At least now they are required to implement at least one non-Microsoft standard, which could come in handy considering they will no longer release Internet Explorer as a standalone product.
It would seriously protect against businesses having to rely on.NET and other proprietary MS languages (forcing OS upgrades to obtain the new required features), as well as keep alternate browsers a viable solution.
Just to pose a question- Say Joe User purchased Album X. Joe User isn't the most advanced user of the computer, but knows enough that he can download music from Kazaa.
Joe User does not know how to "rip" the music from his new shiney CD, but knows how to download from a user on Kazaa who does know how to rip MP3s.
Does this constitute fair use?
Manipulate the concept a little more. Let's say Joe User obtained an Mp3 player, because his friend told him he can take his entire 200+ CD collection with him in his pocket. Again, Joe User does not know how to rip a CD, and he's not computationally inclined enough to figure it out, and it's much easier for him to download. He does legally own all 200 CDs in his collection, and wants to download the songs he listens to most often to put on his MP3 player.
I guess the question is this- if a user is found with a large database of songs, what if they legally own all of that music in physical medium in his/her home, and merely have Kazaa for the aforementioned purpose? Naturally though, if the user isn't inclined to turn off sharing, all music obtained (either if ripped or downloaded) will also be shared.
Explain to me how that's copyright infringement, and how the RIAA can possibly build a case against that.
It is entirely possible, because when Joe User II sees Joe User I on the 5 o'clock news getting sued for 5 billion dollers for merely participating on Kazaa, will Joe User II see himself as a sleazy pirate, or say "hey, what wrong does that do? I download from Kazaa too!"
Besides, I was under the impression extortion, monopolies, and cartels were against the law too. If you were a judge, which is the more serious crime- copying the latest n'sync song from some random computer, or stealing billions of dollars from your consumers through extortion and monopolistic practices? (note copying to stealing- in copying, nothing is lost: it's a replication. in stealing, the object is no longer present in it's original source).
It may also cause the Judicial branch to send a wake up call to the Legislative branch, and remind them who's government it is- since most of the laws which allow these lawsuits are the direct result of RIAA lobbying.
No, there is no copy protection involved, but I was under the impression it was via invoking the DMCA that they obtained the information on the "infringers" from their respective ISPs. Essentially using the DMCA as a warrant to obtain names/addresses/phone numbers.
My ISP's AUP specifically states they "are registered under the DMCA, and will submit the names and addresses of copyright infringers to the proper authorities".
Out of the hundreds of users targeted by these lawsuits, all it would take is one to stand his/her ground and fight. Once one rises to the challenge, a following will form. Once the following is formed, more and more attention will be levied on the case. The more attention the case recieves, the more people will become aware of the monopolistic and grossly unconstitutional actions of the RIAA. Once more people become aware, Congress will have to start paying attention to the people again.
Keep in mind, up to this point all the people (or students) the RIAA has sued have settled. What would happen if at least one stands up and goes to court?
The constitutionality of the DMCA and associated laws would undoubtedly be the first things reviewed, and again, given enough attention, could be soundly defeated.
It does nothing more than encourage law enforcement to cooperate in fighting crime, and puts the American people on notice that breaking the law is wrong
Ordinarily, I would agree. However, when applied to this situation the question must be raised- Who exactly wrote these laws? Certainly it wasn't written at the suggestion of Joe Beer.
The problem here is not whether it is right or not to enforce the law, but what IS the law. America is touted as the nation who's government is "Of the people, By the people, for the people," yet these laws are introduced by lobbying groups of corporations who don't give a damn about the people, and care only for profits and market share. To me this implies the country is "Of the corporation, by the lobbying groups, for special interest groups, and to hell with the people."
I'll support the enforcement of laws which are designed around the common good of all people in the country, and rebuke those laws introduced to protect by dying industries interests at the expense of personal freedoms.
The solution to all governmental problems is to limit campaigning accounts to a set amount, free of all special interest/corporate funding so all candidates are on equal financial terms, such that the most qualified candidate gets the job for his own personal views, rather than the one with the deepest pockets and hidden agendas of company X.
