Some of us can't get decent medical insurance at any price, thru no fault of our own. I have a medical problem that will kill me one day - probably within the next ten years or so, I've already way outlived the estimates the doctors gave me when I was a kid - and have been denied coverage because of it.
I would like to say that I admire the courage and strength it must take to prove all the doctors wrong every day by surviving and prospering. I believe that the same recent health care reform law that introduced the $950 tax for not having medical insurance has also made it so that you cannot be denied coverage because of your preexisting condition, which has always been a ridiculous dodge used by greedy insurance companies. As a result, there is hope that you WILL be able to get "decent medical insurance", though it remains to be seen at what price. I don't believe that the parent was talking about people who are unable to get medical coverage like you, only people like the GP who when offered it (and can afford it) choose not to get coverage, then (for some unknown reason) expect that the rest of us will pick up the tab when misfortune takes them to $PUBLIC_HOSPITAL for a liver transplant ($235K), and forget that while they're getting it, they'll be out of work (and still paying for electricity, heat, mortgage, property tax, food), plus they'll be on $20,000/yr worth of anti-rejection meds, too.
I'm not rich, but neither am I poor, and I work hard. Really damned hard. I'm reasonably intelligent and raised a daughter on my fucking own who has turned out to be one helluva lot better person than her old man ever dreamed of being. I volunteer my time and labor when others need it, and live well within my means because I think that greed is one of the worst problems in society.
And this is why denying you participation in health insurance is so unconscionable. You should have the ability to responsibly prepare for health emergencies, just like anyone else. That the system ever denied participation to you is a symptom of how broken it has become - and why reform was needed. I don't think what we ended up with was ideal, but I'm all for continued reform as we see what works and what doesn't.
If you're so concerned about some of your tax money going to help out people who are less fortunate than you are, then drop out of society and go live somewhere else on your own - cut your own firewood, kill your own meat, grow your own food - let's see how far you get with that. (BTW, I do all of those and more)
While I'm not the GP, I certainly don't mind some of my tax money going to aid those who are less fortunate. I believe that he was replying to someone who was complaining about paying $950 in taxes for not purchasing health care (when that person had such an option) - primarily because choosing to not purchase health insurance is effectively opting into the system of "last resort", where people who have prepared adequately for their own medical calamities end up footing the bill. The $950/yr isn't a "fine", it's merely the premium of the cheapest health insurance that exists - health insurance with a deductible of $(all your assets). Because we know that once you've run through the $500K in the bank with the transplant and all the meds, they're not going to stop treating you, they're just going to pass the cost along to everyone else.
Sure, there are freeloaders out there. But they are a far smaller percentage of the population than the wags on Fox News and the tea party idiots would have everyone believe.
I agree. But being denied health insurance doesn't make you a freeloader, it makes you a victim of a greedy system. Having the option to get health insurance, turning it down, and then expecting that when you run out of assets, the system will continue to provide health care anyway - that would be what the GP was talking about. I believe he was trying to illustr
But even though they're not private information of yours I would not have the right to widely distribute them, either free or for money.
That's a good point, though I think if you posted it up in sections with commentary, and without financial motive, you might have a good argument for fair use. That kind of legal threat is clearly a intended to silence public discourse, not to protect some lawfirm's property. I'm not alone in that thinking, but who knows where such a thing would actually end up. While I could find references to the threat of a suit over publishing C&D letters, I didn't actually find the outcome of any such action. The threat itself is the chilling effect, though.
Does this mean that people who get nasty cease-and-desist letters from lawyers are in the wrong for posting them publicly?
Well, I have no actual expertise here, but if we assume for a moment that the post from Nick Ives above with the little bit from the first amendment center is reasonably on target:
Generally, the material published must be private information that "is not of legitimate concern to the public." Its disclosure must also be "highly offensive to a reasonable person."... The pressing question in public disclosure of private-facts cases is whether the information is newsworthy or of legitimate concern to the public.... "The right to privacy does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest."
