The point of WinFS has nothing to do with making searches easier. If Microsoft really wanted to make searching your hard drive easier, it could simply include a better search app than the crappy one currently built it.
The point of WinFS is to make it illegal (i.e., a patent violation) for third party OSes to network with and access to Windows boxes.
The problem I have with paypal is that it is not regulated. If I leave 50 bucks with my bank, they HAVE to give it back. There are laws which have been on the books for centuries saying just that.
But with paypal, they can take your money and do whatever they want with it. Your only recourse is to sue them in civil court. It'd cost several thousands of dollars just to get a lawyer on board. That's why Paypal gets away with so much. There is no system in place to keep it in check.
I'm sure eventually paypal will evolve into a trusted system. But until then I'll stay away.
Instead of coming up with asinine excuses, they tell us the truth, we're doing it DESPITE the protest against it!
Or as they put it, "We are adopting the position for institutional reasons so as not to create a precedent which might have a consequence of creating future delays in other processes."
In other words, they want to do what they want to do, and they don't want protests or disagreements getting in their way, now or ever.
I guess Europe just fell to corporate interests.
I think it's shocking that we're giving all tech freedom to China. It'll be the only country on they planet where it'll be legal to double click and include a help icon with your software.
Where you have the freedom to speak your mind, unless you offend someone. Or piss someone off. Or do it on the radio. Or outside of a designated "free speech" zone...
I worked for a PBS station back in the 80s. We transferred a bunch of old film to 3/4 inch tape using the exact same method. After seeing how easy it was, I did the same thing to my parents' Super-8 movies. But of course back then we didn't have DVD burners.
US banks are going to start using ziplock bags instead of safety deposit boxes and "very strong wooden boxes" locked with Master brand locks instead of vaults. And instead of expensive security vans to transport money, they'll be using bike curriers. More news as it develops.
You honestly believe that "real" journalists such as Dvorak or Cringely NEVER use inside information?! They've been inside the industry their WHOLE careers! Of course they request and get inside information from their sources!
"Do you see serious journalist publishing trade secrets? No."
If by "trade secrets" you mean future products, then the answer is a big fat YES!!! Heck, have you EVER read a computer magazine before?!
Think of all the "real" journalists talking about Apple buying and selling Tivos. What all about all the "real" journalists speculating that Google is going to create its own browser and OS.
Hyping the future is EXACTLY what tech journalists do!
Well, if the "facts" aren't true, then I guess no trade secret was violated. Unless you think that merely speculating about future products should be illegal too?
It is a defense until the Supreme Court makes it a right. For example, Sony raised fair use as a defense. The Court accepted that defense and held that it was a right.
You might get sued by the RIAA for downloading songs off P2P. You might use fair use as a defense. However, if the Supreme Court ever upheld your defense, it would too become a right.
Why do people, who have NO experties in an area, feel the need to talk about an area.
In the United States we have a United States Supreme Court. That Court interprets the Constitution and statutes. It has interpreted Article. I Section. 8. Clause 8 to have limits on monoplies associated with IP. The limits are called "fair use."
These rights were enacted by Congress in TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1, 107 of the US code.
Based on the Courts' interpretation of both the Constitution and the code, they held in the case of Universal v Sony that citizens in the US have a fair use right to record shows.
As I wrote in another post: Broadcast flags are a port of a larger system to lock down ALL content. Eventually it will be illegal to have analog outputs on TV and TV devices.
http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engi ne er/f-MO-Earth_to_congress.shtml
And why do you think people will think "it makes sense" they can no longer record. For decades we've been able to record shows, and suddenly we won't be able to, why would we suddenly accept that. THAT makes no sense.
The broadcast flag is a part of a LARGER system to keep us from recording ALL programing.
The way broadcast flags are mentioned its all about stopping HDTV programing from getting on the net. It makes it sound like we'll still be able to record our analog shows.
However, analog outputs will be soon be illegal on all television devices. Thus, this is about locking down ALL content.
http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engi ne er/f-MO-Earth_to_congress.shtml
I agree it will likely be a flop. People are just too used to recording shows on TV. Either there will be quiet ways around the problem (like in your regionless DVD player example) or a major backlash which will get Congress to change the FCC's direction.
But, before that happens, the Court opinion is meaningless. All the Court said was that the FCC might not have authority from Congress. Thus, all Congress has to do is to give its authority. Even with Congress, that could take less than a month.
Slashdot Mirror
The point of WinFS has nothing to do with making searches easier. If Microsoft really wanted to make searching your hard drive easier, it could simply include a better search app than the crappy one currently built it.
The point of WinFS is to make it illegal (i.e., a patent violation) for third party OSes to network with and access to Windows boxes.
And even more importantly, downloading from allofmp3.com from the US is still illegal!
It doesn't matter if you paid for them, as some morons paid Kazaa too!
The only thing that matters is whether you're downloading copyrighted music without permission and without any fair use rights.
I'm not saying you WILL get caught. I have no idea whether the RIAA would ever get your information. I'm just saying it's still illegal in the US.
