The MS Word import filters are alone worth the price of admission
I would love to see what word documents you're using that don't get completely trashed by OO's conversion from Word. Every version (yes, including 1.1) I try it again, only to find that it can't handle much in the way of embedded stuff - granted, it's getting better, but not nearly close enough. And the word processor is the best of the bunch, the powerpoint clone isn't even remotely ready for prime time.
I suppose my point is I would like to see more cooperation between different factions working on office suites, and less wheel-reinvention, until they get to the point where they're really good.
It's called a loss leader. Sell the basic item at or below cost and make your money on accessories. See also: printers and ink cartridges.
Bringing this back to Apple, it's not a loss leader because they're making a profit on the player, and then *obscene* profit on the accessories. It's their business model, so good luck to them, but I simply refuse to pay that much for a player. When all is said and done, you'll end up paying probably $350-$400 to make the iPod mini really usable.
I think its a subconscious thing - it must hurt americans to remember the euro is a much stronger currency than the dollar. It started at about the same as the dollar but the weak dollar has made it look very good indeed.
Some people very much like a weak dollar, namely anyone involved with a business that a) exports to Europe, or b) competes with European imports. Ask Daimler and BMW how much they like a strong Euro.
MPAA could not get the Okokrim into this trouble as the MPAA has no authority over the Norwegian police. It was the Okokrim's decision to pursue this case - geez, it would be a major scandal if it turned out that some foreign organization has a say in what the police does.
Right, I'm sure this esteemed organization woke up one day and said "You know what is threatening our great nation? DVD decryption."
Somehow I don't think so. I'm not claiming corruption, but I've a feeling someone gave them the idea that this would be a very good thing to go after.
is that you become that which you fight against. Isn't it ironic, that if these terrorists really do hate our 'Freedom,' that is precisely what we are giving up to fight them? Sounds like they win, in that case.
Yes, it's happening, but it's not necessary. The reality is that, in a way, 9/11 was Ashcroft's wet dream: an opportunity to get what he wants in terms of J. Edgar Hoover-like control in the aftermath of a tragedy. Nevermind that the things he gets have nothing to do with terrorism, often. It's just things that have been on his wish list.
There are things that the US needs to do to fight terrorism that have little or nothing to do with civil liberties. As such I see a true fight against terrorism as a good and fair one, potentially. The US needs to lock down its infrastrusture, for one thing. Examples are reservoirs, chemical plants, etc. No one's civil liberties are abridged by this, and these have been isolated as likely targets by terrorists in the future.
In truth, keeping closer track of "visitors" (ie, visa holders) to the US is probably inevitable, but that's not something outside the realm of common sense anyway. It's the tactics Ashcroft's office is taking in the name of fighting terrorism that is disgusting, not the fight itself.
Maybe the problem is that after sending out 6000 resumes and cover letters only to receive rejects letters from about 40% while being completely ignored by the rest has led me to believe that spending a great deal of time on each application/resume/cover letter I send out for Yet Another Job Opening would consume an amount of time equivelent to a full-time job?
If you don't have a job, searching for one is your full-time job. Yes, not surprisingly, in a down tech job market, you might actually have to *try* to get a job.
Perhaps the problem is that you're putting so little effort into each application that they all reject you because your cover letters and resumes suck. Likely, you're sending out a very general letter and resume, whereas the people who get interviews are those who tailor theirs to the specific job. Perhaps instead of trying less for more applications, you should try harder for fewer.
Also, this could be devastating to researches. Imagine writing a paper and facing a lawsuit over your use of facts.
For what it's worth, not that I support this bill, but it does make exception for research (as does normal copyright, in general).
Also, as far as enforcement goes, it should only be reasonable to sue someone if you can prove you ripped off their info. That would generally involve ripping off a good portion of a database.
That said, as has already been mentioned, I don't trust the bastards. Also, I don't like the idea of extending copyright to something with no creative content.
Finally, this should be something solved through contracts between the database owners and those to whom they license/lease/sell the information.
