Pipedream at best. It will continue on the way it is currently. Some people will pay for their hardware and choose to run free software. The rest of the world will run under Billy's rules and regulations and be happy when they can all interact easily with their DRM'd software formats.
Of course they want it to be free. Then they have full justification for a complete and utter lockdown of the hardware via DRM'd BIOS and OS with threats under the DMCA if we try to break it. No true ownership of the hardware by the user is exactly what they want.
Are general computer users going to buy a computer that isn't DRM'd just to use free software? I don't think so. They are going to use what's given to them as part of their OS license fee.
"Run our OS and never have to worry again! Just sign your name right here. The fine print doesn't say anything about selling your soul. Nope, not at all. Right there... That's riiiight."
Re:Article text. Mod Down; Copyright Infringement
on
NYT on Spam Cops
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundation.
No thanks. I'd rather not continue to allow for the "Chosen One" attitude that both GWB and our beloved RWR felt the need to indulge in.
Re:Article text. Mod Down; Copyright Infringement
on
NYT on Spam Cops
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
You really shouldn't assume that someone is downloading illegal stuff just because they are posting anonymously.
It seems more like something that is easily able to be dramatized. People are familiar with the annoyances of spam and the media recognizes this.
It is nothing but a good story. I am sure that they are making this out to be a lot more sensational than it really is.
Laws were passed to make spam illegal. They have been passed to make plenty of other things illegal. Law enforcement has to track down people all the time to prosecute them for breaking the law.
I don't see how this is any more important.
Re:what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD?
on
Stallman vs Ken Brown
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I wasn't specifically quoting the use of GNU/Linux in the article. I was making the point that RMS insists we use that to describe Linux and the tools generally used with it.
RMS insists that GNU/Linux be used when talking about Linux in general (not just the kernel). People are just starting to see Linux and they see the GNU in front. They will immediately believe they are one in the same. Remember... Most people are under the MS-influence. "Microsoft Windows" is what they know and understand. They are likely going to extrapolate that to "GNU Linux".
what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD?
on
Stallman vs Ken Brown
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
"The actual words I used were quoted correctly, but [author Kenneth Brown] deliberately confuses his terms, like 'Linux.' He confuses the Linux kernel, which I had nothing to do with, and the GNU OS project, which I launched," said Stallman, who characterized such mistakes as "deliberate."M
I believe that Brown is probably far more knowledgeable about the differentiation between the kernel and the GNU project but for the masses it is certainly not something that most people know or care to know.
Perhaps Stallman doesn't realize that it isn't a single person making the confusion it's everyone. The whole GNU/Linux bullshit doesn't help a bit either. Anyone not in the know is going to say, hmm, GNU/Linux, all one thing.
It was certainly FUD but what MS funded "study" isn't?
Nothing will prevent post scruinty tampering. That's what I fear most about any of this. With the fascists running the show and wanting to remain in power over those they need to "care for" I fear any method that isn't tried and true and basically tamper-proof.
You ignore the fact that in order to make the money they are making they have to "please the people that enjoy music." Just because you don't like the music doesn't mean the rest of us can't enjoy it.
I didn't ignore anything. People aren't enjoying music. They are enjoying what is fed to them. Let's not be confused here. The conglomorates control everything. Remember who controls 98% of radio (there is *1* major station here that isn't owned by Infinity or ClearChannel). Remember who controls TV. Remember who controls music.
CONGLOMORATES are telling you what you like and not the other way around.
In order for people to buy the music, the music has to be good.
No, see, that's where you're wrong. The music doesn't have to be good. If you read the quotes from the people in the "article" then you would have seen first-hand that all it takes is a good body, a great video, and some money plunked down by the conglomorates to get you in.
I was searching the page for quotes from people that I believe are the best ones to be asking for information. I don't see any artists on there that openly support free music. Why not? Those artists are the ones that you should be supporting... They are the ones that are comfortable enough with both themselves *and* their fanbase to believe that they can make it without having to worry about being backed solely by the money-grubbing conglomerates.
