Exactly. The RIAA and MPAA really care about money. Consider this, if they were not "losing millions in sales" would they give a hoot about filesharing? No. They would not. They do favour the slippery slope fallacy and they use whatever tools they can to get the powers that be to do whatever benefits the RIAA/MPAA members the most.
In essence, they are like M$. They want $ and that's all they care about.
MUSIC 140 at UW explains the history of music and how poorly artists are paid for THEIR work. There are so many hands grabbing and every hand wants more and more money with each grab.
Once these companies realized how much money can be made by selling records they went crazy. Now these companies poorly pay the artists and take advantage of the consumers.
It has been said before, many times, that what they fear most is losing control. Don't for a second think they won't go down fighting tooth and nail. They will attack the common folk, those who can't afford Johnny Cochrane for a lawyer because they know the rest of the common folk will be scared into listening. Obviously the common folk outnumber everyone else by massive numbers, so keeping them under control means more $$ for RIAA/MPAA companies.
It is illegal what most do by copying and sharing. It says it right on the bloody packages. These companies have a point. The problem is that what they do is not really illegal. They get away with a lot because they can.
They also know there is no way to organize the consumers to stop purchasing media from RIAA/MPAA companies. Boycott would be the only way, and even then, these companies will find another way around. They are run by rich people who want to remain rich and will stop at abosolutely nothing to prevent from going poor.
Note how they never attack a person with money? There was one person that I heard of who actually had enough money to hire a lawyer to fight back against the RIAA/MPAA. There's just too few of those people. They need to be set up. Have common folk with "unknown" rich supporters. Then the lawsuits should stop or dwindle from long court battles. If I had the funds I would attack them. First attack is reveal the truth about their "declining record sales" by obtaining TRUE records and proving they are full of it. Second step is make it known to the masses just where the money goes. The rest can be decided once the first two steps are complete.
I am anti-RIAA/MPAA but only because of how they treat artists and consumers and then chastise downloaders and filesharers for being unethical.
I hear some stuff today that is actually appealing to me (some Jet, Hoobastank, new GreenDay) and a lot that is not.
I tend to favour the music that is not played 10 times a day on every radio station, unless it makes me feel something.
It has been already said that once a person becomes passionate about music they avoid the radio more. I agree. However, exposure to newer/unheard of material is the key here.
A better variety would be nice. Instead of plugging the same crap 10 times a day, how about only three times and add OBSCURE BANDs A-Z once in a while? Some radio stations used to do that. 88.7 (89X) in Windsor/Detroit used to be great for that. Then they became a CHUM group member and now they are 10 times a day with Lincoln Park (although i dont' mind the Habbit too much).
Radio will never be a variety show were everyone gets heard once. That's where the internet is helping. Many filesharing networks enable hearing the files before a complete download. That way you can sample. Yahoo and others offer links to sample music aswell. That's a great idea. Yes, mostly popular stuff is linked, but some sites devote themselves to less popular stuff.
Rather than fight the radio, let the RIAA have their last chance at conforming sheep with the radio, and focus on the newer methods of experiencing music. Filesharing and samples.
If a new artist has decent material, say I discover it by downloading or sampling it, then I will for sure support them by buying the album.
I had the option of downloading MEPIS linux for free. I didn't. I paid $15 US to purchase the CD. I am giving it a fair chance, sampling, and if I like it I'll give them the "steak dinner" review ($30) on their website. That too goes to development.
Rather than force people to buy and let them decide whether they like it or not (or force them to like it as the RIAA would have it) let people make their own decisions and pay on their own.
Some will steal, but those people more than likely would not buy it anyway. I pay for what I like, not for what I want to try.
Just my 2cents (damn, wallet is empty now, grrr tuition fees!)
I feel rather uncomfortable knowing your wife was a dancer. It just seems too personal for me.
Anyhow, yes, it is unfortunate to give 10% to some guy to play CDs and 10% to the house, but as the other reply states, they are saving her from formal taxing.
I used to make $6/hr (min wage was $6.85) under the table at a gas station. No tax. It was hush hush.
If it were not for the hush hush I would have had to pay incometax, EI, CPP and then I would have a lot less $$ for school.
There is a huge trade-off in the services industry. Sure, you get paid a portion under the table (tips and what-not) but you have no legal backing. If the company wants to toss you out on your butt, they can.
As for the laws about distance to patrons, well that is actually to protect people. Protect the girls from assault, protect the patrons from assault from the bouncer, etc... The bouncers in Canada will bounce you off everything in the bar if you lay a hand on the girl. They don't touch in Ontario (some places they do, but it is their own choice - IE Quebec) but they come VERY close. It boils down to respect. Respect the rules and enjoy the entertainment.
Some states view respect as law enforcement required. There's not much you can do about it. The Tim Horton's equivalent (Dunkin' Donuts or whatever) does not pay anything like a peeler bar, so you take the good with the bad.
While I do feel the president, as most leaders, is a puppet, I don't think sporting event is an appropriate phrase.
The president has the authority to overtake a country for their oil and to demonstrate their power (kinda like picking on a little kid so the other kids see how tough you are and fear you) and fabricate evidence to justify such overtaking. Sport teams cannot do that.
I would like to see sporting events incorporated into the election though. True tests of skill, integrity, loyalty, and honesty. That would help with narrowing down the best choices for a "leader."
Keep in mind, as a leader, the president is supposed to set an example for everyone to follow.
You make excellent arguments to support the inplausability. You may very well be right, but I highly doubt that the AV companies are 100% clean and free from any sort of leakage.
I just find it amazing that they could know so much so fast about a virus. I realize they are experts and have the ability to rip any virus apart, but it just seems fishy.
I prefer to leave things as possible, unlikely, but still possible as then I will not miss any "unlikely" causes to a problem.
There are a lot of conspiracy theories that can be applied to almost any situation. The point I was trying to make with my original post is that it is possible and if they wanted to create a sort of job security, they could.
I don't doubt that it has crossed the minds of a few people in the AV industry. I am willing to bet that perhaps an employee has actually done such a thing. Think about it, they are security experts, they probably know quite well how to hide their trace. Simply develop the virus, compile, sneek in to a hacker group, place the code, leave. The true source of spam is damn difficult to detect, I am a security expert could do it.
