Yea, because when some record label says "we are giving you $1 million dollars, but we will then own you" the poor starving artist is going to say "uhm no, my music is free"...right.
This law sucks - it will just make it more easy for the RIAA/MPAA to say "look those evil pirates broke ANOTHER one of your laws, now you should ban all streaming media including buying music online...dammit they have to buy our price fixed cds...err i mean our reasonably priced cds"
What we need is for our gov't to start working for us, not the person who can give them 10,20,50,100 thousand dollars.
Really? I am in my twenties. I live in center city Philadelphia (fatest city in the country) but still i see PLENTY of hot women who are in their 30's and 40's. Obviously not as common as 20's, - but there are a few I wouldn't mind - as our beloved Stef Murkle - would say "snog":D
I'm sorry, but blowing up things cannot be considered work. I think one of my dream jobs (among pr0n star, astronaut, and super secret spy agent) is the be a demolitions specialist.
Girl happens to be hot, tends to be in late 30's early 40's, have extensive combat skills, and falls in love with the egghead professor. I've seen this somewhere before....I am not sure where - but the plot sounds vaguely familiar.
Originally the Humvee was not designed to withstand blasts, but they quickly changed the chasis of the humvee to withstand anti-personal mines. This was because the old style jeeps (for those who are unsure what I am speaking about, refer to the old tv series M.A.S.H.) were constantly getting blown up when driving over landmines. Humvee's were also designed to have better off-road handling (they can drive up pretty much any slope except for smooth/high incline surfaces) The change in the chassis came during the Kosovo conflict. The US Army made the changes, though the Marines did not. In fact, with some exception, the only organizations using protected humvees are US Army, US Special Forces, and Israeli army. The marines are utilizing, sometimes, the extra-padded humvee in Iraq.
The Hummer is based on the Humvee and people in the military have always referred to the Humvee as a Hummer (probably for the sexual connotations). The fact that they modified the name slightly makes no difference, the Hummer is based on the military model. Your quote backs me up. So whats your point?
I would hope he didn't mean the original Hummer, since this was a vehicle created for the military and was given a chasis that can withstand anti-personal explosive (think landmines). They are VERY heavy (used of heavier metals) and can resist a lot of damage. The Hummers sold to civilians (h1, 2 and 3) all use lighter metals that make the vehicle 1) cheaper and 2) more fuel efficient.
I fully agree. In addition, by selling this system at a loss they ensure more people will buy it and they gain marketshare. So when PS3 comes out people will say "hey i just spent $400, no way I am spending another $400 - besides I like my 360"....Sony loses out on the customers who are only willing to buy one system. I am one of those people, though I am a ps3 fan so am waiting for that.
i'm pretty much in the heart of europe. nobody will enforce one single united states law here. you're dillusional my friend, albeit very patriotic.
There are many laws that America and UK share in common. Don't forget that US and UK are both extradition countries. Don't forget that US and UK have many treaties/compacts/etc that allow for a law from one country to apply in another. So if your UK business deals with US customers then your UK business better follow the US rules or else the UK police is going to haul your butt to the next plane heading for a US prison near me:)
an search engine in europe will index nicely all the websites of the free world and the american ones as well, exactly matching their content (so the marked u.s. sites will get a nice flag "sexual stuff").
You don't want this? Good god why not? I surf for pr0n all the time, and I hate getting websites that are "stop viewing pr0n, it is bad for you". I would rather click a box and ONLY find sites that I am interested in finding.
if you think that people won't go for the search engines that get the real content instead of america's "filter", you're wrong again. people want to get the stuff that they need, not the stuff that the american government thinks their people should get.
Nobody is telling you what you need, they are just trying to make it easier for you to filter the data. Also, as far as the search engines go, if you happen to use a search engine like Google - then yea, you will be subject to any changes in American search engines because Google is an American company.
honestly, if you think that anyone gives a lama's ass how you decide to shoot yourself in the foot with this, you're dead wrong. europeans actually think before they open their mouths, unlike your law makes as it seems.
