So the company is dirt. What's happened to the litigious bastards responsible? Has Darl McBride got away with a fat severance package and a job at Microsoft, or did the directors of SCO go down with their ship in any meaningful way?
Maybe they should use pedal bikes. Quite a few UK police forces tried equipping their police officers with bicycles which seemed quite effective. No-one could get away from them on foot but it didn't stop them from going through pedestrian areas. And they were certainly more approachable than police officers in cars or on motorbikes.
It's like a criminal robbing a store and then complaining that they just can't make any money any other way.
In what way is that an accurate analogy for the situation reported? Google is being accused of becoming a monopoly. Google is huge and it may be that this acquisition does in fact make them a monopoly. The fact that this appeal is being launched by Microsoft doesn't change the facts one way or another. We (readers of Slashdot) should be able to deal with the complexity of somebody or some company being right on some things and wrong on others.
A minor point, but Ubuntu has done its best to get rid of the root password. Yes - you can change the way it's set up, but for the vast majority of users it is just a case of typing their normal password in a second time for confirmation. It's just another thing that makes it seem that much less of a deal to allow a piece of software to run with root priveleges.
It supports the same DRM mobibook format that the Kindle does, also has unencumbered support for HTML, PDF and more, doesn't have the ugly casing or awkward controls that the Kindle has. And yes - it runs Linux.
If you don't do something as quick and simple as writing to ask for something, what right do you have to complain when you don't get it. If just a small fraction of the people here write in support of ODF, that will be a huge and impressive response.
There's enough complaining about OOXML et al on this site. Put your money where you mouth is.
The best model of online music selling I know is http://www.magnatune.com who do offer lossless downloads. Unfortunately, they don't offer any mainstream artists, but there is some very good stuff hidden away in their collection and at least the money is mostly going straight to the artist.
I'm just waiting for the day I can buy chart music in the same manner in the UK. Maybe if I can find some way of getting past the geographical block on Amazon's new download service.
It is unfortunate that in this modern corporate world, where two candidates being equal in nearly all aspects, the one nicely dressed candidate tends to be considered better 'management material'.
In an interview, part of it is undoubtedly due to the perception that one has gone to greater effort. Allowing for those interviewers with where suit-obsession is particularly ingrained, I'd say the perception of greater effort is most of it. Going to greater effort is understandably an indicator of who really wants the job and who really prepares for and applies themselves to it. However, there are other ways of showing preparation and commitment. The last interview I had (as interviewee, that is), I had prepared hand-out copies of the talk I was giving in good quality folders, separate summary sheets on the best paper that I could buy and I had rehersed my presentation and supplementary topics quite thoroughly. I didn't wear a suit and most definitely didn't wear a tie. I think it was a black t-shirt and black trousers, if I recall correctly. Would wearing a suit have made me look like I was going to an even greater effort? I don't think it would have, actually. For a start, I wouldn't have actually felt comfortable, I would have felt like a salesman. I was nervous enough without feeling like I wasn't being true to myself. A tie is a garment without practical purpose (other than for people assaulting you). It is descended from cravats the sole reason for being was to show you were fashionable and had money. Much like the impractical toga of ancient rome, it demonstrated that one was a person without need to perform a manual job. To many of us, the tie is similarly obnoxious, it's resemblance to a leash a further issue again.
In my interview, I feel that I gave the impression of someone that had gone to considerable effort to prepare for the interview. And I think dressing in simple, comfortable cloths (I'll concede that washed and clean is important) showed that I wasn't about appearances. If I had worn a suit I would have created the impression that I wanted to appear as if I had gone to considerable effort to prepare. I would have come across as slick. I wanted to show that what you saw was what you got - a valuable impression to make in an interview.
And let us not forget, that one shouldn't start wearing suits, unless one wishes to be stuck wearing suits.;)
(Oh, for reference I should mention that I have been a manager for several years, though I very recently took a non-managerial position because I wanted to keep my hand in in actual programming and transition to large-scale project management later on.)
You can either complain about it or use it to your advantage
I choose both of those and a third option of my own advantage. Let me give the Non-Suit Manifesto. In your comment, I'm inferring that complaining about it is akin to fruitless whining. That isn't necessarily the case, though we may differ on what complaining means. I'm posting on the subject here and now (eloquently, I hope, regardless of whether or not you agree), and this could be considered complaining. I'm similarly eloquent in dismissing the superficiality of judging people by appearance when or if the subject arises at work. I hope you don't leap to the conclusion that this means I jump up and down whining on the subject - I just nip any such attitudes in the bud as and when they arise.