David Crosby is a music legend known for his solo performances as well as his work with the Byrds, and Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young. In this interview, he recounts how the music industry has changed over his career. "When it all started, record companies -- and there were many of them, and this was a good thing -- were run by people who loved records," he says. "Now record companies are run by lawyers and accountants.... The people who run record companies now wouldn't know a song if it flew up their nose and died." Crosby also argues that the quality of music has suffered because of corporate interference. "It doesn't matter that Britney Spears has nothing to say and is about as deep as a birdbath," he says.
I can tell you the way the music died... It died when the musicians became the money-grubbing motherfuckers that most of them were told to become. They want to make millions of dollars and they have the conglomerates brainwash their fans into thinking that it is acceptable! Music is now a business, of course it isn't run by the people that care. Why should it? People that care don't worry as much about the money. They worry about what matters... Pleasing the people that enjoy music. Everytime you plunk your change down for iTunes, CDs, DVDs, whatever, remember that a portion of that goes not only to supporting multimedia conglomerates that control everything it also goes to supporting DRM, lawsuits against others, and lavish parties where people enjoy laughing at you for buying their shitty music.
Music that is controlled by the conglomerates is now not created by the musicians it's created by the conglomerates. They decide what's going to be a hit and what's not. Billy Joel and his "cut it down to 3:05" bit. Do you really want to listen to music that is price-fixed, controlled, and owned by people that don't give a fuck about anything except how much Grey Goose they can drink out of ornate ice sculptures while crying about how much money they are losing because they refuse to ship as many CDs as they used to?
Re:not gonna happen, the lobbies are too powerful
on
Do-It-Yourself VOIP Telco
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
And that brings up another problem - who's gonna stop spammers from dialing my VoIP phone from China for the sake of playing a pre-recorded advertisement in my ear?
Ahh, the one good thing about VoIP. Full control over what comes in. I get software that is custom. I get to decide who/what/where gets to call me.
Don't want China ads coming in? Block everything from China. Only want whitelisted people to call you? So be it. Want the phone to ask you if you want to accept a call or block the IP/range?
All doable.
not gonna happen, the lobbies are too powerful
on
Do-It-Yourself VOIP Telco
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Unfortunately the people that control the bandwith that we could use to support this "grassroots" VOIP campaign have very powerful government lobbies. We aren't going to get very far before the government oversteps its bounds and protects the large conglomerates.
He mentions that the mobile phone markets were a "disruptive technology" against the 125 year old wired telephone business. The single thing he fails to recognize is that the wired phone companies have the largest stakes in the best wireless networks out there (AT&T/Cingular, Verizon, etc).
He then glazes over the billing possibilities as you jump from router to router. We aren't talking about a cell phone here. We are talking about the possibility of a wireless card in a pocketPC to be used as a phone. It's a bit harder for Joe Blow to get a hacked/stolen SIM card for his phone. It's not quite as hard to get a software program that doesn't give billing information that is tracked back to that "phone" user.
only the BIG companies are able to do this...
on
Hybrid Fleet Vehicles
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
What's more, Azure makes plain that its customers must put their money where their mouth is. Interested parties have to commit up front that they'll place an order before Azure builds a prototype; if Azure achieves what it promises in emission reductions and fuel-cost savings, the customer has to pay for and receive the order.
"There are lots of tire-kickers, but if we perform, they agree to buy," said Deacon.
While their potential/interested clients are big ones it seems like a lot to ask in order to get a fleet out there for you.
Analysts believe Azure will make it. MacMurray is forecasting the company to lift itself out of the red by 2007 -- mainly because demand for hybrid vehicles that rely less on gasoline and don't pollute as much will continue to be strong.
We'll see. I wish them the best of luck but I doubt that they will be able to create what they say they can every time and with such a "small" possible base of customers.
