That was 12 users. And in AD you still have to manage users and passwords. In a 12 user setup AD offers no significant advantages at all, it simply brings a plethora of issues related to DNS. If domain security is needed due to interoffice needs then samba handles that quite nicely.
"This includes homogenizing the configuration of all the workstation and all the other benefits of having centralized control of configuration, authorization and authentication."
In a 12 user setup it takes longer to configure these services than it does to configure the individual machines. Especially considering changes are only going to occur on one or two stations over the course of a typical year.
"Some will argue that SBS is harder to manage for the general user wearing the admin cape - true, but how much easier is it than trying to manage a linux server for them?"
The general user should not be managing either.
P.S. I wish Slashdot would ban IP's from known Redmond fud machines.
An office with 12 pcs has a tech guy. He will not be a dedicated tech guy you can be sure, but he will be from a local onsite service shop.
Non-technical users could not use a windows server anymore than they could a Samba server.
P.S. Windows desktop system fail at 10 clients and couldn't be used on this setup. Although a non-technical user might try and think it works. Might even take them sometime to realize their connection errors only arise when more than 10 pcs are on at the same time.
The kernel has adopted massive chunks of BSD code. The only code examples that leaked from SCO meetings fell under the category of former AT&T code that was sanitized in that case and then used by linux kernel developers.
It is true that much of that code has probably changed now (the same is true of BSD code I am sure). But the current code did largely decend from BSD'd AT&T code. Of course the userland tools do not enter into questions of OS kernels.
What difference does it make if the code was copied from BSD instead of an original AT&T source license, it is still the same code.
True enough. Unfortunately the same can not be said of all common hardware. Uncommon hardware could be forgiven to a degree, but you can go buy plenty of items on the shelf in Walmart right now that work under linux but require substantial tweaking.
"Credibility is nothing more than the weight that you give the validity of someone's arguments without examining them in detail."
False. You should never give weight to the validity of someone's arguements without examining them in detail and only then give weight based upon the arguments and the detail with which you examined them. Credibility is the weight you give to subjective claims/data from a given source.
If someone reports that algorithm A yields 30% increase under X conditions then you examine the basis for the claim and the peer review or, better yet, attempt to replicate the result to verify. If someone claims they saw Elvis it must fall back on credibility. Crediblity is the LAST resort fallback in assessing the validity of a claim, not the first line of defense.
Linux would qualify as real Unix by that standard also, especially since it contains a great deal of that sanitized code. The trademark is what defines Unix versus non Unix these days. Otherwise we could drop the * in *nix.
"A law office with ten employees using Windows XP is going to buy a Windows server, end of story."
Why would they do that? This is actually an ideal place to implement a Samba solution. At 12 systems they aren't even looking at a domain, they are looking for a workgroup solution. There are advantages in cost, reliably, and all aspects of performance.
In a 12 system environment, the $1000 for a windows server license is going to be more than they spend on the server!
We need to nip this in the bud right here. My understanding is that this approach will still allow the same eyecandy but will lose the only REAL feature of XGL. A hardware accelerated desktop. Some of you like the eyecandy and transparent windows. That must be nice for you. The rest of us want a snappy and responsive desktop. XGL delivers that by hardware accelerating the entire xserver.
If my understanding is incorrect then by all means, enlighten me. If not, then please stop with differing standards and approaches and embrace the fully functional system in existance today.
P.S. Nvidia will use what they have to. They support this approach because it requires the less work on their part than XGL and therefore costs less money. Therefore, their opinion should be ignored and only the interests of the USERS should be considered.
Slashdot Mirror
If you prefer a different source, here is the C-NET article the GP's information originally came from. http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-7597_7-0.html?forumID =41&messageID=1708660&threadID=153671
"Clearly that is for a few physical albums bought IN THE OTHER COUNTRY. And BROUGHT WITH THEM physically when returning from a trip. And the site uses that as justification in law that it is legal???? HA!"
Right and since that law is the only thing that would make purchasing from allofmp3.com illegal in the first place... Remember you are buying music from a vendor who legally aquired the music under the laws of their nation and is distributing it in compliance with those laws. The default is of course that anything that occurs on foreign soil is soley subject to the laws of THAT nation and subsequent actions occur subject to the laws of the nation in question.
"I would hardly call a discussion forum by laypeople on "WWW.MUSEEKSTER.COM", a foriegn site, as a source of reliable interpretation of US and International law. Nor would I consider it "evidence" in support of the legality of the Russian music sites."
You are attacking the arguer instead of the argument. Any basic logic course will advise you that this invalidates your own argument. If Hitler says that milk contains calcium it does not make the statement any more or less true. If mp3piratez.com says that x is legal because of y, it is no more or less true than if the president of the RIAA said it.
Not at all, the music is aquired legally in the country the site is hosted in. Therefore in the US it is legal to purchase their music once aquired. If I had to break the encryption on a movie to play it on other players and allow second hand sale in Russia, did you think the disc would magically become illegal when I entered the US? Of course not, the laws of the country I was in at the time prevail. I can even sell my now unencrypted disc in the US since second hand sales are legal here, just not breaking the encryption (which I did in Russia).