You could see how they branch, what countries they cross into, and how people relate to each other (interests, age, etc.)
I would go so far as to say that's the whole point. They're probably doing this to analyze statistically how such networking takes place. This would be useful as a model for many things, and I'm sure marketers would be interested if no one else.
Information transfer theory is cool, and no one has the possibility to study it like Google does.
On the "bright side", however, I can purchase a Toyota Prius and get a lot of the same functionality without all the work (and with 60+ miles per gallon)... of course, then I can't brag I have a Mac in my car and can't add things to it
What that this thing did could a prius do? Is GPS optional on a prius? Even then, that option costs a *significant* fraction of his project costs. Does it have ethernet ports? No? Thought not.
All in all, this is probably the best mod I've seen in a long time. And no, I'm not a mac fiend, but a good hack is a good hack.
No, thats the break down in their case. They DO argue there is no legit use for those services. Not that it is not legal to trade songs. The point is that the service is not at fault. So they argue that it has NO legit use so they can say they are at fault.
A la Napster, which was probably used by 6 people to do legal things, simply having some legit use is insufficient. One way they could have won the last decision is to show that there is no SUBSTANTIVE legal use of the service. The fact that they used Kazaa as an instant messenger service does not make that a substantive use.
Naturally, with Kazaa, there really are other uses, and they've been careful not to hard-code music piracy as use #1 (though, like, duh). That's only one of the standards that RIAA would have had to meet, and they flamed out pretty much on all of them (especially on Kazaa's not controlling the networks).
The law has decent motivation, but it's basically saying "Go ahead and break into wireless networks, because if they're not completely secure, it's not your fault." What happens when people start snooping the traffic, stealing corporate secrets, and then claim that the wireless network wasn't secure, so they can't be responsible?
Come on, that's like saying that if I'm allowed to enter a business with an open door, then I'm also allowed, by default, to rob the place and give the owner a Dirty Sanchez.
The law assumes that an open network was left that way intentionally (or that the owner doesn't much care). That's a very cool thing. But nowhere does it say that you are absolved of responsibility for your actions when using the network. So industrial espionage and cracking other, secured servers is still as illegal as it would be if you were doing these things from any other system.
I'm sure modular documentation is great, but we need to build Iraq's infrastructure before we worry about documentation. According to the UN, schools and food are more important than modular documentation. Starving Iraqis can't eat modular documentation.
I'm just saying that maybe we need to focus on what's important. Like human rights for Iraqis
Rather than waste time writing copyright laws, why don't they fix their infrastructure, health/education systems and provide essential services. No offense to copyright holders (I myself being one of them) but basic human rights should come before protecting whats yours.
Step 1: Editor posts story regarding building X in Iraq.
Step 2: Someone posts saying that we should wait to do X until we feed them and build schools.
Step 3: GOTO 1.
Come on people. Could we dispense with the redundant posts that come with every story? Could we add something new for a change that's relevant to this specific story? I'm not saying that I disagree with focussing on rebuilding Iraq, but seriously, we get the idea.
Besides, what the hell is Hilary Rosen going to do to build a school? I'm not saying I like Hilary Rosen or anything, but building a country CAN work in parallel. Some might say it has to.
Their SMTP servers will not even talk to many other legitimate SMTP servers. They think all SMTP originating from consumer hosted boxes should be disallowed (ie: you have DSL at your house, and run your own domain and run your own domain and email).
Oh, see, in your original post you seemed to imply that it was AOL's customers you were afraid for. Not so, eh? You're afraid for businesses that would like to send email TO AOL customers. Right there you lose the censorship argument - AOL customers can send email to anyone they want!
So is this a business site you run? If so, I would recommend something a bit more professional. Pay the $20/year or whatever for light domain hosting. God knows I'd never do business with anyone hosting off their DSL line.
Second, a most people who run their own server from DSL are spammers. So sorry for the collateral damage, but that's life. But cutting off DSL-"servers" has cut AOL's spam bill by a lot. So I would do exactly what they do.