Secondly, as regards using it to my advantage, you are referring here to wearing a suit but in fact any mode of dress can be used to your advantage with imagination. Many sucessful people play off their image of being non-suits (e.g. Richard Branson likes to spin the showman and radical angle). As a manager, I never once wore a tie or come to think of it, smart shoes. In all honesty, I played off it. I had a very close working relationship with my staff and everyone saw me as someone they coul
Hmmmm. That line about "at the same time as they appear on TV" appears to offer some leeway, though IANATVLI(nvestigator). If the iPlayer counts, then the lines are getting pretty blurry. What happens when, as seems inevitable, the BBC news website carries increasing quantity of video which overlaps with what is show on TV? I think there's a good chance it's a test case that the TVLA will put off setling for a while. The number of people who have Internet but not a TV is vanishingly small.
As regards publically funded broadcasters... the BBC is one of those oddities. In principle, I'm normally against obligatory funding such as this - but it's actually having a very, very positive effect. The BBC, for all its faults when it kowtowed to the Blair administration, is a very positive thing both in the UK and abroad.
So where does that leave the very few people who don't have a TV but do use the web? Is viewing the content on the iPlayer considered to be receiving TV broadcasts?
The teacher is in charge and has the right to tell the students what they can and can't run on school computers. If a student is running an application and the teacher tells the student to close it, the student needs to close it, period, end of story
So the lesson to be taught in the class room is that obedience is more important than being right? I disagree with that principle. The child should stick to his guns. Setting obedience above being right leads to a seriously damaged society.
You look like a dumbass fanboi when you can't actually substantiate what the DRM in Vista is and what it is preventing you from doing - it makes you look like you're just running with a sound-bite without understanding anything.
That's a very good article - as always IBM give a well-written introduction to the subject. But exactly what is the state of implementation of these? As far as I can gather, no browser maker has started to implement support for either. Is that correct? It would be useful to have some idea of the time scales we can expect on these both. Anyone know more about the state of play?
Another positive change was the fact that if a couldn't copy/move/delete in XP, an entire copy of multiple directories and files would cancel in the middle; while in Vista, it allows you to skip the file and continue. This bug was VERY VERY ANNOYING, especially when copying entire structures with thousands of files and hundreds of directories.
Well it's about time they sorted that out. I used to use Ycopy to do this on Windows machines, but I'm afraid desktop environments on other OS's have had this for quite a long time already. Still, its a good thing that Vista now has it too.
I like the new way Explorer lets you change directories by clicking on arrows to the left of every level in the structure, makes working with files much easier and quicker.
I'm afraid I can't really visualise this from your description but you're the third person to mention it so it must be making a good impression on people.
Although many users complain about how Vista always asks for security credentials before doing a lot of things, I am actually glad about this. As a SysAdmin, I am happy to know that my OS is confirming that it needs root/admin access before doing something; especially if it could prevent someone from accidentally screwing something up.
This is a good thing. It''s annoying the Hell out of everyone at the moment, but it will settle down when application developers get used to writing things in a way that doesn't demand root access constantly. That's a bit of a shock to the Windows world.;) Ultimately it should lead to some greater security, though we'll still be vulnerable to naive users. The same people who lead to a lot of security problems today, so it's not going to be a fix for all our woes.
You keep saying 'that windows thinks is copyright' when really you mean 'that media producers have stated is copyright'.
That's a fair point. What I was more trying to say is that Windows doesn't let you do things that it thinks is a copyright violation, which is quite different to something actually being a copyright violation. The DRM allows the content producer to interfere with how I use a file on my own machine without having to be able to support their restrictions and rule through law. It becomes a case of my freedom being restricted not through a socially accepted right to restrict it or through an agreed contract, but simply because the content provider is able to reach into my home and restrict it through technology.
As to wanting things to get worse so that the public will object, I think that its already sufficiently bad enough for that, and I'm part of the public so I'm objecting.;)
but since I have no intention of buying DRM'd songs from online this makes no difference in my user expearence.
And for the rest of the world that actually would like to get with the 21st century and purchase music via download, the existence of DRM prevents us from legally doing so.
The second question is can I play high definition video without using HDMI, again unless its been encoded I find I can play Divx's and various avi's at any resolution I want including 1080p's.
You'll find if you read my post more carefully, you're not contradicting me, though the fact you need to repeat what I'm saying suggests you think you are. What I said is that it doesn't prevent you playing all HD content, only that which anybody cares about. Your little "unless it's been encoded" hides a whole world of locked down, legitimately purchased movies. What is left? Some home-authored video?
