I think it should be obvious that there will be an immediate advantage to those participating in the creation of such standards. It will mean people with rival technologies will not be left out of your business scheme. Having a key role in the development of these standars will allow Microsoft to try and force their standards into technologies they can't directly control the development of (and this is not necessary bad if the standards they propose are good).
And for the "conspirancy theory" I think Microsoft may decide to break the standard when all it's settled, so that the people that doesn't make part of their new standard joins the Dark Side. Oh well, forget the conspirancy part...
I'm not surprised but I don't think they actually want to shut other clients out. I think that they can only offer compatibility with older clients up to a certain point before starting to sacrifice improvements, so sooner or later you will need to make drastic changes. Continous improvement of outdated protocols can lead to security and stability problems so I welcome these news.
Call it as you like, just don't expect me to believe in your morality. I see the offense represented by my actions as great as the offense anyone else takes part of when they photocopy a part of a book they don't own. If that's the kind of theft you are trying to prevent from happening then go on with your objective. I have a feeling the world won't be cleaner when dangerous book-copiers start paying big bucks too or going to jail. I mean... am I supposed to sue you because you quoted my copyrighted posts?
I'm wondering what you are protecting tho. If it's your morality then I can easily show you how mine can be totally different. If you're defending your country's laws I can easily show you how laws are not always fair. Especially those made to protect people that most of the time don't deserve protection.
"I guess you have never set foot inside a music store for many many years then, otherwise you would know that it is perfectly possible to check any CD before buying it. I do that quite often if it is a CD of which I am unsure."
CD stores in Italy, which is where I live, don't offer that service, although I agree they should. And no, I don't go too often to music stores as I only go there when I know what I am going to buy.
"Tell me - when you download a CD and decide it is not worth buying, do you delete ALL of the tracks from your system? Including the track(s) you did like?"
Just to make it clear and easy... I buy all the CDs I can afford, when I like them. The problem is I can't afford to buy many with my current budget, and I honestly see no harm in downloading a song I couldn't possibly afford. As I stated before mine is just a copy of the song, and not something I stole (as in "deprive someone of it").
Now that said, no, I don't delete all the songs from the CDs I don't like, and if they were to offer the songs I like from that CD into a single, rest assured that I would put that CD into my list of stuff to buy.
My whole point in this thread was saying how it's not necessary true that everyone downloading songs is actually causing a "loss in profits".
You are depriving someone of the money they woudl have got had you actually PAID for the music you stole.
Not really, because I decide what CDs are worth a purchase by downloading those songs. It's as simple as if I can't check myself the songs in the album before purchase, I won't be buying that CD at all. It's also as simple as if I don't like the songs I won't be buying it either, so I can't see how you can state that I COULD buy a CD I never listened to.
Maybe you think that people should trust the recording companies on what they're trying to sell them, but I prefer to personally check that when possible. Maybe you think it's morally wrong too, but I find morality can be quite customizable these days, most of the times to suit the needs of those up high. Telling me that what I'm doing is wrong is arguable... and to be honest I keep thinking I am doing the recording industry a favour by advertising their music to my own self.
I like Russ's idea, it has nothing to do with suing the people who let thieves in their house. Russ's idea is more like suing people who let their house turn into a crack house.
The point is not everybody knows that something entered their box. People don't even know if their boxes have security holes, so there is no rational reason why they should be punished.
Also, remember that sometimes you just have no way to have your box protected, as someone could be taking advantage of a still-unknown security hole in your OS. And believe me, there are plenty of those.
You miss the point. I download songs to try and find stuff that is worth a purchase. To be honest I don't care if you consider that like a theft, but that's the way I decide what songs are worth my bucks.
I would also like to point out a few points:
1 - The fact that I get or not the song from the internet is irrelevant. I am not stealing since I am not depriving someone from stuff he has, nor profits he could make. How can someone steal bits? Even those are just copied into my box!
2 - To prove me that I am doing something wrong you would have to show me how I am hurting somebody. I'm not reselling the music I download, nor even uploading it online... just downloading. A theft to me is what I explained on point 1.