Yes, a shining example right here. Not to mention you are derailing your entire argument by going for the cheap shots against the people, not the topic at hand. You have insulted Americans in your post multiple times. You should redirect your statements to the proposed law at hand, not calling people names.
talking about a free and open country seems rather unfit for the united states right now. occupying foreign countries, limiting press freedom in them, limiting the content available to their own people in their own country... to me this doesn't really seem like a highway to democracy nor freedom.
You mean the UK is not in Iraq? I am pretty sure they are. You may want to check with Tony.
I'd say that the sites that still want to expose erotical/sexual content, would just move 1 inch outside the US
You are absolutely correct, but it's better then nothing. I do not have a positive/negative opinion about this law, but to say a law is worthless because someone could break the law outside the country is a poor argument. Pretty much anything that can be done on a computer can be done outside of this country - so does that mean we shouldn't have ANY computer laws? That would be silly. It will hinder some, and won't others.
So, now they want to extort money from me to have control over an appliance I've paid upwards of $400 to $1000 US for?
Dear User,
We understand your concerns and will forward it to our customer complaint department at the local sanitation department. As a temporary solution we suggest that you buy one of our improved TV models. These models, which are the same as yours, range in the price of $1600-$4000 but have the added benefit of allowing you to change channels during commercials
We do want you to enjoy your TV experience, but the added cost of TV production has given the need for this new technology.
Sincerely,
TV Customer Service
P.S. You will be getting a knock on your door from the FBI for attempting to circumvent our commercial broadcasting experience.
Personally, I'd be for this system if (and only if) subscribing to the non-ad version completely removes all advertising. But that is never going to happen.
This does not jive because of the expense of TV. If they were to offer a package that gets rid of ALL tv commercials from your viewing, I am willing to bet your cable/sat bill would be triple/quadruple the cost. I am sure someone has figured out a cost assessment somewhere...This does not even take into consideration that some TV shows cost more then others (i.e. Friends probably costs more then Emerils cooking show, and then we go to the SuperBowl).
I agree with the sentiment, but it is not feasible under the current broadcasting setup. I am happy with channel surfing (which does have the side effect taht I probably will run into a commercial), and I don't mind fast forwarding my VCR.
Parents: "Kids, it's time for bed"
Kids: "Dad we can't the TV police are here and we have to watch all of these commercials."
Parents: "But 10 PM just rolled around and they have the adult commercials"
Tv Police: "Sir, you are within 10 feet of the TV set, you must sit down and watch the commercial. Distracting your kids from the commercial will result in a fine of $100,000 and/or prison time of 5 years under the FCC regulatory act of 2006" [Points taser baton at parent]
So I buy a TV, that has the added "feature" of not forcing me to watch commercials. I pay this money to the TV producers - are the supposed to then send a check to the broadcasting company? They will probably charge me for this handling. While the broadcasting companies are all up for this - I would hope the TV makers say "whatever".
Also, isn't this some kind of violation of my civil liberties? Can someone "force" me to watch something?
I will have to remember to buy the TV model that is one version below the model that comes out with this technology.
If broadcasters want me to watch their commercials (I still use a VCR to record my tv shows, so i fast forward them the old fashioned way) then they should target commercials towards me. That is why I am up for Internet TV broadcast. I sign up at Fox website - tell them I only want commercials involving pr0n, computer games, and womens lingerie commercials...trust me - they won't have to worry about me not watching the commercials...I will probably fast forward through the TV show to get to the commercials. Using this method, they can charge the companies that want the commercial MORE money because they can say "hey this guy Avi...he is INTERESTED in seeing your stuff." But alas, our commercial broadcasting producers are MORONS!
1) You only need to re-activate when you re-install software, change major hardware (i.e. harddrive - assumes fresh install, motherboard and MAYBE processor but not sure about the last one).
2) If they didn't put any kind of barrier to activation it would be a lot easier to pirate and they would lose more money due to that
3)As a person, who has utilized their product activation phone service MULTIPLE times - it is the easiest thing in the world. You spend all of five minutes of your life.