Mozilla and it's tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, pop up blockers, type ahead find and the raft of other nifty features is great for the "power surfer" but I swear that based on the people in my office, it's not something they particulary need or feel the need to have enough to even go out and try.
I guess I would fall into the "powersurfer" group. I still don't use Mozilla, I don't see a need for me to have tabbed browsing, and I really never saw a need for mouse gestures. Popups were stopped with Google's toolbar so I won't talk about that any further.
I have tried Mozilla many times (including Thunderbird/Firefox) and never saw that it did what I wanted (or felt the same) as IE. I guess it's a matter of taste and comfort but I just see no reason to switch.
Mozilla/Firefox always seemed slow, uncomfortable, and just not as smooth as IE. I know there are various reasons for this including Windows loading IE at boot or whatever.
It's just a matter of taste even for the "powersurfers".
One minute Microsoft is the biggest, evilest monster that ever was, the next, everyone's a fanboy for the Xbox. What's up with that?
They were "fanboys" because it was a $200 PC that could be hooked to the TV and "hacked" to run Linux. It was more of a cheap novelty and a poke at MS than a "fan" thing here.
Now that they might have it purposefully be a computer (for more money) it's not going to be nearly as interesting or attractive to the userbase here.
While it's probably a smart move by MS (and one step closer to Billy coming over your TV every morning to greet you as you awake to his alarm clock) it's not something that I would run out and buy myself.
Will they lose a few customers (i.e. the Slashdot crowd)? Yes, but they don't care. Our money isn't worth that much to them. And since we're the only crowd opposed, there's not enough business to start-up competitive ISPs.
Unfortunately, you're 100% correct. The customers that they might lose are the ones that they WANT to lose. Why would they want to lose these people? Because that > 1% of their userbase is using more bandwith than 50% of the rest.
ISPs want users that just use the service to check email provided by the ISP, surf their ISP's homepage (which was preset by the setup software), and use an IM client.
They don't want people that use BitTorrent or other P2P services, stream music, download large files, host services, etc.
They have the control (especially large ISPs like Comcast) and there's nothing that we can do about it.
how is this any different than providers blocking inbound traffic for 80, 21->25, etc? It's not. They are deciding what traffic gets to your machine and back out.
Remember where you money is going when you plunk down your cash for iTunes, CDs, or various other media formats when you are wanting to listen to RIAA controlled music.
Critics also charge that the Pirate Act may invent a form of double jeopardy: It would let the RIAA sue the same people already sued by the Justice Department.
"The kinds of things we have a double-jeopardy doctrine to prevent seem to be implicated by the bill," said Jessica Litman, author of "Digital Copyright" and a law professor at Wayne State University. "I find it disturbing that the committee reported this out without at least having a hearing to consider some of the alternatives."
Not only do they want the same taxpayers who pay for the prosecution of these people they also have the ablility to resue the same people after the DoJ is done with them.
This isn't a deterrent... It's just going to piss everyone off.
But the fact is Microsoft is keeping us from adopting things like CSS2, PNG and SVG more than anything else.
I haven't noticed a need for CSS2 and PNG but SVG comes via a plugin. I don't see why you think that MS should support it natively.
How many websites out there use it? Only one that I use regularly and it's not exactly something that 99.9% of others will use.
Should MS be forced to integrate Flash into the browser just because some websites use it (you would all go fucking ballistic if they took Shockwave over to do so)?
While customers probably SHOULD get pissed off and leave companies that do this, customers are frequently far too short-sighted to look past the lowest current price, if they're even aware enough to look at it.
When large grocery store chains have a monopoly in an area (even if there are 5 they might all accept these saver cards after jacking their prices) what choice do you have? You can't exactly go elsewhere as they have already put the "little" stores out of business.
The only thing you can do is give them false info and make sure you make loud and obnoxious comments everytime they ask for your card.
