"If the USA doesn't like living in a world where there are multiple countries to deal with, they can just close their borders and shut down their trade. Noone will miss them."
It seems more likely that the world doesn't like living in a world where there people own the things they pay for and develop.
When I go from AAC to CD I do not gain or lose quality. It remains the same. However, when I RE-RIP the CD, which Im going to do because I want my music on my PC, if I compress it, which I also must do unless I want huge WAV files, I will lose quality.
Files on iTunes are compressed. CDs are digital, considerably higher quality, and DRMless. The compromise should be that Im paying almost as much as a real CD for compressed music in a non-tangible form. It should NOT and I repeat NOT restrict what music player I can play it on, forcing me to sacrifice quality if I want to play what I bought on a non-iPod.
But then that system is no less abusive than any other.
What consitutes as distribution or publishing? If Im spending 10 years to write a book can I let no one look at it to edit it? The moment I send them the file, its public domain since only copyright right now protects that person from abusing it instead of just editing it.
Content creators are often teams of people. What stops one of them from running off and abusing the work the team created without copyright? Right now, the copyright is owned by the team so if one of them runs off and says, sells the content and makes millions and doesn't share, it's illegal. Without copyright, those copies of the content the team is passing back and forth are now public domain.
Unless you believe in instituting another different system to protect works "unpublished" and then what consitutes as unpublished.
Why does the screenwriter have to enter a contract with the film company? Why cant the film company use the script regardless of whether or not the screenwriter wants them too.
As soon as one writes it, its public domain. What stops ME from publishing your work w/o your consent and making 100% of the profit?
Scenario. I spend 10 years writing a book. My friend comes over and finds the doc on my computer. It's public domain of course since there's no copyright. I then email the doc to myself. I then "sell its release" and make a ton of money because the book is really good.
Scenario 2. Im very very poor. I have an awesome movie script. I spend 2 years writing the script. I have no money to make the movie myself, Im poor. I go to a corporation who does have money in order to fund the movie. They take my script and make a movie based on it and pay me nothing due to the fact that there is no copyright.
We need a system to pay for *content* otherwise there will be no content creaters. Tell me exactly how someone could sell their script to a movie company w/o copyright?
How would one EVER sell a book if the contents of that book were public domain? It would be trivial for one person to buy the book and give it away to the world. Hell, without copyright laws he could even brag about it, under sell the content creator, etc etc
This isn't a valid arguement. Decoding and reencoding in a different format can only lower quality. Furthermore, its an extra step that should NOT have to be taken.
Imagine this world.
Sony releases a CD Player. There are other CD players out there, but Sony's is the most popular. Sony then puts out a CD selling store that also becomes the most popular. If you buy a CD in the Sony store it will only play on a Sony player. The other CD players won't play Sony CDs. Furthermore, Sony doesn't allow any company (read: DRM since it would be required in this country) to make CDs that work for the player.
Do you not see this as a problem. If my suggested solution to it was to record the CDs to cassette, then reburn the CD, would that be feasible? Do 99% of people even know how to do that?
Forcing an iPod to play iTunes songs, and not allowing the competition to sell (i.e. DRM) music that works on an iPod is anti-competitive. The iPod is at this point a monopoly, and Slashdot is hypocritical for not condemning Apple for these practices.
Hell, its not like Microsoft disabled the ability to install Netscape...
The lights of the EQ are just the coefficients of the transformed signal. This is actually how most compression techniques compress and store digital mediums.
In other words, that form of expressing the signal isn't metadata, it is the data.
The number one reason you havent seen a G5 laptop is heat issues. I don't see any problems running newer and newer x86 CPUs in laptops.
Hell the G5 towers need to be *water* cooled.
Furthermore, while the CISC/RISC business is correct every single report Ive read about the dev OSX86 machines (which are just regular P4s) are that they boot faster, perform faster, and are overall considerably faster than a G5.
If yahoo's additions were primarily non-english they wouldnt be reflected in an english test. If Yahoo added 10 billion non english sites, then this test wouldnt have picked up any of it.
The XBox contains a powerful CPU and a very powerful GPU. Both of these cost money in research, development and production. The cost of an Xbox is not just the cost of its parts. You need to pay your engineers too.
In the days where an expensive GPU costs 500 dollars an expensive CPUs cost over 1000 dollars, comparing the new Xbox to a PC with probably integrated graphics, or at most a GeForce2 and a low end CPU is ridiculous. It's like saying Why cant Alienware sell their machines for $299 like walmart?"
