I've heard all of this since the day after Microsoft released the second version of DOS. Anyone who interprets Microsoft's bid for Yahoo! as Microsoft being "on the ropes" needs to put the cap back on their glue and seek medical treatment.
Last week I bought a Philips upconverting DVD player for $59. And an HDMI cable for another $11. When plugged in to my HDTV and pumping out 1080p, I see absolutely no compelling reason to move to either Blueray or HD-DVD. So for me, and for at least the next few years, the format war is indeed over...just not the way they wanted.
Normally I don't bother to respond to asshole cowards who hide behind an anonymous post. But in your case I'll make an exception.
competing with and screwing over a charity is really bad form
And you people need to realize that for almost every charity, there is a business that is probably competing with it. That's how life (and capitalism) works. Suck it up and deal. Or move to a non-capitalist nation. I hear Cuba is nice this time of year.
I'm sure Intel is going to get lots of hate posts here. And most of that will be because a lot of people fail to see one important issue.
Intel is a for-profit corporation beholden to its stock holders...no profit, stock holders get pissed, executives get thrown out. OLPC is a non-profit that doesn't have to worry about making money, and in fact can lose money as needed...no one is looking for a profit.
The first reply I saw here made a comment about Intel throwing away good will by not selling OLPC chips at a big discount. Here's a news flash for you people...stock holders mostly don't give squat about good will. Good will does not increase the bottom line of their stock portfolio or give them a fat dividend check.
Intel is not a charity. AMD can work with OLPC because AMD is in second place and is willing to do anything to *be* Intel. Likewise, Negroponte (I've gotta put that guy's name in my spell checker), while his goals are commendable and I really do hope OLPC succeeds, is not being realistic as far as the business side of it goes in regards to Intel.
Oh, I realized after I hit "submit" that I should have been more clear on one point. If you're taking a wide shot of a bunch of buildings and not singling out any one facility, you'd be okay without a release. And this is probably why Google would be okay doing it. But what I'm talking about above is if you make a specific building easily identifiable and the obvious focal point of your advertising photo.
That may be true for something general like Google Maps, I'm not in the map business so I don't know.
But I do know for a fact (because I used to work professionally as a photographer) that if you take a photograph of a private building, for example (since they are well known) the Chrysler building in San Francisco or Churchill Downs in Kentucky and use it in commercial advertising, you damned well better have a signed release to do so from someone in a position to give you that sort of permission. Otherwise, their lawyers will be on you like hair on a gorilla. Its totally irrelevant if you took the shot from the public right of way, and they can charge you what ever the market will pay, should they so desire. And there is a plethora of court decisions to back them up on that. The only exception that I am aware of is government owned facilities...and most of them (for instance, NASA) request that you make it clear in commercial advertising that the government is not related to or backing your product.
And that's the sad fact that out of 112 comments that have appeared up to the time I write this one, I only saw 1 that looks like the author RTFA first.
The proposed law only covers exact replicas of Egyptian monuments, it does not cover the general geographic shape of a sphinx or a pyramid. It also only covers commercial use. If I make a Play-Doh replica and use it as a candle holder on my own bookcase, that isn't commercial use. And finally, the monies generated will go for the preservation of those monuments.
"Copyright" is probably the wrong term for them to use. "Licensing" would have been more correct. But other than that, I fail to see what's wrong here. If you are making money by creating an exact replica of an Egyptian monument and using it commercially, I don't see anything at all wrong with you also being expected to help preserve that monument.
I guess none of you in the US are aware of facts like if I photograph your house and use that photo commercially, in most situations (advertising would be a prime example) I have to have your permission to do it, and you can charge me money for it. And it doesn't matter if your house is one day old or one thousand years old.
Anyone who says infringement is not wrong is saying that because they have never had anything they have created used without their permission.
A person/company who creates something has the right to put it in the public domain, release it under the [insert open license of choice here], etc and so on. But they have the equal right to place restrictions on it, and expect users of their creation to abide by those restrictions. If you don't like those restrictions, you have one valid option...don't use their creation.
Um...actually...yes, many times. Before I decided on computer programming and support for 100 percent of my "working" time, I also worked as a professional photographer, including news stories.
Just where is all this innovation going? To Clippy?
Clippy has been gone for so many years now that when ever I see someone bring him/it up, it automatically diminishes my respect for the author. The only thing more lame than dragging out Clippy would be dragging out Bob, or the hoax/cliche phrase "640k is enough for anyone" crap.
If its a private school, that's one thing. But if I'm at a game involving my local public university, which is supported by my tax dollars, I'm not going to bother getting press credentials, and I'll blog about any damned thing I want during their game. And I'll do it as often as I want. Fuck the NCAA. If they want to restrict my commenting on their sports, then their team's schools do not need my supporting tax dollars. My tax dollars, then its my property too. Period. No exceptions.