I believe some artists recieve a flat amount specified by the label, usually a few million, regardless of CD sales, then the label pockets whatever the CD does sell. More often than not though, through promotions and the like a CD will sell enough to break even with the payoff and promotional spending, and usually does turn in a very good profit for the label.
Naturally though, if an artist is payed 2.5 million for an album, and the label makes 30 million in sales, the artist can't do a thing because they are under contract. If artist raises a fuss about the contract, byebye contract and byebye career.
That's probably why you don't hear much fuss from artists about the percentage of money they make. If they complain, they are out of a career.
It's the opening song to the anime series Neon Genesis Evangelion.
I wouldn't consider this too offtopic, since a number of the philosophical threads addressed in NGE can be applied to Microsoft's monopolistic business practices.
Do a Google for Neon Genesis Evangelion for a synopsis.
I do buy them. I go to coffee houses and listen to local bands. I buy their CDs if I think it's good for my tastes. I'll even tip better if it's clearly a burned CD. My post was to question why "major" artists don't sign with Indie labels, if they are so concerned with the amount of money they make with RIAA labels, or lack thereof from people "stealing" their "work" through P2P. I realize "big label" provides upfront and easy cash for artists, but do the artists themselves have so little faith in their works that they need to take that money rather than rely strictly on actual sales?
Why can't cheap become part of the equation? What prevents an artist from buying a $700 computer with a decent sound card, about $500 worth of mixers and microphones, and paying $500 for some tech savy nerds to come in and record an album for them? Market the CD around your local area for a little while, until people realize it's good, copy them yourself until demand exceeds what you can reasonably produce, then hire some pressing company to do the rest for you. Sell the CDs for $7 a pop, you pay $1 per CD for the covers, the pressing, and packaging, and the artist makes $6 profit per CD, on a relatively small initial investment. Cheap, good enough quality where the average consumer won't notice the differance, and the artist keeps most of what they make. Also forces the issue of whether or not the music is good: e.g. if it's good, people will buy, if not, artist must to work harder. Nice alternative to artists getting spoon fed at the hands of a monopolistic industry which crams what they think will sell down the consumer's throat, paying in peanuts for what will bring in watermelons to them.
Of course, the already wealthy artists wouldn't seem to mind. If their name alone on a record is enough to make it sell, who gives a damn as to how good it is.
The epic poem carrying his name? Now that is a beast. Perhaps the massive power of a Cluster is synonimous with the length and fortitude of the poem bearing it's name.
Either way, it's all off topic. However, it is indeed heartening to see practical, and extremely entertaining (if I say so myself) uses of these loreful ballards of machines, despite their much ridicule on Slashdot.
Still, the tactic underscores the growing importance of patents as a competitive weapon in the technology industry
I was under the impression the technology industry was about innovation to improve humanity, not clog up the legal system with "I thought of this first, even though I have no intentions of doing anything with it." I was also under the impression patents were designed to protect, not attack.
Silly me.
Sounds to me like this tactic is a weapon to make Joe Thinksalot rich overnight, while at the same time stiffling innovation by limiting potential advancements to Megacorps who can flip the bill for pre-ordained patents.
At the same time, why don't I put a patent on an idea to make cars float. I'll call it a "hovercraft." Fifteen years down the road, when Developer comes up with the technical specs of how to do it, I get a pay check for having thought of the idea "first."
The first is fraud. In most places it is a criminally actionable item.
Not always- What if a company announces this grand new product, with detailed specifications of what it will accomplish, yet halfway through development of the new product, sales of the company's flagship product drop dramatically, so the company is forced to scrap the new product due to sudden budget limitations. I wouldn't consider that a crime, so long as the situation is properly and clearly explained.
The second is rumor mongering. Bad and a possible lawsuit, but more a civil matter than a criminal one.
True, but regardless of the matter, it hurts the company's reputation by no fault of their own
There is a differance between corporate vaporware and media vaporware.
Corporate vaporware is when a company not only announces, but blatently promises to deliver a product, and never does. This is bad not only for the company's reputation, but for the industry and consumers, who prepare for and anticipate those "promised" products. However, it's the companies own fault for hyping something and not delivering.
