You know $5 is outright insulting. I don't know about you, but the idea of paying me for lost data at such a low price is horriable. The 140 page paper, that I spent 90 hours a week for five weeks writing -- yeah, $5 isn't going to cover that. Especially when the crash killed 20 hour of continuous work. I mean, come-on. This is just assinine. $5 may cover the incidental, 1 page document that is lost once in a while. But $5 isn't going to do it for me when it comes to lost emails, important documents. I backup, and store things on another computer, but still.
If you want to have some real fun, just keep walking out the door when the Wal-mar security alarm goes off. It is even more entertaining when the door nazi tries to stop you. But if you walk with just the right spring in your step and determiniation that you are not going to stop, they will let you go. Most states have laws stating that in order to be stopped someone has had to watch you from the moment of concelment to the point of leaving the store. Since most employees don't do that, they rely on the fact of you admitting the theft when you are caught. I have had one Wal-mart guy stop me once. I just looked at him and asked him, "What did I steal?" He just looked at me with a blank stare. I then told him that if the inept cashier would do his job and disable the security tags that it wouldn't have happened, and for him to have a nice day. I walked away, got in my car and left. No problem.
But for some real fun, you take the undisabled security tag and then put it in your wallet. Everytime you walk into a store or leave a store the security tags set off the alarm. If you get five or so of your buddies to do the same thing, and enter and leave a store at the same time, one after another, it causes some real fun. You usually get the store manager throwing some vague threats of calling the police. Since you didn't steal and they can't prove it, the ensueing frustration is always entertaining. BTW, only do that if you have a little time.
deliver performance not all that different from a single-core 3.5-GHz part.
Agreed...but that is generally. When it comes to games and other programs which rely on the higher clock speeds, it doesn't matter that the overall, aggregate performance is simular to a 3.5ghz machine. A single threaded app will run at the clock speed of the chip. So if the chip is clocked at 2.0, then the single threaded app will only run at 2.0, and not the aggregate 3.5. Then there is the issue of an operating system that can utilize the dual core. Right now making the leap to dual-core will do you little unless you have an OS that is dual-core aware (i.e. does SMP). It would be like running Windows on an Athlon 64 -- it might be fast, but you're not going to use the main benefit and features.
If you want gator's features you have to play along with theirs."
Well, I would agree with you. But very few spyware/adware procurers only have the spyware/adware active for the time that you are actually using the product. Further, the programs are so invasive that they usually invite another friend to play. Before you know it, there is an orgy of resource consumption of spy/adware going on in your machine. All you did was download one program, that downloaded other programs. While some spy/adware programs actually disclose the fact that some adware will be downloaded, very few spell it out in plain english and bury it in the 15 page EULA.
Hey, we've got a great OSS mod project idea. We have one that you can operate a coffee maker, a blender, a beer machine -- now we can have the Stove project. It can use abusive math calculations to heat the chip up and lesser calculations to cool it down. You just take off the heatsink and replace it with a hot pad. A college students dream; cook dinner with out having to leave the computer or go down to the cafeteria.
According to Webster, I used the term educate correctly. " to provide with information...to persuade or condition to feel, believe, or act in a desired way." Which is simular to advocate. BTW, ask a Political Scientist about lobbyist and whether they educate the Congress. They do. Showing a congressperson the facts and then proposing something is still education. What do you think teachers do. They present information and then ask the students to accept a postulation. I.E. There is this thing called the law of gravity, and here is the evidence. Please accept it. http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid =Mozilla-search&va=educate Right. You obviously didn't know about BCRA (Bipartisian Campaign Reform Act of 2002) which changed spending limits in an elections. Also, it is illegal to pay off a congressman. They are to act in the best interest of the people. The limits can be found http://www.opensecrets.org/basics/law/index.asp By the way, the new law bans soft money. And it was upheld by the Supreme Court.
For hard and softmoney organizations and people are limited to relatively the same amount in terms of who can give what and where.
Now, the greasing of the palms. Do you have evidence of this, other than campaign contributions? Frankly, from what I am seeing in this forum is that people are making unfounded acqusations that there is corruption without providing evidence. If Congresspeople are accepting bribes, then the FBI would be all over that.
Oh, yeah. Individuals give far more than companies give. So back up your asserations.
A wasteful, but nessasary process. What a lot of/.er's fail to realize is that the industry lobbyiest goal is to educate the various law makers on the policies and their effects. While we may not like the idea that the discussions happen over expensive hunting trips or dinners, the fact remains that people have to educate the law makers. We cann't expect the Congresspeoples to become farmiliar with every aspect of thigns. And most people that know enough to educate a congressperson doesn't have the time, or the energy to make a run down to Washington to talk to law makers. So what happens? Lobbyists go and talk to the Congresspeople and edcuate them. We end up viewing this as "greasing the palms" or as the corruption of American politics. Everyone cannot be an expert at everything. So before anyone complains that lobbyists are completely evil and should be done away with think about your doctor. Your doctor knows medicine and the vast majority of people reading this post don't. You go in because you're sick and you don't know what to do. The doctor takes a look at the symptoms and makes suggestions for treatment. You then decided which treatment would be the best for you. With a congresperson they look at the problem and then defer to people that actually know what is going on. They then take the recommnedations back and decide on what to do.