I would think you'd at least have a decent shot at arguing that a cease-and-desist letter IS something of public or general interest. I don't know if the courts would agree with me, but I think the public has a right to know when the threat of civil or criminal prosecution is being used to coerce someone's actions. I don't know how you can bring the people (i.e. the courts) into your threat without making it the people's "concern".
I hate to tempt fate, but I own two D-Link DI-524 broadband router/WAPs (for over 3 years now), and I never reboot them. And I think I've only rebooted my Actiontec router 2 or 3 times since getting it over a year ago. I leave them all on 24/7. Do I lead a charmed existence? Or am I one of the "silent majority"?
Several techie friends say they have gotten their copper left active with a FIOS install by ordering "Data Only FIOS" by phone (not online), and being VERY persistent, both in ordering and at install time. YMMV.
I accidentally got my ex's copper left active because I still had the phone account in my name when she got the FIOS installed in her name, so there was an active phone number on the copper that they didn't have permission to touch.
My experience here in southeast PA was that they left the copper in without much urging. I had two lines to the house, one that was active with phone and DSL, and one that was dormant (and under a different name when last in use). They asked about the lines, and I told them that I sometimes have house mates that want their own phone lines. The technician said, "then we'll leave it" and the copper (both lines and the TNI) are still attached to the house (and the pole). No arguments, no pressure... Your (last) mileage may vary.
As for WinFS wasn't some form of that originally planned for windows 95? Nice joke but you kind of shot yourself in the foot
Originally planned for Windows 95? I think he's talking about this WinFS, originally demonstrated by MS in 2003. I don't think Microsoft was planning anything for Windows 95 in 2003, unless it was using left over install CDs as coasters!
I was asking in the context of already having a (theoretical) four nines landline and two nines cell phone (actual reliability I don't know). The chance of having a heart attack at the same time as your four nines land line and your two nines landline are both not working is what? I suppose there are some pathological cases, maybe if you're extremely high risk -- but then that's not everyone (not even close). I buy health, auto, and homeowners insurance because it makes statistical sense. I don't think this makes sense. In my opinion, paying for a six nines landline ought to be optional -- you can calculate the risk and pay whatever you want.
Ah, according to Joshua Kerievsky, Cunningham calls it Design Debt. I probably should have gone to the source... Here's the earliest thoughts I could find from Cunningham on the subject (1992), I guess he called it neither of them:
Another, more serious pitfall is the failure to consolidate. Although immature code may work fine and be completely acceptable to the customer, excess quantities will make a program unmasterable, leading to extreme specialization of programmers and finally an inflexible product. Shipping first time code is like going into debt. A little debt speeds development so long as it is paid back promptly with a rewrite. Objects make the cost of this transaction tolerable. The danger occurs when the debt is not repaid. Every minute spent on not-quite-right code counts as interest on that debt. Entire engineering organizations can be brought to a stand-still under the debt load of an unconsolidated implementation, object- oriented or otherwise.
There is little doubt that Wyatt Software will continue to employ object technology. Thoroughly versed in the leading object-oriented languages, our only decision is how best to employ their advantages. The traditional waterfall development cycle has endeavored to avoid programming catastrophy by working out a program in detail before programming begins. We watch with some interest as the community attempts to apply these techniques to objects. However, using our debt analogy, we recognize this amounts to preserving the concept of payment up-front and in-full. The modularity offered by objects and the practice of consolidation make the alternative, incremental growth, both feasible and desirable (but not always comfortable) in the competitive financial software market.
Apparently he's extended the metaphor over time, and used it to close a conference in 2001. Some wiki pages by others call Design Debt a type of Technical Debt. A small group of us where I work are trying to get the concept recognized -- we have a LOT of legacy code toting a US treasury sized debt around, but "it works".
If you were really THAT concerned, and savvy enough to keep a corded phone around, the power supply on the FIOS equipment takes 1 amp at 48 volts from its power supply. I don't know how much the power supply loses in converting to the 48v, but I bet you could run it with the power put out by one of these (< $20, free shipping), and an extension cord to your car. A solution not readily available back when always on POTS was "REALLY REALLY REALLY" important in a blackout. Better start the engine from time to time, though.
