I think when the RIAA first started to file lawsuits many many people got scared and either stopped filesharing or at least took steps to limit their risk of being sued (e.g. turning of file sharing programs when they're not being used).
I think people are still taking steps to limit their own personal risk (in the article this is reflected by It's important to keep in mind that file sharing is occurring less frequently than before the RIAA began its legal efforts to stem the tide of P2P). However, looking at people I know, I think a significant number of them who completely stopped filesharing when the RIAA started to file lawsuits are starting to do so again. My theory on this is that they've noticed that all of the people they know who still use p2p have not gotten sued, so they've concluded that some p2p usage is probably safe. This empirical result makes sense given the large number of p2p users, and the proportionaly limited number of lawsuits the RIAA has been able to file. Note that, this doesn't mean that p2p services are necessarily safe, it just means that for the majority of the population it appears that they are less dangerous then they might have thought they were a few months ago.
"The proprietary 64-bit workstation market is dominated by Sun Microsystems, which sells more 64-bit machines than any other company -- their market share is over 60%."
I wonder how long this market domninance is going to last now that commodity hardware is going 64. (e.g. a 64-bit laptop for $1,549)
It's funny that alot of people in my parent's generation think nothing of video taping a television/cable program. By doing so, they are getting a personal copy of some movie or tv series, e.g. regularly video taping 'friends'. On average, if they wanted to buy a copy of such programs it would set them back $15-$20. And, technically, RIAA-ish arguments could be made that X-million dollars are being lost each year due do such video taping.
However, they generally seem to think that there is nothing wrong with video taping these programs. And, presumably many would argue that X-million dollars are not being lost, since they would probably not but the programs they tape. But, at the same time, many of these same people have serious issues with people downloading mp3s. They look at it as theft plain and simple. Further, they believe arguments that Y-million dollars are being lost due to these downloads. Anyhow, I kinda find the double standard both interesting and somewhat annoying/frustrating.
While it's really nice to see stuff like this where those who have done alot for open source are acknowledged and applauded, doesn't it seem a bit pretentious to compare it to the 'noble prize'?
That is, isn't the noble prize reserved for those who make a massive contribution to science and/or human wellfare? In this case, there are probably only a very very small handful of people who should receive a noble-like oss reward (e.g. Linus, RMS). And, from the list of people who receive rewards it doesn't seem like they are only limiting them selves to such individuals.
Hmm...I'm thinking just normal bathing suits probably would have been sufficient. I mean 99.999% of the population doesn't look too good in speedos. And, I doubt that geeks are much of an exception to this (/exception to this in a good way)
But, I guess 'geeks-in-speedos' probably did make the event way more humorous.
Dude you have no idea how fast some of us point/scroll/click.
Roommate1: Whoa, what's wrong with Tod? It looks like he's having a seizure or something?
Roommate2: Naw, he's fine, he's just surfing the net after 2 quad-lattes & a couple of red bulls.
One of the things that bothers me most about laws like the DMCA and the NET (no electronic theft) act is the excessive punishments they put in place for various violations.
For example, the DMCA makes it a felony to circumvent a copy protection device. And, similarly, the NET act makes it a felony to share copyrighted materials via a service like Kazaa with a possible 5 year prison term.
Regardless of whether the things out lawed by legislation like this really should be out lawed or not, the punishments really need to be adjusted to fit the crime. Neither getting your dvd player to play dvd's from europe, nor sharing the latest Eminem song should even carry the possiblity of landing you several months little less several years in the slammer. Okay, the Eminem case is iffy, but otherwise...
I'd like to hear how useful most people find the more 'advanced' features in high end PDAs.
For me a PDA is does its job well as a electronic todo-list, calandar and address-book. Any lowend PDA has all of the features. So, is it really worth it pay the extra cash for a highend model?
Slashdot Mirror
I think when the RIAA first started to file lawsuits many many people got scared and either stopped filesharing or at least took steps to limit their risk of being sued (e.g. turning of file sharing programs when they're not being used).