Now, if greasing the palms is in reference to campaign contributions, there are limitations set on those contributions. But shouldn't business be given the opportunity to express itself and give to a candiate that supports that business's view? Microsoft has thousands of employees, and they represent a special intrest group that has right to express its political agenda. While I disagree with RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft/Evil Empire Corp/etc., these are merely coalitions of people that have an interest to protect. Most of our problems with big business lobbying the government is because our interests disagree with their interests. Man tends to be selfish and wants to protect his self interest.
So before we complain that lobbyists are evil maybe we ought to think that the formations of some special interest groups would be an idea. That was instead of sending a bunch of letters which are read by interns, we can send a lobbyist to express the interests of/. Then a real person can express the general conscencus on such issues as software patents, fair use, the DCMA, and why Star Trek Enterprise (or whatever geek show has just been cancelled) should go back on TV. Just like a phone call is more effective than a letter, a person visit is far more effective than a phone call or a letter.
Body: The SCO group, is pleased to annouce that it will now accept Paypal as the perferred means of paying for stock. Recently SCO moved to eBay as their new exchange for stock. SCO joins thousands of online sellers that accept Paypal.
"Since the online community relies heavily on Paypal for online purchaces, we feel it a natural move for SCO to accept Paypal," SCO CEO Darl McBride stated. "This new method in exchanging stock, both on eBay and with Paypal will help many people who have wanted to own stock become proud owners of a quality, American company."
SCO also announed it's Child-Stock Program. Schools can now buy large amounts of SCO stock for distribution amoung school-aged children. McBride and Sontag are the largest sellers to the program. "We feel that it is important for school children to understand the stock-buying process. By having children trade our stock, we can teach them about how publicly traded companties operate. Best of all, school children can own stock!"
The SEC is investigating the School Children Stock Program.
I think that Napster is after a different market. In your case, spending the extra money for the convience provides you with what you're looking for. In my case, spending the flat rate provides sufficent utility for the money -- I don't place a high enough value on music to pay $.99/track, while paying $10/month is fine (the inconvience of the service isn't sufficent to outweigh the benefit). The amount of music that is available to me for the $10 is far more than what I could buy for $.99/track. So while the long term economical value is completely wasted, the short term utility outweighs the long-term cost. Depending on what you want to do with the music, and your listening habits, defines whether the service is worth it or not. I'm curious to see if Napster will survive or not. The model is unique.
No, I don't think she would need written autherization (unless it was forced). Afterall, spawing could reasonably be construed as "preparing a derivitive work." And since spawning requires the consent of two people (at least legally), it could be argued that it was joint derivative work. I think that in the case of accidental reproduction, authorization would have been implicit in the act -- reproduction is an inherent risk, and any reasonable person knows that it may happen, therefore, the copyright would have been waved at the moment of copulation. Now, why did I just think that out...oh yeah, I'm avoiding homework.
The daemon in me finds the idea of delivering a DMCA take-down notice to a mall as entertaining. Requesting that all tapes with your image be destroyed would be quite fun.
Sometimes the best way to fight stupidity is with stupidity. The nefarious thought that just ran across my mind is create a personalized license plate boarder, complete with a copyright notice. Then the next time that one of those cameras takes a picture of your license plate you claim that the camera violated your copyright, and demand the photo be destroyed. Using the "dirty-hand" doctrine, you claim that there isn't any evidence of you burning through the intersection. Of course, the traffic judge wouldn't be humored, and it would probably only work once. But the idea is if you create a statement that demonstrates the obsurdity of enforcing copyrights in public displays, then you could effectively make a statment that this issue is stupid. Besides, how can a monolithic metal bean claim copyright? Trademark, maybe. But I seriously doubt that there is a threat that someone is going be reproducing that thing. Maybe I will start wearing a shirt that reads: "(C) 2005, Me"
I signed up for the two week trial, just to see how much I like it. I have some really mixed feeligns on the subject. I haven't decided if I am going to keep the service or cancel.
There are several benefits: It's easier than file sharing. I can download an entire album with the click of a mouse, and I actually get it in a reasonable amount of time. So while I am signed up for the $10 a month fee, I think that it is worth it so that I don't have to worry about all the crap that comes with a P2P program. Then you're allowed to have it on three computers. Which I think is pretty slick -- you can have a set on your work computer and then on your home computer. I would have to say that the three computer deal was one of the things that made me sign up. Between my laptop, desktop and my work computer, I'll be able to get tunes where ever I work. It's also cheap and convient. I don't have to worry about getting charged $XX amount for every CD. And if I want to buy the CD then I can.