Why do I suspect AV companies? Because the most clever crimes are those done by people least likely expected to do such a thing. Script Kids are more than likely to be blamed rather than a security expert. That's my other point.
And blowing the whistle? Those kids are fearless as you said, so why would they even bother ratting those companies out? They know, as do the companies, that the odds of authority figures believing a kid over a company are zilch.
I think you missed that part. The "network" would be very discreet. You don't have a CEO or programmer from an AV company walk up to some kid who know's a little VB and hand him so code. Give me a break. You have to watch my TrueCrime shows on TLC. They would be far more clever than that.
Didn't you see Antitrust? That is possible, but too direct. You can do things on your own time. The files just appear in a hacker forum, anonymously. Think abstract instead of straight forward. That's how you get away with things, watch and learn from the mistakes of others.
That is what makes my idea of occaisional new virii being created and released by AV possible.
Money and threats. Plus, kids are not stupid. Who would you believe? Some punk who was caught sending out virii or a "reputable", "honorable", "legally bound", and "carefully watched" company like Symantec? Exactly!
Why do you think police brutality occurrs(ed) so much without much punishment? Who are you going to believe? An officer of the law or a crack addict?
Credibility. That's what it all boils down to. Those AV companies can easily undermind and set up the teens so well they have no choice but to not say anything.
Plus, they would not give the code to any kid. They'd have it passed through a network. A careful network of people, each decreasing in knowledge of the "truth" as they go farther away from the source. Plus it is just a little source code to be modified. People share stuff like that all over the web and it spreads like wildfire. So tracing it back to AV companies would be a long and costly task.
Once the clever and vague and deceptive network has been established, it is simple to implant something and watch it grow. It is not very often these new virii are created anyhow.
Few usage of the network as deployment also makes it easy to be deceptive. If you repeatedly commit the same crime they likelihood of being caught increases as the period between the crimes decreases.
I am willing to bet that the source of these great Virii (at least the original versions) are from the AV people. They are trying to create a demand for their product, much like the pharmacuticle company in MI2.
They create, they leak the code to young teens who have a half-hazard idea on how to program but have a lot of angst because they are teens and pretty much everything they want. They include comments but instruct the teens to remove the comments, probably equipt them with comment-removers.
They know that the code spreads amongst the troubled-teen community who are really just bored with life. They know the kids will put their own spin on it and deploy it and brag about it amongst themselves (and to others if they are stupid).
But most of all, they know that everyone has bought into the idea that the teens are computer geniuses and they are responsible for all the hacking. They embelish this by the very simple fact that the media will make a hay-day out of it, so they leak information to authorities.
In essence, they set the kids up to take the fall for their own 'job security' features.
While many may disagree and claim Symantec and the rest are honest people who would never do that, you cannot deny the plausability. Who here has NEVER taken a pen home from work, even accidentally, and kept it at home? Exactly my point. It is human nature to try to get away with things for you own benefit.
They have done no worse than many other monopoly companies. That's the name of the game, stay alive and crush the competitors any way possible. Walmart is doing a great job of that.
We, in Ontario, only recently received changes in our services markets. There used to be only Bell Canada for telephones, Ontario Hydro for electricity, and Union Gas for natural gas. That was it. Due to open markets, these companies are now mainly distributers for other sales/service companies. Of course they have their own sales/service sectors, but they have become wise(er) than their monopoly days.
They enjoyed the monopoly and made a LOT of cash (or incurred a massive debt in the case of Hydro One - formerly Ontario Hydro) and now have had to streamline themselves and compete. They have the "trust" of the masses however to help them compete. Familiarity does help. Be honest, how many people there actually know what is going on with a computer? They will go for what they know and that is Windows Desktops (servers are a different ball of wax, people who use them know a lot about computers - I hope).
MS is in the same boat. While the government is only making small dents into their dreams, they still should plan for a future with successive competitors. I am quite certain their shareholders, their Board of Governors, and their top personel (top paid that is) have well considered the impact of Linux and OOS companies. They are not stupid. They did not become the dominent player by fluke.
They may not play all that fair, but they do play hard and they are definitely considering the future. MS is playing a clever game of chess and I highly doubt a company like that is foolish enough to lose any time soon.
MS will evolve as many of the former monopolists have evolved. They will use everything they have to their advantage and they have more up their sleeve than anyone else knows.
And if they are smart, they will use their own employees to deceive the masses, this helps in the element of surprise. It is the old addage, if you don't want people knowing what you are up to, don't tell anyone!
Personally, I am sick of XP and SP2. Once I am totally comfortable with commandline linux (the GUI for MEPIS is quite easy to migrate from Windows over to Linux) I will not bother with Windows unless abosolutely necessary.
It would be inevitable that "they" would compile information about you and attempt to determine your "profile" if they obtain this power. Odds are they already have this power.
In reality, they will blame it on terrorism, but their true intent is to create fear. When you were a child you knew you were being watched so you would be less likely to do something "bad." This is the exact same thing. The governments feel that by creating a feeling of being "watched" the people will be less likely to do things that might be questionable.
It is a scare-tactic to gain control. Let's face it, not many are in agreement with the recent actions of the US government. How else can they get you to "fall in line?" They use fear because they know it works.
The problem is that these blokes don't realize that with living in fear everyday will cause massive amounts of stress. With this stress comes breakdowns. With breakdowns comes "disasters" where people snap. Of course you can count 100% on the government claiming these snaps were premeditated and are the reason for the "monitoring" of citizens.
It is a visious circle and typical of any government. They want total control and they don't care what you really think. They will twist it to keep everyone else "in line" so you really can't win.
The best thing? Start new. Get rid of about 75% of the senators and government officials (send them to Greenland) and start with people that have not been "molded" into what the older generations want to maintain.
Why many people feel that saying nothing or asking nothing will achieve exactly that, I do question the point of asking politicians anything.
Most often, with any real issue, they avoid answering by rambling something offtopic or providing such a vague answer that you are left confused.
I really do not see any real purpose to asking questions to the President or Prime Minister or Dictator of any country. There is far too much corruption and far too much deception occurring in modern governments to believe they will actually listen.