The DRM in Vista is not Microsoft allowing you to play this content. Without Microsoft implementing it it would not exist. The movie industry knows how preventing the new DVD formats from playing on computers would cripple adoption of the technology. And even the major music labels such as EMI are now relenting and allowing unencumbered downloads of their movies to be purchased.
It is Microsoft that wants DRM on everything because it ties you to their operating system. You're saying the DRM hasn't caused you any problems. But this is new technology with low market penetration so far. What you may find you actually mean, is that DRM hasn't hurt you yet!
So let's skip the comments about -1 moron modding. I'm plainly able to put together a coherent argument.
- 90% "I want to pirate this stuff". (I'm in these 90%, but I don't fool myself)
- 10% "I want to put the contents of the disk on my central media streaming server" (And I'm being generous here)
That's quite clearly not the case if you think about it. No DRM has on popular media has yet had any effect on piracy. Any song sold by iTunes, any DVD with Macrovision rubbish, is still just as available online as any other content. Nobody who obtains their media through unlicensend downloads has had to care about DRM. The only people who have had to care about DRM are those who have purchased media legitimately and been inconvenienced and those who are worried about the future effect on the market place of vendor lock-in and reduced functionality, such as myself.
Not really, the main issue relates to support for BluRay / HDDVD, and desktop computer based players will always be a small niche of those formats. The DRM support is just a nice extra that allows playback of what would otherwise be more difficult to access on a computer.
I think you're mistaken if you think that movies on computers will always be a niche. I watch movies exclusively from my computer and I'm starting to back up all of my DVDs onto hard-drive as well. PVRs will take over from DVD players over the coming years and Microsoft would very much like your home computer to deliver all of your media. But they don't want that to be a Linux box. They want it to be Windows Media Centre or whatever they choose to call it. Don't neglect that many of us purchase music purely as a file download and the same could happen with movies soon enough.
Considering that neither Linux nor OSX allow playing protected HD content from their computers AT ALL, let alone over HDMI, bashing Vista because it HAS that ability seems ass backwards.
I'm really sorry to see that you've been marked as Flamebait. It's a sensible point and deserves areply from anyone who disagrees, not a stupid modding.
The reason that its so difficult to play this content on OSX and Linux is because of the DRM. Without that DRM we would be fine. One problem with Vista's DRM is that by implementing it, content providers are able to use it and change the conditions they sell me my product under without actual recourse to law or pricing, but simply through imposing the technology on me. Not implementing DRM would not have stopped this content being available - nobody stopped producing DVDs when we started to play them on computers - but it would have meant that the content was sold in a way that other OS's could use. Microsoft benefit from the DRM because it increases lock-in which they desparately need over the next few years. Hence we're not deploring the fact that Vista can play this content, but the consequences of Microsoft creating the situation in the first place. At least that is my argument. I can't speak for the nimrod who modded you flamebait.
Slashdot Mirror
So the company is dirt. What's happened to the litigious bastards responsible? Has Darl McBride got away with a fat severance package and a job at Microsoft, or did the directors of SCO go down with their ship in any meaningful way?
Maybe they should use pedal bikes. Quite a few UK police forces tried equipping their police officers with bicycles which seemed quite effective. No-one could get away from them on foot but it didn't stop them from going through pedestrian areas. And they were certainly more approachable than police officers in cars or on motorbikes.
Oh, I don't know about that. Google apparently has more lobbyists employed in Washington than Microsoft. Interesting article here.
Do no evil... we'll see how their principles stand up to a little success.
In what way is that an accurate analogy for the situation reported? Google is being accused of becoming a monopoly. Google is huge and it may be that this acquisition does in fact make them a monopoly. The fact that this appeal is being launched by Microsoft doesn't change the facts one way or another. We (readers of Slashdot) should be able to deal with the complexity of somebody or some company being right on some things and wrong on others.
A minor point, but Ubuntu has done its best to get rid of the root password. Yes - you can change the way it's set up, but for the vast majority of users it is just a case of typing their normal password in a second time for confirmation. It's just another thing that makes it seem that much less of a deal to allow a piece of software to run with root priveleges.
That's a really good review -lots of useful information.
Cheers,
-H.
Ask and you shall receive:
http://www.bookeen.com/ebook/ebook-reading-device.aspx
It supports the same DRM mobibook format that the Kindle does, also has unencumbered support for HTML, PDF and more, doesn't have the ugly casing or awkward controls that the Kindle has. And yes - it runs Linux.