The biggest annoyance is the fact that you can't rip them to a CD without buying them. I wanted to rip them to a CD to listen to them in the shower and in the car, but I can't without buying the rights. Then there is the feeling that I really don't own the 6.5G that I downloaded, and that if I stop paying then I am screwed. Pretty much the only way that I have been able to reconcile the cost is that I have access to far more music than I would normally have access to if I were to buy the music individually. I don't have to run out and buy the music on iTunes or to Wal-mart.
In prior posts people have questioned the economic value of iTunes verse Napster. The main economic difference is that I am able to download and listen to as much as I want to with Napster. While I don't own the music, and there are limitations on what I can do with the music, it is far cheaper than acquiring the music in other means. And it's legal.
I have only been in my trial for about four days now. But if you look at it like renting two movies, or three movies if you get the portable option, then it doesn't hurt that much. I have spent far mroe money renting movies in one year than I will spend on Napster. $120 a year for unlimited listening isn't all that bad. For $120 in CD's I could seriously wear out the utility on 8 or so CD's that it would buy me. To those that have massive CD collections, how much of those CD's do you actually listen to?
So you can call me stupid for making an economically unsound decision -- but for students and others who have a limited budget, it isn't all that bad. I would suggest that people give it a try before knocking it. There are things that I don't like, but at the same token the $10/15 isn't all that bad for a unlimited rental program.
The idea is to make the expected value of the crime negative. That is an interesting idea. Making the value of a crime negative, or "not worth-it" is something that I support. But what about the difference between criminal and civil? The copyright laws make it criminial to do certain things. But how negative should the penalty of a crime be so to stop the crime?
In the United States we generally agree that cutting the hand off of a theif is too negative. But fining someone into the ground is not. Fining a $1M is a nice idea in theory, but what good would it accomplish? The person that steals from Wal-mart, generally speaking, is not wealthy enough to buy the items in the first place, and therefore wouldn't have the means to pay in the first place. Placing a regressive fine on those who don't have the money to begin with would benefit society little (if the shoplifter only makes $25K a year, it would take 40 years for the shoplifter to pay the fine; meanwhile the shoplifter has to declare bankrupticy to get out of the judgment, thereby eliminating and circumventing the judgement and the debts of the offendar). $1M is too regressive, as it would ruin the offendar and the fine would never be paid. Rather, fining the offendar on a scale that would allow the offendar to pay, yet make it sufficent to hurt would be better. So in this example our $25K/year shoplifter pays $2,500. Enough to hurt, but not enough to ruin the guy.
But the huge problem that I see with the whole copyright situation is that the punishment is extreme and serves very little purpouse. Why would $3,300,000 be a just punishment? Is the value of the product worth that much? TV shows, movies and music are not valued at insane amounts. Stealing a TV set won't land you a $3M fine. What benefit does fining people into the ground serve the public?
I am not sure that I would say that NK plans on attacking Tiawan, but it is still a leveraging piece. The United States is committed to protecting two countries by treaty -- Tiawan and Japan. The United States is involved in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Between the two the US military is stretched. Given a problem in east Asia, the US could have some serious issues. NK probably recognizes the overstretched military and feels that it can leverage the US into getting what it wants by making threats. The US isn't so much in a position to attack, and the NK isn't in a position to defend. But NK doesn't have the inhibition to throw a nuke or two around. The US has everything to lose by throwing a nuke their way. NK is trying to blackmail the US into doing what it wants, while at the same time failing to live up to promises.
The statement on having nuclear weapons is a lot more sublte than people think. You have to remember that NK is the last traditional, isolationist communist country left. NK still thinks that the Cold War is still on. The parallels between the struggle with the USSR and then NK are extremely erie. NK is an isolationist country. Since they only rely on the rest of the world for foriegn aid, they have little incentive to play nice. By telling the world that they have nuclear weapons is more of a statement to their people that they have them. The US has know for a while -- as well as the rest of the world. All information in NK is controlled via the state. And it is also important to know that Kim Jong, the current leader's father is considered by many to be a god. So there is a little religious ferbor in the equation. NK is far more dangerous than Iraq -- NK has very little to loose by getting into a nuclear engagment. Sanctions, etc., will do very little, since they are so isolantionist. Several political scientist have stated that the next world war will come that part of Asia -- either China or NK will do something that will provoke the rest of the world. All NK has to do is do something to provoke the US into landing troops in Tiawan (ie nuking Tiawan). Then with US military involvment in the region, China can get very nerveous and end up in a first-class world power confrontation. The reason the US is nerveous about NK and nuclear weapons is rooted in the fear of a nuclear event in Asia becoming the catalyst for a major war. Even though we are on good "terms" with China in terms of trade, there are cultural and political differences which span the benefits of trade. Tiawan is one of those issues. The who point of this post is that the situation is far more complex than we think. The US wants nuclear weapons out of the region to prevent the instability that it can cause.