I love gmail, but to claim its faster in *any* thing, other than interface innovations is silly. Yes, you could make arguments like "its faster to find all the email in a thread" but thats due to Google innovating, not due to the inherent speed of Gmail. Click "Inbox" in Outlook or Thunderbird and it *immediately* goes to your inbox, within a split second. Click inbox in gmail and, it, well...loads your inbox, which usually takes over a second. Same thing with compose, etc. About the only thing that I would say is *as* fast is the intelligent contact complete for email, pops up as fast as if it was local. Everything else lags just like the rest of the internet, and I don't care what connection you're on.
The Search Engine has been planned, talked about, and demoed LONG before Apple announced it. I predicted this would happen the very day Apple announced Spotlight
Users was something WinNT did before Windows 2000. Though I agree its a rip from Unix, it's not quite the same function. Users isn't the same as/usr, it's more analogous to/home.
You know what I cant stand. When someone innovates and to counter the innovation someone claims prior art in something that is NOT the same thing.
Fast User Switching. Not User Switching. Fast User Switching lets me, with one keystroke, go to a logon box. This allows someone else to logon. I lose nothing, all of my programs are still active and running. Su isn't the same thing....at all. Su lets you switch users inside a terminal, not the same. No.
Wouldn't make a spec of difference, unless you are extremely extremely lucky.
Each copy is only subtly different, and even if you change yours, youre not going to change BACK any of the changes they made unless youre extremely lucky, to the point of impossible. If they find the copied document, they know all the changes you made because, well, they didnt make them. Thus leaving your original copy intact.
Europeans invented the wheel, and Americans made their *own* wheels
Americans invented the protocol and the network, and the rest of the world *connected* to *that* network. They didn't build their own, separate network. They jacked into *ours*.
We financed it, I payed for it with my tax dollars. Similar to how I payed for GPS. Should the GPS satellites be controlled by the UN too because the rest of the world uses it? Hell no. Is the rest of the world free to make their own GPS equivalent and control that? Absolutely. Is the world free to make their own internet and use that and control it? Yup.
Does the whole world have the right to take control of a network they connected to? Absolutely not.
HERE's an analogy for you.
A man goes out and buys a fat pipe from an ISP. He then sets up a wireless router and doesn't protect it. He understands his neighbors might connect, and he has no problem with that. His neighbors in fact, do connect, tons of them connect and use it all the time. They even get little devices to extend the net further than it went before from just the mans router.
Now the neighbors want to take control of the mans network. They think since they use it, they should be in control, even though it was the man who bought and built it.
I apologize, I thought you were implying it was ironic because "wow?! what are the chances" but after further reading your comment I see now what you meant. Im sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
"If the USA doesn't like living in a world where there are multiple countries to deal with, they can just close their borders and shut down their trade. Noone will miss them."
It seems more likely that the world doesn't like living in a world where there people own the things they pay for and develop.
When I go from AAC to CD I do not gain or lose quality. It remains the same. However, when I RE-RIP the CD, which Im going to do because I want my music on my PC, if I compress it, which I also must do unless I want huge WAV files, I will lose quality.
Files on iTunes are compressed. CDs are digital, considerably higher quality, and DRMless. The compromise should be that Im paying almost as much as a real CD for compressed music in a non-tangible form. It should NOT and I repeat NOT restrict what music player I can play it on, forcing me to sacrifice quality if I want to play what I bought on a non-iPod.
But then that system is no less abusive than any other.
What consitutes as distribution or publishing? If Im spending 10 years to write a book can I let no one look at it to edit it? The moment I send them the file, its public domain since only copyright right now protects that person from abusing it instead of just editing it.
Content creators are often teams of people. What stops one of them from running off and abusing the work the team created without copyright? Right now, the copyright is owned by the team so if one of them runs off and says, sells the content and makes millions and doesn't share, it's illegal. Without copyright, those copies of the content the team is passing back and forth are now public domain.
Unless you believe in instituting another different system to protect works "unpublished" and then what consitutes as unpublished.
Why does the screenwriter have to enter a contract with the film company? Why cant the film company use the script regardless of whether or not the screenwriter wants them too.
READ before you comment.
I wasn't responding to the google news article I was responding to someone who said all copyrights were evil. Jesus people...