No offense to the American people, but I am very skeptical of their government's practises. I am not promoting the Canadian government in any way, as one of the reasons our healthcare and eductation systems are in trouble is the government.
I am quite confident that Slashdot readers will submit excellent questions. Unfortunately, I am also confident that the fearless leaders will do unjust by providing horrible answers.
IMHO, most governments need to be closer watched and controlled by the people, not by organizations or the quest for power and money.
An easy way of "entrapment" for the likes of RIAA and MPAA would be large files that share the name of the movies or songs, but actually contain REAL information.
Rather than have bogus information, which could be construed as entrapment, the files could contain movie reviews and song reviews. Simply give extensive detail and add a very long disclaimer.
I would be glad to produce a simple text editor in Visual C++ (a nice project for me) that would be able to create and read these reviews. The reviews would be saved as.avi or.mpg or.mp3 or.wma or.oog and this would establish a legit system. Lawyers would have difficulty attacking someone for entrapment.
The MPAA/RIAA might also like that because they will see it as way of creating bogus movies/songs, as I highly doubt they'd understand video and audio compression.
Unfortunately, the program would be best suited for Windows as I know very little about Linux OSes (not enough experience) (and assuming XP with SP2 starts working properly for me).
No matter how you slice it, the RIAA will keep finding faults in your means of listening to what you enjoy.
If it isn't the type of media you choose or the device to transform it into sound waves, it will be where you acquired the material. There is no way around it.
Why do I sound like the RIAA has the upper hand? Because the majority of people will buy CD's. They will buy whatever the RIAA tells them too. This will give the RIAA the revenue they need to sue people who don't play ball their way.
The only way to win is to expose the RIAA for what they really are. It would have to make full media coverage. You would have to do extensive research (very costly) and obtain documents the RIAA refers to when they express their figures (illegal as you would have to steal it). Then you would have to get all the sheep who live in fear because they are told to, to actually watch your TV special. They would have to be scared to death to miss it.
Then, after they all watch it and it has been drilled into their heads that consumers have been screwed by the music industry even more than the artists, you can hope that they will have a vague memory of anything you said. In other words, you would need to air your special, or variations of it, repeatedly so it drills into their heads.
Until you can swing the masses, you will have to deal with conglamourites of superpowers in all industrial sectors banning together to screw the consumer and help one another make profits.
Only a few will actually partake in hacking whatever security feature these companies choose to employ. And of course the money behind these giants is more than enough to assist politicians in deciding what laws to make. Of course the anonymous donations to police foundations (and FBI, etc...) will help these authority figures obtain the resources to reduce the "rebels" who are rocking the boat (as right as they are for doing so).
Exactly! What matters most is how the pipelining is implemented and how many microinstructions can be executed simultaneously.
Although if you have a 200MHz processor that has the best pipelining configuration and acceptional hit rates on cache and can execute many microinstructions at once, and you compare it to an Intel P4 3.06GHz processor, I am certain the P4 will run faster.
There are multiple layers to the P4's design, a complex instruction system over top of the RISK system. You can go to their website and view the history of the Intel chip design. It is quite interesting, especially the pictures.
When I manage to be satisfied with material I have written and recorded I will share it on all of the sites. The idea is to get the songs out there and acquire as much feedback, both positive and negative, as possible.
I highly doubt the RIAA would even attempt to stop me from distibuting my own works. If they did I would have no problem holding fundraisers to cover the legal cost of lawsuit against them. Clearly, if the indies own the rights then they can distribute it any way they like.
We can't all be rich like U2, but at least we can all have the opportunity to be heard.
Also an important point to consider with decreasing voltages is the accuracy of the device. As we decrease the voltage values corresponding to logical values we can increase the frequency of oscillation between the junction terminals. The only problem is that increasing the frequency increases the depletion layer capacitance. So in a CPU situation, they are limited to the response of the minority charge carriers arriving in the n-channel region of the P-N junction in the CMOS transister.
The future may require altering the dopant densities, if not finding new dopants that are more effective in improving the response time of the minority carriers.
With reducing gate size we also suffer from increased junction capacitance, which means more reactive power exists. Although it will never be a real issue in terms of power factor, it still will draw more current and thus heat up the CPU even more.
Eventually, cooling the ceramic covering of the silicon CPU will not be sufficient. Perhaps they could consider cooling via small microscopic channels through the CPU. This would require a small compressor, but these channels could be made of a standard size. Thus heatsink companies can produce a fan/compressor unit that mates with the CPU channels and provides cooling. Yes, this does rip-off the mechanical engineering version of cooling an automobile engine, but the idea could work.
Why doesn't a group of hackers crack into the RIAA's systems and gather true data. We all know the "sale numbers" they publish have been modified to help illustrate their points. Why not hack and get the true numbers? Send them to the media, then the RIAA can shut up.
Add to the sales info, the actual expenditures. Let the rest of the world see that a few cents of the $25 CDN goes to the artists and the rest is in the pockets of RIAA members (like Mr Sherman). Then all would know that the music industry has been screwing the consumers and artists for decades.
It is about time they fell. Start over. Clean out the trash! Spring cleaning!
You know, this is the first time I have read someone stating things this way.
Perhaps this definition clarification should be passed on to other groups, such as the RIAA.
Another example of poor use, sort of, is ignorance. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge. When someone is being rude, they are indirectly ignorant as they are lacking the knowledge or proper manners (though in most cases the poor manners is intentional).
Gay is another example. Originally, gay meant happy. However, by today's acceptance of the term gay as a reference to homosexuality, it is commonly misused.
I wonder about the legal aspects of the clarification of the copyright definition? At least in Canada we do not have to worry much. A judge ruled that since photocopiers are not illegal and textbooks or encyclopedias are frequently copied, then it is legal to share music.
Is copyright only supposed to protect against someone claiming rights to something that is not theres? And are anyone out there selling copies of U2 or whatever without paying the band royalties? I believe that is the true issue. However, every movie I see I have to listen to some stuntman say ".. you steal a candybar or download a movie.. someone reaps the benefits with a few clicks of a button.."