Sure they can try. But that would be an in the form of an appeal to the Federal Appeals Court. Which, btw, is not an easy task. You kinda of get an idea of Judge Kimball's attitudes when you read his legal briefs. And from the way he writes and thinks, he is a pretty tough judge. I would be intriqued to find out how many of his cases have been reversed on the appeals level. Also, when their is so much evidence to support the censor, I wouldn't worry. If there was a whole bunch of evidence, then unfair bias could be alleged, but not when SCO keeps saying there is a mountain when there isn't. Besides, this could actually be seen as an attempt to over SCO the chance to recover their case. By "warning" SCO to come up with something substantial on which the basis of their claims lie, the Court is allowing SCO the chance to actually get it "day in court." If SCO had been playing fair the entire time, SCO provided sufficient evidence and the evidence supported the claims, then I could see the case being moved or getting started up in another venue. But you have to remember, Utah is home to SCO. So finding a better home might be a little difficult.
Isn't there some sort of rule that reads, "Thou shalt not commit bikesheds?" Yeah, this is a clear bikeshed. Maybe we ought to tell whoever came up with this stupid idea, "Thou shalt not suggest bikesheds." This is beyond painting the bikeshed, patching the bikeshed's roof. This is tearing down the bikeshed. Worse, the Daemon is a brand identity.
I attend a rather conservative school. In my programming class we are peer graded. One of the projects was particularly frustrating. Anyhow, by the end of the project I had a method called "makeTheDamnThing," and it was rather insulting the user, with output along the lines of "Give me the stupid number." Worse yet, a rather cute gal graded my code. Out of all the programs that I had peppered with less-than civil language, and the _only_ hot gal graded my program. Go figure.
Wait, did someone just say that there is a contest to fork? Oh, I'm sorry, FreeBSD wants a new logo. If Linux has a penguin, then why can't FreeBSD have a daemon. Come on. Leave it along. I like the daemon -- complete with a badge on my PC. This is stupid.
This chip seems insanely powerful. With 8 APU's capable of doing DSP, you would think that some countries would impose export restrictions on the thing. If you remember when the G4 came out Apple advertized that the military didn't want that thing leaving the country. But image a chip with the ability to do some serious SIMD operations? The CIA, NSA and others doing signal processing have to love this chip.
Up at my univserity, free high speed internet is the thing. This summer a virus/spyware epicdemic hit one of the college apartments. So some of my friends asked me to fix their computer. Then it snowballed. Since I am poor, and knowing that they are poor, I had to do something that would make it so I wasn't fixing all the computers for free, and limit the amount of time that I was spending on fixing the comptuers. I started to charge 3 dozen Oatmeal Raisen cookies for each computer repair job. It worked quite well for all parties involved. Now I am not fixing computers every waking minute, and on occasion I come back to my apartment to find a computer with 3 dozen oatmeal raisen cookies sitting on my bed. My room mates get free support, for the most part.
You're discounting the intrinsic value of the PC verse a TV show. A PC can be used for a mirade of purpouses spanning students to professionals to entertainment. As a student I use my computer to program, do homework assignments, write papers, communicate with others. Since I also work, my PC is also a source of income, as it allows me to more efficently do my work. The difference in spending $600 or whatever on a PC verse a TV show is that the $600 on the PC is spent on a tool to accomplish other tasks. A TV show is basically wasted time other than providing a moment of entertainment -- in certain circumstances a TV show can be used a tool, but shows like Seinfeld, Star Trek, etc, don't have much use as a tool. Telling me that I am hypocrite for not donating the $XXX that I spent on my PC amounts to a strawman argument. If you are going to throw stones at those who disagree with your view point, at least throw a stone in the right direction. A comparision to DVD's would have been a better argument and for that matter, an argument which is hard to refute. As I have thought about it, it is very hard to fault them if you compare it to a DVD. About the only argument that you can use against raising the money is that it is a waste of money. While spending $11.24 is not a waste, per se, on an individual basis, the aggregate sum of $33million is. The question that I have to ask, and others have asked in prior posts is whether the show is _worth_ that much money? And could the agggregate sum be put to a better use. Buying a DVD is not a effort by a group to raise money. Selling a DVD is an effort to make money. The effort and energy that is put into this sort of project could be used to benefit a whole mirade of people. $33 million has an incrediable amount of potential energy in terms of what can be done with it.
With a Laptop, and Knoppix and a tad bit of skill (or some really good scripts) you can really have some illicit fun. Knoppix makes it a whole lot harder to find forensic evidence in case you're caught. All you have to do is drop out the battery and then all the evidence is wiped away (save some circumstantial evidence in the form of a Knoppix cd, and a rebooting computer). If you have the scripts stored in a remote location, ie ftp, then your in for business. Since you don't have any of the stuff stored on disk, and the MAC is so easily changed, it can pretty tough to prove -- they would have to essentially follow you and collect evidence on the signal your sending out. As a previous post said, a good administrator will allow open access that is routed through a proxy server to authenticate. But then you still have problems with keeping the authentication. All I can say is that I hope that I never have to maintain a wirless network and make sure that it is secure. The headache of maintaining a 5 person WPA "protected" WiFi is enough of a headache to make my life difficult enough.
