Teach Aunt Martha about the computer the eay way: Send her to ChristianNerds.com, the Free Online Computer Encyclopedia (written in normal-people-speak)
Apparently your idea of "normal-people-speak" is baby talk and misinformation. Apparently, the motherboard of a computer goes inside the CPU and a biological virus is an "inivisible being that gets passed on from one person to another." Also, all the information stored in a computer's memory is software; there's no such thing as data.
It's because people expect computers to work like TV or playstation rather than a car. Imagine if you need a certificate just to play Super Mario Bros...
Super Mario Bros. comes on read-only memory and thus there's nothing the user can do to damage it (aside from physically damaging the cartridge). Computers and cars don't work that way.
I didn't write that. But RIAA is failry (per their dfinition) compensatated for your listening. They get to decide what's fair, because that is their copyright.
My apologies, that was the original poster I was responding to. But to address your response, this isn't about what's legal. The RIAA only has the copyright because that's what the law allows. It doesn't make it fair - that's exactly the point that we're arguing! I believe what you are doing is called "begging the question."
What's the difference between this and borrowing a friend's CD and listening to it a bunch of times before buying it? I used to do that all the time before the advent of p2p.
>Is that a serious question? The obvious difference is that you and your friend cannot both have the purchased CD at the same time. Your friends license allows him to lend you the CD. It also allows him to invite you over to listen to it. He can't have a public performance, nor can he give away copies.
Sure, it's a serious question. I still don't see what the difference is. You're saying that one use is legal and the other isn't, but that's avoiding the whole argument. I already know that. I'm saying that from the perspective of the RIAA's profits, there is no difference. My friend lends me a CD for a month, and I listen to it a bunch of times. I decide I don't like it, so I don't buy it. I have "derived the benefit" of the CD by doing this. However, I give my friend the disc back, and don't buy the disc. Is this considered a lost sale for the RIAA? Should they be able to sue me for not buying it?
Now let's say I download the mp3s of all the tracks on the disc. I listen to them a bunch of times over the course of a month, and I decide I don't like them, so I don't buy the CD and I delete them. This is the exact scenario proposed by the poster you responded to. Is this considered a lost sale for the RIAA? Should they be able to sue me for not buying the CD? Now look at your answers to these questions and see if they differ.
Furthermore, should I feel guilty for listening to a song on the radio without buying the single? Or does that also count as having "derived the benefit of it" without paying?
>No. The radio station pays for the right to play the song, so you shouldn't feel guilty in the least. Their license allows them to do so.
But I "derived the benefit" of the music by listening to it, and I haven't paid for it. This was your complaint - you wrote "You want the benefit of something that isn't yours without paying for it[.]" I didn't pay for it! It doesn't matter if the radio station did, from your perspective (again, based entirely on what you yourself wrote).
I guess since I answered your questions, you'll admit that you're wrong and stop illegally downloading music. But I'm not holding my breath.
Not in the slightest, since you didn't really respond to the intent of my first question - the question is what the effective difference is; I already know the legal difference - and you contradicted yourself in your answer to the second question.
You want the benefit of something that isn't yours without paying for it, until you decide that it's worth paying for... by which point you've already derived the benefit of it, regardless of whether you think it's worth anything or not.
What's the difference between this and borrowing a friend's CD and listening to it a bunch of times before buying it? I used to do that all the time before the advent of p2p. Furthermore, should I feel guilty for listening to a song on the radio without buying the single? Or does that also count as having "derived the benefit of it" without paying? (Of course we do pay by listening to advertising).
You even acknowledged that your analogy isn't accurate - stealing a shirt, a physical object, is not the same as downloading music - especially if it's later deleted. Neither the artist nor the label has actually lost anything. That's not stealing.
Most new music sucks; why should I buy a whole CD for one or two good songs? CDs are overpriced. People can get the music cheaper by downloading it. It may be illegal, but when a large portion of the population is breaking the law, maybe the law needs to be examined.