3 - I am actually helping the corps make some better publicity of their songs by actually downloading what I find and buying those CDs I trully like. Otherwise they would be loosing a profit. So to put that in their words, I would be committing a crime if I didn't do so (hehehe).
I don't know about "people" but I can surely tell you why I use kazaa.
The problem is I'm not rich. I can't spend all that money on CDs. If I were to spend $15 each time I like a new song I would be quite poor by now. I DO buy CDs, just not as often as I would like to listen to the music I download. And this wasn't any different before napster, because to be honest, I didn't care about music before it. I never cared too much about listening to the radio or watching MTV, but I do care now about downloading random songs from the Internet to listen to them.
The big music companies are just being silly. They should be offering online services with very low prices so that people can download the music they want, and they would get the money the desire so much. That, together with a simple and secure system for people to pay for the service, and I will be glad to switch to it.
And they should stop claiming I am causing a loss in profit, because I simply don't have all the money they want from me.
Well in that case all they know is that someone with the nick nycfashiongirl is sharing certain files but... how did they know who this person was?
How did they link the nickname to the real person? I don't think the RIAA has the right to ask a provider for any info regarding their client's logs.
And honestly, how can they ever prove you were sharing files at the time? One could argue that any kind of logs they keep regarding your files on the net is no more than something they wrote themselves. Screenshots can be faked too.
Do it right mate. My experience taught me that doing a job the quick and dirty way can make you loose much more than just your time. I work for a guy that made some really nasty decisions during the design process of our program, and now he's blaming me for needing a lot of time to fix the problems we have. A program with a weak structure, a bad design, or general flaws, can give you a really lot of work when it comes to having a clean and working product, or even when it comes to expanding and improving it.
Creating a sort of system where you pay piracy taxes is like admitting piracy to be legal... so they should either apply that tax and give us the right to freely download the music we want or stop trying to squeeze our money out of our pockets.
This whole matter is too complicated. Windows shouldn't be shipping it's own VM, especially one that actually doesn't run Sun's Java applets. But on the other hand I don't want to accept Sun's Java as a standard that comes installed with Windows.
This solution will only harm other software made by 3rd party developers by putting Java in a situation of advantage.
Unfortunately I think the reason why they want to put Sun's Java in Windows is because there's a contract signed by MS saying so. But seriously... I can't see Java as a big part of my computing experience.
Just a thought by someone who thinks he's got enough crap installed on his box, Decameron
No people are not unbelievable. And I really think that it's not always my fault if I'm tricked into something. For instance if someone sells me a program that scans through my hard disk looking for personal info, it WON'T BE MY FAULT just because they wrote so in the readme file of the program. And yes, sometimes people should read more before installing software, but it's not always there for you to read. You should also remember that a lot of people have little if any idea on how to use computers... maybe they were just told to "install realplayer" and they don't want to uncheck the checked options to avoid having problems.
And regarding "consumer rights", I think they're very very important. I work as a programmer for a large group and we always put our customer's happyness above everything. If you don't want to follow this way of thinking go ahead, but don't come here telling everyone what the world should be like. To our company, a happy customer is a big thing, our ultimate goal. When we sell a product to someone (a product being something we PRODUCE), we really want to make the client love it (the client being the one that pays us for the product, a so called CONSUMER)... calling it a market exchange won't make it any different to me. We offer a product and a service together, and they pay us for it... so why should we piss them off?
Producers exist and consumers exist... trying to put yourself in the same level as your clients will only help you to go out of business IMHO.
Palladium by Microsoft will bring me to the new era of secure computing. Why on earth would I trust Microsoft as much as to let them choose what program is or isn't secure for my computer? Why on earth can't I have the right to decide what is secure or isn't secure to ME on MY box?
The only possible answer to this question is: "nobody cares about you, but we need to know you won't be doing stuff we don't want you to do on your box". SECURE TO THEM, and this is not something hard to see. They don't trust me because to their eyes I'm a potential pirate, a potential criminal and competitor, and I don't wanna buy stuff from people that wants to put their interests before my interests. It's as simple as that.