I just got a Wireless router the other day. What my room mates couldn't understand is why I locked down the router so hard. They were amazed that I had to put the WPA key on all the computers, and why I also did MAC and IP filtering. They just couldn't understand. Although it is not totally secure, hopefully it is enough to keep the dorks out and at the same time allow for wireless inconvience. The last thing that I want to worry about is some dork running around with a laptop and deciding that my internet is his internet and then doing something stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
You know $5 is outright insulting. I don't know about you, but the idea of paying me for lost data at such a low price is horriable. The 140 page paper, that I spent 90 hours a week for five weeks writing -- yeah, $5 isn't going to cover that. Especially when the crash killed 20 hour of continuous work. I mean, come-on. This is just assinine. $5 may cover the incidental, 1 page document that is lost once in a while. But $5 isn't going to do it for me when it comes to lost emails, important documents. I backup, and store things on another computer, but still.
I have never shoplifted, btw.
If you want to have some real fun, just keep walking out the door when the Wal-mar security alarm goes off. It is even more entertaining when the door nazi tries to stop you. But if you walk with just the right spring in your step and determiniation that you are not going to stop, they will let you go. Most states have laws stating that in order to be stopped someone has had to watch you from the moment of concelment to the point of leaving the store. Since most employees don't do that, they rely on the fact of you admitting the theft when you are caught. I have had one Wal-mart guy stop me once. I just looked at him and asked him, "What did I steal?" He just looked at me with a blank stare. I then told him that if the inept cashier would do his job and disable the security tags that it wouldn't have happened, and for him to have a nice day. I walked away, got in my car and left. No problem.
But for some real fun, you take the undisabled security tag and then put it in your wallet. Everytime you walk into a store or leave a store the security tags set off the alarm. If you get five or so of your buddies to do the same thing, and enter and leave a store at the same time, one after another, it causes some real fun. You usually get the store manager throwing some vague threats of calling the police. Since you didn't steal and they can't prove it, the ensueing frustration is always entertaining. BTW, only do that if you have a little time.
Agreed...but that is generally. When it comes to games and other programs which rely on the higher clock speeds, it doesn't matter that the overall, aggregate performance is simular to a 3.5ghz machine. A single threaded app will run at the clock speed of the chip. So if the chip is clocked at 2.0, then the single threaded app will only run at 2.0, and not the aggregate 3.5. Then there is the issue of an operating system that can utilize the dual core. Right now making the leap to dual-core will do you little unless you have an OS that is dual-core aware (i.e. does SMP). It would be like running Windows on an Athlon 64 -- it might be fast, but you're not going to use the main benefit and features.
Well, I would agree with you. But very few spyware/adware procurers only have the spyware/adware active for the time that you are actually using the product. Further, the programs are so invasive that they usually invite another friend to play. Before you know it, there is an orgy of resource consumption of spy/adware going on in your machine. All you did was download one program, that downloaded other programs. While some spy/adware programs actually disclose the fact that some adware will be downloaded, very few spell it out in plain english and bury it in the 15 page EULA.
Hey, we've got a great OSS mod project idea. We have one that you can operate a coffee maker, a blender, a beer machine -- now we can have the Stove project. It can use abusive math calculations to heat the chip up and lesser calculations to cool it down. You just take off the heatsink and replace it with a hot pad. A college students dream; cook dinner with out having to leave the computer or go down to the cafeteria.
Right. You obviously didn't know about BCRA (Bipartisian Campaign Reform Act of 2002) which changed spending limits in an elections. Also, it is illegal to pay off a congressman. They are to act in the best interest of the people. The limits can be found http://www.opensecrets.org/basics/law/index.asp By the way, the new law bans soft money. And it was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Another intersting issue is that the top winner of campaign financing was to http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.aspJohn Kerry and the Democrats The GOP tends to be for big business. And, interestingly enough, Microsft gives the most to democrats, not to the reubplicans (60% to 39%). And Bill Gates only gave, personally, $3892 to Federal Elections. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D00 0000115&Name=Microsoft+Corp f Thou=0&txtName=gates&txtState=WA&txtZip=&txtEmploy =&txtCand=&txt2004=Y&Order=N
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumO
If your thinking of the 527 groups, the democrats are the winners there. http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527contribs.asp?cy cle=2004
For hard and softmoney organizations and people are limited to relatively the same amount in terms of who can give what and where.
Now, the greasing of the palms. Do you have evidence of this, other than campaign contributions? Frankly, from what I am seeing in this forum is that people are making unfounded acqusations that there is corruption without providing evidence. If Congresspeople are accepting bribes, then the FBI would be all over that.
Oh, yeah. Individuals give far more than companies give. So back up your asserations.