Seriously, six nines costs a lot of money -- is it really necessary? We have a lot of redundant technology that we didn't have before. If my land phone is out, I have a cell phone. If the land phone goes to 4 nines, and I have a 2 nines cell phone (disclaimer: numbers are rectal extractions for illustration purposes only), as a system, that would be 6 nines (.0001 x.01 for double outage). Would it be OK for the phone company to charge extra for the 6 nines POTS and let those happy with 4 pay less? Verizon is competing with companies that don't offer six nines to a public that doesn't want (or perhaps doesn't know they want) six nines. They are offering a product at the same level (arguably better) of service as their competitors.
So 800% is a bit extreme. What about 50% then? Or 25%? Even a moderate increase in the rate will net Verizon significant profit, while not significantly impacting their user base. And, if they don't have to open up to competitors, Verizon can slowly crank up rates, netting huge profits for themselves without spooking the users.
Comcast has had that kind of monopoly here for years on TV, and yet Verizon, despite being required to lease their copper lines to competitors and having Comcast compete with VoIP and internet on coax, invested the money to bring fiber to all the houses in the area. Where this is really a problem is where there isn't that mostly parallel infrastructure (usually cable TV provider owned). I'd guess, though, that Verizon is likely targeting FIOS to areas that already have cable TV -- mainly because that's where the customer density is high enough to make it practical. And if Verizon raises the price unreasonably, the cable companies will gladly welcome the customers back. I know Comcast has been calling, and has gone as far as holding a consumer panel in the area recently.
Am I off base here? Are there a lot of people who have FIOS available in their area, but no cable TV provider that also offers internet / phone?
Let's say Verizon decides to raise the rates on the FiOS service by 800%. What are you going to do then?
Your first instinct would be to switch providers, but you can't do that because you don't have infrastructure the competitors can use going to your house.
Hmmm. I guess that'd be possible, though if they upped the rates 800%, I'd invite the Comcast people back in (dropped them for FIOS when the TV service became available) and get phone service from them, or by VoIP on top of their internet, or maybe drop land line phone altogether. I know not everyone has those options, though.
Honestly, I'm seeing Verizon (here in SE PA) as finally taking on the effective monopoly of Comcast, just on TV service instead of phone. And, I'm hoping that the two of them remain competitors fighting for my business for a long time. I hope that will keep either one of them from thinking 800% increases are acceptable.
Also it is stated numerous times if you do any research on the internet. I also heard that if you request it, they will keep the copper lines intact. I didn't really care, I never used the copper lines in the 2 years I had been in my house anyway, so they can disconnect whatever they want.
I don't recall the sales people telling us this was the standard procedure, which is bad. But like you, I researched on the 'net before making the switch and I saw it mentioned everywhere. Then, when the installers came, they noted the second line that was present (but not in use) and asked me about it. When I said it was inactive but used recently by my roommate, they said they'd leave the copper, just in case. It seems they can't provide two separately billed residential POTS lines on one FIOS account right now. No argument from them, and I expect I can switch back if I want, though I have no incentive to do so right now. So far, FIOS has been great across the board. Their POTS sounds even better than on the old copper, has no 911 issues, and they install a battery backup for it. In the event of an emergency with a power outage longer than the battery life (extremely rare, at least around here), I guess I can plug the battery backup unit into the cigarette-lighter inverter ( $20) in my car to make any calls that don't work on my cell phone. That's no worse than the fact that I have to plug the cordless phone base station in, too -- or dig through the basement to find the one old corded phone I still own.
Depends on the statute. The way the one in Pennsylvania is worded (it came up in a/. article a day or two ago), no actual recording has to be made - "interception" is sufficient to run afoul of the law.
Here's the link to the PA statute:
CHAPTER 57. Wiretapping And Electronic Surveillance
It DOES sound like it could be considered "intercepting" and also "intentional use". Especially if some DA can interpret it to mean that videotaping in a public place falls under the same law. Of course, IANAL, YMMV, etc.
Well, you can read it for yourself (sec 5703). It sure reads like the act of making the recording is the illegal act. But the big-box places don't record sound, so they're OK. And, I guess you'd be OK, too, if you disabled the audio capability.