Media vaporware is differant. This is when a company floats a concept for potential software around, and somehow the media gets ahold of it. Suddenly, X company is working on Y product that will "revolutionize the modern computing experience," despite it's entire existance on a cocktail napkin thrown out of an executive session. This is dangerous for obvious reasons- now the companies reputation is in the hands of a third party, unbeknownst to them. Rumors start that a product is under development. Company denies product exists. Media reports company is scrapping project, even though it never existed. In this case, the company can not be held responsible for anything, since it's strictly the media which hypes, regardless of what the company says.
Both are bad for the industry and the consumer, but the latter is worse, since it's out of the control of the company.
Well, if your favorite bands are British and Australian, chances are they don't fall under the jurisdiction of the RIAA. At best, the prices for those CDs go to import taxes and the like, and because they are foreign, what business does an American conglomeration have cashing in? See if you can order the CDs internationally from each band's respective homeland. That way, you completely bypass the RIAA, the bands get whatever cash their international labels provide, and all is well.
I think that's exactly what they are trying to do, but because of the outer layer (in your case, the mac, in their case, linux), they have some mechanism to examine the network traffic and produce a detailed log of the hack. While it wouldn't directly protect you from the hack, it would provide valuable information as to what exactly was hacked, such that it can be patched to prevent that method from affecting other systems. More or less a tattle-tail for network security than a buffed up security guard.
I think I'll go to the patent office and patent the portion of the spectrum that encompases red light. That way, I can sue anyone who looks at a red object for using/decrypting my portion of the spectrum.
Get in with some foxy alien chick and forget his crew.
On a serious note, in light of such tragedy, it's best to learn from mistakes, not dwell on them, and continue to move forward in space exploration. The resources used to determine that a rescue was possible should have been used to aid in getting the space program airborne again.
Slashdot Mirror
At least now they are required to implement at least one non-Microsoft standard, which could come in handy considering they will no longer release Internet Explorer as a standalone product.
.NET and other proprietary MS languages (forcing OS upgrades to obtain the new required features), as well as keep alternate browsers a viable solution.
It would seriously protect against businesses having to rely on
Just to pose a question- Say Joe User purchased Album X. Joe User isn't the most advanced user of the computer, but knows enough that he can download music from Kazaa.
Joe User does not know how to "rip" the music from his new shiney CD, but knows how to download from a user on Kazaa who does know how to rip MP3s.
Does this constitute fair use?
Manipulate the concept a little more. Let's say Joe User obtained an Mp3 player, because his friend told him he can take his entire 200+ CD collection with him in his pocket. Again, Joe User does not know how to rip a CD, and he's not computationally inclined enough to figure it out, and it's much easier for him to download. He does legally own all 200 CDs in his collection, and wants to download the songs he listens to most often to put on his MP3 player.
I guess the question is this- if a user is found with a large database of songs, what if they legally own all of that music in physical medium in his/her home, and merely have Kazaa for the aforementioned purpose? Naturally though, if the user isn't inclined to turn off sharing, all music obtained (either if ripped or downloaded) will also be shared.
Explain to me how that's copyright infringement, and how the RIAA can possibly build a case against that.
It is entirely possible, because when Joe User II sees Joe User I on the 5 o'clock news getting sued for 5 billion dollers for merely participating on Kazaa, will Joe User II see himself as a sleazy pirate, or say "hey, what wrong does that do? I download from Kazaa too!"
Besides, I was under the impression extortion, monopolies, and cartels were against the law too. If you were a judge, which is the more serious crime- copying the latest n'sync song from some random computer, or stealing billions of dollars from your consumers through extortion and monopolistic practices? (note copying to stealing- in copying, nothing is lost: it's a replication. in stealing, the object is no longer present in it's original source).
It may also cause the Judicial branch to send a wake up call to the Legislative branch, and remind them who's government it is- since most of the laws which allow these lawsuits are the direct result of RIAA lobbying.
No, there is no copy protection involved, but I was under the impression it was via invoking the DMCA that they obtained the information on the "infringers" from their respective ISPs. Essentially using the DMCA as a warrant to obtain names/addresses/phone numbers.
My ISP's AUP specifically states they "are registered under the DMCA, and will submit the names and addresses of copyright infringers to the proper authorities".
