If this crap gets implemented, the analog TV set I have now will be the last TV set I ever buy. I'll listen to the radio, I'll read books, I'll take up knitting, I'll find something else to do. And you can take that to the bank.
Wait a minute... you can stand what's on the TV now? All of those things that you've listed are infinitely better than languishing in front of the TV. There's absolutely nothing of worth on, and as far as I'm concerned, the faster these television and cable companies get people off the TV the better.
Microsoft is about to use its monopoly power to introduce a competing platform to play games on.
I have 2 questions:
1) Doesn't capitalism thrive on competition?
2) Isn't Nintendo, at the moment, using its monopoly power in the portable gaming business as we speak(type)?
DeCSS and the DVD CCA is a whole 'nother matter, of least to me. I don't believe I had a license agreement with DVDs or their hardware outside of the habitual "this cannot be rebroadcast, ect." on the backside of the DVD case. Also, just because I have a link to DeCSS does not mean that I can't follow other types of contracts or licenses.
I found a link backing up my interpretation of the Microsoft license at http://nsit.uchicago.edu/msoft//terms.html.
[The following is a snippet of the page, not the whole text]
You may install the software on your machine for use while at the University of Chicago for school/work purposes - use of the software for other activities is a violation of the terms of this license. You DO NOT own the software; rather, you have a "right to use" the software while your eligibility is still valid. When your eligibility is no longer valid, you must cease use of the software covered under this agreement. You may use the products on personally-owned computers at home as long as the home computer is used regularly for University purposes and there is a legitimate copy of the software on a university-owned computer at work that is available for your use. This software is being provided for your use only, and the right to use it does not extend to the other members of your family or household.
Did you read the license agreement that your University / College had to sign? I attend the University of Chicago, and we, too, have an educational agreement with Microsoft. However, before I thought about buying software, I took a look at the license that our computing organization put out about it. According to the license, if I were to buy the Microsoft software using via this educational agreement, I would be forced to give back the software at the end of my undergraduate time here! Long story made short: I decided not to purchase the software, even with the drastic markdown in price. Make sure you read all of the pertinent licenses.
[Snip] I find out about new stuff that isn't played locally, I download a few singles from the album -- and if it's worth buying, I somehow find the CD and buy it. If the album sucks, but one or two songs are good, I'll download them to my hard drive and possibly burn them to a CD of random songs that fit into that "like the song, not the album" category. Is that so wrong?
[End Snip]
I believe that it is wrong to download an mp3 of a song from a band to which you do not own the cd. If you own the cd, then this is just fair-use. One may ask why I think it is against the law to download an mp3 of a song if you don't own the cd, to which I respond: It is stealing. If you download an mp3 of a song and you do not own the cd, then you are stealing intellectual property from the owner, be it the band or the record company. It's nice that you, Crashnbur, like to preview music before you buy it, and that you find this "service" exceptionally helpful: however, it should be the bottom line of the record company or the band who made the music to have the last word on whether or not to let their music be available on the Internet in mp3 format or otherwise. Heck, if a band wanted to have 1/2 of its new cd available online for preview, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If, however, there is a band or record company that does not wish to have its music available online, what is wrong with that? Don't they have a say in their creation? In the end, it is the decision of the band or record company and not the individual user as whether or not the band's music should be online, regardless of whether it is for preview purposes or otherwise.
Yeah, I was out...going to downtown to walk around with people, jogging outside, playing sports, talking to friends, doing homework, listening to music, visiting the library and reading some books...
Aren't Canadians already allowed to make as many copies as they want of other people's compact discs? I thought I read this somewhere...but maybe I don't have it right.
Hey, I just wanted to let the person whose account is logged in to the Economist [Nobu Tarui] that ANYONE can go to the account settings and change vital information! I can see your physical address, email address, and other information that I believe Nobu Tarui does not want to be seen or changed!
In expanding the pool of Internet addresses, the system's governing body should reject proposals for children and adult domains such as ".kids" and ".xxx" but embrace applications such as ".biz" and ".dot," a staff report released Friday recommends. (emphasis mine)
Uh oh, here come's the slashdot.dot or slash.dot urls...
Why does it say "Mouse Genome Sequenced" for the title but the article says that it's 95% complete? What was the point in putting a misleading title to the front of the submission?
Okay, so you can sue web sites that violate this bill's agreements up to 22,000 USD. Implicitly, this seems like a great idea, and Manjit (the person who submitted the news clip) says that hitting companies' bottom line is a good way to enforce privacy. However (obviously), this bill would only have jurisdiction in the United States. If a company is worried about its bottom line, what would prevent them from simply locating their servers outside the United States? Is it more cost-effective to have a compliant privacy policy and monitor it and applicable laws or to just move the servers out of the jurisdiction?
Slashdot Mirror
Here is a
Here is a direct link to the EPIC criticism: http://www.epic.org/reports/prettypoorprivacy.htm
If this crap gets implemented, the analog TV set I have now will be the last TV set I ever buy. I'll listen to the radio, I'll read books, I'll take up knitting, I'll find something else to do. And you can take that to the bank.