It's the school's network, the RIAA is actually on their tails trying (however illegally or immorally) to punish their students, and they have every right to restrict the use of file sharing services on their network.
I am in 100% aggreement if the students are free to obtain internet service independently. On the other hand, when I was on campus (OK, a few years ago, I admit), we were unable to contract for our own phone service, cable TV, or internet (not that there were lots of options for ISPs at the time.) We were locked into the service the campus provided, or dialup over the (aweful) phone service that was provided for us. Moving out wasn't always an option, since you were required to live in the dorms for certain periods (freshman residence requirements.) In those situations, I think the University ought to be obligated to operate as the common carriers they lock out.
If students can get service from area ISPs, however, why should the school be shouldering the burden of their bandwidth wasting (and often illegal) file sharing habits? If the school locks the students in, however, I say they ought not to restrict use of protocols that have legitimate use.
Of course, now with the internet their efforts to lock up the major distribution channels are starting to fail, so they are flailing wildly in an attempt to gain control over this new and unexpected threat. So far, they seem to be having some trouble, and I hope it continues that way.
I hope internet radio isn't part of the new and unexpected threat, since recent changes in royalty rules (retroactive to 1-Jan) are going to put most of those independent outlets off-the-net.
It won't teach you to program in C#, but it will explain why things are the way they are, and give you a lot of good rules to keep you from making bad mistakes. Especially if you want to make reusable libraries, but even if not.
When music files are available on a website, which format makes you happiest?
I'd like one lossless (I'd prefer FLAC) and the lossy form of your choice (I suggest OGG at a decent bitrate, but if you feel comfortable with MP3, that's fine). I will grab the FLAC and encode to OGG myself if I need it compressed.
Will I still have my fair use rights? Will I be able to take a 3 second fair-use sample and attach it to my research paper multimedia presentation on vulgarity in contemporary culture?
Under United States copyright law as interpreted in the DeCSS cases such as Universal v. Reimerdes, fair use doesn't have to be convenient or full quality in order to be constitutionally sufficient. Line-out is still available.
I was unfamilar with that particular aspect of the DeCSS rulings, so I appreciate the information. Still, in this case we were discussing what we thought Mr. Chiariglione position was on DRM, and appleguru felt Chiariglione's position was that "[it is] the unfair enforcement of such DRM that is [evil]." While it may actually be legal, I would still say I feel it is unfair (and therefore, if he interpreted the position correct, evil). Just because it is legal, doesn't make it the right direction for the industry to go. They could decide to sell each song with its own disposable player that allowed no attachment to any home stereo equipment, and it would be legal, but no one would ever want it (I hope!) I don't want a product that makes it that difficult to exercise my fair use rights, no matter how legal it might be. If the industry wants to know what I want to buy, it's non-DRM (protection) encumbered content.
DRM isn't necessarily evil; it's the unfair enforcement of such DRM that is, which is his main point. He's also saying also that a standard unencrypted mp3 can have DRM merely by being bound by a license agreement; it's once you start employing a digital means to enforce those terms that DRM begins to become intrusive.
Mr. Chiariglione differentiates between DRM (management), which would be that unencrypted MP3 with license notice attached, and DRM (protection) which enforces.
Chiariglione goes on to talk about open DRM standards and how the music industry should adopt one to promote interoperability.
And when he does, it seems to me that he's in favor of the (protection) form, because here's what he says (from TFA):
Indeed most people are unaware that this 20-year old communication system is based on a very sophisticated DRM (protection) technology that has been standardised by ETSI which also handles the governance.
and then soon after:
The way to go is to have a standard system like the one used in GSM that anybody can practical implement and anybody can use to enjoy the content that they legitimately purchase.
Now, I could be misreading that, but if he says GSM is based on DRM (protection) and music content should use a system like the one used in GSM, then he is advocating DRM (protection), isn't he? So doesn't that land us in the same-old-situation where at some point, my DRM (protection) encumbered content will be inaccessable to me? Will I still have my fair use rights? Will I be able to take a 3 second fair-use sample and attach it to my research paper multimedia presentation on vulgarity in contemporary culture? If the answer is no, I would call that "unfair enforcement".