3) Just because you never met people who bought a copy by itself does not mean it doesn't happen. Most people won't but it because a) they prefer the pre-install since they are computer slow, and b) it is cost economical to buy a version pre-installed. Win XP alone costs 200-300...for that 200-300 you can put it into a new system. Most people who upgraded to winXP also needed to upgrade their hardware.
Just how-often do you have to reinstall MS, or how often do you change your hard drive/motherboard? I have two computers and I find once every two years is good enough - and I do like my computer nice and tweaked.
Oh I used to love those little boxed games, on one or two floopy disks. It would say "page 3, paragraph 2, line 4, word 5"....and then i said "Why don't i copy the disks" and they told me I can't so I felt 1337 when I did. Then when I told them "your disks really aren't protected" they said I needed the booklet, and I said "well I can copy the book at the library for 5 cents a page". and they said "well the paper is not copy-able, it is made of special ink"...did that stop me (or i should say the copy-machine)...nope. Ahh the good old days..
The big software companies thought they had a great way to protect them selves from any up and coming, young, innovative start-ups that might compete with them.
Yea because "'passwords and codes assigned to individual software copies to prevent unauthorized copies.' " is real innovative.
For the most part, the big guys patent everything they can because there is some asshole out there who is waiting to find a loophole and sue them for millions - like in this case.
Now-a-days patents are "cost of doing business". It is insane. A friend of mine is one of the C-level employees for an medical imaging company. They invent this technology, sell and implement it. They have to patent every single ridiculous thing to protect themselves, and it is not cheap...costing the company hundreds of thousands of dollars each and every year and they pray they covered every idiotic base.
I call foul on you Rip. I always enjoy your posts (well mostly) and think you do a great job - but come on, - I have seen you hammer away at people with lame patent claims - and this one 'passwords and codes assigned to individual software copies to prevent unauthorized copies.' is just another one of those. Now that it is MS you say boo-hoo to them? Not cool - they deserve our support in this just like we would give anyone else in this situation.
Re:The problem of nerve impulse conduction
on
An Alternate Human
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The brain needs to maintain a certain balance. Too cold and it shuts-down (killing you)...too hot and it "melts-down" killing you. On a processor - too hot and it "melts-down" too cold, well now you can overclock it through the nose:D
The brain needs to maintain at a certain temperature...that is one of the reasons when people have fevers they put cold towels on their forehead. On occasion, if a person is REALLY under a strong fever (or say on too much ecstacy) they will submerse the person in ice to cool the body down so it does not over-heat the brain.
Totally irrelevant - Enron lost because their upper execs scammed the company. Are you just throwing company names for the hell of it?
GM was once a really big company
Another irrelevant case. You're comparing apples to oranges. GM is losing out to other major competitors who are able to produce at a cheaper rate - plus people still see foreign cars as superior to domestic. MS, with it's about 90% market share does not suffer such an issue. It's biggest competitor is Apple. Which while a great company, is not causing them that much of a pain - especially with corporations still using MS products (for the most part). Linux with it's lack of drivers, and ease of use for the average user (yes it is more trickey to use) - plus it has an image of "that computer genious' thing" will not come close to MS for a long long time in terms of customer base.
And then some random hardware manufacturer takes nVidia/ATIs latest and greatest technology (software wise), takes their card (which they can buy like any other schmoe) and come out with their own version -with slight tweaks to avoid a lawsuit and say "hey look, just as good, half the price).
When you buy your nVidia/ATI card you get the drivers with it cause you must have them to use the cards to their full effect. In essence, those drivers are worthless to any other video card. If they want to make it closed source - why do you care? Other then "well it should be open source because" why does it really matter? You spent the money on the card - now you get the drivers for free.
The only argument is legacy drivers, but i can understand they dont want to release that if it has proprietary data that is still utilized in todays cards.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, because when some record label says "we are giving you $1 million dollars, but we will then own you" the poor starving artist is going to say "uhm no, my music is free"...right.