Happy to help,
-H.
If you don't do something as quick and simple as writing to ask for something, what right do you have to complain when you don't get it. If just a small fraction of the people here write in support of ODF, that will be a huge and impressive response.
There's enough complaining about OOXML et al on this site. Put your money where you mouth is.
The best model of online music selling I know is http://www.magnatune.com who do offer lossless downloads. Unfortunately, they don't offer any mainstream artists, but there is some very good stuff hidden away in their collection and at least the money is mostly going straight to the artist.
I'm just waiting for the day I can buy chart music in the same manner in the UK. Maybe if I can find some way of getting past the geographical block on Amazon's new download service.
I don't normally post mod requests, but somebody get this poor bastard out of -1 moderation. That was a good catch! Funny - not flamebait!
In an interview, part of it is undoubtedly due to the perception that one has gone to greater effort. Allowing for those interviewers with where suit-obsession is particularly ingrained, I'd say the perception of greater effort is most of it. Going to greater effort is understandably an indicator of who really wants the job and who really prepares for and applies themselves to it. However, there are other ways of showing preparation and commitment. The last interview I had (as interviewee, that is), I had prepared hand-out copies of the talk I was giving in good quality folders, separate summary sheets on the best paper that I could buy and I had rehersed my presentation and supplementary topics quite thoroughly. I didn't wear a suit and most definitely didn't wear a tie. I think it was a black t-shirt and black trousers, if I recall correctly. Would wearing a suit have made me look like I was going to an even greater effort? I don't think it would have, actually. For a start, I wouldn't have actually felt comfortable, I would have felt like a salesman. I was nervous enough without feeling like I wasn't being true to myself. A tie is a garment without practical purpose (other than for people assaulting you). It is descended from cravats the sole reason for being was to show you were fashionable and had money. Much like the impractical toga of ancient rome, it demonstrated that one was a person without need to perform a manual job. To many of us, the tie is similarly obnoxious, it's resemblance to a leash a further issue again.
;)
In my interview, I feel that I gave the impression of someone that had gone to considerable effort to prepare for the interview. And I think dressing in simple, comfortable cloths (I'll concede that washed and clean is important) showed that I wasn't about appearances. If I had worn a suit I would have created the impression that I wanted to appear as if I had gone to considerable effort to prepare. I would have come across as slick. I wanted to show that what you saw was what you got - a valuable impression to make in an interview.
And let us not forget, that one shouldn't start wearing suits, unless one wishes to be stuck wearing suits.
(Oh, for reference I should mention that I have been a manager for several years, though I very recently took a non-managerial position because I wanted to keep my hand in in actual programming and transition to large-scale project management later on.)
I choose both of those and a third option of my own advantage. Let me give the Non-Suit Manifesto. In your comment, I'm inferring that complaining about it is akin to fruitless whining. That isn't necessarily the case, though we may differ on what complaining means. I'm posting on the subject here and now (eloquently, I hope, regardless of whether or not you agree), and this could be considered complaining. I'm similarly eloquent in dismissing the superficiality of judging people by appearance when or if the subject arises at work. I hope you don't leap to the conclusion that this means I jump up and down whining on the subject - I just nip any such attitudes in the bud as and when they arise.
Secondly, as regards using it to my advantage, you are referring here to wearing a suit but in fact any mode of dress can be used to your advantage with imagination. Many sucessful people play off their image of being non-suits (e.g. Richard Branson likes to spin the showman and radical angle). As a manager, I never once wore a tie or come to think of it, smart shoes. In all honesty, I played off it. I had a very close working relationship with my staff and everyone saw me as someone they coul
That plan will only work so long as the average american citizen pays no attention to the state of things in the rest of the World.
Oh wait.
So do you regard those of us that don't wear ties as less capable, then?
Hmmmm. That line about "at the same time as they appear on TV" appears to offer some leeway, though IANATVLI(nvestigator). If the iPlayer counts, then the lines are getting pretty blurry. What happens when, as seems inevitable, the BBC news website carries increasing quantity of video which overlaps with what is show on TV? I think there's a good chance it's a test case that the TVLA will put off setling for a while. The number of people who have Internet but not a TV is vanishingly small.
As regards publically funded broadcasters... the BBC is one of those oddities. In principle, I'm normally against obligatory funding such as this - but it's actually having a very, very positive effect. The BBC, for all its faults when it kowtowed to the Blair administration, is a very positive thing both in the UK and abroad.