It has already been established that DRM is bad. It doesn't work and it hurts everybody.
Not true! It doesn't hurt the snake-oil-salesmen who peddle the DRM technologies! They're getting rich off of selling a product they can't possibly believe will work for more than a few hours. I don't get how anyone falls for it anymore, but I guess Barnum was basically right, even if he had the frequency a little low.
Mr. Chiariglione suggests GSM as a model of an open standard that everyone has been using for years to perform sophisticated DRM. I don't know much about GSM, but when I enter into a service agreement with a communications provider, I am doing so for live communications. Perhaps the market is morphing to providing content on mobile phones, but the success of GSM was not built on that model. I pay my mobile phone service provider monthly for access to their network, and if my phone was to stop working because my provider locked me out of their network, I would stop paying them. The agreement would be at an end, and there wouldn't be any content locked in the DRM that I want. I'm not paying them for the right to use their network in perpetuity. On the other hand, I purchase CDs and DVDs so that I may enjoy the content FOREVER. I do not pay them monthly to keep listening to the music or watching the movies, and I am not willing to enter into that sort of agreement. DRM on my music or video content is locking ME away from the content I have legally licensed, especially if the vendors disappear. So while the DRM in GSM might be acceptable, it is not acceptable on the content I purchase.
Re:Becuase People don't know what they want!
on
Why Software is Hard
·
· Score: 3, Funny
And then, just as you finish the car, with wheels on top, hybrid Ferrari/DeLorean door, as requested, the customer reveals that it must travel up a smooth vertical surface and carry 2000 people. Sorry, did you need to know that earlier? Oh, and it has to provide oxygen, heat and cooling. What do you mean that will cost more? Product launch is March 1 and we've already been advertising the new system and hired all the new drivers! This will cost us billions, you stupid developers this is all your fault!
Slashdot Mirror
Some of us can't get decent medical insurance at any price, thru no fault of our own. I have a medical problem that will kill me one day - probably within the next ten years or so, I've already way outlived the estimates the doctors gave me when I was a kid - and have been denied coverage because of it.
I would like to say that I admire the courage and strength it must take to prove all the doctors wrong every day by surviving and prospering. I believe that the same recent health care reform law that introduced the $950 tax for not having medical insurance has also made it so that you cannot be denied coverage because of your preexisting condition, which has always been a ridiculous dodge used by greedy insurance companies. As a result, there is hope that you WILL be able to get "decent medical insurance", though it remains to be seen at what price. I don't believe that the parent was talking about people who are unable to get medical coverage like you, only people like the GP who when offered it (and can afford it) choose not to get coverage, then (for some unknown reason) expect that the rest of us will pick up the tab when misfortune takes them to $PUBLIC_HOSPITAL for a liver transplant ($235K), and forget that while they're getting it, they'll be out of work (and still paying for electricity, heat, mortgage, property tax, food), plus they'll be on $20,000/yr worth of anti-rejection meds, too.
I'm not rich, but neither am I poor, and I work hard. Really damned hard. I'm reasonably intelligent and raised a daughter on my fucking own who has turned out to be one helluva lot better person than her old man ever dreamed of being. I volunteer my time and labor when others need it, and live well within my means because I think that greed is one of the worst problems in society.
And this is why denying you participation in health insurance is so unconscionable. You should have the ability to responsibly prepare for health emergencies, just like anyone else. That the system ever denied participation to you is a symptom of how broken it has become - and why reform was needed. I don't think what we ended up with was ideal, but I'm all for continued reform as we see what works and what doesn't.