The problem I have with paypal is that it is not regulated. If I leave 50 bucks with my bank, they HAVE to give it back. There are laws which have been on the books for centuries saying just that.
But with paypal, they can take your money and do whatever they want with it. Your only recourse is to sue them in civil court. It'd cost several thousands of dollars just to get a lawyer on board. That's why Paypal gets away with so much. There is no system in place to keep it in check.
I'm sure eventually paypal will evolve into a trusted system. But until then I'll stay away.
Thanks for the info! I have to admit, I'm interested.
Heck, I'd give out my credit information to someone in Russia rather than to deal with Paypal. Those guys are REAL criminals!!!
www.paypalsucks.com
You get to download great music in lossless formats at low prices... BUT... you also have to give your credit information to someone in Russia.
Is ANY song worth that?!
Citizens in Russia have more rights than we do!
Instead of coming up with asinine excuses, they tell us the truth, we're doing it DESPITE the protest against it!
Or as they put it, "We are adopting the position for institutional reasons so as not to create a precedent which might have a consequence of creating future delays in other processes."
In other words, they want to do what they want to do, and they don't want protests or disagreements getting in their way, now or ever.
I guess Europe just fell to corporate interests.
I think it's shocking that we're giving all tech freedom to China. It'll be the only country on they planet where it'll be legal to double click and include a help icon with your software.
That makes NO sense what so ever. Under your reasoning, there was complete freedom of speech under Stalin. You'd just have to do it from Siberia.
Where you have the freedom to speak your mind, unless you offend someone. Or piss someone off. Or do it on the radio. Or outside of a designated "free speech" zone...
I worked for a PBS station back in the 80s. We transferred a bunch of old film to 3/4 inch tape using the exact same method. After seeing how easy it was, I did the same thing to my parents' Super-8 movies. But of course back then we didn't have DVD burners.
US banks are going to start using ziplock bags instead of safety deposit boxes and "very strong wooden boxes" locked with Master brand locks instead of vaults. And instead of expensive security vans to transport money, they'll be using bike curriers. More news as it develops.
You honestly believe that "real" journalists such as Dvorak or Cringely NEVER use inside information?! They've been inside the industry their WHOLE careers! Of course they request and get inside information from their sources!
"Do you see serious journalist publishing trade secrets? No."
If by "trade secrets" you mean future products, then the answer is a big fat YES!!! Heck, have you EVER read a computer magazine before?!
Think of all the "real" journalists talking about Apple buying and selling Tivos. What all about all the "real" journalists speculating that Google is going to create its own browser and OS.
Hyping the future is EXACTLY what tech journalists do!
Well, if the "facts" aren't true, then I guess no trade secret was violated. Unless you think that merely speculating about future products should be illegal too?
... a rocket scientist isn't what it used to be.
Yeah, it's called irony. Look it up.
... Bush and the Democrats set up those free speech zones last year. Now I suggest they set up some free press zones.
If I had to choose between running a current BeOS or ever having sex again, I'd choose BeOS. It was simply astonishing.
But then again, being a geek, any chance of me actually having sex would be next to impossible. So I really wouldn't be giving up much.
Still, BeOS was fantastic.
It is a defense until the Supreme Court makes it a right. For example, Sony raised fair use as a defense. The Court accepted that defense and held that it was a right.
You might get sued by the RIAA for downloading songs off P2P. You might use fair use as a defense. However, if the Supreme Court ever upheld your defense, it would too become a right.
Well, I certainly have no "experties" in spelling expertise!
Why do people, who have NO experties in an area, feel the need to talk about an area.
In the United States we have a United States Supreme Court. That Court interprets the Constitution and statutes. It has interpreted Article. I Section. 8. Clause 8 to have limits on monoplies associated with IP. The limits are called "fair use."
These rights were enacted by Congress in TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1, 107 of the US code.
Based on the Courts' interpretation of both the Constitution and the code, they held in the case of Universal v Sony that citizens in the US have a fair use right to record shows.
Does that answer your question?
As I wrote in another post: Broadcast flags are a port of a larger system to lock down ALL content. Eventually it will be illegal to have analog outputs on TV and TV devices.
i ne er/f-MO-Earth_to_congress.shtml
http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Eng
And why do you think people will think "it makes sense" they can no longer record. For decades we've been able to record shows, and suddenly we won't be able to, why would we suddenly accept that. THAT makes no sense.
The broadcast flag is a part of a LARGER system to keep us from recording ALL programing.
i ne er/f-MO-Earth_to_congress.shtml
The way broadcast flags are mentioned its all about stopping HDTV programing from getting on the net. It makes it sound like we'll still be able to record our analog shows.
However, analog outputs will be soon be illegal on all television devices. Thus, this is about locking down ALL content.
http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Eng
I agree it will likely be a flop. People are just too used to recording shows on TV. Either there will be quiet ways around the problem (like in your regionless DVD player example) or a major backlash which will get Congress to change the FCC's direction.
But, before that happens, the Court opinion is meaningless. All the Court said was that the FCC might not have authority from Congress. Thus, all Congress has to do is to give its authority. Even with Congress, that could take less than a month.