Someone pointed out that palladium could prevent people from cheating in online games... yes that's true. But you know, you could as well prevent people from stealing by putting them in prison before they do so too. The WHOLE concept behind this is WRONG. I don't want such a technology to stop me from having the best of my computer experience in ANY way. Even if it means not being able to run a few of the programs I have in my box now. I simply have NO INTEREST IN PALLADIUM. And it's clear that what Palladium has to offer means nothing for most of us, cos if it was worth something, Microsoft would write it in capital letters instead of talking about a generic concept such as "secure computing".
Palladium, where one entity has the right to choose what is and what isn't secure, could end up going against the concept of innovation, and I don't want to run such a risk. Imagine where we would be now if some really brilliant people in the past weren't able to innovate because of some stupid Palladium-like system?
Just my thoughts, sorry it sounded like a rant, but I really think there's a point where we have to stop accepting what we don't like and fight for what we wish things were like. Microsoft has let me down so many times, and I'm still using it, but not for long if it goes on like this.
I'm very sorry but to me it's not fair to support this because it creates jobs. I don't want to find myself in the future saying no (politely) 100 times a day because we need to feed people.
Supporting something I find to be absolutely wrong is against my principles.
Now this is a really nice way of thinking. You're saying that by paying for the phone you're voluntarily accepting telemarketer calls? Well, when I chose to have a telephone at home (can it really be called a choice btw?) my will wasn't absolutely to receive such calls. Actually I never heard a tiny bit about having to be bothered by them night and day...
The fact that they got my telephone number doesn't give them the right to harrass me, in the same way as if a psycho has YOUR number he doesn't have the right to call you night and day. Please keep your arrogance to yourself and don't tell me I asked for it, because it may be true that you really enjoy being bothered by these guys, but I have better things to do than stay in the phone answering to their stupid calls each day.
And btw, I don't care in bringing down such a big and important industry if what it does is something I find completely incorrect.
Man this is a dangerous thing. Considering the enormous ammount of money they have, they could sue a thousand gas stations, music shops, etc simultaneously and not loose a single time.
Imho this will turn into an abusive way to get more control over what's being sold, etc. The article also explains that they ask the shops to "help them fight piracy" which kind of back ups my fears.
The letter itself would be enough to make the shop owner s**t his pants, send some money to the RIAA and even help them in their attempts.
Real piracy is a problem but I don't trust the RIAA.
Decameron
Re:What desktop users want to know..
on
AMD's 64-bit Plot
·
· Score: 1
Well to be honest I will wait to see some user reviews to decide wether it's crap or not. But to be honest I like the "concept" behind it, since Hyper Threading may represent a small speed gain atm, but this small speed gain will grow with faster processors.
A small gain today may become a big difference tomorrow.
Decameron
Re:What desktop users want to know..
on
AMD's 64-bit Plot
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yes the main factor when buying a new CPU is price atm.
But you DO notice the difference between a 866 Mhz processor and a 2.4 Ghz one in many ways. On of them is the time it takes for the computer to boot. But there are several other tasks that become much faster by going up with the frequency... also remember that a 2.4 Ghz processor has DDR whereas an 866 Mhz one probably won't (haven't heard of 866s with DDR, although I may be wrong). Hopefully another factor that will show you a nice speed increase in the future is the new Hyper Threading tech in the 3.06 Ghz Intel CPU.
The computer's overall speed is increased, and yes, you will notice the big difference when it comes to playing games, using programs like Pro Tools or doing Graphics, but that doesn't mean the rest isn't changed at all.
I have a K7 850 and an Athlon 1400 DDR and hell, do I notice the difference? Of course I do...
Slashdot Mirror
I think it should be obvious that there will be an immediate advantage to those participating in the creation of such standards. It will mean people with rival technologies will not be left out of your business scheme. Having a key role in the development of these standars will allow Microsoft to try and force their standards into technologies they can't directly control the development of (and this is not necessary bad if the standards they propose are good).
And for the "conspirancy theory" I think Microsoft may decide to break the standard when all it's settled, so that the people that doesn't make part of their new standard joins the Dark Side. Oh well, forget the conspirancy part...