For the record, I, like the grandparent poster, also spend a good deal on music. I don't bother downloading anymore because I got sick of dealing with spyware and the possibility of RIAA action. Unfortunately for the RIAA and its artists, this also means I haven't listened to as much new music lately as I used to, and I haven't bought as many CDs either. If I'm going to spend $15 on an album, it better have more than one good song on it. The only CDs I've bought lately are ones I already heard because friends had them (I'm now back again to the days before MP3s). I don't see how limiting my selection to what my friends own is helping the RIAA any.
Also, IIRC using MS's Remote Desktop Connection the system can still only service one acting user login at a time... if another user is already logged in, you might as well forget about it. Whereas with VNC (and especially the X protocol and XDMCP) a system can handle multiple simultaneous user and client sessions. Microsoft is still over 20 years behind in timesharing design...
It has nothing to do with design; it's purely a licensing move. Windows XP Home has no Terminal Services. Windows XP Professional allows one TS connection or console session. Windows Server in "remote administration" mode allows two TS connections plus a console session. To get more than two TS sessions, you need to by TS licenses.
They also wouldn't let me review the article and also made me sign an agreement saying that I would agree that the article was acceptable ahead of time.
That entire school board should be fired. They're putting superstition before education. Mind you, when you have a well documented quote from George Bush saying "I think that, for example, on the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the earth." I guess it sets the playing field for the kooks in Kansas to create a generation of drooling WalMart greeters...
I dislike Bush as much as the next person. However, that quotation is taken out of context and seems to be twisting his intent. The full version of what he said was this:
"From Scripture you can gain a lot of strength and solace and learn life's lessons. That's what I believe, and I don't necessarily believe every single word is literally true. I think that, for example, on the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the earth. I don't use the Bible as necessarily a way to predict the findings of science." (from the NY Times, Oct 22, 2000)
See? Yet another reason to not design for a browser.
Stick to the standard.
Actually, he wasn't "designing for a browser," he was trying to make his page accessible to all browsers. He might generate different HTML depending on which browser is looking at it. Unfortunately, different browsers implement the standards differently, and sometimes you have to do hacks to get your pages to look the same in all browsers.
I was 15 or 16 and a cashier in a grocery store when the new $20 bill came out. This lady gives me this crisp new bill with some parts blown up like that lens screensaver and I looked at her like, "You're kidding, right?" She said, "It's the new $20."
That story is a little fishy. I was working at a convenience store when those came out, and there were signs all over the place (in the break room, by the registers, etc.) showing the new $20 and its security features. You're saying your employer never once mentioned the new bill?
You're kidding, right? Then practically every employee in the student services and financial aid offices would need a US Government security clearance, and none of the computers there could be connected to the internet.
Sounds good to me. I, for one, don't think that the overworked and underpaid people (often students!) working those offices should necessarily have access to so much personal data.
They might own the word for use as their product name, but they can't do shit about how people want to use their word.
Actually I think that's the definition of trademark ownership. They probably wouldn't take action unless someone was profiting from the use of their trademark, but they have to defend it or they risk losing it.
Oh, you work at Research In Motion? Your write better code? Like, code that causes Blackberry Server Management to lock up for no reason whenever I add a new user? That code?
Yes, but the only way to move the default "Documents and Settings" or "Program Files" directories is to do an unattended setup.
I suppose I should've been more specific, but I was purely responding to the grandparent's assertion that the Windows installer doesn't include a partition editor.
The Windows installer should have a partition editor, and some information about partitioning. It should allow you to easily install Windows on a separate partition from your data.
Slashdot Mirror
Teach Aunt Martha about the computer the eay way: Send her to ChristianNerds.com, the Free Online Computer Encyclopedia (written in normal-people-speak)
Apparently your idea of "normal-people-speak" is baby talk and misinformation. Apparently, the motherboard of a computer goes inside the CPU and a biological virus is an "inivisible being that gets passed on from one person to another." Also, all the information stored in a computer's memory is software; there's no such thing as data.
Wow.
It's because people expect computers to work like TV or playstation rather than a car. Imagine if you need a certificate just to play Super Mario Bros...