Go to Amsterdam and smoke some hash, you won't be arrested when you step back on american soil for doing so.
You've got to be kidding. AAC is fairly decent but WMA is lowest quality mainstream compression on the market. Yes it compresses to smaller files than mp3 but it sounds like chit.
If consumers suddenly find themselves unable to , they're not going to buy. They'll tell the industry "screw you" and go get their content some other way.
Sadly the consumer has shown consistantly thus far that he will mumble and groan under his breath then he chalks it up to the "man" and takes another one in the rear. Remember, the generation in power now got up in arms once. It was called Vietnam. The American people united as a loud powerful voice of protest demanding a stop to unjust slaughter. The "man" turned a deaf ear and dispelled the illusion that things will be set right simply because joe sixpack gets pissed.
Joe sixpack is not going to encite serious action in the US without the use of force. And even then Joe has no chance unless there are massive defections of US Military unwilling to engage in a war against the people. The Joe sixpack of 200 years ago might have taken this step to unshackle himself from the bonds of repression and tyranny. The Joe sixpack of today will gather in peacefully ignored protests.
"Our collective information is great, now we just need to do something with it!"
Things like flying to the moon? Sending robots to another planet and then controling them via invisible forces that we have mastered and harnassed to do our bidding. Perhaps you were thinking more like capturing the forces behind the flashes of light in the sky, storing their power, and then harnessing that to send devices floating around our planet so that they can map and pinpoint every position on it within a few centimeters? How about recording the very visions and sound around us and broadcasting it live across the globe?
Those aims are a bit too grand really. Lets stick with simpler things. Perhaps we should master ourselves first. Perhaps learning how neuron chains link in the brain could teach us how to use chains of mneumonics and imagery to train near perfect memories. Perhaps studying eye movements could teach us how to read and retain materials at incredible rates. Perhaps studying the electrochemical processes of the brain could allow us to implant an interface device in a monkey's brain and we could study how the brain learns to interface with the device and control a robotic arm. Maybe we could learn further about lack of need for a soul to define intelligence when we place a pile of rat neurons on a sensor plate that is in turn connected to a flight simulator; then watch the neurons successfully figure out how to keep the plane airborne... and perhaps greater significance could be placed on the fact that they were able to determine that keeping the plane airborne is an objective in the first place.
It seems to me, that we have done quite a bit with that information. How do you think it got there in the first place?
"They spent 75% of their time using Outlook dealing with emails. Less than a quarter of the time went into using a development environment or testing tools."
While your core point is probably on target, programmers are a bad example. If a programmer is able to spend 25% of his time on actual development he is doing pretty good. Not because of distractions, but simply because the mind would overheat. There are occasion hardcore sessions where one mind melds with the machine for hours solid but they probably do not offset the days where nerf wars rule.
"When the non-techie finds out that the desktop version can't do more than 10 clieants"
Non-techies do not know what clients, desktops, and servers really are. They may be aware of some of the terms but they certainly do not know what they mean. The average user can not administrate a desktop anymore than they can a server. Even if they can manage to admin the desktop they typically can not handle a workgroup configuration.
That point aside, the prompts and configuration options one is presented with when installing the OS (another thing the average user can't handle on a desktop edition) are quite different. For instance, it is not difficult to assign a role to server unless you don't know what is meant by role and are unfamiliar with the terminology used to describe any of the roles. God forbid you need the server to do something that seems to fall inbetween two of them.
Windows configuration is hardly intuitive or easy, it is just clickable and has wide software/hardware vendor support.
"If you can't charge more than that then either you don't rate your skills highly enough or you don't have skills worth rating."
Just because one CAN charge more does not mean one MUST charge more.
"He wasn't suggesting that the company would try to use XP as a server. MS' server OSs don't have that 10 concurrent connection limit. Your statement is correct, but not relevant :)"
Really? I was under the impression I was responding directly to his question (repasted here for easy reference). For the server OS it is more directly relevant to mention that they only include 10 cals and would require the purchase of an additional cal pack to support this office. The cost of the additional cals would pay for an outside IT guy to setup the entire solution.
Zeinfeld said:
"i think its far more likely they'd either use a windows desktop version (not sure where you hit the crippling with that though)"
"WMP does not establish a monopoly."
True but you are overlooking one additional point. Windows is the monopoly and it IS being leveraged to not only stifle competition but to create additional monopolies. If this move is successful then windows will have established WMP as a monopoly.
Do not confuse the journalists with the scientists. Further, the "something" is the quantum state of the photon and this is the result they expected to achieve so apparently they DO have some level of understanding.
A 12 user setup is not enterprise class. The cost of the local IT shop sending an onsite guy out is more like $55/hour and setting up a Samba server that will take care of a shop of this size just as well as AD will take less than 4 hours. The cost of the two additional cals they will need is as much as the IT guy will cost them.
Spoken like someone walking straight out of a corporate configuration.