Wait a minute
Microsoft is about to use its monopoly power to introduce a competing platform to play games on.
I have 2 questions:
1) Doesn't capitalism thrive on competition?
2) Isn't Nintendo, at the moment, using its monopoly power in the portable gaming business as we speak(type)?
DeCSS and the DVD CCA is a whole 'nother matter, of least to me. I don't believe I had a license agreement with DVDs or their hardware outside of the habitual "this cannot be rebroadcast, ect." on the backside of the DVD case. Also, just because I have a link to DeCSS does not mean that I can't follow other types of contracts or licenses.
I found a link backing up my interpretation of the Microsoft license at http://nsit.uchicago.edu/msoft//terms.html.
[The following is a snippet of the page, not the whole text]
You may install the software on your machine for use while at the University of Chicago for school/work purposes - use of the software for other activities is a violation of the terms of this license. You DO NOT own the software; rather, you have a "right to use" the software while your eligibility is still valid. When your eligibility is no longer valid, you must cease use of the software covered under this agreement. You may use the products on personally-owned computers at home as long as the home computer is used regularly for University purposes and there is a legitimate copy of the software on a university-owned computer at work that is available for your use. This software is being provided for your use only, and the right to use it does not extend to the other members of your family or household.
Did you read the license agreement that your University / College had to sign? I attend the University of Chicago, and we, too, have an educational agreement with Microsoft. However, before I thought about buying software, I took a look at the license that our computing organization put out about it. According to the license, if I were to buy the Microsoft software using via this educational agreement, I would be forced to give back the software at the end of my undergraduate time here! Long story made short: I decided not to purchase the software, even with the drastic markdown in price. Make sure you read all of the pertinent licenses.
[Snip]
I find out about new stuff that isn't played locally, I download a few singles from the album -- and if it's worth buying, I somehow find the CD and buy it. If the album sucks, but one or two songs are good, I'll download them to my hard drive and possibly burn them to a CD of random songs that fit into that "like the song, not the album" category. Is that so wrong?
[End Snip]
I believe that it is wrong to download an mp3 of a song from a band to which you do not own the cd. If you own the cd, then this is just fair-use. One may ask why I think it is against the law to download an mp3 of a song if you don't own the cd, to which I respond: It is stealing. If you download an mp3 of a song and you do not own the cd, then you are stealing intellectual property from the owner, be it the band or the record company. It's nice that you, Crashnbur, like to preview music before you buy it, and that you find this "service" exceptionally helpful: however, it should be the bottom line of the record company or the band who made the music to have the last word on whether or not to let their music be available on the Internet in mp3 format or otherwise. Heck, if a band wanted to have 1/2 of its new cd available online for preview, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If, however, there is a band or record company that does not wish to have its music available online, what is wrong with that? Don't they have a say in their creation? In the end, it is the decision of the band or record company and not the individual user as whether or not the band's music should be online, regardless of whether it is for preview purposes or otherwise.
The limit as u -> u(c) of the integral(e^x) = 0.
Too bad for me, I suppose
I forgot to add the following statement: Since Canadians are allowed to copy freely, this levy increase shouldn't be a big deal, eh?
Aren't Canadians already allowed to make as many copies as they want of other people's compact discs? I thought I read this somewhere...but maybe I don't have it right.
Hello:
The link to the Slashdot articles is here.
Wow, I never thought of that before JesseL. Excellent point!
Hello:
The link by magnitron redirects you to the homepage of qbex.com.
In Short Circuit, was the robot's name Johnny Number 9 or Johnny Number 5? I can't remember now...
I got all excited when I read the headline because I thought the poster was talking about Johnny Number 9 from Short Circuit! Man, what a let-down!
Hey, I just wanted to let the person whose account is logged in to the Economist [Nobu Tarui] that ANYONE can go to the account settings and change vital information! I can see your physical address, email address, and other information that I believe Nobu Tarui does not want to be seen or changed!
In expanding the pool of Internet addresses, the system's governing body should reject proposals for children and adult domains such as ".kids" and ".xxx" but embrace applications such as ".biz" and ".dot," a staff report released Friday recommends. (emphasis mine)
Uh oh, here come's the slashdot.dot or slash.dot urls...
Hey some of the links point to Slashdot itself...Perhaps proofreading before posting would be a good idea?
Why does it say "Mouse Genome Sequenced" for the title but the article says that it's 95% complete? What was the point in putting a misleading title to the front of the submission?
Exactly...
Rajiv Varma
Okay, so you can sue web sites that violate this bill's agreements up to 22,000 USD. Implicitly, this seems like a great idea, and Manjit (the person who submitted the news clip) says that hitting companies' bottom line is a good way to enforce privacy. However (obviously), this bill would only have jurisdiction in the United States. If a company is worried about its bottom line, what would prevent them from simply locating their servers outside the United States? Is it more cost-effective to have a compliant privacy policy and monitor it and applicable laws or to just move the servers out of the jurisdiction?
Rajiv Varma
What I would like to see is who would register microsoftis.god: MS or someone else??? Ahh, I just wanted to have a laugh...
Rajiv Varma