So now it is a basis of enjoyment, not copyright. Are people enjoying an artist's work or using someone's program without paying for it? If they are, but they are not claiming it to be their's and selling it to others for a profit, why is that covered under copyright law?
Did you ever think that maybe you are too cynical for your own good?
I am not so easily bought by the media stories. I do not believe CNN or the like. It is wise to question any information you hear, but keeping an open mind is even wiser!
If we do not propose possible causes, even if they are seemingly entertaining, then we may never arrive at the true result. Sometimes the most erratic ideas work the best.
Back in 1996 I took a Small Business Economics course (cash cow definitions and all that) and the lecturer explained the story behind cold fusion.
Two scientists (physicists I believe) had apparently found Cold Fusion.
Of course, shortly after their claims were made public, one disappeared, the other owns a small island, and 1/3 of their research was missing. With the missing 1/3 many scientists attempted to reconstruct the experiments and concluded that it was not possible and cold fusion did not exist.
But does it not seem coincidental that one of the two suddenly owns an island and the other vanished?
Society changes slowly. A discovery like that, back then when the automobile industry was struggling and slowly recovering, would crumble such a vast infrastructure. Think about it; a new fuel! Would that not put thousands if not tens of thousands out of work? Yes, all those gas stations, oil refineries, mines (for fossil fuels), etc..., all no longer needed. It would be an economical disaster.
Now that it is well known the environment has taken a lot of abuse from fossil fuel usage the possibility of cold fusion reappears. Of course, after all the investment into Hydrogen power and Fuel Cells, we won't see Cold Fusion for a long while.
Just my suspicious/consipiracy theory $0.02 worth!
Hi, I read a portion of the Lonhorn schpeel from MS and I read all of the comments from Mozilla. I am confused though. The Mozilla comments make Longhorn and it's components, file formats, etc.., seem to be this new and amazing, almost impossible to compete with technology.
Is it? I find it difficult that MS has developed several somethings that could cause problems for open source communities. After all I have read about the flaws with Windows(any version) and other MS products, I find it rather odd or almost disturbing to read the Mozilla post.
I sense fear in the post. This seems like a jog back in time to the 80's when people feared about Japan's electronic edge.
I have read on Slashdot so much about MS's buggy, inefficient, poorly patche, and bloated code. How could they suddenly become the inverse of all of that? If they have new technologies about to be released can't we expect the same problems?
Is MS releasing hidden talents and intending to show that not only do they have the money but also the brains to be the biggest sw company in the world?
I am just a little lost.
Oh, and have MS written a brand new kernel for Longhorn? Or is it mostly just modified code from NT/2000/XP?
Spam is different. Spamming is sending out ads to emails without care of whether they want it or not. File sharing is exactly that; sharing files. If someone wants to download something I wrote and am sharing, it is their choice. It is not like I would be sending tonnes of emails containing my music to people.
Sorry, but I do not see the correlation between spam filtering and blocking of copyrighted works from transferring on a filesharing network.
Is it possible that work created by an artist is copyrighted and distributed themselves could be blocked?
If so, can blocking not be considered illegal? They would be blocking an independent artist from distributing their own works and thus potentially limiting their sales.
I think they need a better method of controlling file transfers. The best method is something they should have done a long time ago; create their own COMPLETE distribution network. This network would contain copies of every song from every genre, or at least attempt to. Then a small fee is charged.
The problem with current versions, correct me if I am wrong, is the lack of distribution rights. So if you go to a certain legit website and search for a file, you will not find much because that sight does not have the rights. These people really should stop and think about these rights issues a little more clearly.
While someone on Virgin Records may not want to be released on a site sponsored by TVT Records, they should realize that by combining to a central site or two would be more profitable.
I am sure that if given a fair price (= $1 per song) people would start using those sights. We realize that free-swapping is wrong, but if given a more thorough legit site we may actually do what is right.
Your post makes absolute and total sense. Stealing is stealing, whether it is a ju-jube or a Porche.
I am impressed to see that you would boycott the RIAA and most bands should do the same. Many out there cannot because of contracts.
Let's face it, the RIAA members have money and when you have been starving and trying so hard to scrounge enough money to even buy guitar strings, and some body comes along and fills your head with dollar signs and promises, what would you do?
The Music Industry has been taking advantage of the artists and the consumers since it's economic impact really became significant (1950's with Elvis and later in 1964 with the Beatles and the British Invasion rebellion by the US artists).
I don't purchase much music at all. I limit myself to those artists that I really like. I don't have much money at all (student) but I am more than happy to give it to those I like (Joe Satriani for example).
Most of what I download I already have on cassette or vinyl. It is more convenient to download someone else's CD copy than to record it from a decent tape machine (which I don't have) or from a scratch-filled record on a decent turn table (which I also don't have).
The rest are singles that are not available or come on an album with 10-20 other songs I do not want and for a price I don't find reasonable. That is assuming I can even find a copy of the recording.
If I were in the position of many of the artists who are wrapped up in RIAA member contracts, I'd let them expire or get out in any way that does not legally bind me to the RIAA. Then I would purchase or get a loan to purchase some servers and sell my material for a reasonable price per song ($1 or less) on my own website.
The RIAA would hate that because they would have no control. I would have full control and full income to pay for recording bills, engineer bills, mixing bills, CD production (I would probably manufacture them myself or get a bunch manufactured on an asneeded basis), etc...
Hi, In the lab for ECE241 we used GNU Plot to plot the frequency response and dB gain of our various circuits (I can't remember the circuits in detail, but I do recall spending hours going through transfer function derivation and developing gain and frequency response expressions).
It was a rather cool product, though we only used it to plot data. The scripting was quite neat too.
I have to admit, the most impressive program used was LVBode. As I recall, it was inhouse designed. LVBode has several paramters (points, input voltage, frequency ranges, logging to file abilitis) and it takes control of the Agilent Technologies Oscilloscope and Function Generator. The program performs the frequency sweep and plots the gain and frequency response curves.
That would be a neat programming project, and quite a useful one (for circuit designers anyhow).
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. The RIAA and MPAA really care about money. Consider this, if they were not "losing millions in sales" would they give a hoot about filesharing? No. They would not. They do favour the slippery slope fallacy and they use whatever tools they can to get the powers that be to do whatever benefits the RIAA/MPAA members the most.