"Its a matter of ease of deployment and use."
No, it's actually a matter of stability. Use is identical between the two when functioning properly.
"Most likely, this little law office isn't going to have an IT guy and most of the day-to-day will fall on the office manager"
False. This shop will not have an IT guy on the payroll but they will certainly have a local tech shop that takes care of their needs. They probably won't have an Office Manager but their probably will be a secretary that fills that role and they all tell about their problems. She in turn will call the computer guys.
"In that situation, the cheapy solution makes absolutely no sense whatsoever."
Using Samba is less expensive. But in this scenerio the quality of the solution is what makes samba a superior choice.
"they can have a _supported_ solution"
Surely you don't suggest they spend hours on the phone with Microsoft trying to add a user to the server? Of course not, they shoot an email to the computer guy. He charges them 50 bucks and sets up the new computer, configures it with all the software they use, puts it on the network and maps network drives/priters. And also adds the user to the server. This involves about 30 seconds of their time instead of hours.
"Instead of managing 11 machines' passwords, she manages the domain."
That was 12 users. And in AD you still have to manage users and passwords. In a 12 user setup AD offers no significant advantages at all, it simply brings a plethora of issues related to DNS. If domain security is needed due to interoffice needs then samba handles that quite nicely.
"This includes homogenizing the configuration of all the workstation and all the other benefits of having centralized control of configuration, authorization and authentication."
In a 12 user setup it takes longer to configure these services than it does to configure the individual machines. Especially considering changes are only going to occur on one or two stations over the course of a typical year.
"Some will argue that SBS is harder to manage for the general user wearing the admin cape - true, but how much easier is it than trying to manage a linux server for them?"
The general user should not be managing either.
P.S. I wish Slashdot would ban IP's from known Redmond fud machines.
An office with 12 pcs has a tech guy. He will not be a dedicated tech guy you can be sure, but he will be from a local onsite service shop.
Non-technical users could not use a windows server anymore than they could a Samba server.
P.S. Windows desktop system fail at 10 clients and couldn't be used on this setup. Although a non-technical user might try and think it works. Might even take them sometime to realize their connection errors only arise when more than 10 pcs are on at the same time.
The kernel has adopted massive chunks of BSD code. The only code examples that leaked from SCO meetings fell under the category of former AT&T code that was sanitized in that case and then used by linux kernel developers.
It is true that much of that code has probably changed now (the same is true of BSD code I am sure). But the current code did largely decend from BSD'd AT&T code. Of course the userland tools do not enter into questions of OS kernels.
What difference does it make if the code was copied from BSD instead of an original AT&T source license, it is still the same code.
True enough. Unfortunately the same can not be said of all common hardware. Uncommon hardware could be forgiven to a degree, but you can go buy plenty of items on the shelf in Walmart right now that work under linux but require substantial tweaking.
"Credibility is nothing more than the weight that you give the validity of someone's arguments without examining them in detail."
False. You should never give weight to the validity of someone's arguements without examining them in detail and only then give weight based upon the arguments and the detail with which you examined them. Credibility is the weight you give to subjective claims/data from a given source.
If someone reports that algorithm A yields 30% increase under X conditions then you examine the basis for the claim and the peer review or, better yet, attempt to replicate the result to verify. If someone claims they saw Elvis it must fall back on credibility. Crediblity is the LAST resort fallback in assessing the validity of a claim, not the first line of defense.
Linux would qualify as real Unix by that standard also, especially since it contains a great deal of that sanitized code. The trademark is what defines Unix versus non Unix these days. Otherwise we could drop the * in *nix.
"A law office with ten employees using Windows XP is going to buy a Windows server, end of story."
Why would they do that? This is actually an ideal place to implement a Samba solution. At 12 systems they aren't even looking at a domain, they are looking for a workgroup solution. There are advantages in cost, reliably, and all aspects of performance.
In a 12 system environment, the $1000 for a windows server license is going to be more than they spend on the server!
We need to nip this in the bud right here. My understanding is that this approach will still allow the same eyecandy but will lose the only REAL feature of XGL. A hardware accelerated desktop. Some of you like the eyecandy and transparent windows. That must be nice for you. The rest of us want a snappy and responsive desktop. XGL delivers that by hardware accelerating the entire xserver.
If my understanding is incorrect then by all means, enlighten me. If not, then please stop with differing standards and approaches and embrace the fully functional system in existance today.
P.S. Nvidia will use what they have to. They support this approach because it requires the less work on their part than XGL and therefore costs less money. Therefore, their opinion should be ignored and only the interests of the USERS should be considered.
I would venture to say that OGG is hardly a widely used standard IN the *nix world (at least for video).
"confronted with the nastiness that requires me dork with kernal parameters, setting it to emulate SCSI"
"We're LONG past this."
You're right. This hasn't been neccesary in years.
You are going off on a tanget and deliberately misquoting the gp. Perhaps you should take a course in journalism?
The GP was not referring to permissions when he said "any user" he obviously meant "any idiot".
Wish I had mod points...