The trouble is, all publicity is good publicity. Most people probably never heard of the book before this happened, and now that they have, most of them probably won't read it (just like most people don't read most books, not for any specific reason), but a few will. I could see the controversy being entirely intentional.
But that brings true Free Market Capitalism to voting! Imagine, the republic we know and love bolstered by the removal of communism from our voting system! The lazy can just go vote and not make anything of themselves; the resourceful, the enterprising, can $$$GET$RICH$QUICK$$$ off of it!
Also, it could increase voter turnout, especially if competing parties really move to court new voters.
This, I think, is why people at large don't care about the DMCA: it doesn't affect them directly. It's a lot easier for people to swallow that. Not to mention, of course, that it's easier to go after distributers than individual users.
Any bank robber wouldn't care much about a law targeting getaway drivers, and so the common music/movie pirate doesn't care much about a law targeting companies.
(Now one might say the DMCA is more about targeting drivers that could possibly drive a bank robber, and one might also squabble about the definition of stealing, but that's not the point of this post; the point is why people don't care about the DMCA)
There's no reason to support or hate corporations themselves. Support the actions that you like, don't support the actions that you don't like. If enough people do the same as you, it promotes behavior that you like.
(The same is true to an even greater extent with government... and I'd say to a somewhat lesser extent with people.)
Well as far as ink cartridges go, first there are third-party refill kits available, and second, I've had a few Epson inkjets and a few HPs, and the Epsons I've had went through ink like a knife through butter and were much more expensive. They're all a ripoff, laser printers suck. Anyhow...
I haven't known HP to have the most reliable laptops, but that's just from the accounts of friends who buy cheapo ones. Quality is worth paying for, even if it means more money for less clock speed or something like that. Being able to save $60 on the price is no reason to love a laptop.
If you want to test it out on your favorite browser, go to the following URL:
http://openexchange.suse.de/suse/login.pl?doit=l og in&lang=en
It is an online demo of OpenExchange, so you can also see what you think of its interface of course, keeping in mind that it would be a bit more responsive running a server on your own LAN.
It will work with whatever browser you don't *usually* use to browse/. because the problem is with the login system and if you delete your/. cookies and login again it *should* work just fine.
Just like Real, it's not that IBM itself sucks or rocks, it's their actions that suck or rock.
You can't really trust any corporation to act for anything but its own benefit. Right now it must benefit IBM and Real to embrace F/OSS. Well, I guess actually because it's for their benefit it would be more the "OS" than the "F". They could as easily turn around (see SCO) and become "bastards" (to us) for the same basic reason.
(yes, I realize that a company can't undo open-sourcing something, but that doesn't make the company itself a lifetime member of the "Good Guys (tm)")
In the original theory of corporations, yes. Then corporations started to take on the rights of individuals. Now corporations are... whatever they'd like themselves to be.
I've lived in the burbs for most of my life so far; once after taking a bus home from college I was dropped off at a mall about 2 miles from my home, and my ride didn't show so I walked. There was no way to do this that didn't involve walking down the shoulder of a highway and running across onramps (not even a decent median to walk on). Going anywhere at all requires a car.
On the other hand, a lot of my friends in cities with reasonable transit systems haven't learned to drive at 21 years of age.
OK... and what's a good standard that can be what Word documents are? That you can give to someone to edit and then send back to you while preserving formatting?
Frankly, I think an HTML-type language would work great for something like that, and I would just write it by hand in a text-editor, but once someone's automatic markup generator got its filthy hands on it the document's ruined anyway...
Sam's Club/Walmart and their employment practices, from what I've heard, are not good, and those stores, from what I've read, are bad for communities.
Now I've also heard that CompUSA is a bad place to work, and when I walk into a CompUSA store, I can feel that. It doesn't feel like the people working there are happy. But a Walmart, for whatever reason, feels to the shopper like a happy place, like they and the workers are all a big community of saving money. Regardless of the reality of the thing.
It's tricky to figure out just who the good guy is all the time. I've heard that working for Google rocks; I also think they've done good things for Internet advertising and are trying to innovate usefully in all of their lesser-known search projects. Don't think most people really care much about those things, and I don't really think there are that many people who are just dying to escape Microsoft.
I don't own an iPod or use iTMS, so I might not have all my iTerminology right, so bear with me.
If Real can sell music that can be converted to play on the iPod, people can easily get legal downloadable music in a format that plays on iPods and other devices. If a user builds up a huge collection of iTMS music, and then decides to buy a new portable music player, it's much easier to go with an iPod. If the user builds up a huge collection of cross-player Real-supplied downloaded tracks, that user can buy any other player just as easily.
Who cares if they used an iPod? They weren't reverse-engineering the iPod, they were reverse-engineering the DRM.
I don't know much about cleanroom laws, but I'd think it would then be improper if someone in the room had some kind of technical specification of the DRM. Would it be legal for them to have a library of sample Apple DRM files (since they're not really reverse-engineering the files, but the process to make them)?