Slashdot Mirror
Pipedream at best. It will continue on the way it is currently. Some people will pay for their hardware and choose to run free software. The rest of the world will run under Billy's rules and regulations and be happy when they can all interact easily with their DRM'd software formats.
Of course they want it to be free. Then they have full justification for a complete and utter lockdown of the hardware via DRM'd BIOS and OS with threats under the DMCA if we try to break it. No true ownership of the hardware by the user is exactly what they want.
Are general computer users going to buy a computer that isn't DRM'd just to use free software? I don't think so. They are going to use what's given to them as part of their OS license fee.
"Run our OS and never have to worry again! Just sign your name right here. The fine print doesn't say anything about selling your soul. Nope, not at all. Right there... That's riiiight."
Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundation.
No thanks. I'd rather not continue to allow for the "Chosen One" attitude that both GWB and our beloved RWR felt the need to indulge in.
You really shouldn't assume that someone is downloading illegal stuff just because they are posting anonymously.
It seems more like something that is easily able to be dramatized. People are familiar with the annoyances of spam and the media recognizes this.
It is nothing but a good story. I am sure that they are making this out to be a lot more sensational than it really is.
Laws were passed to make spam illegal. They have been passed to make plenty of other things illegal. Law enforcement has to track down people all the time to prosecute them for breaking the law.
I don't see how this is any more important.
I wasn't specifically quoting the use of GNU/Linux in the article. I was making the point that RMS insists we use that to describe Linux and the tools generally used with it.
RMS insists that GNU/Linux be used when talking about Linux in general (not just the kernel). People are just starting to see Linux and they see the GNU in front. They will immediately believe they are one in the same. Remember... Most people are under the MS-influence. "Microsoft Windows" is what they know and understand. They are likely going to extrapolate that to "GNU Linux".
"The actual words I used were quoted correctly, but [author Kenneth Brown] deliberately confuses his terms, like 'Linux.' He confuses the Linux kernel, which I had nothing to do with, and the GNU OS project, which I launched," said Stallman, who characterized such mistakes as "deliberate."M
I believe that Brown is probably far more knowledgeable about the differentiation between the kernel and the GNU project but for the masses it is certainly not something that most people know or care to know.
Perhaps Stallman doesn't realize that it isn't a single person making the confusion it's everyone. The whole GNU/Linux bullshit doesn't help a bit either. Anyone not in the know is going to say, hmm, GNU/Linux, all one thing.
It was certainly FUD but what MS funded "study" isn't?
Nothing will prevent post scruinty tampering. That's what I fear most about any of this. With the fascists running the show and wanting to remain in power over those they need to "care for" I fear any method that isn't tried and true and basically tamper-proof.
Wish there actually were some.
Why? MS has shown time and time again that it doesn't follow them or only follows them to a point and then makes the rest up as they go along.
I don't see the point to making a statement that won't hold water later.
Example: Grateful Dead. Only one music video, very little top X radio play. Pretty sucessful group but very little radio conglomorate support.
You've proven my point that free music is the way to go.
Example: There are lot of European music I like. How did ClearChannel tell me I like them?
It's called European music because it's not mainstream here. You've again proven my point.
You ignore the fact that in order to make the money they are making they have to "please the people that enjoy music." Just because you don't like the music doesn't mean the rest of us can't enjoy it.
I didn't ignore anything. People aren't enjoying music. They are enjoying what is fed to them. Let's not be confused here. The conglomorates control everything. Remember who controls 98% of radio (there is *1* major station here that isn't owned by Infinity or ClearChannel). Remember who controls TV. Remember who controls music.
CONGLOMORATES are telling you what you like and not the other way around.
In order for people to buy the music, the music has to be good.
No, see, that's where you're wrong. The music doesn't have to be good. If you read the quotes from the people in the "article" then you would have seen first-hand that all it takes is a good body, a great video, and some money plunked down by the conglomorates to get you in.