A wasteful, but nessasary process. What a lot of /.er's fail to realize is that the industry lobbyiest goal is to educate the various law makers on the policies and their effects. While we may not like the idea that the discussions happen over expensive hunting trips or dinners, the fact remains that people have to educate the law makers. We cann't expect the Congresspeoples to become farmiliar with every aspect of thigns. And most people that know enough to educate a congressperson doesn't have the time, or the energy to make a run down to Washington to talk to law makers. So what happens? Lobbyists go and talk to the Congresspeople and edcuate them. We end up viewing this as "greasing the palms" or as the corruption of American politics. Everyone cannot be an expert at everything. So before anyone complains that lobbyists are completely evil and should be done away with think about your doctor. Your doctor knows medicine and the vast majority of people reading this post don't. You go in because you're sick and you don't know what to do. The doctor takes a look at the symptoms and makes suggestions for treatment. You then decided which treatment would be the best for you. With a congresperson they look at the problem and then defer to people that actually know what is going on. They then take the recommnedations back and decide on what to do.
/. Then a real person can express the general conscencus on such issues as software patents, fair use, the DCMA, and why Star Trek Enterprise (or whatever geek show has just been cancelled) should go back on TV. Just like a phone call is more effective than a letter, a person visit is far more effective than a phone call or a letter.
Now, if greasing the palms is in reference to campaign contributions, there are limitations set on those contributions. But shouldn't business be given the opportunity to express itself and give to a candiate that supports that business's view? Microsoft has thousands of employees, and they represent a special intrest group that has right to express its political agenda. While I disagree with RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft/Evil Empire Corp/etc., these are merely coalitions of people that have an interest to protect. Most of our problems with big business lobbying the government is because our interests disagree with their interests. Man tends to be selfish and wants to protect his self interest.
So before we complain that lobbyists are evil maybe we ought to think that the formations of some special interest groups would be an idea. That was instead of sending a bunch of letters which are read by interns, we can send a lobbyist to express the interests of
Headline: SCOX Accepts Paypal
Body: The SCO group, is pleased to annouce that it will now accept Paypal as the perferred means of paying for stock. Recently SCO moved to eBay as their new exchange for stock. SCO joins thousands of online sellers that accept Paypal.
"Since the online community relies heavily on Paypal for online purchaces, we feel it a natural move for SCO to accept Paypal," SCO CEO Darl McBride stated. "This new method in exchanging stock, both on eBay and with Paypal will help many people who have wanted to own stock become proud owners of a quality, American company."
SCO also announed it's Child-Stock Program. Schools can now buy large amounts of SCO stock for distribution amoung school-aged children. McBride and Sontag are the largest sellers to the program. "We feel that it is important for school children to understand the stock-buying process. By having children trade our stock, we can teach them about how publicly traded companties operate. Best of all, school children can own stock!"
The SEC is investigating the School Children Stock Program.
I think that Napster is after a different market. In your case, spending the extra money for the convience provides you with what you're looking for. In my case, spending the flat rate provides sufficent utility for the money -- I don't place a high enough value on music to pay $.99/track, while paying $10/month is fine (the inconvience of the service isn't sufficent to outweigh the benefit). The amount of music that is available to me for the $10 is far more than what I could buy for $.99/track. So while the long term economical value is completely wasted, the short term utility outweighs the long-term cost. Depending on what you want to do with the music, and your listening habits, defines whether the service is worth it or not. I'm curious to see if Napster will survive or not. The model is unique.
No, I don't think she would need written autherization (unless it was forced). Afterall, spawing could reasonably be construed as "preparing a derivitive work." And since spawning requires the consent of two people (at least legally), it could be argued that it was joint derivative work. I think that in the case of accidental reproduction, authorization would have been implicit in the act -- reproduction is an inherent risk, and any reasonable person knows that it may happen, therefore, the copyright would have been waved at the moment of copulation. Now, why did I just think that out...oh yeah, I'm avoiding homework.
The daemon in me finds the idea of delivering a DMCA take-down notice to a mall as entertaining. Requesting that all tapes with your image be destroyed would be quite fun.
Sometimes the best way to fight stupidity is with stupidity. The nefarious thought that just ran across my mind is create a personalized license plate boarder, complete with a copyright notice. Then the next time that one of those cameras takes a picture of your license plate you claim that the camera violated your copyright, and demand the photo be destroyed. Using the "dirty-hand" doctrine, you claim that there isn't any evidence of you burning through the intersection. Of course, the traffic judge wouldn't be humored, and it would probably only work once. But the idea is if you create a statement that demonstrates the obsurdity of enforcing copyrights in public displays, then you could effectively make a statment that this issue is stupid. Besides, how can a monolithic metal bean claim copyright? Trademark, maybe. But I seriously doubt that there is a threat that someone is going be reproducing that thing. Maybe I will start wearing a shirt that reads: "(C) 2005, Me"
I signed up for the two week trial, just to see how much I like it. I have some really mixed feeligns on the subject. I haven't decided if I am going to keep the service or cancel.