In essence, they are like M$. They want $ and that's all they care about.
MUSIC 140 at UW explains the history of music and how poorly artists are paid for THEIR work. There are so many hands grabbing and every hand wants more and more money with each grab.
Once these companies realized how much money can be made by selling records they went crazy. Now these companies poorly pay the artists and take advantage of the consumers.
It has been said before, many times, that what they fear most is losing control. Don't for a second think they won't go down fighting tooth and nail. They will attack the common folk, those who can't afford Johnny Cochrane for a lawyer because they know the rest of the common folk will be scared into listening. Obviously the common folk outnumber everyone else by massive numbers, so keeping them under control means more $$ for RIAA/MPAA companies.
It is illegal what most do by copying and sharing. It says it right on the bloody packages. These companies have a point. The problem is that what they do is not really illegal. They get away with a lot because they can.
They also know there is no way to organize the consumers to stop purchasing media from RIAA/MPAA companies. Boycott would be the only way, and even then, these companies will find another way around. They are run by rich people who want to remain rich and will stop at abosolutely nothing to prevent from going poor.
Note how they never attack a person with money? There was one person that I heard of who actually had enough money to hire a lawyer to fight back against the RIAA/MPAA. There's just too few of those people. They need to be set up. Have common folk with "unknown" rich supporters. Then the lawsuits should stop or dwindle from long court battles. If I had the funds I would attack them. First attack is reveal the truth about their "declining record sales" by obtaining TRUE records and proving they are full of it. Second step is make it known to the masses just where the money goes. The rest can be decided once the first two steps are complete.
I am anti-RIAA/MPAA but only because of how they treat artists and consumers and then chastise downloaders and filesharers for being unethical.
I hear some stuff today that is actually appealing to me (some Jet, Hoobastank, new GreenDay) and a lot that is not.
I tend to favour the music that is not played 10 times a day on every radio station, unless it makes me feel something.
It has been already said that once a person becomes passionate about music they avoid the radio more. I agree. However, exposure to newer/unheard of material is the key here.
A better variety would be nice. Instead of plugging the same crap 10 times a day, how about only three times and add OBSCURE BANDs A-Z once in a while? Some radio stations used to do that. 88.7 (89X) in Windsor/Detroit used to be great for that. Then they became a CHUM group member and now they are 10 times a day with Lincoln Park (although i dont' mind the Habbit too much).
Radio will never be a variety show were everyone gets heard once. That's where the internet is helping. Many filesharing networks enable hearing the files before a complete download. That way you can sample. Yahoo and others offer links to sample music aswell. That's a great idea. Yes, mostly popular stuff is linked, but some sites devote themselves to less popular stuff.
Rather than fight the radio, let the RIAA have their last chance at conforming sheep with the radio, and focus on the newer methods of experiencing music. Filesharing and samples.
If a new artist has decent material, say I discover it by downloading or sampling it, then I will for sure support them by buying the album.
I had the option of downloading MEPIS linux for free. I didn't. I paid $15 US to purchase the CD. I am giving it a fair chance, sampling, and if I like it I'll give them the "steak dinner" review ($30) on their website. That too goes to development.
Rather than force people to buy and let them decide whether they like it or not (or force them to like it as the RIAA would have it) let people make their own decisions and pay on their own.
Some will steal, but those people more than likely would not buy it anyway. I pay for what I like, not for what I want to try.
Just my 2cents (damn, wallet is empty now, grrr tuition fees!)
I feel rather uncomfortable knowing your wife was a dancer. It just seems too personal for me.
Anyhow, yes, it is unfortunate to give 10% to some guy to play CDs and 10% to the house, but as the other reply states, they are saving her from formal taxing.
I used to make $6/hr (min wage was $6.85) under the table at a gas station. No tax. It was hush hush.
If it were not for the hush hush I would have had to pay incometax, EI, CPP and then I would have a lot less $$ for school.
There is a huge trade-off in the services industry. Sure, you get paid a portion under the table (tips and what-not) but you have no legal backing. If the company wants to toss you out on your butt, they can.
As for the laws about distance to patrons, well that is actually to protect people. Protect the girls from assault, protect the patrons from assault from the bouncer, etc... The bouncers in Canada will bounce you off everything in the bar if you lay a hand on the girl. They don't touch in Ontario (some places they do, but it is their own choice - IE Quebec) but they come VERY close. It boils down to respect. Respect the rules and enjoy the entertainment.
Some states view respect as law enforcement required. There's not much you can do about it. The Tim Horton's equivalent (Dunkin' Donuts or whatever) does not pay anything like a peeler bar, so you take the good with the bad.
While I do feel the president, as most leaders, is a puppet, I don't think sporting event is an appropriate phrase.
The president has the authority to overtake a country for their oil and to demonstrate their power (kinda like picking on a little kid so the other kids see how tough you are and fear you) and fabricate evidence to justify such overtaking. Sport teams cannot do that.
I would like to see sporting events incorporated into the election though. True tests of skill, integrity, loyalty, and honesty. That would help with narrowing down the best choices for a "leader."
Keep in mind, as a leader, the president is supposed to set an example for everyone to follow.
You make excellent arguments to support the inplausability. You may very well be right, but I highly doubt that the AV companies are 100% clean and free from any sort of leakage.
I just find it amazing that they could know so much so fast about a virus. I realize they are experts and have the ability to rip any virus apart, but it just seems fishy.
I prefer to leave things as possible, unlikely, but still possible as then I will not miss any "unlikely" causes to a problem.
There are a lot of conspiracy theories that can be applied to almost any situation. The point I was trying to make with my original post is that it is possible and if they wanted to create a sort of job security, they could.
I don't doubt that it has crossed the minds of a few people in the AV industry. I am willing to bet that perhaps an employee has actually done such a thing. Think about it, they are security experts, they probably know quite well how to hide their trace. Simply develop the virus, compile, sneek in to a hacker group, place the code, leave. The true source of spam is damn difficult to detect, I am a security expert could do it.