I was searching the page for quotes from people that I believe are the best ones to be asking for information. I don't see any artists on there that openly support free music. Why not? Those artists are the ones that you should be supporting... They are the ones that are comfortable enough with both themselves *and* their fanbase to believe that they can make it without having to worry about being backed solely by the money-grubbing conglomerates.
... The people who run record companies now wouldn't know a song if it flew up their nose and died." Crosby also argues that the quality of music has suffered because of corporate interference. "It doesn't matter that Britney Spears has nothing to say and is about as deep as a birdbath," he says.
David Crosby is a music legend known for his solo performances as well as his work with the Byrds, and Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young. In this interview, he recounts how the music industry has changed over his career. "When it all started, record companies -- and there were many of them, and this was a good thing -- were run by people who loved records," he says. "Now record companies are run by lawyers and accountants.
I can tell you the way the music died... It died when the musicians became the money-grubbing motherfuckers that most of them were told to become. They want to make millions of dollars and they have the conglomerates brainwash their fans into thinking that it is acceptable! Music is now a business, of course it isn't run by the people that care. Why should it? People that care don't worry as much about the money. They worry about what matters... Pleasing the people that enjoy music. Everytime you plunk your change down for iTunes, CDs, DVDs, whatever, remember that a portion of that goes not only to supporting multimedia conglomerates that control everything it also goes to supporting DRM, lawsuits against others, and lavish parties where people enjoy laughing at you for buying their shitty music.
Music that is controlled by the conglomerates is now not created by the musicians it's created by the conglomerates. They decide what's going to be a hit and what's not. Billy Joel and his "cut it down to 3:05" bit. Do you really want to listen to music that is price-fixed, controlled, and owned by people that don't give a fuck about anything except how much Grey Goose they can drink out of ornate ice sculptures while crying about how much money they are losing because they refuse to ship as many CDs as they used to?
And that brings up another problem - who's gonna stop spammers from dialing my VoIP phone from China for the sake of playing a pre-recorded advertisement in my ear?
Ahh, the one good thing about VoIP. Full control over what comes in. I get software that is custom. I get to decide who/what/where gets to call me.
Don't want China ads coming in? Block everything from China. Only want whitelisted people to call you? So be it. Want the phone to ask you if you want to accept a call or block the IP/range?
All doable.
Unfortunately the people that control the bandwith that we could use to support this "grassroots" VOIP campaign have very powerful government lobbies. We aren't going to get very far before the government oversteps its bounds and protects the large conglomerates.
He mentions that the mobile phone markets were a "disruptive technology" against the 125 year old wired telephone business. The single thing he fails to recognize is that the wired phone companies have the largest stakes in the best wireless networks out there (AT&T/Cingular, Verizon, etc).
He then glazes over the billing possibilities as you jump from router to router. We aren't talking about a cell phone here. We are talking about the possibility of a wireless card in a pocketPC to be used as a phone. It's a bit harder for Joe Blow to get a hacked/stolen SIM card for his phone. It's not quite as hard to get a software program that doesn't give billing information that is tracked back to that "phone" user.
What's more, Azure makes plain that its customers must put their money where their mouth is. Interested parties have to commit up front that they'll place an order before Azure builds a prototype; if Azure achieves what it promises in emission reductions and fuel-cost savings, the customer has to pay for and receive the order.
"There are lots of tire-kickers, but if we perform, they agree to buy," said Deacon.
While their potential/interested clients are big ones it seems like a lot to ask in order to get a fleet out there for you.
Analysts believe Azure will make it. MacMurray is forecasting the company to lift itself out of the red by 2007 -- mainly because demand for hybrid vehicles that rely less on gasoline and don't pollute as much will continue to be strong.
We'll see. I wish them the best of luck but I doubt that they will be able to create what they say they can every time and with such a "small" possible base of customers.