There are several benefits: It's easier than file sharing. I can download an entire album with the click of a mouse, and I actually get it in a reasonable amount of time. So while I am signed up for the $10 a month fee, I think that it is worth it so that I don't have to worry about all the crap that comes with a P2P program. Then you're allowed to have it on three computers. Which I think is pretty slick -- you can have a set on your work computer and then on your home computer. I would have to say that the three computer deal was one of the things that made me sign up. Between my laptop, desktop and my work computer, I'll be able to get tunes where ever I work. It's also cheap and convient. I don't have to worry about getting charged $XX amount for every CD. And if I want to buy the CD then I can.
The biggest annoyance is the fact that you can't rip them to a CD without buying them. I wanted to rip them to a CD to listen to them in the shower and in the car, but I can't without buying the rights. Then there is the feeling that I really don't own the 6.5G that I downloaded, and that if I stop paying then I am screwed. Pretty much the only way that I have been able to reconcile the cost is that I have access to far more music than I would normally have access to if I were to buy the music individually. I don't have to run out and buy the music on iTunes or to Wal-mart.
In prior posts people have questioned the economic value of iTunes verse Napster. The main economic difference is that I am able to download and listen to as much as I want to with Napster. While I don't own the music, and there are limitations on what I can do with the music, it is far cheaper than acquiring the music in other means. And it's legal.
I have only been in my trial for about four days now. But if you look at it like renting two movies, or three movies if you get the portable option, then it doesn't hurt that much. I have spent far mroe money renting movies in one year than I will spend on Napster. $120 a year for unlimited listening isn't all that bad. For $120 in CD's I could seriously wear out the utility on 8 or so CD's that it would buy me. To those that have massive CD collections, how much of those CD's do you actually listen to?
So you can call me stupid for making an economically unsound decision -- but for students and others who have a limited budget, it isn't all that bad. I would suggest that people give it a try before knocking it. There are things that I don't like, but at the same token the $10/15 isn't all that bad for a unlimited rental program.
Yeah, the distrubing thing is that it is up $0.09.
That is an interesting idea. Making the value of a crime negative, or "not worth-it" is something that I support. But what about the difference between criminal and civil? The copyright laws make it criminial to do certain things. But how negative should the penalty of a crime be so to stop the crime?
In the United States we generally agree that cutting the hand off of a theif is too negative. But fining someone into the ground is not. Fining a $1M is a nice idea in theory, but what good would it accomplish? The person that steals from Wal-mart, generally speaking, is not wealthy enough to buy the items in the first place, and therefore wouldn't have the means to pay in the first place. Placing a regressive fine on those who don't have the money to begin with would benefit society little (if the shoplifter only makes $25K a year, it would take 40 years for the shoplifter to pay the fine; meanwhile the shoplifter has to declare bankrupticy to get out of the judgment, thereby eliminating and circumventing the judgement and the debts of the offendar). $1M is too regressive, as it would ruin the offendar and the fine would never be paid. Rather, fining the offendar on a scale that would allow the offendar to pay, yet make it sufficent to hurt would be better. So in this example our $25K/year shoplifter pays $2,500. Enough to hurt, but not enough to ruin the guy.
But the huge problem that I see with the whole copyright situation is that the punishment is extreme and serves very little purpouse. Why would $3,300,000 be a just punishment? Is the value of the product worth that much? TV shows, movies and music are not valued at insane amounts. Stealing a TV set won't land you a $3M fine. What benefit does fining people into the ground serve the public?
I am not sure that I would say that NK plans on attacking Tiawan, but it is still a leveraging piece. The United States is committed to protecting two countries by treaty -- Tiawan and Japan. The United States is involved in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Between the two the US military is stretched. Given a problem in east Asia, the US could have some serious issues. NK probably recognizes the overstretched military and feels that it can leverage the US into getting what it wants by making threats. The US isn't so much in a position to attack, and the NK isn't in a position to defend. But NK doesn't have the inhibition to throw a nuke or two around. The US has everything to lose by throwing a nuke their way. NK is trying to blackmail the US into doing what it wants, while at the same time failing to live up to promises.
The statement on having nuclear weapons is a lot more sublte than people think. You have to remember that NK is the last traditional, isolationist communist country left. NK still thinks that the Cold War is still on. The parallels between the struggle with the USSR and then NK are extremely erie. NK is an isolationist country. Since they only rely on the rest of the world for foriegn aid, they have little incentive to play nice. By telling the world that they have nuclear weapons is more of a statement to their people that they have them. The US has know for a while -- as well as the rest of the world. All information in NK is controlled via the state. And it is also important to know that Kim Jong, the current leader's father is considered by many to be a god. So there is a little religious ferbor in the equation. NK is far more dangerous than Iraq -- NK has very little to loose by getting into a nuclear engagment. Sanctions, etc., will do very little, since they are so isolantionist. Several political scientist have stated that the next world war will come that part of Asia -- either China or NK will do something that will provoke the rest of the world. All NK has to do is do something to provoke the US into landing troops in Tiawan (ie nuking Tiawan). Then with US military involvment in the region, China can get very nerveous and end up in a first-class world power confrontation. The reason the US is nerveous about NK and nuclear weapons is rooted in the fear of a nuclear event in Asia becoming the catalyst for a major war. Even though we are on good "terms" with China in terms of trade, there are cultural and political differences which span the benefits of trade. Tiawan is one of those issues. The who point of this post is that the situation is far more complex than we think. The US wants nuclear weapons out of the region to prevent the instability that it can cause.