If you've honsestly never sent an unsolicited email from that business of yours, then I would recommend taking measures to ensure that you aren't perceived as a scumbag by people and mailservers alike.
Third, this still isn't censorship - you don't have any relationship with AOL, and they aren't required to operate their server open to anyone. That's a privilege, not a right.
Spam filtering MUST be based on the email recipient deciding how the filter will work, and not super-imposed from the ISP without consideration from the user.
Like hell. "MUST" for you to be able to spam AOL customers, but the rest of us could really give a shit. No, mail servers MUST cut off crappy and un-maintained servers because they are the most frequent source of spam, either because their owners are spammers or because (as in the far east) they don't know how to maintain their server, and the "administrators" (I use the term loosely) leave the relays open. Accepting mail from a DSL line would be like having unprotected sex with a crackwhore. You just don't do it.
AOL is currently using censorship to try to solve their problem. Their customers want the ISP to stop spam, and AOL interprets this as a license to censor incoming mail for "spamness".
Well, I don't sue AOhelL, so correct me if I'm wrong...but don't they give you the option of using the filter or not? And as far as I understand, they're blocking commercial email, not email containing words like "penis" or something. And when customers ask AOL to stop spam, it's not like AOL is "interpreting" this as a license to "censor" for spam. It's a literal directive. They're giving the consumers what they want. Now, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't use AOL if my life depended on it, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.
[nytimes.com]: "These antispammers should get a life," she said. "Do their fingers hurt too much from pressing the delete key? How much time does that really take from their day?"
Here's a better for question Alyx. How long does it take to throw out all of those catalogs that slashdot readers have thougtfully sent your way? You know, you could just have someone look through your mail for you (mail filter).
But you complain that the mailman won't deliver your mail when your box is full? Kind of how my mail gets rejected when my online account fills up? Well, get a bigger box! (Watch the lewd comments buys).
You know Alyx, you could just check your mail more often! Hell, put a big dumpster on your lawn for all that!
Or, you can maintain a private PO Box account and assume your public address is ALL SPAM- kind of like I have do online.
See, Alyx, it's pretty much the same thing. And it sucks. So don't cry to me.
DeCSS was much more dangerous
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, yeah, yeah...but decoding DeCSS and making an OS aren't the same thing. Right or wrong (I agree, probably wrong), DMCA is law and DeCSS is a blatant violation. Shitty law, but don't act surprised that somebody got busted for reverse engineering copy/decode protection, because DeCSS is exactly the kind of thing that law was written for, and you know it.;)
And Phil was never really nailed. And as long as he doesn't sell PGP internationally he'll be fine. Export regulations on strong encryption may be silly, but they do exist, and as long as he follows them he's fine. And courts have already ruled that publishing algorithms on the net is perfectly legal and covered by the First. I'm sure he has lawyers keeping him on the straight and narrow.
So far, I can't see where anybody got convicted in this country for something where the law was rudely twisted in ways that weren't predictable (though I'd love to see examples). That's not to say that I agree with the laws themselves - but if you flaunt them, expect to be a martyr.
Seriously, no one will go after Linus. If they do, they will be laughed out of court. That is, unless Linus decides to become a bit of a radical and start doing things he's not now.
This is only partially true. The USPS has competition for parcel and express services, but there's no competition for letters. In fact, the USPS has a legally-guaranteed monopoly on letters, such that it's illegal to compete with them. See, for example, 39 CFR Part 310. There are exceptions that allow for services like FedEx, but you couldn't open your own private mail service legally.
I knew someone would say this...that's what I get for being lazy.;) You are of course correct regarding letters, but that's not the USPS's gravy train - it's business clients who are sending stuff express and directly competing with UPS. Local service gives them some extra cash on their routes, and is likely profitable as long as volume remains high.
Overall, I have no problems with this model - the USPS still competes for a large portion of its business, and offering local service alongside gives them an advantage but not enough to make them complacent. This has to still be much better than a fully governmental monopoly that wouldn't know competition bitten by it.