So where does that leave the very few people who don't have a TV but do use the web? Is viewing the content on the iPlayer considered to be receiving TV broadcasts?
So the lesson to be taught in the class room is that obedience is more important than being right? I disagree with that principle. The child should stick to his guns. Setting obedience above being right leads to a seriously damaged society.
Perhaps if you read a little further down the thread. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=390286&cid=21713610
That's a very good article - as always IBM give a well-written introduction to the subject. But exactly what is the state of implementation of these? As far as I can gather, no browser maker has started to implement support for either. Is that correct? It would be useful to have some idea of the time scales we can expect on these both. Anyone know more about the state of play?
Now that's brilliance! Mind if I quote you?
-H.
Well it's about time they sorted that out. I used to use Ycopy to do this on Windows machines, but I'm afraid desktop environments on other OS's have had this for quite a long time already. Still, its a good thing that Vista now has it too.
I'm afraid I can't really visualise this from your description but you're the third person to mention it so it must be making a good impression on people.
This is a good thing. It''s annoying the Hell out of everyone at the moment, but it will settle down when application developers get used to writing things in a way that doesn't demand root access constantly. That's a bit of a shock to the Windows world.
That's a fair point. What I was more trying to say is that Windows doesn't let you do things that it thinks is a copyright violation, which is quite different to something actually being a copyright violation. The DRM allows the content producer to interfere with how I use a file on my own machine without having to be able to support their restrictions and rule through law. It becomes a case of my freedom being restricted not through a socially accepted right to restrict it or through an agreed contract, but simply because the content provider is able to reach into my home and restrict it through technology.
As to wanting things to get worse so that the public will object, I think that its already sufficiently bad enough for that, and I'm part of the public so I'm objecting.
And for the rest of the world that actually would like to get with the 21st century and purchase music via download, the existence of DRM prevents us from legally doing so.
You'll find if you read my post more carefully, you're not contradicting me, though the fact you need to repeat what I'm saying suggests you think you are. What I said is that it doesn't prevent you playing all HD content, only that which anybody cares about. Your little "unless it's been encoded" hides a whole world of locked down, legitimately purchased movies. What is left? Some home-authored video?
The DRM in Vista is not Microsoft allowing you to play this content. Without Microsoft implementing it it would not exist. The movie industry knows how preventing the new DVD formats from playing on computers would cripple adoption of the technology. And even the major music labels such as EMI are now relenting and allowing unencumbered downloads of their movies to be purchased.
It is Microsoft that wants DRM on everything because it ties you to their operating system. You're saying the DRM hasn't caused you any problems. But this is new technology with low market penetration so far. What you may find you actually mean, is that DRM hasn't hurt you yet!
So let's skip the comments about -1 moron modding. I'm plainly able to put together a coherent argument.
That's quite clearly not the case if you think about it. No DRM has on popular media has yet had any effect on piracy. Any song sold by iTunes, any DVD with Macrovision rubbish, is still just as available online as any other content. Nobody who obtains their media through unlicensend downloads has had to care about DRM. The only people who have had to care about DRM are those who have purchased media legitimately and been inconvenienced and those who are worried about the future effect on the market place of vendor lock-in and reduced functionality, such as myself.
I think you're mistaken if you think that movies on computers will always be a niche. I watch movies exclusively from my computer and I'm starting to back up all of my DVDs onto hard-drive as well. PVRs will take over from DVD players over the coming years and Microsoft would very much like your home computer to deliver all of your media. But they don't want that to be a Linux box. They want it to be Windows Media Centre or whatever they choose to call it. Don't neglect that many of us purchase music purely as a file download and the same could happen with movies soon enough.
I'm really sorry to see that you've been marked as Flamebait. It's a sensible point and deserves areply from anyone who disagrees, not a stupid modding.
The reason that its so difficult to play this content on OSX and Linux is because of the DRM. Without that DRM we would be fine. One problem with Vista's DRM is that by implementing it, content providers are able to use it and change the conditions they sell me my product under without actual recourse to law or pricing, but simply through imposing the technology on me. Not implementing DRM would not have stopped this content being available - nobody stopped producing DVDs when we started to play them on computers - but it would have meant that the content was sold in a way that other OS's could use. Microsoft benefit from the DRM because it increases lock-in which they desparately need over the next few years. Hence we're not deploring the fact that Vista can play this content, but the consequences of Microsoft creating the situation in the first place. At least that is my argument. I can't speak for the nimrod who modded you flamebait.