If you're so concerned about some of your tax money going to help out people who are less fortunate than you are, then drop out of society and go live somewhere else on your own - cut your own firewood, kill your own meat, grow your own food - let's see how far you get with that. (BTW, I do all of those and more)
While I'm not the GP, I certainly don't mind some of my tax money going to aid those who are less fortunate. I believe that he was replying to someone who was complaining about paying $950 in taxes for not purchasing health care (when that person had such an option) - primarily because choosing to not purchase health insurance is effectively opting into the system of "last resort", where people who have prepared adequately for their own medical calamities end up footing the bill. The $950/yr isn't a "fine", it's merely the premium of the cheapest health insurance that exists - health insurance with a deductible of $(all your assets). Because we know that once you've run through the $500K in the bank with the transplant and all the meds, they're not going to stop treating you, they're just going to pass the cost along to everyone else.
Sure, there are freeloaders out there. But they are a far smaller percentage of the population than the wags on Fox News and the tea party idiots would have everyone believe.
I agree. But being denied health insurance doesn't make you a freeloader, it makes you a victim of a greedy system. Having the option to get health insurance, turning it down, and then expecting that when you run out of assets, the system will continue to provide health care anyway - that would be what the GP was talking about. I believe he was trying to illustr
But even though they're not private information of yours I would not have the right to widely distribute them, either free or for money.
That's a good point, though I think if you posted it up in sections with commentary, and without financial motive, you might have a good argument for fair use. That kind of legal threat is clearly a intended to silence public discourse, not to protect some lawfirm's property. I'm not alone in that thinking, but who knows where such a thing would actually end up. While I could find references to the threat of a suit over publishing C&D letters, I didn't actually find the outcome of any such action. The threat itself is the chilling effect, though.
Does this mean that people who get nasty cease-and-desist letters from lawyers are in the wrong for posting them publicly?
Well, I have no actual expertise here, but if we assume for a moment that the post from Nick Ives above with the little bit from the first amendment center is reasonably on target:
Generally, the material published must be private information that "is not of legitimate concern to the public." Its disclosure must also be "highly offensive to a reasonable person." ... The pressing question in public disclosure of private-facts cases is whether the information is newsworthy or of legitimate concern to the public. ... "The right to privacy does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest."
I would think you'd at least have a decent shot at arguing that a cease-and-desist letter IS something of public or general interest. I don't know if the courts would agree with me, but I think the public has a right to know when the threat of civil or criminal prosecution is being used to coerce someone's actions. I don't know how you can bring the people (i.e. the courts) into your threat without making it the people's "concern".
I hate to tempt fate, but I own two D-Link DI-524 broadband router/WAPs (for over 3 years now), and I never reboot them. And I think I've only rebooted my Actiontec router 2 or 3 times since getting it over a year ago. I leave them all on 24/7. Do I lead a charmed existence? Or am I one of the "silent majority"?
Originally planned for Windows 95? I think he's talking about this WinFS, originally demonstrated by MS in 2003. I don't think Microsoft was planning anything for Windows 95 in 2003, unless it was using left over install CDs as coasters!
I was asking in the context of already having a (theoretical) four nines landline and two nines cell phone (actual reliability I don't know). The chance of having a heart attack at the same time as your four nines land line and your two nines landline are both not working is what? I suppose there are some pathological cases, maybe if you're extremely high risk -- but then that's not everyone (not even close). I buy health, auto, and homeowners insurance because it makes statistical sense. I don't think this makes sense. In my opinion, paying for a six nines landline ought to be optional -- you can calculate the risk and pay whatever you want.
Apparently he's extended the metaphor over time, and used it to close a conference in 2001. Some wiki pages by others call Design Debt a type of Technical Debt. A small group of us where I work are trying to get the concept recognized -- we have a LOT of legacy code toting a US treasury sized debt around, but "it works".
I'm not 100% sure if cruft is a layman's term for Design Debt, or if Design Debt is just one type of cruft, but they're definitely related.
Seriously, six nines costs a lot of money -- is it really necessary? We have a lot of redundant technology that we didn't have before. If my land phone is out, I have a cell phone. If the land phone goes to 4 nines, and I have a 2 nines cell phone (disclaimer: numbers are rectal extractions for illustration purposes only), as a system, that would be 6 nines (.0001 x .01 for double outage). Would it be OK for the phone company to charge extra for the 6 nines POTS and let those happy with 4 pay less? Verizon is competing with companies that don't offer six nines to a public that doesn't want (or perhaps doesn't know they want) six nines. They are offering a product at the same level (arguably better) of service as their competitors.