Interestingly, the PS *does* have competition for regular post service. Email. Supposedly, their letter volume is down and they've had to cut some routes and such. They are afraid enough to see email as a real threat, making them not take regular mail for granted.
Blatantly misused as a sledgehammer to try and "shock and awe" the satellite TV community now.
I fully expected to read the article and find out that the kid had just cleverly reverse-engineered stuff as a hobby, making him a poor persecuted martyr. I really did.
But, that perception was WRONG. This kid had access to sensitive trade secrets. I see absolutely nothing defensible that he did. I would love if someone would explain to me how it should be perfectly OK to steal trade secrets and publish them. I suggest starting with the always persuasive "patents, copyrights, and secrets want to be FREE" argument.
So I'm waiting for the "misuse" argument. To me, the fact that they only went after a kid who really is a thief gives them credibility.
Honestly, I would love to hear from someone who actually read the article and feels otherwise.
"Yeah. So when was the last time the government did anything efficiently or cost-effectively?"
This moring I sent a letter to the middle of nowhere over 1000 miles away for under 40 cents.
Does that count?
Yes. Also note that the post office has competitors (Fed Ex, UPS), meaning they have to stay competitive. Now, if you're talking a government-sponsored telco that doesn't have a monopoly, *that* would be interesting - it might eliminate that bloat+complacency problem.
But I think your exception proves the general rule: 1) monopolies are inefficient. 2) governments are inefficient. 3)government monopolies give you treasures like the DMV. But if you want to talk about something where, thanks to competition, the gov telco doesn't have the ability to offer crappy service at even more inflated prices, I'll certainly jump in.
Slashdot Mirror
I would love to see what word documents you're using that don't get completely trashed by OO's conversion from Word. Every version (yes, including 1.1) I try it again, only to find that it can't handle much in the way of embedded stuff - granted, it's getting better, but not nearly close enough. And the word processor is the best of the bunch, the powerpoint clone isn't even remotely ready for prime time.
I suppose my point is I would like to see more cooperation between different factions working on office suites, and less wheel-reinvention, until they get to the point where they're really good.
Vasectomy.
For one thing, I can't run with it without buying an exorbitantly-priced piece of neoprene.
Bringing this back to Apple, it's not a loss leader because they're making a profit on the player, and then *obscene* profit on the accessories. It's their business model, so good luck to them, but I simply refuse to pay that much for a player. When all is said and done, you'll end up paying probably $350-$400 to make the iPod mini really usable.
Asinine, considering that Apple's largest market is America. Also, price *is* half the value eqation.
Some people very much like a weak dollar, namely anyone involved with a business that a) exports to Europe, or b) competes with European imports. Ask Daimler and BMW how much they like a strong Euro.
Right, I'm sure this esteemed organization woke up one day and said "You know what is threatening our great nation? DVD decryption."
Somehow I don't think so. I'm not claiming corruption, but I've a feeling someone gave them the idea that this would be a very good thing to go after.
Yes, it's happening, but it's not necessary. The reality is that, in a way, 9/11 was Ashcroft's wet dream: an opportunity to get what he wants in terms of J. Edgar Hoover-like control in the aftermath of a tragedy. Nevermind that the things he gets have nothing to do with terrorism, often. It's just things that have been on his wish list.
There are things that the US needs to do to fight terrorism that have little or nothing to do with civil liberties. As such I see a true fight against terrorism as a good and fair one, potentially. The US needs to lock down its infrastrusture, for one thing. Examples are reservoirs, chemical plants, etc. No one's civil liberties are abridged by this, and these have been isolated as likely targets by terrorists in the future.
In truth, keeping closer track of "visitors" (ie, visa holders) to the US is probably inevitable, but that's not something outside the realm of common sense anyway. It's the tactics Ashcroft's office is taking in the name of fighting terrorism that is disgusting, not the fight itself.
If you don't have a job, searching for one is your full-time job. Yes, not surprisingly, in a down tech job market, you might actually have to *try* to get a job.