I think people are still taking steps to limit their own personal risk (in the article this is reflected by It's important to keep in mind that file sharing is occurring less frequently than before the RIAA began its legal efforts to stem the tide of P2P). However, looking at people I know, I think a significant number of them who completely stopped filesharing when the RIAA started to file lawsuits are starting to do so again. My theory on this is that they've noticed that all of the people they know who still use p2p have not gotten sued, so they've concluded that some p2p usage is probably safe. This empirical result makes sense given the large number of p2p users, and the proportionaly limited number of lawsuits the RIAA has been able to file. Note that, this doesn't mean that p2p services are necessarily safe, it just means that for the majority of the population it appears that they are less dangerous then they might have thought they were a few months ago.
From the article:
"The proprietary 64-bit workstation market is dominated by Sun Microsystems, which sells more 64-bit machines than any other company -- their market share is over 60%."
I wonder how long this market domninance is going to last now that commodity hardware is going 64. (e.g. a 64-bit laptop for $1,549)
It's funny that alot of people in my parent's generation think nothing of video taping a television/cable program. By doing so, they are getting a personal copy of some movie or tv series, e.g. regularly video taping 'friends'. On average, if they wanted to buy a copy of such programs it would set them back $15-$20. And, technically, RIAA-ish arguments could be made that X-million dollars are being lost each year due do such video taping.
However, they generally seem to think that there is nothing wrong with video taping these programs. And, presumably many would argue that X-million dollars are not being lost, since they would probably not but the programs they tape. But, at the same time, many of these same people have serious issues with people downloading mp3s. They look at it as theft plain and simple. Further, they believe arguments that Y-million dollars are being lost due to these downloads. Anyhow, I kinda find the double standard both interesting and somewhat annoying/frustrating.
While it's really nice to see stuff like this where those who have done alot for open source are acknowledged and applauded, doesn't it seem a bit pretentious to compare it to the 'noble prize'?
That is, isn't the noble prize reserved for those who make a massive contribution to science and/or human wellfare? In this case, there are probably only a very very small handful of people who should receive a noble-like oss reward (e.g. Linus, RMS). And, from the list of people who receive rewards it doesn't seem like they are only limiting them selves to such individuals.
Hmm...I'm thinking just normal bathing suits probably would have been sufficient. I mean 99.999% of the population doesn't look too good in speedos. And, I doubt that geeks are much of an exception to this (/exception to this in a good way)
But, I guess 'geeks-in-speedos' probably did make the event way more humorous.
Dude you have no idea how fast some of us point/scroll/click.
Roommate1: Whoa, what's wrong with Tod? It looks like he's having a seizure or something?
Roommate2: Naw, he's fine, he's just surfing the net after 2 quad-lattes & a couple of red bulls.
From the pictures provided for the article, I'd say unless you're really into stick figure porn, I doubt nano porn will be too satisfying.
One of the things that bothers me most about laws like the DMCA and the NET (no electronic theft) act is the excessive punishments they put in place for various violations.
For example, the DMCA makes it a felony to circumvent a copy protection device. And, similarly, the NET act makes it a felony to share copyrighted materials via a service like Kazaa with a possible 5 year prison term.
Regardless of whether the things out lawed by legislation like this really should be out lawed or not, the punishments really need to be adjusted to fit the crime. Neither getting your dvd player to play dvd's from europe, nor sharing the latest Eminem song should even carry the possiblity of landing you several months little less several years in the slammer. Okay, the Eminem case is iffy, but otherwise...
I'd like to hear how useful most people find the more 'advanced' features in high end PDAs.
For me a PDA is does its job well as a electronic todo-list, calandar and address-book. Any lowend PDA has all of the features. So, is it really worth it pay the extra cash for a highend model?
So...he's going to be writing a Java based version of emacs? Cool!