(And yes, I feel the same way about a university's research. If that research was paid for by a company, they can control it how ever they like. But if that research was paid for by my tax dollars, then they can take their patent application and shove it up their collective ass.)
This is no different than a company telling an employee what software to use on the company's time and company's equipment, and then the employee gets punished for disobeying. If the kid wanted to use something else, he should have done it on his own time and his own computer. "Freedom" doesn't have a damned thing to do with it. There is no story, the teacher is not even the least bit ignorant, stupid, or in the wrong, and I have absolutely zero sympathy for the kid.
And the Slashdot editor(s) responsible for the posting of this sensationalized non-story should also get detention.
Obviously this is a slow news day and the editors at Slashdot couldn't find any news for nerds or stuff that matters.
Folks, this kind of shit got old years ago.
Vista came out. It has some problems. Guess what. So did XP when it first came out. So did every version of OS X when it came out. So did every previous version of a Microsoft OS. So did every previous version of an Apple OS. So has pretty much every distribution of Linux when they have first come out.
I've been using and programming computers for 34 years. And in that 34 years, I can't think of *any* OS or program, other than maybe "hello world" in what ever language, that has ever been error free on the first version. You show me someone who says "this OS has no bugs", and I'll show you a blathering idiot.
Back in the day, CompUSA was a decent place to buy computer parts. They had a good selection, knowledgeable sales people, and good prices. Those days have been gone for some years now. It got to where their prices were so ridiculously high without a sale, and the "sale" required a rebate to get a decent price, that it was no longer worth shopping there. Especially when Fry's opened. I haven't been in the local store in 4 or 5 years.
Did he (or anyone, for that matter) expect Microsoft or Intel to just roll over and die? Of course they downed his product, and of course they offered competing products. That's what companies do! And if Negroponte can't handle that, he's in the wrong line of work.
But if he and others like him did follow that same reasoning, think of the indigenous cultures and peoples that would not have been destroyed.
Whether or not you're going to like Christopher Columbus as a positive example depends greatly on whether your ancestors were European or "Indian".
Our own (human) record of what happens when we find "less intelligent" peoples is not a good one. So I'm not sure I expect some really advanced alien culture to have a positive view of us as anything even approaching "intelligent" in their minds.
I think Dick Cheney is an ass, and is a true embarrassment to the United States (and hunters, but that's another topic). He, along with King George, is ***FAR*** more of a threat to American freedom than any foreign terrorist group. And I would agree he and King George both need to go. I'm eagerly awaiting Jan 20th, 2009, as there is no way any of the current candidates could be a greater fuckup than either Darth or King.
But its time for the Democrats to quit posturing for the cameras and get the real work done. In the current Congress, there is absolutely zero chance of either Darth Cheney or King George being impeached. All the Democrats are doing when they introduce impeachment legislation is drawing time and attention away from work on the nation's business that really could be accomplished. And all that people who demand that the Democrats introduce articles of impeachment are doing is kidding themselves and tying up Congress.
Don't get me wrong. In many ways I agree with you. But ultimately it is the right of the recording companies who own the tracks to set the price and condition for their sale. Just like, as a semi-pro photographer, it is my right to set the sale price and sale conditions of my photos. And if we don't like those prices or conditions, our only valid option is to not use the product. If one does not like the price on a loaf of bread, that does not give one the right to walk in to Safeway and steal a loaf. The fact that the recording industry sells an intangible product is irrelevant. And if the artists involved don't like the conditions or prices their music is distributed under, then they shouldn't have signed the contract giving the recording companies control of that distribution.
But regardless of that, this woman should not be the poster child for anti-RIAA sentiment. It was determined, in accordance with current law and by a jury of her peers, that she was indeed doing what she was accused of doing. That is not the definition of "victim". If anything, she's a perfect example of "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".
Silly me. I thought this was going to be a story about the very first person who was wrongly accused by the RIAA. Instead, its a load of horse shit from a person who was doing exactly what she was accused of doing. The only "victim" in this story was truth in the Slashdot spiel about it being about some victim.
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard all of this since the day after Microsoft released the second version of DOS. Anyone who interprets Microsoft's bid for Yahoo! as Microsoft being "on the ropes" needs to put the cap back on their glue and seek medical treatment.
We've had a monkey running American government for 7 years now.
Last week I bought a Philips upconverting DVD player for $59. And an HDMI cable for another $11. When plugged in to my HDTV and pumping out 1080p, I see absolutely no compelling reason to move to either Blueray or HD-DVD. So for me, and for at least the next few years, the format war is indeed over...just not the way they wanted.