This law sucks - it will just make it more easy for the RIAA/MPAA to say "look those evil pirates broke ANOTHER one of your laws, now you should ban all streaming media including buying music online...dammit they have to buy our price fixed cds...err i mean our reasonably priced cds"
What we need is for our gov't to start working for us, not the person who can give them 10,20,50,100 thousand dollars.
representative democracy like ours
:D
I find it much easier to call us a Republic
Really? I am in my twenties. I live in center city Philadelphia (fatest city in the country) but still i see PLENTY of hot women who are in their 30's and 40's. Obviously not as common as 20's, - but there are a few I wouldn't mind - as our beloved Stef Murkle - would say "snog" :D
That seems more like work to me:)
I'm sorry, but blowing up things cannot be considered work. I think one of my dream jobs (among pr0n star, astronaut, and super secret spy agent) is the be a demolitions specialist.
Did I forget anything?
Girl happens to be hot, tends to be in late 30's early 40's, have extensive combat skills, and falls in love with the egghead professor. I've seen this somewhere before....I am not sure where - but the plot sounds vaguely familiar.
Originally the Humvee was not designed to withstand blasts, but they quickly changed the chasis of the humvee to withstand anti-personal mines. This was because the old style jeeps (for those who are unsure what I am speaking about, refer to the old tv series M.A.S.H.) were constantly getting blown up when driving over landmines. Humvee's were also designed to have better off-road handling (they can drive up pretty much any slope except for smooth/high incline surfaces) The change in the chassis came during the Kosovo conflict. The US Army made the changes, though the Marines did not. In fact, with some exception, the only organizations using protected humvees are US Army, US Special Forces, and Israeli army. The marines are utilizing, sometimes, the extra-padded humvee in Iraq.
The Hummer is based on the Humvee and people in the military have always referred to the Humvee as a Hummer (probably for the sexual connotations). The fact that they modified the name slightly makes no difference, the Hummer is based on the military model. Your quote backs me up. So whats your point?
And somehow Real Player will STILL find a way into my trusted sites.
"Hummer" so maybe you mean the orignal
I would hope he didn't mean the original Hummer, since this was a vehicle created for the military and was given a chasis that can withstand anti-personal explosive (think landmines). They are VERY heavy (used of heavier metals) and can resist a lot of damage. The Hummers sold to civilians (h1, 2 and 3) all use lighter metals that make the vehicle 1) cheaper and 2) more fuel efficient.
I fully agree. In addition, by selling this system at a loss they ensure more people will buy it and they gain marketshare. So when PS3 comes out people will say "hey i just spent $400, no way I am spending another $400 - besides I like my 360"....Sony loses out on the customers who are only willing to buy one system. I am one of those people, though I am a ps3 fan so am waiting for that.
i'm pretty much in the heart of europe. nobody will enforce one single united states law here. you're dillusional my friend, albeit very patriotic.
:)
... to me this doesn't really seem like a highway to democracy nor freedom.
There are many laws that America and UK share in common. Don't forget that US and UK are both extradition countries. Don't forget that US and UK have many treaties/compacts/etc that allow for a law from one country to apply in another. So if your UK business deals with US customers then your UK business better follow the US rules or else the UK police is going to haul your butt to the next plane heading for a US prison near me
an search engine in europe will index nicely all the websites of the free world and the american ones as well, exactly matching their content (so the marked u.s. sites will get a nice flag "sexual stuff").
You don't want this? Good god why not? I surf for pr0n all the time, and I hate getting websites that are "stop viewing pr0n, it is bad for you". I would rather click a box and ONLY find sites that I am interested in finding.
if you think that people won't go for the search engines that get the real content instead of america's "filter", you're wrong again. people want to get the stuff that they need, not the stuff that the american government thinks their people should get.
Nobody is telling you what you need, they are just trying to make it easier for you to filter the data. Also, as far as the search engines go, if you happen to use a search engine like Google - then yea, you will be subject to any changes in American search engines because Google is an American company.
honestly, if you think that anyone gives a lama's ass how you decide to shoot yourself in the foot with this, you're dead wrong. europeans actually think before they open their mouths, unlike your law makes as it seems.