Decameron
I'm not surprised but I don't think they actually want to shut other clients out. I think that they can only offer compatibility with older clients up to a certain point before starting to sacrifice improvements, so sooner or later you will need to make drastic changes. Continous improvement of outdated protocols can lead to security and stability problems so I welcome these news.
Decameron
Call it as you like, just don't expect me to believe in your morality. I see the offense represented by my actions as great as the offense anyone else takes part of when they photocopy a part of a book they don't own. If that's the kind of theft you are trying to prevent from happening then go on with your objective. I have a feeling the world won't be cleaner when dangerous book-copiers start paying big bucks too or going to jail. I mean... am I supposed to sue you because you quoted my copyrighted posts?
I'm wondering what you are protecting tho. If it's your morality then I can easily show you how mine can be totally different. If you're defending your country's laws I can easily show you how laws are not always fair. Especially those made to protect people that most of the time don't deserve protection.
Decameron
One of these days I'm gonna sue my computer for stealing my life. Who knows? I may get some money out of it.
1. Sue computer
2. Profit!!
Decameron
"I guess you have never set foot inside a music store for many many years then, otherwise you would know that it is perfectly possible to check any CD before buying it. I do that quite often if it is a CD of which I am unsure."
CD stores in Italy, which is where I live, don't offer that service, although I agree they should. And no, I don't go too often to music stores as I only go there when I know what I am going to buy.
"Tell me - when you download a CD and decide it is not worth buying, do you delete ALL of the tracks from your system? Including the track(s) you did like?"
Just to make it clear and easy... I buy all the CDs I can afford, when I like them. The problem is I can't afford to buy many with my current budget, and I honestly see no harm in downloading a song I couldn't possibly afford. As I stated before mine is just a copy of the song, and not something I stole (as in "deprive someone of it").
Now that said, no, I don't delete all the songs from the CDs I don't like, and if they were to offer the songs I like from that CD into a single, rest assured that I would put that CD into my list of stuff to buy.
My whole point in this thread was saying how it's not necessary true that everyone downloading songs is actually causing a "loss in profits".
Decameron
You are depriving someone of the money they woudl have got had you actually PAID for the music you stole.
Not really, because I decide what CDs are worth a purchase by downloading those songs. It's as simple as if I can't check myself the songs in the album before purchase, I won't be buying that CD at all. It's also as simple as if I don't like the songs I won't be buying it either, so I can't see how you can state that I COULD buy a CD I never listened to.
Maybe you think that people should trust the recording companies on what they're trying to sell them, but I prefer to personally check that when possible. Maybe you think it's morally wrong too, but I find morality can be quite customizable these days, most of the times to suit the needs of those up high. Telling me that what I'm doing is wrong is arguable... and to be honest I keep thinking I am doing the recording industry a favour by advertising their music to my own self.
Decameron
Well such an idea is theoretically fleasible. I only wonder how easy it would be to actually implement it.
I would also tend to fear a missmanagement of such a system on the long run.
Decameron
I like Russ's idea, it has nothing to do with suing the people who let thieves in their house. Russ's idea is more like suing people who let their house turn into a crack house.
The point is not everybody knows that something entered their box. People don't even know if their boxes have security holes, so there is no rational reason why they should be punished.
Also, remember that sometimes you just have no way to have your box protected, as someone could be taking advantage of a still-unknown security hole in your OS. And believe me, there are plenty of those.
Decameron
You miss the point. I download songs to try and find stuff that is worth a purchase. To be honest I don't care if you consider that like a theft, but that's the way I decide what songs are worth my bucks.
I would also like to point out a few points:
1 - The fact that I get or not the song from the internet is irrelevant. I am not stealing since I am not depriving someone from stuff he has, nor profits he could make. How can someone steal bits? Even those are just copied into my box!
2 - To prove me that I am doing something wrong you would have to show me how I am hurting somebody. I'm not reselling the music I download, nor even uploading it online... just downloading. A theft to me is what I explained on point 1.