Normally I don't bother to respond to asshole cowards who hide behind an anonymous post. But in your case I'll make an exception.
competing with and screwing over a charity is really bad form
And you people need to realize that for almost every charity, there is a business that is probably competing with it. That's how life (and capitalism) works. Suck it up and deal. Or move to a non-capitalist nation. I hear Cuba is nice this time of year.
I'm sure Intel is going to get lots of hate posts here. And most of that will be because a lot of people fail to see one important issue.
Intel is a for-profit corporation beholden to its stock holders...no profit, stock holders get pissed, executives get thrown out. OLPC is a non-profit that doesn't have to worry about making money, and in fact can lose money as needed...no one is looking for a profit.
The first reply I saw here made a comment about Intel throwing away good will by not selling OLPC chips at a big discount. Here's a news flash for you people...stock holders mostly don't give squat about good will. Good will does not increase the bottom line of their stock portfolio or give them a fat dividend check.
Intel is not a charity. AMD can work with OLPC because AMD is in second place and is willing to do anything to *be* Intel. Likewise, Negroponte (I've gotta put that guy's name in my spell checker), while his goals are commendable and I really do hope OLPC succeeds, is not being realistic as far as the business side of it goes in regards to Intel.
Because there are a lot of people in the US who still use their ancient TV and watch over-the-air broadcasts because its all they can afford.
And yes ... one blog commenter, claiming to have worked on prior shows, said that the shows run on Windows
... this has not one goddamned thing to do with the reported problem.
And yes
I see Slashdot is going to resort to low brow sensationalism just as much in 2008 as they did in 2007.
Oh, I realized after I hit "submit" that I should have been more clear on one point. If you're taking a wide shot of a bunch of buildings and not singling out any one facility, you'd be okay without a release. And this is probably why Google would be okay doing it. But what I'm talking about above is if you make a specific building easily identifiable and the obvious focal point of your advertising photo.
That may be true for something general like Google Maps, I'm not in the map business so I don't know.
But I do know for a fact (because I used to work professionally as a photographer) that if you take a photograph of a private building, for example (since they are well known) the Chrysler building in San Francisco or Churchill Downs in Kentucky and use it in commercial advertising, you damned well better have a signed release to do so from someone in a position to give you that sort of permission. Otherwise, their lawyers will be on you like hair on a gorilla. Its totally irrelevant if you took the shot from the public right of way, and they can charge you what ever the market will pay, should they so desire. And there is a plethora of court decisions to back them up on that. The only exception that I am aware of is government owned facilities...and most of them (for instance, NASA) request that you make it clear in commercial advertising that the government is not related to or backing your product.
And that's the sad fact that out of 112 comments that have appeared up to the time I write this one, I only saw 1 that looks like the author RTFA first.
The proposed law only covers exact replicas of Egyptian monuments, it does not cover the general geographic shape of a sphinx or a pyramid. It also only covers commercial use. If I make a Play-Doh replica and use it as a candle holder on my own bookcase, that isn't commercial use. And finally, the monies generated will go for the preservation of those monuments.
"Copyright" is probably the wrong term for them to use. "Licensing" would have been more correct. But other than that, I fail to see what's wrong here. If you are making money by creating an exact replica of an Egyptian monument and using it commercially, I don't see anything at all wrong with you also being expected to help preserve that monument.
I guess none of you in the US are aware of facts like if I photograph your house and use that photo commercially, in most situations (advertising would be a prime example) I have to have your permission to do it, and you can charge me money for it. And it doesn't matter if your house is one day old or one thousand years old.
People like you are precisely why companies like Microsoft have to resort to abominations like WGA, and companies like Sony resort to root kits.
Anyone who says infringement is not wrong is saying that because they have never had anything they have created used without their permission.
A person/company who creates something has the right to put it in the public domain, release it under the [insert open license of choice here], etc and so on. But they have the equal right to place restrictions on it, and expect users of their creation to abide by those restrictions. If you don't like those restrictions, you have one valid option...don't use their creation.
Have you ever had press credentials?
Um...actually...yes, many times. Before I decided on computer programming and support for 100 percent of my "working" time, I also worked as a professional photographer, including news stories.
Just where is all this innovation going? To Clippy?
Clippy has been gone for so many years now that when ever I see someone bring him/it up, it automatically diminishes my respect for the author. The only thing more lame than dragging out Clippy would be dragging out Bob, or the hoax/cliche phrase "640k is enough for anyone" crap.