Why do I suspect AV companies? Because the most clever crimes are those done by people least likely expected to do such a thing. Script Kids are more than likely to be blamed rather than a security expert. That's my other point.
And blowing the whistle? Those kids are fearless as you said, so why would they even bother ratting those companies out? They know, as do the companies, that the odds of authority figures believing a kid over a company are zilch.
I think you missed that part. The "network" would be very discreet. You don't have a CEO or programmer from an AV company walk up to some kid who know's a little VB and hand him so code. Give me a break. You have to watch my TrueCrime shows on TLC. They would be far more clever than that.
Didn't you see Antitrust? That is possible, but too direct. You can do things on your own time. The files just appear in a hacker forum, anonymously. Think abstract instead of straight forward. That's how you get away with things, watch and learn from the mistakes of others.
That is what makes my idea of occaisional new virii being created and released by AV possible.
Money and threats. Plus, kids are not stupid. Who would you believe? Some punk who was caught sending out virii or a "reputable", "honorable", "legally bound", and "carefully watched" company like Symantec? Exactly!
Why do you think police brutality occurrs(ed) so much without much punishment? Who are you going to believe? An officer of the law or a crack addict?
Credibility. That's what it all boils down to. Those AV companies can easily undermind and set up the teens so well they have no choice but to not say anything.
Plus, they would not give the code to any kid. They'd have it passed through a network. A careful network of people, each decreasing in knowledge of the "truth" as they go farther away from the source. Plus it is just a little source code to be modified. People share stuff like that all over the web and it spreads like wildfire. So tracing it back to AV companies would be a long and costly task.
Once the clever and vague and deceptive network has been established, it is simple to implant something and watch it grow. It is not very often these new virii are created anyhow.
Few usage of the network as deployment also makes it easy to be deceptive. If you repeatedly commit the same crime they likelihood of being caught increases as the period between the crimes decreases.
I am willing to bet that the source of these great Virii (at least the original versions) are from the AV people. They are trying to create a demand for their product, much like the pharmacuticle company in MI2.
They create, they leak the code to young teens who have a half-hazard idea on how to program but have a lot of angst because they are teens and pretty much everything they want. They include comments but instruct the teens to remove the comments, probably equipt them with comment-removers.
They know that the code spreads amongst the troubled-teen community who are really just bored with life. They know the kids will put their own spin on it and deploy it and brag about it amongst themselves (and to others if they are stupid).
But most of all, they know that everyone has bought into the idea that the teens are computer geniuses and they are responsible for all the hacking. They embelish this by the very simple fact that the media will make a hay-day out of it, so they leak information to authorities.
In essence, they set the kids up to take the fall for their own 'job security' features.
While many may disagree and claim Symantec and the rest are honest people who would never do that, you cannot deny the plausability. Who here has NEVER taken a pen home from work, even accidentally, and kept it at home? Exactly my point. It is human nature to try to get away with things for you own benefit.
They have done no worse than many other monopoly companies. That's the name of the game, stay alive and crush the competitors any way possible. Walmart is doing a great job of that.
We, in Ontario, only recently received changes in our services markets. There used to be only Bell Canada for telephones, Ontario Hydro for electricity, and Union Gas for natural gas. That was it. Due to open markets, these companies are now mainly distributers for other sales/service companies. Of course they have their own sales/service sectors, but they have become wise(er) than their monopoly days.
They enjoyed the monopoly and made a LOT of cash (or incurred a massive debt in the case of Hydro One - formerly Ontario Hydro) and now have had to streamline themselves and compete. They have the "trust" of the masses however to help them compete. Familiarity does help. Be honest, how many people there actually know what is going on with a computer? They will go for what they know and that is Windows Desktops (servers are a different ball of wax, people who use them know a lot about computers - I hope).
MS is in the same boat. While the government is only making small dents into their dreams, they still should plan for a future with successive competitors. I am quite certain their shareholders, their Board of Governors, and their top personel (top paid that is) have well considered the impact of Linux and OOS companies. They are not stupid. They did not become the dominent player by fluke.
They may not play all that fair, but they do play hard and they are definitely considering the future. MS is playing a clever game of chess and I highly doubt a company like that is foolish enough to lose any time soon.
MS will evolve as many of the former monopolists have evolved. They will use everything they have to their advantage and they have more up their sleeve than anyone else knows.
And if they are smart, they will use their own employees to deceive the masses, this helps in the element of surprise. It is the old addage, if you don't want people knowing what you are up to, don't tell anyone!
Personally, I am sick of XP and SP2. Once I am totally comfortable with commandline linux (the GUI for MEPIS is quite easy to migrate from Windows over to Linux) I will not bother with Windows unless abosolutely necessary.
It would be inevitable that "they" would compile information about you and attempt to determine your "profile" if they obtain this power. Odds are they already have this power.
In reality, they will blame it on terrorism, but their true intent is to create fear. When you were a child you knew you were being watched so you would be less likely to do something "bad." This is the exact same thing. The governments feel that by creating a feeling of being "watched" the people will be less likely to do things that might be questionable.
It is a scare-tactic to gain control. Let's face it, not many are in agreement with the recent actions of the US government. How else can they get you to "fall in line?" They use fear because they know it works.
The problem is that these blokes don't realize that with living in fear everyday will cause massive amounts of stress. With this stress comes breakdowns. With breakdowns comes "disasters" where people snap. Of course you can count 100% on the government claiming these snaps were premeditated and are the reason for the "monitoring" of citizens.
It is a visious circle and typical of any government. They want total control and they don't care what you really think. They will twist it to keep everyone else "in line" so you really can't win.
The best thing? Start new. Get rid of about 75% of the senators and government officials (send them to Greenland) and start with people that have not been "molded" into what the older generations want to maintain.
Why many people feel that saying nothing or asking nothing will achieve exactly that, I do question the point of asking politicians anything.
Most often, with any real issue, they avoid answering by rambling something offtopic or providing such a vague answer that you are left confused.
I really do not see any real purpose to asking questions to the President or Prime Minister or Dictator of any country. There is far too much corruption and far too much deception occurring in modern governments to believe they will actually listen.
No offense to the American people, but I am very skeptical of their government's practises. I am not promoting the Canadian government in any way, as one of the reasons our healthcare and eductation systems are in trouble is the government.