Yes, a shining example right here. Not to mention you are derailing your entire argument by going for the cheap shots against the people, not the topic at hand. You have insulted Americans in your post multiple times. You should redirect your statements to the proposed law at hand, not calling people names.
talking about a free and open country seems rather unfit for the united states right now. occupying foreign countries, limiting press freedom in them, limiting the content available to their own people in their own country
You mean the UK is not in Iraq? I am pretty sure they are. You may want to check with Tony.
I'd say that the sites that still want to expose erotical/sexual content, would just move 1 inch outside the US
You are absolutely correct, but it's better then nothing. I do not have a positive/negative opinion about this law, but to say a law is worthless because someone could break the law outside the country is a poor argument. Pretty much anything that can be done on a computer can be done outside of this country - so does that mean we shouldn't have ANY computer laws? That would be silly. It will hinder some, and won't others.
So, now they want to extort money from me to have control over an appliance I've paid upwards of $400 to $1000 US for?
Dear User,
We understand your concerns and will forward it to our customer complaint department at the local sanitation department. As a temporary solution we suggest that you buy one of our improved TV models. These models, which are the same as yours, range in the price of $1600-$4000 but have the added benefit of allowing you to change channels during commercials
We do want you to enjoy your TV experience, but the added cost of TV production has given the need for this new technology.
Sincerely,
TV Customer Service
P.S. You will be getting a knock on your door from the FBI for attempting to circumvent our commercial broadcasting experience.
I agree with most everything you said except
Personally, I'd be for this system if (and only if) subscribing to the non-ad version completely removes all advertising. But that is never going to happen.
This does not jive because of the expense of TV. If they were to offer a package that gets rid of ALL tv commercials from your viewing, I am willing to bet your cable/sat bill would be triple/quadruple the cost. I am sure someone has figured out a cost assessment somewhere...This does not even take into consideration that some TV shows cost more then others (i.e. Friends probably costs more then Emerils cooking show, and then we go to the SuperBowl).
I agree with the sentiment, but it is not feasible under the current broadcasting setup. I am happy with channel surfing (which does have the side effect taht I probably will run into a commercial), and I don't mind fast forwarding my VCR.
Parents: "Kids, it's time for bed"
Kids: "Dad we can't the TV police are here and we have to watch all of these commercials."
Parents: "But 10 PM just rolled around and they have the adult commercials"
Tv Police: "Sir, you are within 10 feet of the TV set, you must sit down and watch the commercial. Distracting your kids from the commercial will result in a fine of $100,000 and/or prison time of 5 years under the FCC regulatory act of 2006" [Points taser baton at parent]
So I buy a TV, that has the added "feature" of not forcing me to watch commercials. I pay this money to the TV producers - are the supposed to then send a check to the broadcasting company? They will probably charge me for this handling. While the broadcasting companies are all up for this - I would hope the TV makers say "whatever".
Also, isn't this some kind of violation of my civil liberties? Can someone "force" me to watch something? I will have to remember to buy the TV model that is one version below the model that comes out with this technology.
If broadcasters want me to watch their commercials (I still use a VCR to record my tv shows, so i fast forward them the old fashioned way) then they should target commercials towards me. That is why I am up for Internet TV broadcast. I sign up at Fox website - tell them I only want commercials involving pr0n, computer games, and womens lingerie commercials...trust me - they won't have to worry about me not watching the commercials...I will probably fast forward through the TV show to get to the commercials. Using this method, they can charge the companies that want the commercial MORE money because they can say "hey this guy Avi...he is INTERESTED in seeing your stuff." But alas, our commercial broadcasting producers are MORONS!
How many times must I post this? In the US, it is date of invention that matters not date of filing
So when did this moron invent a computer product that would utilize the unique ID of your computer to help create a registration activation key?
That's a load of crap.
1) You only need to re-activate when you re-install software, change major hardware (i.e. harddrive - assumes fresh install, motherboard and MAYBE processor but not sure about the last one).