3 - I am actually helping the corps make some better publicity of their songs by actually downloading what I find and buying those CDs I trully like. Otherwise they would be loosing a profit. So to put that in their words, I would be committing a crime if I didn't do so (hehehe).
Just think about it,
Decameron
What about hunting down those guys that actually released the virus?
This sounds as stupid to me as a fine for people that let thieves into their houses.
Decameron
I don't know about "people" but I can surely tell you why I use kazaa.
The problem is I'm not rich. I can't spend all that money on CDs. If I were to spend $15 each time I like a new song I would be quite poor by now. I DO buy CDs, just not as often as I would like to listen to the music I download. And this wasn't any different before napster, because to be honest, I didn't care about music before it. I never cared too much about listening to the radio or watching MTV, but I do care now about downloading random songs from the Internet to listen to them.
The big music companies are just being silly. They should be offering online services with very low prices so that people can download the music they want, and they would get the money the desire so much. That, together with a simple and secure system for people to pay for the service, and I will be glad to switch to it.
And they should stop claiming I am causing a loss in profit, because I simply don't have all the money they want from me.
Decameron
"Being that the last letter in RIAA stands for "America", I would hope that all nations outside of the US are immune..."
Go study some geography. America is far bigger than USA, and Canada made part of it last time I checked.
Decameron
Well in that case all they know is that someone with the nick nycfashiongirl is sharing certain files but... how did they know who this person was?
How did they link the nickname to the real person? I don't think the RIAA has the right to ask a provider for any info regarding their client's logs.
And honestly, how can they ever prove you were sharing files at the time? One could argue that any kind of logs they keep regarding your files on the net is no more than something they wrote themselves. Screenshots can be faked too.
My few thoughts,
Diego Rey
Do it right mate. My experience taught me that doing a job the quick and dirty way can make you loose much more than just your time. I work for a guy that made some really nasty decisions during the design process of our program, and now he's blaming me for needing a lot of time to fix the problems we have. A program with a weak structure, a bad design, or general flaws, can give you a really lot of work when it comes to having a clean and working product, or even when it comes to expanding and improving it.
Just my 2 cents,
Diego Rey
Err I meant "shut up".
Decameron
Windows is a threat, how is that missleading? Please just up Mr Clarke.
Yours sincerely,
Decameron
Creating a sort of system where you pay piracy taxes is like admitting piracy to be legal... so they should either apply that tax and give us the right to freely download the music we want or stop trying to squeeze our money out of our pockets.
Decameron
This whole matter is too complicated. Windows shouldn't be shipping it's own VM, especially one that actually doesn't run Sun's Java applets. But on the other hand I don't want to accept Sun's Java as a standard that comes installed with Windows.
This solution will only harm other software made by 3rd party developers by putting Java in a situation of advantage.
Unfortunately I think the reason why they want to put Sun's Java in Windows is because there's a contract signed by MS saying so. But seriously... I can't see Java as a big part of my computing experience.
Just a thought by someone who thinks he's got enough crap installed on his box,
Decameron
No people are not unbelievable. And I really think that it's not always my fault if I'm tricked into something. For instance if someone sells me a program that scans through my hard disk looking for personal info, it WON'T BE MY FAULT just because they wrote so in the readme file of the program. And yes, sometimes people should read more before installing software, but it's not always there for you to read. You should also remember that a lot of people have little if any idea on how to use computers... maybe they were just told to "install realplayer" and they don't want to uncheck the checked options to avoid having problems.
And regarding "consumer rights", I think they're very very important. I work as a programmer for a large group and we always put our customer's happyness above everything. If you don't want to follow this way of thinking go ahead, but don't come here telling everyone what the world should be like. To our company, a happy customer is a big thing, our ultimate goal. When we sell a product to someone (a product being something we PRODUCE), we really want to make the client love it (the client being the one that pays us for the product, a so called CONSUMER)... calling it a market exchange won't make it any different to me. We offer a product and a service together, and they pay us for it... so why should we piss them off?
Producers exist and consumers exist... trying to put yourself in the same level as your clients will only help you to go out of business IMHO.