Am I off base here? Are there a lot of people who have FIOS available in their area, but no cable TV provider that also offers internet / phone?
Honestly, I'm seeing Verizon (here in SE PA) as finally taking on the effective monopoly of Comcast, just on TV service instead of phone. And, I'm hoping that the two of them remain competitors fighting for my business for a long time. I hope that will keep either one of them from thinking 800% increases are acceptable.
I don't recall the sales people telling us this was the standard procedure, which is bad. But like you, I researched on the 'net before making the switch and I saw it mentioned everywhere. Then, when the installers came, they noted the second line that was present (but not in use) and asked me about it. When I said it was inactive but used recently by my roommate, they said they'd leave the copper, just in case. It seems they can't provide two separately billed residential POTS lines on one FIOS account right now. No argument from them, and I expect I can switch back if I want, though I have no incentive to do so right now. So far, FIOS has been great across the board. Their POTS sounds even better than on the old copper, has no 911 issues, and they install a battery backup for it. In the event of an emergency with a power outage longer than the battery life (extremely rare, at least around here), I guess I can plug the battery backup unit into the cigarette-lighter inverter ( $20) in my car to make any calls that don't work on my cell phone. That's no worse than the fact that I have to plug the cordless phone base station in, too -- or dig through the basement to find the one old corded phone I still own.
Well, you can read it for yourself (sec 5703). It sure reads like the act of making the recording is the illegal act. But the big-box places don't record sound, so they're OK. And, I guess you'd be OK, too, if you disabled the audio capability.
I am in 100% aggreement if the students are free to obtain internet service independently. On the other hand, when I was on campus (OK, a few years ago, I admit), we were unable to contract for our own phone service, cable TV, or internet (not that there were lots of options for ISPs at the time.) We were locked into the service the campus provided, or dialup over the (aweful) phone service that was provided for us. Moving out wasn't always an option, since you were required to live in the dorms for certain periods (freshman residence requirements.) In those situations, I think the University ought to be obligated to operate as the common carriers they lock out.
If students can get service from area ISPs, however, why should the school be shouldering the burden of their bandwidth wasting (and often illegal) file sharing habits? If the school locks the students in, however, I say they ought not to restrict use of protocols that have legitimate use.
I hope internet radio isn't part of the new and unexpected threat, since recent changes in royalty rules (retroactive to 1-Jan) are going to put most of those independent outlets off-the-net.
Framework Design Guidelines
It won't teach you to program in C#, but it will explain why things are the way they are, and give you a lot of good rules to keep you from making bad mistakes. Especially if you want to make reusable libraries, but even if not.
Mr. Chiariglione suggests GSM as a model of an open standard that everyone has been using for years to perform sophisticated DRM. I don't know much about GSM, but when I enter into a service agreement with a communications provider, I am doing so for live communications. Perhaps the market is morphing to providing content on mobile phones, but the success of GSM was not built on that model. I pay my mobile phone service provider monthly for access to their network, and if my phone was to stop working because my provider locked me out of their network, I would stop paying them. The agreement would be at an end, and there wouldn't be any content locked in the DRM that I want. I'm not paying them for the right to use their network in perpetuity. On the other hand, I purchase CDs and DVDs so that I may enjoy the content FOREVER. I do not pay them monthly to keep listening to the music or watching the movies, and I am not willing to enter into that sort of agreement. DRM on my music or video content is locking ME away from the content I have legally licensed, especially if the vendors disappear. So while the DRM in GSM might be acceptable, it is not acceptable on the content I purchase.
And then, just as you finish the car, with wheels on top, hybrid Ferrari/DeLorean door, as requested, the customer reveals that it must travel up a smooth vertical surface and carry 2000 people. Sorry, did you need to know that earlier? Oh, and it has to provide oxygen, heat and cooling. What do you mean that will cost more? Product launch is March 1 and we've already been advertising the new system and hired all the new drivers! This will cost us billions, you stupid developers this is all your fault!