Mozilla and it's tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, pop up blockers, type ahead find and the raft of other nifty features is great for the "power surfer" but I swear that based on the people in my office, it's not something they particulary need or feel the need to have enough to even go out and try.
I guess I would fall into the "powersurfer" group. I still don't use Mozilla, I don't see a need for me to have tabbed browsing, and I really never saw a need for mouse gestures. Popups were stopped with Google's toolbar so I won't talk about that any further.
I have tried Mozilla many times (including Thunderbird/Firefox) and never saw that it did what I wanted (or felt the same) as IE. I guess it's a matter of taste and comfort but I just see no reason to switch.
Mozilla/Firefox always seemed slow, uncomfortable, and just not as smooth as IE. I know there are various reasons for this including Windows loading IE at boot or whatever.
It's just a matter of taste even for the "powersurfers".
One minute Microsoft is the biggest, evilest monster that ever was, the next, everyone's a fanboy for the Xbox. What's up with that?
They were "fanboys" because it was a $200 PC that could be hooked to the TV and "hacked" to run Linux. It was more of a cheap novelty and a poke at MS than a "fan" thing here.
Now that they might have it purposefully be a computer (for more money) it's not going to be nearly as interesting or attractive to the userbase here.
While it's probably a smart move by MS (and one step closer to Billy coming over your TV every morning to greet you as you awake to his alarm clock) it's not something that I would run out and buy myself.
Will they lose a few customers (i.e. the Slashdot crowd)? Yes, but they don't care. Our money isn't worth that much to them. And since we're the only crowd opposed, there's not enough business to start-up competitive ISPs.
Unfortunately, you're 100% correct. The customers that they might lose are the ones that they WANT to lose. Why would they want to lose these people? Because that > 1% of their userbase is using more bandwith than 50% of the rest.
ISPs want users that just use the service to check email provided by the ISP, surf their ISP's homepage (which was preset by the setup software), and use an IM client.
They don't want people that use BitTorrent or other P2P services, stream music, download large files, host services, etc.
They have the control (especially large ISPs like Comcast) and there's nothing that we can do about it.
how is this any different than providers blocking inbound traffic for 80, 21->25, etc? It's not. They are deciding what traffic gets to your machine and back out.
Remember where you money is going when you plunk down your cash for iTunes, CDs, or various other media formats when you are wanting to listen to RIAA controlled music.
Critics also charge that the Pirate Act may invent a form of double jeopardy: It would let the RIAA sue the same people already sued by the Justice Department.
"The kinds of things we have a double-jeopardy doctrine to prevent seem to be implicated by the bill," said Jessica Litman, author of "Digital Copyright" and a law professor at Wayne State University. "I find it disturbing that the committee reported this out without at least having a hearing to consider some of the alternatives."
Not only do they want the same taxpayers who pay for the prosecution of these people they also have the ablility to resue the same people after the DoJ is done with them.
This isn't a deterrent... It's just going to piss everyone off.
Unfortunately the US still can decide when to turn on and off the statellites.
So much for "ending US strangeholds".
But the fact is Microsoft is keeping us from adopting things like CSS2, PNG and SVG more than anything else.
I haven't noticed a need for CSS2 and PNG but SVG comes via a plugin. I don't see why you think that MS should support it natively.
How many websites out there use it? Only one that I use regularly and it's not exactly something that 99.9% of others will use.
Should MS be forced to integrate Flash into the browser just because some websites use it (you would all go fucking ballistic if they took Shockwave over to do so)?
While customers probably SHOULD get pissed off and leave companies that do this, customers are frequently far too short-sighted to look past the lowest current price, if they're even aware enough to look at it.
When large grocery store chains have a monopoly in an area (even if there are 5 they might all accept these saver cards after jacking their prices) what choice do you have? You can't exactly go elsewhere as they have already put the "little" stores out of business.
The only thing you can do is give them false info and make sure you make loud and obnoxious comments everytime they ask for your card.