Decameron
Palladium by Microsoft will bring me to the new era of secure computing. Why on earth would I trust Microsoft as much as to let them choose what program is or isn't secure for my computer? Why on earth can't I have the right to decide what is secure or isn't secure to ME on MY box?
The only possible answer to this question is: "nobody cares about you, but we need to know you won't be doing stuff we don't want you to do on your box". SECURE TO THEM, and this is not something hard to see. They don't trust me because to their eyes I'm a potential pirate, a potential criminal and competitor, and I don't wanna buy stuff from people that wants to put their interests before my interests. It's as simple as that.
Someone pointed out that palladium could prevent people from cheating in online games... yes that's true. But you know, you could as well prevent people from stealing by putting them in prison before they do so too. The WHOLE concept behind this is WRONG. I don't want such a technology to stop me from having the best of my computer experience in ANY way. Even if it means not being able to run a few of the programs I have in my box now. I simply have NO INTEREST IN PALLADIUM. And it's clear that what Palladium has to offer means nothing for most of us, cos if it was worth something, Microsoft would write it in capital letters instead of talking about a generic concept such as "secure computing".
Palladium, where one entity has the right to choose what is and what isn't secure, could end up going against the concept of innovation, and I don't want to run such a risk. Imagine where we would be now if some really brilliant people in the past weren't able to innovate because of some stupid Palladium-like system?
Just my thoughts, sorry it sounded like a rant, but I really think there's a point where we have to stop accepting what we don't like and fight for what we wish things were like. Microsoft has let me down so many times, and I'm still using it, but not for long if it goes on like this.
Decameron
I'm very sorry but to me it's not fair to support this because it creates jobs. I don't want to find myself in the future saying no (politely) 100 times a day because we need to feed people.
Supporting something I find to be absolutely wrong is against my principles.
Decameron
Now this is a really nice way of thinking. You're saying that by paying for the phone you're voluntarily accepting telemarketer calls? Well, when I chose to have a telephone at home (can it really be called a choice btw?) my will wasn't absolutely to receive such calls. Actually I never heard a tiny bit about having to be bothered by them night and day...
The fact that they got my telephone number doesn't give them the right to harrass me, in the same way as if a psycho has YOUR number he doesn't have the right to call you night and day. Please keep your arrogance to yourself and don't tell me I asked for it, because it may be true that you really enjoy being bothered by these guys, but I have better things to do than stay in the phone answering to their stupid calls each day.
And btw, I don't care in bringing down such a big and important industry if what it does is something I find completely incorrect.
Decameron
Man this is a dangerous thing. Considering the enormous ammount of money they have, they could sue a thousand gas stations, music shops, etc simultaneously and not loose a single time.
Imho this will turn into an abusive way to get more control over what's being sold, etc. The article also explains that they ask the shops to "help them fight piracy" which kind of back ups my fears.
The letter itself would be enough to make the shop owner s**t his pants, send some money to the RIAA and even help them in their attempts.
Real piracy is a problem but I don't trust the RIAA.
Decameron
Well to be honest I will wait to see some user reviews to decide wether it's crap or not. But to be honest I like the "concept" behind it, since Hyper Threading may represent a small speed gain atm, but this small speed gain will grow with faster processors.
A small gain today may become a big difference tomorrow.
Decameron
Yes the main factor when buying a new CPU is price atm.
But you DO notice the difference between a 866 Mhz processor and a 2.4 Ghz one in many ways. On of them is the time it takes for the computer to boot. But there are several other tasks that become much faster by going up with the frequency... also remember that a 2.4 Ghz processor has DDR whereas an 866 Mhz one probably won't (haven't heard of 866s with DDR, although I may be wrong). Hopefully another factor that will show you a nice speed increase in the future is the new Hyper Threading tech in the 3.06 Ghz Intel CPU.
The computer's overall speed is increased, and yes, you will notice the big difference when it comes to playing games, using programs like Pro Tools or doing Graphics, but that doesn't mean the rest isn't changed at all.
I have a K7 850 and an Athlon 1400 DDR and hell, do I notice the difference? Of course I do...
Decameron