Sure they can try. But that would be an in the form of an appeal to the Federal Appeals Court. Which, btw, is not an easy task. You kinda of get an idea of Judge Kimball's attitudes when you read his legal briefs. And from the way he writes and thinks, he is a pretty tough judge. I would be intriqued to find out how many of his cases have been reversed on the appeals level. Also, when their is so much evidence to support the censor, I wouldn't worry. If there was a whole bunch of evidence, then unfair bias could be alleged, but not when SCO keeps saying there is a mountain when there isn't. Besides, this could actually be seen as an attempt to over SCO the chance to recover their case. By "warning" SCO to come up with something substantial on which the basis of their claims lie, the Court is allowing SCO the chance to actually get it "day in court." If SCO had been playing fair the entire time, SCO provided sufficient evidence and the evidence supported the claims, then I could see the case being moved or getting started up in another venue. But you have to remember, Utah is home to SCO. So finding a better home might be a little difficult.
Isn't there some sort of rule that reads, "Thou shalt not commit bikesheds?" Yeah, this is a clear bikeshed. Maybe we ought to tell whoever came up with this stupid idea, "Thou shalt not suggest bikesheds." This is beyond painting the bikeshed, patching the bikeshed's roof. This is tearing down the bikeshed. Worse, the Daemon is a brand identity.
I attend a rather conservative school. In my programming class we are peer graded. One of the projects was particularly frustrating. Anyhow, by the end of the project I had a method called "makeTheDamnThing," and it was rather insulting the user, with output along the lines of "Give me the stupid number." Worse yet, a rather cute gal graded my code. Out of all the programs that I had peppered with less-than civil language, and the _only_ hot gal graded my program. Go figure.
Wait, did someone just say that there is a contest to fork? Oh, I'm sorry, FreeBSD wants a new logo. If Linux has a penguin, then why can't FreeBSD have a daemon. Come on. Leave it along. I like the daemon -- complete with a badge on my PC. This is stupid.
This chip seems insanely powerful. With 8 APU's capable of doing DSP, you would think that some countries would impose export restrictions on the thing. If you remember when the G4 came out Apple advertized that the military didn't want that thing leaving the country. But image a chip with the ability to do some serious SIMD operations? The CIA, NSA and others doing signal processing have to love this chip.
Up at my univserity, free high speed internet is the thing. This summer a virus/spyware epicdemic hit one of the college apartments. So some of my friends asked me to fix their computer. Then it snowballed. Since I am poor, and knowing that they are poor, I had to do something that would make it so I wasn't fixing all the computers for free, and limit the amount of time that I was spending on fixing the comptuers. I started to charge 3 dozen Oatmeal Raisen cookies for each computer repair job. It worked quite well for all parties involved. Now I am not fixing computers every waking minute, and on occasion I come back to my apartment to find a computer with 3 dozen oatmeal raisen cookies sitting on my bed. My room mates get free support, for the most part.
You're discounting the intrinsic value of the PC verse a TV show. A PC can be used for a mirade of purpouses spanning students to professionals to entertainment. As a student I use my computer to program, do homework assignments, write papers, communicate with others. Since I also work, my PC is also a source of income, as it allows me to more efficently do my work. The difference in spending $600 or whatever on a PC verse a TV show is that the $600 on the PC is spent on a tool to accomplish other tasks. A TV show is basically wasted time other than providing a moment of entertainment -- in certain circumstances a TV show can be used a tool, but shows like Seinfeld, Star Trek, etc, don't have much use as a tool. Telling me that I am hypocrite for not donating the $XXX that I spent on my PC amounts to a strawman argument. If you are going to throw stones at those who disagree with your view point, at least throw a stone in the right direction. A comparision to DVD's would have been a better argument and for that matter, an argument which is hard to refute. As I have thought about it, it is very hard to fault them if you compare it to a DVD. About the only argument that you can use against raising the money is that it is a waste of money. While spending $11.24 is not a waste, per se, on an individual basis, the aggregate sum of $33million is. The question that I have to ask, and others have asked in prior posts is whether the show is _worth_ that much money? And could the agggregate sum be put to a better use. Buying a DVD is not a effort by a group to raise money. Selling a DVD is an effort to make money. The effort and energy that is put into this sort of project could be used to benefit a whole mirade of people. $33 million has an incrediable amount of potential energy in terms of what can be done with it.
I just got a Wireless router the other day. What my room mates couldn't understand is why I locked down the router so hard. They were amazed that I had to put the WPA key on all the computers, and why I also did MAC and IP filtering. They just couldn't understand. Although it is not totally secure, hopefully it is enough to keep the dorks out and at the same time allow for wireless inconvience. The last thing that I want to worry about is some dork running around with a laptop and deciding that my internet is his internet and then doing something stupid.