So then it would become a crime to look at someone?
If you have surveillance good enough to scan somebody's eyes, you should be able to track their actions too. I don't see how this technology would be useful in surveillance unless it indeed was a crime to look at stuff.
If the police can get a picture of a child being abused, shouldn't they be able to get just as good a picture of the abuser with this kind of technology?
And as far as implanting our children goes... hell no. No implanted children. Just no.
Wouldn't the same thing happen to these people as would happen to people with conventional artificial hearts when they die? In the article it says three people in the trial have died so far, and it didn't mention any extraordinary complications... though they probably wouldn't be in the scope of the article anyway.
I'm personally not into elective/cosmetic body modifications (or, frankly, even into things like getting a haircut, me damn hippie), but I have talked with some people that are, and they say the purpose of their modifications is to bring their bodies in line with who they really are.
Such would also be the case with, say, sex-change operations. Or even people that get surgery because they think they have ugly noses (when they think the nose is ugly, it's not even so much their nose anymore as just a nose they can get replaced).
Most people do things intentionally to change who they are. I, for example, run. I wasn't naturally able to run fast, but I practice it so I can. People often change themselves by learning things (i.e., someone who isn't a programmer wants to be a programmer and thus learns to program, turning self into programmer). Sometimes body modification is a way they do that.
DRM means Digital Rights Management. Paper books aren't digital, and thus the term doesn't apply.
Even so, I do agree that if the relationship between e-books and real books was like the relationship between CDs and LPs rather than between DRM MP3s and LPs, I would be more likely to buy. CDs and the availability of digital music haven't killed the music industry, and most serious bookworms that I know aren't going to rip off the authors that they love (reading takes a lot more effort than listening to music the way that most people listen to music, and the serious readers that read the most books have tremendous respect and appreciation for their authors).
Publishers (in this case, but in general anyone that sells anyone anything) don't have a right to anything until they actually make the sale. Same goes for consumers. If the publishers' statement of their rights goes farther than the consumers will accept, the publishers won't sell much and will have lots of rights over very few items and can't make much money anyway. On the other hand, if they can give up some of those "rights", make a profit, and by being less restrictive encourage more people to buy, they can make more money. Sellers will do what they have to do to make money regardless of what it means for their "rights".
Slashdot Mirror
The trouble is, all publicity is good publicity. Most people probably never heard of the book before this happened, and now that they have, most of them probably won't read it (just like most people don't read most books, not for any specific reason), but a few will. I could see the controversy being entirely intentional.
I think by "not registered" your parent (my grandparent) is saying that the trademark was not registered.
Aren't absentee ballots usually not counted until after the election is pretty much determined anyway?
I suppose a significant number of absentee ballots might shake up the system a little, but it would have to be a very significant number.
But that brings true Free Market Capitalism to voting! Imagine, the republic we know and love bolstered by the removal of communism from our voting system! The lazy can just go vote and not make anything of themselves; the resourceful, the enterprising, can $$$GET$RICH$QUICK$$$ off of it!
Also, it could increase voter turnout, especially if competing parties really move to court new voters.
w00t!
Why bother with the Google toolbar? I've been using Gator for that since Windows 95!
This, I think, is why people at large don't care about the DMCA: it doesn't affect them directly. It's a lot easier for people to swallow that. Not to mention, of course, that it's easier to go after distributers than individual users.
Any bank robber wouldn't care much about a law targeting getaway drivers, and so the common music/movie pirate doesn't care much about a law targeting companies.
(Now one might say the DMCA is more about targeting drivers that could possibly drive a bank robber, and one might also squabble about the definition of stealing, but that's not the point of this post; the point is why people don't care about the DMCA)
There's no reason to support or hate corporations themselves. Support the actions that you like, don't support the actions that you don't like. If enough people do the same as you, it promotes behavior that you like.
(The same is true to an even greater extent with government... and I'd say to a somewhat lesser extent with people.)
Well as far as ink cartridges go, first there are third-party refill kits available, and second, I've had a few Epson inkjets and a few HPs, and the Epsons I've had went through ink like a knife through butter and were much more expensive. They're all a ripoff, laser printers suck. Anyhow...
I haven't known HP to have the most reliable laptops, but that's just from the accounts of friends who buy cheapo ones. Quality is worth paying for, even if it means more money for less clock speed or something like that. Being able to save $60 on the price is no reason to love a laptop.
If you want to test it out on your favorite browser, go to the following URL:
l og in&lang=en
http://openexchange.suse.de/suse/login.pl?doit=
It is an online demo of OpenExchange, so you can also see what you think of its interface of course, keeping in mind that it would be a bit more responsive running a server on your own LAN.
It will work with whatever browser you don't *usually* use to browse /. because the problem is with the login system and if you delete your /. cookies and login again it *should* work just fine.
Just like Real, it's not that IBM itself sucks or rocks, it's their actions that suck or rock.