I am quite confident that Slashdot readers will submit excellent questions. Unfortunately, I am also confident that the fearless leaders will do unjust by providing horrible answers.
IMHO, most governments need to be closer watched and controlled by the people, not by organizations or the quest for power and money.
An easy way of "entrapment" for the likes of RIAA and MPAA would be large files that share the name of the movies or songs, but actually contain REAL information.
.avi or .mpg or .mp3 or .wma or .oog and this would establish a legit system. Lawyers would have difficulty attacking someone for entrapment.
Rather than have bogus information, which could be construed as entrapment, the files could contain movie reviews and song reviews. Simply give extensive detail and add a very long disclaimer.
I would be glad to produce a simple text editor in Visual C++ (a nice project for me) that would be able to create and read these reviews. The reviews would be saved as
The MPAA/RIAA might also like that because they will see it as way of creating bogus movies/songs, as I highly doubt they'd understand video and audio compression.
Unfortunately, the program would be best suited for Windows as I know very little about Linux OSes (not enough experience) (and assuming XP with SP2 starts working properly for me).
No matter how you slice it, the RIAA will keep finding faults in your means of listening to what you enjoy.
If it isn't the type of media you choose or the device to transform it into sound waves, it will be where you acquired the material. There is no way around it.
Why do I sound like the RIAA has the upper hand? Because the majority of people will buy CD's. They will buy whatever the RIAA tells them too. This will give the RIAA the revenue they need to sue people who don't play ball their way.
The only way to win is to expose the RIAA for what they really are. It would have to make full media coverage. You would have to do extensive research (very costly) and obtain documents the RIAA refers to when they express their figures (illegal as you would have to steal it). Then you would have to get all the sheep who live in fear because they are told to, to actually watch your TV special. They would have to be scared to death to miss it.
Then, after they all watch it and it has been drilled into their heads that consumers have been screwed by the music industry even more than the artists, you can hope that they will have a vague memory of anything you said. In other words, you would need to air your special, or variations of it, repeatedly so it drills into their heads.
Until you can swing the masses, you will have to deal with conglamourites of superpowers in all industrial sectors banning together to screw the consumer and help one another make profits.
Only a few will actually partake in hacking whatever security feature these companies choose to employ. And of course the money behind these giants is more than enough to assist politicians in deciding what laws to make. Of course the anonymous donations to police foundations (and FBI, etc...) will help these authority figures obtain the resources to reduce the "rebels" who are rocking the boat (as right as they are for doing so).
It is all about swinging the masses!
Exactly! What matters most is how the pipelining is implemented and how many microinstructions can be executed simultaneously.
Although if you have a 200MHz processor that has the best pipelining configuration and acceptional hit rates on cache and can execute many microinstructions at once, and you compare it to an Intel P4 3.06GHz processor, I am certain the P4 will run faster.
There are multiple layers to the P4's design, a complex instruction system over top of the RISK system. You can go to their website and view the history of the Intel chip design. It is quite interesting, especially the pictures.
When I manage to be satisfied with material I have written and recorded I will share it on all of the sites. The idea is to get the songs out there and acquire as much feedback, both positive and negative, as possible.
I highly doubt the RIAA would even attempt to stop me from distibuting my own works. If they did I would have no problem holding fundraisers to cover the legal cost of lawsuit against them. Clearly, if the indies own the rights then they can distribute it any way they like.
We can't all be rich like U2, but at least we can all have the opportunity to be heard.
Also an important point to consider with decreasing voltages is the accuracy of the device. As we decrease the voltage values corresponding to logical values we can increase the frequency of oscillation between the junction terminals. The only problem is that increasing the frequency increases the depletion layer capacitance. So in a CPU situation, they are limited to the response of the minority charge carriers arriving in the n-channel region of the P-N junction in the CMOS transister.
The future may require altering the dopant densities, if not finding new dopants that are more effective in improving the response time of the minority carriers.
With reducing gate size we also suffer from increased junction capacitance, which means more reactive power exists. Although it will never be a real issue in terms of power factor, it still will draw more current and thus heat up the CPU even more.
Eventually, cooling the ceramic covering of the silicon CPU will not be sufficient. Perhaps they could consider cooling via small microscopic channels through the CPU. This would require a small compressor, but these channels could be made of a standard size. Thus heatsink companies can produce a fan/compressor unit that mates with the CPU channels and provides cooling. Yes, this does rip-off the mechanical engineering version of cooling an automobile engine, but the idea could work.
Why doesn't a group of hackers crack into the RIAA's systems and gather true data. We all know the "sale numbers" they publish have been modified to help illustrate their points. Why not hack and get the true numbers? Send them to the media, then the RIAA can shut up.
Add to the sales info, the actual expenditures. Let the rest of the world see that a few cents of the $25 CDN goes to the artists and the rest is in the pockets of RIAA members (like Mr Sherman). Then all would know that the music industry has been screwing the consumers and artists for decades.
It is about time they fell. Start over. Clean out the trash! Spring cleaning!
You know, this is the first time I have read someone stating things this way.
Perhaps this definition clarification should be passed on to other groups, such as the RIAA.
Another example of poor use, sort of, is ignorance. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge. When someone is being rude, they are indirectly ignorant as they are lacking the knowledge or proper manners (though in most cases the poor manners is intentional).
Gay is another example. Originally, gay meant happy. However, by today's acceptance of the term gay as a reference to homosexuality, it is commonly misused.
I wonder about the legal aspects of the clarification of the copyright definition? At least in Canada we do not have to worry much. A judge ruled that since photocopiers are not illegal and textbooks or encyclopedias are frequently copied, then it is legal to share music.
Is copyright only supposed to protect against someone claiming rights to something that is not theres? And are anyone out there selling copies of U2 or whatever without paying the band royalties? I believe that is the true issue. However, every movie I see I have to listen to some stuntman say ".. you steal a candybar or download a movie.. someone reaps the benefits with a few clicks of a button.."
So now it is a basis of enjoyment, not copyright. Are people enjoying an artist's work or using someone's program without paying for it? If they are, but they are not claiming it to be their's and selling it to others for a profit, why is that covered under copyright law?