Super Mario Bros. comes on read-only memory and thus there's nothing the user can do to damage it (aside from physically damaging the cartridge). Computers and cars don't work that way.
I didn't write that. But RIAA is failry (per their dfinition) compensatated for your listening. They get to decide what's fair, because that is their copyright.
My apologies, that was the original poster I was responding to. But to address your response, this isn't about what's legal. The RIAA only has the copyright because that's what the law allows. It doesn't make it fair - that's exactly the point that we're arguing! I believe what you are doing is called "begging the question."
What's the difference between this and borrowing a friend's CD and listening to it a bunch of times before buying it? I used to do that all the time before the advent of p2p.
>Is that a serious question? The obvious difference is that you and your friend cannot both have the purchased CD at the same time. Your friends license allows him to lend you the CD. It also allows him to invite you over to listen to it. He can't have a public performance, nor can he give away copies.
Sure, it's a serious question. I still don't see what the difference is. You're saying that one use is legal and the other isn't, but that's avoiding the whole argument. I already know that. I'm saying that from the perspective of the RIAA's profits, there is no difference. My friend lends me a CD for a month, and I listen to it a bunch of times. I decide I don't like it, so I don't buy it. I have "derived the benefit" of the CD by doing this. However, I give my friend the disc back, and don't buy the disc. Is this considered a lost sale for the RIAA? Should they be able to sue me for not buying it?
Now let's say I download the mp3s of all the tracks on the disc. I listen to them a bunch of times over the course of a month, and I decide I don't like them, so I don't buy the CD and I delete them. This is the exact scenario proposed by the poster you responded to. Is this considered a lost sale for the RIAA? Should they be able to sue me for not buying the CD? Now look at your answers to these questions and see if they differ.
Furthermore, should I feel guilty for listening to a song on the radio without buying the single? Or does that also count as having "derived the benefit of it" without paying?
>No. The radio station pays for the right to play the song, so you shouldn't feel guilty in the least. Their license allows them to do so.
But I "derived the benefit" of the music by listening to it, and I haven't paid for it. This was your complaint - you wrote "You want the benefit of something that isn't yours without paying for it[.]" I didn't pay for it! It doesn't matter if the radio station did, from your perspective (again, based entirely on what you yourself wrote).
I guess since I answered your questions, you'll admit that you're wrong and stop illegally downloading music. But I'm not holding my breath.
Not in the slightest, since you didn't really respond to the intent of my first question - the question is what the effective difference is; I already know the legal difference - and you contradicted yourself in your answer to the second question.
You want the benefit of something that isn't yours without paying for it, until you decide that it's worth paying for... by which point you've already derived the benefit of it, regardless of whether you think it's worth anything or not.
What's the difference between this and borrowing a friend's CD and listening to it a bunch of times before buying it? I used to do that all the time before the advent of p2p. Furthermore, should I feel guilty for listening to a song on the radio without buying the single? Or does that also count as having "derived the benefit of it" without paying? (Of course we do pay by listening to advertising).
You even acknowledged that your analogy isn't accurate - stealing a shirt, a physical object, is not the same as downloading music - especially if it's later deleted. Neither the artist nor the label has actually lost anything. That's not stealing.
Most new music sucks; why should I buy a whole CD for one or two good songs? CDs are overpriced. People can get the music cheaper by downloading it. It may be illegal, but when a large portion of the population is breaking the law, maybe the law needs to be examined.
For the record, I, like the grandparent poster, also spend a good deal on music. I don't bother downloading anymore because I got sick of dealing with spyware and the possibility of RIAA action. Unfortunately for the RIAA and its artists, this also means I haven't listened to as much new music lately as I used to, and I haven't bought as many CDs either. If I'm going to spend $15 on an album, it better have more than one good song on it. The only CDs I've bought lately are ones I already heard because friends had them (I'm now back again to the days before MP3s). I don't see how limiting my selection to what my friends own is helping the RIAA any.
Yes, "yub nub" is Ewok for "freedom."
Well it could be worse. It used to be 66%, so things are improving.
Not really; 2/3 is higher than 66%.