Perhaps the problem is that you're putting so little effort into each application that they all reject you because your cover letters and resumes suck. Likely, you're sending out a very general letter and resume, whereas the people who get interviews are those who tailor theirs to the specific job. Perhaps instead of trying less for more applications, you should try harder for fewer.
I do wish you luck.
For what it's worth, not that I support this bill, but it does make exception for research (as does normal copyright, in general).
Also, as far as enforcement goes, it should only be reasonable to sue someone if you can prove you ripped off their info. That would generally involve ripping off a good portion of a database.
That said, as has already been mentioned, I don't trust the bastards. Also, I don't like the idea of extending copyright to something with no creative content.
Finally, this should be something solved through contracts between the database owners and those to whom they license/lease/sell the information.
I would go so far as to say that's the whole point. They're probably doing this to analyze statistically how such networking takes place. This would be useful as a model for many things, and I'm sure marketers would be interested if no one else.
Information transfer theory is cool, and no one has the possibility to study it like Google does.
That would violate Matt Groening's patent on the "No **** Club," where **** represents "Homer," "SCO", "Darl," or any other cartoonish entity.
What that this thing did could a prius do? Is GPS optional on a prius? Even then, that option costs a *significant* fraction of his project costs. Does it have ethernet ports? No? Thought not.
All in all, this is probably the best mod I've seen in a long time. And no, I'm not a mac fiend, but a good hack is a good hack.
Aluminum wiring is actually illegal for a lot of stuff these days, and caused a lot of nasty fires back in the day.
A la Napster, which was probably used by 6 people to do legal things, simply having some legit use is insufficient. One way they could have won the last decision is to show that there is no SUBSTANTIVE legal use of the service. The fact that they used Kazaa as an instant messenger service does not make that a substantive use.
Naturally, with Kazaa, there really are other uses, and they've been careful not to hard-code music piracy as use #1 (though, like, duh). That's only one of the standards that RIAA would have had to meet, and they flamed out pretty much on all of them (especially on Kazaa's not controlling the networks).
Come on, that's like saying that if I'm allowed to enter a business with an open door, then I'm also allowed, by default, to rob the place and give the owner a Dirty Sanchez.
The law assumes that an open network was left that way intentionally (or that the owner doesn't much care). That's a very cool thing. But nowhere does it say that you are absolved of responsibility for your actions when using the network. So industrial espionage and cracking other, secured servers is still as illegal as it would be if you were doing these things from any other system.
I'm just saying that maybe we need to focus on what's important. Like human rights for Iraqis
Step 1: Editor posts story regarding building X in Iraq.
Step 2: Someone posts saying that we should wait to do X until we feed them and build schools.
Step 3: GOTO 1.
Come on people. Could we dispense with the redundant posts that come with every story? Could we add something new for a change that's relevant to this specific story? I'm not saying that I disagree with focussing on rebuilding Iraq, but seriously, we get the idea.
Besides, what the hell is Hilary Rosen going to do to build a school? I'm not saying I like Hilary Rosen or anything, but building a country CAN work in parallel. Some might say it has to.
Oh, see, in your original post you seemed to imply that it was AOL's customers you were afraid for. Not so, eh? You're afraid for businesses that would like to send email TO AOL customers. Right there you lose the censorship argument - AOL customers can send email to anyone they want!
So is this a business site you run? If so, I would recommend something a bit more professional. Pay the $20/year or whatever for light domain hosting. God knows I'd never do business with anyone hosting off their DSL line.
Second, a most people who run their own server from DSL are spammers. So sorry for the collateral damage, but that's life. But cutting off DSL-"servers" has cut AOL's spam bill by a lot. So I would do exactly what they do.
If you've honsestly never sent an unsolicited email from that business of yours, then I would recommend taking measures to ensure that you aren't perceived as a scumbag by people and mailservers alike.
Third, this still isn't censorship - you don't have any relationship with AOL, and they aren't required to operate their server open to anyone. That's a privilege, not a right.
Spam filtering MUST be based on the email recipient deciding how the filter will work, and not super-imposed from the ISP without consideration from the user.