Did you ever think that maybe you are too cynical for your own good?
I am not so easily bought by the media stories. I do not believe CNN or the like. It is wise to question any information you hear, but keeping an open mind is even wiser!
If we do not propose possible causes, even if they are seemingly entertaining, then we may never arrive at the true result. Sometimes the most erratic ideas work the best.
Thank-you for the update. As I mentioned, it was from a lecturer. So I have no idea where he received his information or how accurate it is.
I believe most professors are nuts anyhow. It appears the more intelligent one becomes, the closer to insanity they reach!
There are exceptions to this rule of course.
Back in 1996 I took a Small Business Economics course (cash cow definitions and all that) and the lecturer explained the story behind cold fusion.
Two scientists (physicists I believe) had apparently found Cold Fusion.
Of course, shortly after their claims were made public, one disappeared, the other owns a small island, and 1/3 of their research was missing. With the missing 1/3 many scientists attempted to reconstruct the experiments and concluded that it was not possible and cold fusion did not exist.
But does it not seem coincidental that one of the two suddenly owns an island and the other vanished?
Society changes slowly. A discovery like that, back then when the automobile industry was struggling and slowly recovering, would crumble such a vast infrastructure. Think about it; a new fuel! Would that not put thousands if not tens of thousands out of work? Yes, all those gas stations, oil refineries, mines (for fossil fuels), etc..., all no longer needed. It would be an economical disaster.
Now that it is well known the environment has taken a lot of abuse from fossil fuel usage the possibility of cold fusion reappears. Of course, after all the investment into Hydrogen power and Fuel Cells, we won't see Cold Fusion for a long while.
Just my suspicious/consipiracy theory $0.02 worth!
Hi, I read a portion of the Lonhorn schpeel from MS and I read all of the comments from Mozilla. I am confused though. The Mozilla comments make Longhorn and it's components, file formats, etc.., seem to be this new and amazing, almost impossible to compete with technology.
Is it? I find it difficult that MS has developed several somethings that could cause problems for open source communities. After all I have read about the flaws with Windows(any version) and other MS products, I find it rather odd or almost disturbing to read the Mozilla post.
I sense fear in the post. This seems like a jog back in time to the 80's when people feared about Japan's electronic edge.
I have read on Slashdot so much about MS's buggy, inefficient, poorly patche, and bloated code. How could they suddenly become the inverse of all of that? If they have new technologies about to be released can't we expect the same problems?
Is MS releasing hidden talents and intending to show that not only do they have the money but also the brains to be the biggest sw company in the world?
I am just a little lost.
Oh, and have MS written a brand new kernel for Longhorn? Or is it mostly just modified code from NT/2000/XP?
Spam is different. Spamming is sending out ads to emails without care of whether they want it or not. File sharing is exactly that; sharing files. If someone wants to download something I wrote and am sharing, it is their choice. It is not like I would be sending tonnes of emails containing my music to people.
Sorry, but I do not see the correlation between spam filtering and blocking of copyrighted works from transferring on a filesharing network.
Is it possible that work created by an artist is copyrighted and distributed themselves could be blocked?
If so, can blocking not be considered illegal? They would be blocking an independent artist from distributing their own works and thus potentially limiting their sales.
I think they need a better method of controlling file transfers. The best method is something they should have done a long time ago; create their own COMPLETE distribution network. This network would contain copies of every song from every genre, or at least attempt to. Then a small fee is charged.
The problem with current versions, correct me if I am wrong, is the lack of distribution rights. So if you go to a certain legit website and search for a file, you will not find much because that sight does not have the rights. These people really should stop and think about these rights issues a little more clearly.
While someone on Virgin Records may not want to be released on a site sponsored by TVT Records, they should realize that by combining to a central site or two would be more profitable.
I am sure that if given a fair price (= $1 per song) people would start using those sights. We realize that free-swapping is wrong, but if given a more thorough legit site we may actually do what is right.
What do you think?
Your post makes absolute and total sense. Stealing is stealing, whether it is a ju-jube or a Porche.
I am impressed to see that you would boycott the RIAA and most bands should do the same. Many out there cannot because of contracts.
Let's face it, the RIAA members have money and when you have been starving and trying so hard to scrounge enough money to even buy guitar strings, and some body comes along and fills your head with dollar signs and promises, what would you do?
The Music Industry has been taking advantage of the artists and the consumers since it's economic impact really became significant (1950's with Elvis and later in 1964 with the Beatles and the British Invasion rebellion by the US artists).
I don't purchase much music at all. I limit myself to those artists that I really like. I don't have much money at all (student) but I am more than happy to give it to those I like (Joe Satriani for example).
Most of what I download I already have on cassette or vinyl. It is more convenient to download someone else's CD copy than to record it from a decent tape machine (which I don't have) or from a scratch-filled record on a decent turn table (which I also don't have).
The rest are singles that are not available or come on an album with 10-20 other songs I do not want and for a price I don't find reasonable. That is assuming I can even find a copy of the recording.
If I were in the position of many of the artists who are wrapped up in RIAA member contracts, I'd let them expire or get out in any way that does not legally bind me to the RIAA. Then I would purchase or get a loan to purchase some servers and sell my material for a reasonable price per song ($1 or less) on my own website.
The RIAA would hate that because they would have no control. I would have full control and full income to pay for recording bills, engineer bills, mixing bills, CD production (I would probably manufacture them myself or get a bunch manufactured on an asneeded basis), etc...
But that's just me.
Hi,
In the lab for ECE241 we used GNU Plot to plot the frequency response and dB gain of our various circuits (I can't remember the circuits in detail, but I do recall spending hours going through transfer function derivation and developing gain and frequency response expressions).
It was a rather cool product, though we only used it to plot data. The scripting was quite neat too.
I have to admit, the most impressive program used was LVBode. As I recall, it was inhouse designed. LVBode has several paramters (points, input voltage, frequency ranges, logging to file abilitis) and it takes control of the Agilent Technologies Oscilloscope and Function Generator. The program performs the frequency sweep and plots the gain and frequency response curves.
That would be a neat programming project, and quite a useful one (for circuit designers anyhow).