This could potentially be a good thing:
Out of the hundreds of users targeted by these lawsuits, all it would take is one to stand his/her ground and fight. Once one rises to the challenge, a following will form. Once the following is formed, more and more attention will be levied on the case. The more attention the case recieves, the more people will become aware of the monopolistic and grossly unconstitutional actions of the RIAA. Once more people become aware, Congress will have to start paying attention to the people again.
Keep in mind, up to this point all the people (or students) the RIAA has sued have settled. What would happen if at least one stands up and goes to court?
The constitutionality of the DMCA and associated laws would undoubtedly be the first things reviewed, and again, given enough attention, could be soundly defeated.
Heres to crossing my fingers.
It does nothing more than encourage law enforcement to cooperate in fighting crime, and puts the American people on notice that breaking the law is wrong
Ordinarily, I would agree. However, when applied to this situation the question must be raised- Who exactly wrote these laws? Certainly it wasn't written at the suggestion of Joe Beer.
The problem here is not whether it is right or not to enforce the law, but what IS the law. America is touted as the nation who's government is "Of the people, By the people, for the people," yet these laws are introduced by lobbying groups of corporations who don't give a damn about the people, and care only for profits and market share. To me this implies the country is "Of the corporation, by the lobbying groups, for special interest groups, and to hell with the people."
I'll support the enforcement of laws which are designed around the common good of all people in the country, and rebuke those laws introduced to protect by dying industries interests at the expense of personal freedoms.
The solution to all governmental problems is to limit campaigning accounts to a set amount, free of all special interest/corporate funding so all candidates are on equal financial terms, such that the most qualified candidate gets the job for his own personal views, rather than the one with the deepest pockets and hidden agendas of company X.
I believe some artists recieve a flat amount specified by the label, usually a few million, regardless of CD sales, then the label pockets whatever the CD does sell. More often than not though, through promotions and the like a CD will sell enough to break even with the payoff and promotional spending, and usually does turn in a very good profit for the label.
Naturally though, if an artist is payed 2.5 million for an album, and the label makes 30 million in sales, the artist can't do a thing because they are under contract. If artist raises a fuss about the contract, byebye contract and byebye career.
That's probably why you don't hear much fuss from artists about the percentage of money they make. If they complain, they are out of a career.
It's the opening song to the anime series Neon Genesis Evangelion.
I wouldn't consider this too offtopic, since a number of the philosophical threads addressed in NGE can be applied to Microsoft's monopolistic business practices.
Do a Google for Neon Genesis Evangelion for a synopsis.
The difference here is the Evangelions in question are NOT good things fighting to save humanity, but crush it in global metacorporationalism.
I do buy them. I go to coffee houses and listen to local bands. I buy their CDs if I think it's good for my tastes. I'll even tip better if it's clearly a burned CD. My post was to question why "major" artists don't sign with Indie labels, if they are so concerned with the amount of money they make with RIAA labels, or lack thereof from people "stealing" their "work" through P2P. I realize "big label" provides upfront and easy cash for artists, but do the artists themselves have so little faith in their works that they need to take that money rather than rely strictly on actual sales?
Why can't cheap become part of the equation? What prevents an artist from buying a $700 computer with a decent sound card, about $500 worth of mixers and microphones, and paying $500 for some tech savy nerds to come in and record an album for them? Market the CD around your local area for a little while, until people realize it's good, copy them yourself until demand exceeds what you can reasonably produce, then hire some pressing company to do the rest for you. Sell the CDs for $7 a pop, you pay $1 per CD for the covers, the pressing, and packaging, and the artist makes $6 profit per CD, on a relatively small initial investment. Cheap, good enough quality where the average consumer won't notice the differance, and the artist keeps most of what they make. Also forces the issue of whether or not the music is good: e.g. if it's good, people will buy, if not, artist must to work harder. Nice alternative to artists getting spoon fed at the hands of a monopolistic industry which crams what they think will sell down the consumer's throat, paying in peanuts for what will bring in watermelons to them.
Of course, the already wealthy artists wouldn't seem to mind. If their name alone on a record is enough to make it sell, who gives a damn as to how good it is.
Beowulf himself? Nary a beast.
The epic poem carrying his name? Now that is a beast. Perhaps the massive power of a Cluster is synonimous with the length and fortitude of the poem bearing it's name.