Like hell. "MUST" for you to be able to spam AOL customers, but the rest of us could really give a shit. No, mail servers MUST cut off crappy and un-maintained servers because they are the most frequent source of spam, either because their owners are spammers or because (as in the far east) they don't know how to maintain their server, and the "administrators" (I use the term loosely) leave the relays open. Accepting mail from a DSL line would be like having unprotected sex with a crackwhore. You just don't do it.
Well, I don't sue AOhelL, so correct me if I'm wrong...but don't they give you the option of using the filter or not? And as far as I understand, they're blocking commercial email, not email containing words like "penis" or something. And when customers ask AOL to stop spam, it's not like AOL is "interpreting" this as a license to "censor" for spam. It's a literal directive. They're giving the consumers what they want. Now, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't use AOL if my life depended on it, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.
Here's a better for question Alyx. How long does it take to throw out all of those catalogs that slashdot readers have thougtfully sent your way? You know, you could just have someone look through your mail for you (mail filter).
But you complain that the mailman won't deliver your mail when your box is full? Kind of how my mail gets rejected when my online account fills up? Well, get a bigger box! (Watch the lewd comments buys).
You know Alyx, you could just check your mail more often! Hell, put a big dumpster on your lawn for all that!
Or, you can maintain a private PO Box account and assume your public address is ALL SPAM- kind of like I have do online.
See, Alyx, it's pretty much the same thing. And it sucks. So don't cry to me.
And Phil was never really nailed. And as long as he doesn't sell PGP internationally he'll be fine. Export regulations on strong encryption may be silly, but they do exist, and as long as he follows them he's fine. And courts have already ruled that publishing algorithms on the net is perfectly legal and covered by the First. I'm sure he has lawyers keeping him on the straight and narrow.
So far, I can't see where anybody got convicted in this country for something where the law was rudely twisted in ways that weren't predictable (though I'd love to see examples). That's not to say that I agree with the laws themselves - but if you flaunt them, expect to be a martyr.
Seriously, no one will go after Linus. If they do, they will be laughed out of court. That is, unless Linus decides to become a bit of a radical and start doing things he's not now.
I knew someone would say this...that's what I get for being lazy. ;) You are of course correct regarding letters, but that's not the USPS's gravy train - it's business clients who are sending stuff express and directly competing with UPS. Local service gives them some extra cash on their routes, and is likely profitable as long as volume remains high.
Overall, I have no problems with this model - the USPS still competes for a large portion of its business, and offering local service alongside gives them an advantage but not enough to make them complacent. This has to still be much better than a fully governmental monopoly that wouldn't know competition bitten by it.
Interestingly, the PS *does* have competition for regular post service. Email. Supposedly, their letter volume is down and they've had to cut some routes and such. They are afraid enough to see email as a real threat, making them not take regular mail for granted.
I fully expected to read the article and find out that the kid had just cleverly reverse-engineered stuff as a hobby, making him a poor persecuted martyr. I really did.
But, that perception was WRONG. This kid had access to sensitive trade secrets. I see absolutely nothing defensible that he did. I would love if someone would explain to me how it should be perfectly OK to steal trade secrets and publish them. I suggest starting with the always persuasive "patents, copyrights, and secrets want to be FREE" argument.
So I'm waiting for the "misuse" argument. To me, the fact that they only went after a kid who really is a thief gives them credibility.
Honestly, I would love to hear from someone who actually read the article and feels otherwise.
This moring I sent a letter to the middle of nowhere over 1000 miles away for under 40 cents.
Does that count?
Yes. Also note that the post office has competitors (Fed Ex, UPS), meaning they have to stay competitive. Now, if you're talking a government-sponsored telco that doesn't have a monopoly, *that* would be interesting - it might eliminate that bloat+complacency problem.
But I think your exception proves the general rule: 1) monopolies are inefficient. 2) governments are inefficient. 3)government monopolies give you treasures like the DMV. But if you want to talk about something where, thanks to competition, the gov telco doesn't have the ability to offer crappy service at even more inflated prices, I'll certainly jump in.