2) If they didn't put any kind of barrier to activation it would be a lot easier to pirate and they would lose more money due to that
3)As a person, who has utilized their product activation phone service MULTIPLE times - it is the easiest thing in the world. You spend all of five minutes of your life.
3) Just because you never met people who bought a copy by itself does not mean it doesn't happen. Most people won't but it because a) they prefer the pre-install since they are computer slow, and b) it is cost economical to buy a version pre-installed. Win XP alone costs 200-300...for that 200-300 you can put it into a new system. Most people who upgraded to winXP also needed to upgrade their hardware.
Just how-often do you have to reinstall MS, or how often do you change your hard drive/motherboard? I have two computers and I find once every two years is good enough - and I do like my computer nice and tweaked.
Oh I used to love those little boxed games, on one or two floopy disks. It would say "page 3, paragraph 2, line 4, word 5"....and then i said "Why don't i copy the disks" and they told me I can't so I felt 1337 when I did. Then when I told them "your disks really aren't protected" they said I needed the booklet, and I said "well I can copy the book at the library for 5 cents a page". and they said "well the paper is not copy-able, it is made of special ink"...did that stop me (or i should say the copy-machine)...nope. Ahh the good old days..
The big software companies thought they had a great way to protect them selves from any up and coming, young, innovative start-ups that might compete with them.
Yea because "'passwords and codes assigned to individual software copies to prevent unauthorized copies.' " is real innovative.
For the most part, the big guys patent everything they can because there is some asshole out there who is waiting to find a loophole and sue them for millions - like in this case.
Now-a-days patents are "cost of doing business". It is insane. A friend of mine is one of the C-level employees for an medical imaging company. They invent this technology, sell and implement it. They have to patent every single ridiculous thing to protect themselves, and it is not cheap...costing the company hundreds of thousands of dollars each and every year and they pray they covered every idiotic base.
I call foul on you Rip. I always enjoy your posts (well mostly) and think you do a great job - but come on, - I have seen you hammer away at people with lame patent claims - and this one 'passwords and codes assigned to individual software copies to prevent unauthorized copies.' is just another one of those. Now that it is MS you say boo-hoo to them? Not cool - they deserve our support in this just like we would give anyone else in this situation.
The brain needs to maintain a certain balance. Too cold and it shuts-down (killing you)...too hot and it "melts-down" killing you. On a processor - too hot and it "melts-down" too cold, well now you can overclock it through the nose :D
The brain needs to maintain at a certain temperature...that is one of the reasons when people have fevers they put cold towels on their forehead. On occasion, if a person is REALLY under a strong fever (or say on too much ecstacy) they will submerse the person in ice to cool the body down so it does not over-heat the brain.
Enron was once a really big company
Totally irrelevant - Enron lost because their upper execs scammed the company. Are you just throwing company names for the hell of it?
GM was once a really big company
Another irrelevant case. You're comparing apples to oranges. GM is losing out to other major competitors who are able to produce at a cheaper rate - plus people still see foreign cars as superior to domestic. MS, with it's about 90% market share does not suffer such an issue. It's biggest competitor is Apple. Which while a great company, is not causing them that much of a pain - especially with corporations still using MS products (for the most part). Linux with it's lack of drivers, and ease of use for the average user (yes it is more trickey to use) - plus it has an image of "that computer genious' thing" will not come close to MS for a long long time in terms of customer base.
And then some random hardware manufacturer takes nVidia/ATIs latest and greatest technology (software wise), takes their card (which they can buy like any other schmoe) and come out with their own version -with slight tweaks to avoid a lawsuit and say "hey look, just as good, half the price).
When you buy your nVidia/ATI card you get the drivers with it cause you must have them to use the cards to their full effect. In essence, those drivers are worthless to any other video card. If they want to make it closed source - why do you care? Other then "well it should be open source because" why does it really matter? You spent the money on the card - now you get the drivers for free.
The only argument is legacy drivers, but i can understand they dont want to release that if it has proprietary data that is still utilized in todays cards.