Either way, it's all off topic. However, it is indeed heartening to see practical, and extremely entertaining (if I say so myself) uses of these loreful ballards of machines, despite their much ridicule on Slashdot.
"Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of these?" .... RTFA.
..... ditto.
"But does it run Linux?"
Still, the tactic underscores the growing importance of patents as a competitive weapon in the technology industry
I was under the impression the technology industry was about innovation to improve humanity, not clog up the legal system with "I thought of this first, even though I have no intentions of doing anything with it." I was also under the impression patents were designed to protect, not attack.
Silly me.
Sounds to me like this tactic is a weapon to make Joe Thinksalot rich overnight, while at the same time stiffling innovation by limiting potential advancements to Megacorps who can flip the bill for pre-ordained patents.
At the same time, why don't I put a patent on an idea to make cars float. I'll call it a "hovercraft." Fifteen years down the road, when Developer comes up with the technical specs of how to do it, I get a pay check for having thought of the idea "first."
The first is fraud. In most places it is a criminally actionable item.
Not always- What if a company announces this grand new product, with detailed specifications of what it will accomplish, yet halfway through development of the new product, sales of the company's flagship product drop dramatically, so the company is forced to scrap the new product due to sudden budget limitations. I wouldn't consider that a crime, so long as the situation is properly and clearly explained.
The second is rumor mongering. Bad and a possible lawsuit, but more a civil matter than a criminal one.
True, but regardless of the matter, it hurts the company's reputation by no fault of their own
There is a differance between corporate vaporware and media vaporware.
Corporate vaporware is when a company not only announces, but blatently promises to deliver a product, and never does. This is bad not only for the company's reputation, but for the industry and consumers, who prepare for and anticipate those "promised" products. However, it's the companies own fault for hyping something and not delivering.
Media vaporware is differant. This is when a company floats a concept for potential software around, and somehow the media gets ahold of it. Suddenly, X company is working on Y product that will "revolutionize the modern computing experience," despite it's entire existance on a cocktail napkin thrown out of an executive session. This is dangerous for obvious reasons- now the companies reputation is in the hands of a third party, unbeknownst to them. Rumors start that a product is under development. Company denies product exists. Media reports company is scrapping project, even though it never existed. In this case, the company can not be held responsible for anything, since it's strictly the media which hypes, regardless of what the company says.
Both are bad for the industry and the consumer, but the latter is worse, since it's out of the control of the company.
Well, if your favorite bands are British and Australian, chances are they don't fall under the jurisdiction of the RIAA. At best, the prices for those CDs go to import taxes and the like, and because they are foreign, what business does an American conglomeration have cashing in? See if you can order the CDs internationally from each band's respective homeland. That way, you completely bypass the RIAA, the bands get whatever cash their international labels provide, and all is well.
Smith: "Surprised to see me hack your box?"
Neo: "No, but you must only realize the truth..."
Smith: "What truth?"
Neo: "There is no box" *Click*
I think that's exactly what they are trying to do, but because of the outer layer (in your case, the mac, in their case, linux), they have some mechanism to examine the network traffic and produce a detailed log of the hack. While it wouldn't directly protect you from the hack, it would provide valuable information as to what exactly was hacked, such that it can be patched to prevent that method from affecting other systems. More or less a tattle-tail for network security than a buffed up security guard.
I think I'll go to the patent office and patent the portion of the spectrum that encompases red light. That way, I can sue anyone who looks at a red object for using/decrypting my portion of the spectrum.
Same concept, differant band of the spectrum.
Both, the energy implications of this article, and the number of /.'ers who immediately crashed in on "nucular" within the first 15 posts.
WWKD?
Get in with some foxy alien chick and forget his crew.
On a serious note, in light of such tragedy, it's best to learn from mistakes, not dwell on them, and continue to move forward in space exploration. The resources used to determine that a rescue was possible should have been used to aid in getting the space program airborne again.
...It's how you use it!!
Or in this case, how you use a potential market and profit margins...
Does that mean Gator is run by Republicans???
Perhaps that would explain the belligerant business model.
Porn while driving eh? You sure the guy in front of you won't catch a glimpse in his rear view mirror and cause a hazardous traffic condition ;)
Could lead to a big mess on multiple fronts.