If its a private school, that's one thing. But if I'm at a game involving my local public university, which is supported by my tax dollars, I'm not going to bother getting press credentials, and I'll blog about any damned thing I want during their game. And I'll do it as often as I want. Fuck the NCAA. If they want to restrict my commenting on their sports, then their team's schools do not need my supporting tax dollars. My tax dollars, then its my property too. Period. No exceptions.
(And yes, I feel the same way about a university's research. If that research was paid for by a company, they can control it how ever they like. But if that research was paid for by my tax dollars, then they can take their patent application and shove it up their collective ass.)
Another day, another non-story.
This is no different than a company telling an employee what software to use on the company's time and company's equipment, and then the employee gets punished for disobeying. If the kid wanted to use something else, he should have done it on his own time and his own computer. "Freedom" doesn't have a damned thing to do with it. There is no story, the teacher is not even the least bit ignorant, stupid, or in the wrong, and I have absolutely zero sympathy for the kid.
And the Slashdot editor(s) responsible for the posting of this sensationalized non-story should also get detention.
Obviously this is a slow news day and the editors at Slashdot couldn't find any news for nerds or stuff that matters.
Folks, this kind of shit got old years ago.
Vista came out. It has some problems. Guess what. So did XP when it first came out. So did every version of OS X when it came out. So did every previous version of a Microsoft OS. So did every previous version of an Apple OS. So has pretty much every distribution of Linux when they have first come out.
I've been using and programming computers for 34 years. And in that 34 years, I can't think of *any* OS or program, other than maybe "hello world" in what ever language, that has ever been error free on the first version. You show me someone who says "this OS has no bugs", and I'll show you a blathering idiot.
I'm not sure it would really be a good thing if the aliens looked at us that way. After all, look what *we* do to harmless insects and small animals.
Back in the day, CompUSA was a decent place to buy computer parts. They had a good selection, knowledgeable sales people, and good prices. Those days have been gone for some years now. It got to where their prices were so ridiculously high without a sale, and the "sale" required a rebate to get a decent price, that it was no longer worth shopping there. Especially when Fry's opened. I haven't been in the local store in 4 or 5 years.
Did he (or anyone, for that matter) expect Microsoft or Intel to just roll over and die? Of course they downed his product, and of course they offered competing products. That's what companies do! And if Negroponte can't handle that, he's in the wrong line of work.
Any IT manager or sysadmin that is having the problems this article lists with either wifi or drivers is not very good at their job.
And anyone who *loses* a laptop is too fucking stupid to have a job.
But if he and others like him did follow that same reasoning, think of the indigenous cultures and peoples that would not have been destroyed.
Whether or not you're going to like Christopher Columbus as a positive example depends greatly on whether your ancestors were European or "Indian".
Our own (human) record of what happens when we find "less intelligent" peoples is not a good one. So I'm not sure I expect some really advanced alien culture to have a positive view of us as anything even approaching "intelligent" in their minds.
I think Dick Cheney is an ass, and is a true embarrassment to the United States (and hunters, but that's another topic). He, along with King George, is ***FAR*** more of a threat to American freedom than any foreign terrorist group. And I would agree he and King George both need to go. I'm eagerly awaiting Jan 20th, 2009, as there is no way any of the current candidates could be a greater fuckup than either Darth or King.
But its time for the Democrats to quit posturing for the cameras and get the real work done. In the current Congress, there is absolutely zero chance of either Darth Cheney or King George being impeached. All the Democrats are doing when they introduce impeachment legislation is drawing time and attention away from work on the nation's business that really could be accomplished. And all that people who demand that the Democrats introduce articles of impeachment are doing is kidding themselves and tying up Congress.
Don't get me wrong. In many ways I agree with you. But ultimately it is the right of the recording companies who own the tracks to set the price and condition for their sale. Just like, as a semi-pro photographer, it is my right to set the sale price and sale conditions of my photos. And if we don't like those prices or conditions, our only valid option is to not use the product. If one does not like the price on a loaf of bread, that does not give one the right to walk in to Safeway and steal a loaf. The fact that the recording industry sells an intangible product is irrelevant. And if the artists involved don't like the conditions or prices their music is distributed under, then they shouldn't have signed the contract giving the recording companies control of that distribution.
But regardless of that, this woman should not be the poster child for anti-RIAA sentiment. It was determined, in accordance with current law and by a jury of her peers, that she was indeed doing what she was accused of doing. That is not the definition of "victim". If anything, she's a perfect example of "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".
Silly me. I thought this was going to be a story about the very first person who was wrongly accused by the RIAA. Instead, its a load of horse shit from a person who was doing exactly what she was accused of doing. The only "victim" in this story was truth in the Slashdot spiel about it being about some victim.