You can't really trust any corporation to act for anything but its own benefit. Right now it must benefit IBM and Real to embrace F/OSS. Well, I guess actually because it's for their benefit it would be more the "OS" than the "F". They could as easily turn around (see SCO) and become "bastards" (to us) for the same basic reason.
(yes, I realize that a company can't undo open-sourcing something, but that doesn't make the company itself a lifetime member of the "Good Guys (tm)")
In the original theory of corporations, yes. Then corporations started to take on the rights of individuals. Now corporations are... whatever they'd like themselves to be.
Well he couldn't have done that back in my daddy's day...
I've lived in the burbs for most of my life so far; once after taking a bus home from college I was dropped off at a mall about 2 miles from my home, and my ride didn't show so I walked. There was no way to do this that didn't involve walking down the shoulder of a highway and running across onramps (not even a decent median to walk on). Going anywhere at all requires a car.
On the other hand, a lot of my friends in cities with reasonable transit systems haven't learned to drive at 21 years of age.
The planes have flown into the Blue Sky of Death?
OK... and what's a good standard that can be what Word documents are? That you can give to someone to edit and then send back to you while preserving formatting?
Frankly, I think an HTML-type language would work great for something like that, and I would just write it by hand in a text-editor, but once someone's automatic markup generator got its filthy hands on it the document's ruined anyway...
Sam's Club/Walmart and their employment practices, from what I've heard, are not good, and those stores, from what I've read, are bad for communities.
Now I've also heard that CompUSA is a bad place to work, and when I walk into a CompUSA store, I can feel that. It doesn't feel like the people working there are happy. But a Walmart, for whatever reason, feels to the shopper like a happy place, like they and the workers are all a big community of saving money. Regardless of the reality of the thing.
It's tricky to figure out just who the good guy is all the time. I've heard that working for Google rocks; I also think they've done good things for Internet advertising and are trying to innovate usefully in all of their lesser-known search projects. Don't think most people really care much about those things, and I don't really think there are that many people who are just dying to escape Microsoft.
I don't own an iPod or use iTMS, so I might not have all my iTerminology right, so bear with me.
If Real can sell music that can be converted to play on the iPod, people can easily get legal downloadable music in a format that plays on iPods and other devices. If a user builds up a huge collection of iTMS music, and then decides to buy a new portable music player, it's much easier to go with an iPod. If the user builds up a huge collection of cross-player Real-supplied downloaded tracks, that user can buy any other player just as easily.
Who cares if they used an iPod? They weren't reverse-engineering the iPod, they were reverse-engineering the DRM.
I don't know much about cleanroom laws, but I'd think it would then be improper if someone in the room had some kind of technical specification of the DRM. Would it be legal for them to have a library of sample Apple DRM files (since they're not really reverse-engineering the files, but the process to make them)?
So then it would become a crime to look at someone?
If you have surveillance good enough to scan somebody's eyes, you should be able to track their actions too. I don't see how this technology would be useful in surveillance unless it indeed was a crime to look at stuff.
If the police can get a picture of a child being abused, shouldn't they be able to get just as good a picture of the abuser with this kind of technology?
And as far as implanting our children goes... hell no. No implanted children. Just no.
Wouldn't the same thing happen to these people as would happen to people with conventional artificial hearts when they die? In the article it says three people in the trial have died so far, and it didn't mention any extraordinary complications... though they probably wouldn't be in the scope of the article anyway.
I'm personally not into elective/cosmetic body modifications (or, frankly, even into things like getting a haircut, me damn hippie), but I have talked with some people that are, and they say the purpose of their modifications is to bring their bodies in line with who they really are.
Such would also be the case with, say, sex-change operations. Or even people that get surgery because they think they have ugly noses (when they think the nose is ugly, it's not even so much their nose anymore as just a nose they can get replaced).
Most people do things intentionally to change who they are. I, for example, run. I wasn't naturally able to run fast, but I practice it so I can. People often change themselves by learning things (i.e., someone who isn't a programmer wants to be a programmer and thus learns to program, turning self into programmer). Sometimes body modification is a way they do that.
DRM means Digital Rights Management. Paper books aren't digital, and thus the term doesn't apply.
Even so, I do agree that if the relationship between e-books and real books was like the relationship between CDs and LPs rather than between DRM MP3s and LPs, I would be more likely to buy. CDs and the availability of digital music haven't killed the music industry, and most serious bookworms that I know aren't going to rip off the authors that they love (reading takes a lot more effort than listening to music the way that most people listen to music, and the serious readers that read the most books have tremendous respect and appreciation for their authors).
Publishers (in this case, but in general anyone that sells anyone anything) don't have a right to anything until they actually make the sale. Same goes for consumers. If the publishers' statement of their rights goes farther than the consumers will accept, the publishers won't sell much and will have lots of rights over very few items and can't make much money anyway. On the other hand, if they can give up some of those "rights", make a profit, and by being less restrictive encourage more people to buy, they can make more money. Sellers will do what they have to do to make money regardless of what it means for their "rights".