Also, IIRC using MS's Remote Desktop Connection the system can still only service one acting user login at a time... if another user is already logged in, you might as well forget about it. Whereas with VNC (and especially the X protocol and XDMCP) a system can handle multiple simultaneous user and client sessions. Microsoft is still over 20 years behind in timesharing design...
It has nothing to do with design; it's purely a licensing move. Windows XP Home has no Terminal Services. Windows XP Professional allows one TS connection or console session. Windows Server in "remote administration" mode allows two TS connections plus a console session. To get more than two TS sessions, you need to by TS licenses.
Posting the same thing multiple times does not make your opinion more valid.
They also wouldn't let me review the article and also made me sign an agreement saying that I would agree that the article was acceptable ahead of time.
Why the heck would you sign that?
That entire school board should be fired. They're putting superstition before education. Mind you, when you have a well documented quote from George Bush saying "I think that, for example, on the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the earth." I guess it sets the playing field for the kooks in Kansas to create a generation of drooling WalMart greeters...
I dislike Bush as much as the next person. However, that quotation is taken out of context and seems to be twisting his intent. The full version of what he said was this:
"From Scripture you can gain a lot of strength and solace and learn life's lessons. That's what I believe, and I don't necessarily believe every single word is literally true. I think that, for example, on the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the earth. I don't use the Bible as necessarily a way to predict the findings of science." (from the NY Times, Oct 22, 2000)
See? Yet another reason to not design for a browser.
Stick to the standard.
Actually, he wasn't "designing for a browser," he was trying to make his page accessible to all browsers. He might generate different HTML depending on which browser is looking at it. Unfortunately, different browsers implement the standards differently, and sometimes you have to do hacks to get your pages to look the same in all browsers.
Well duh he doesn't have a goatee. And you call yourself a sci-fi fan...
Mirror Archer doesn't have a goatee. And you call yourself a nitpicker...
I was 15 or 16 and a cashier in a grocery store when the new $20 bill came out. This lady gives me this crisp new bill with some parts blown up like that lens screensaver and I looked at her like, "You're kidding, right?" She said, "It's the new $20."
That story is a little fishy. I was working at a convenience store when those came out, and there were signs all over the place (in the break room, by the registers, etc.) showing the new $20 and its security features. You're saying your employer never once mentioned the new bill?
You're kidding, right? Then practically every employee in the student services and financial aid offices would need a US Government security clearance, and none of the computers there could be connected to the internet.
Sounds good to me. I, for one, don't think that the overworked and underpaid people (often students!) working those offices should necessarily have access to so much personal data.
They might own the word for use as their product name, but they can't do shit about how people want to use their word.
Actually I think that's the definition of trademark ownership. They probably wouldn't take action unless someone was profiting from the use of their trademark, but they have to defend it or they risk losing it.
It's a trademark issue, not a license issue, so, yes, they can go after you even if you don't agree to their license.
Yea, I clicked the link and all I got what a blank page with the word "Quijibo" on it.
The preferred spelling is "kwyjibo," though "quijibo" may be an acceptable ethnic variant.
Oh, you work at Research In Motion? Your write better code? Like, code that causes Blackberry Server Management to lock up for no reason whenever I add a new user? That code?
Fedora uses nss_ldap. If the server supports TLS, the client will automatically use it.. no setup required on the client-side.
Interesting. Are your certificates self-signed? If so, how do the clients know to trust the CA?
Whhoops, link for the lazy here: http://edsadmin.sf.net
That looks pretty sweet. Good LDAP administration tools are hard to find.
Sure, and now all your authentication data is passing over the network in cleartext, because you didn't bother to setup SSL/TLS. Good work!
Yes, but the only way to move the default "Documents and Settings" or "Program Files" directories is to do an unattended setup.
I suppose I should've been more specific, but I was purely responding to the grandparent's assertion that the Windows installer doesn't include a partition editor.
This stuff drives me crazy. I'd be interested to see his response, just to get an insight into how these people think.
The Windows installer should have a partition editor, and some information about partitioning. It should allow you to easily install Windows on a separate partition from your data.
It does. A rudimentary one, but nevertheless.