My question was *without copyright*
As soon as one writes it, its public domain. What stops ME from publishing your work w/o your consent and making 100% of the profit?
Scenario. I spend 10 years writing a book. My friend comes over and finds the doc on my computer. It's public domain of course since there's no copyright. I then email the doc to myself. I then "sell its release" and make a ton of money because the book is really good.
Scenario 2. Im very very poor. I have an awesome movie script. I spend 2 years writing the script. I have no money to make the movie myself, Im poor. I go to a corporation who does have money in order to fund the movie. They take my script and make a movie based on it and pay me nothing due to the fact that there is no copyright.
We need a system to pay for *content* otherwise there will be no content creaters. Tell me exactly how someone could sell their script to a movie company w/o copyright?
They don't buy them from Mark Twain.
My question wasn't how *anyone* could make money, it is how can the *content creater* make money, versus, say...someone else.
In fact, thats what Im implied by "undersell the content creater"
read please before you comment.
How would one EVER sell a book if the contents of that book were public domain? It would be trivial for one person to buy the book and give it away to the world. Hell, without copyright laws he could even brag about it, under sell the content creator, etc etc
How would one write a book and make money?
This isn't a valid arguement. Decoding and reencoding in a different format can only lower quality. Furthermore, its an extra step that should NOT have to be taken.
Imagine this world.
Sony releases a CD Player. There are other CD players out there, but Sony's is the most popular. Sony then puts out a CD selling store that also becomes the most popular. If you buy a CD in the Sony store it will only play on a Sony player. The other CD players won't play Sony CDs. Furthermore, Sony doesn't allow any company (read: DRM since it would be required in this country) to make CDs that work for the player.
Do you not see this as a problem. If my suggested solution to it was to record the CDs to cassette, then reburn the CD, would that be feasible? Do 99% of people even know how to do that?
Forcing an iPod to play iTunes songs, and not allowing the competition to sell (i.e. DRM) music that works on an iPod is anti-competitive. The iPod is at this point a monopoly, and Slashdot is hypocritical for not condemning Apple for these practices.
Hell, its not like Microsoft disabled the ability to install Netscape...
The lights of the EQ are just the coefficients of the transformed signal. This is actually how most compression techniques compress and store digital mediums.
In other words, that form of expressing the signal isn't metadata, it is the data.
Try again...
Im on a Windows XP system right now at work...I move my mouse all the way to the very most left bottom corner and click and up comes my start menu
Same happens for the close button if something is maximized.
Also, if a window is maximized in Windows, the upper left corner when click will provide the window options (retore, minimize, close)
Because it's a known fact that Beta 2 is when a vast amount of features will be put out for Windows Vista. Thats why.
Heat? What the hell
The number one reason you havent seen a G5 laptop is heat issues. I don't see any problems running newer and newer x86 CPUs in laptops.
Hell the G5 towers need to be *water* cooled.
Furthermore, while the CISC/RISC business is correct every single report Ive read about the dev OSX86 machines (which are just regular P4s) are that they boot faster, perform faster, and are overall considerably faster than a G5.
Drop the argument, even Apple realizes it's dead.
You didnt read what I said:
If yahoo's additions were primarily non-english they wouldnt be reflected in an english test. If Yahoo added 10 billion non english sites, then this test wouldnt have picked up any of it.
Umm...how so?
The XBox contains a powerful CPU and a very powerful GPU. Both of these cost money in research, development and production. The cost of an Xbox is not just the cost of its parts. You need to pay your engineers too.
In the days where an expensive GPU costs 500 dollars an expensive CPUs cost over 1000 dollars, comparing the new Xbox to a PC with probably integrated graphics, or at most a GeForce2 and a low end CPU is ridiculous. It's like saying Why cant Alienware sell their machines for $299 like walmart?"
The study only checked English words. Is it possible that the increase came from Yahoo expanding into more international website markets?
Just a thought
Except for...baseballs, which is kinda what the article is about anyway.
Wifi has been a term for years, are you just now seeing it?
I love gmail, but to claim its faster in *any* thing, other than interface innovations is silly. Yes, you could make arguments like "its faster to find all the email in a thread" but thats due to Google innovating, not due to the inherent speed of Gmail. Click "Inbox" in Outlook or Thunderbird and it *immediately* goes to your inbox, within a split second. Click inbox in gmail and, it, well...loads your inbox, which usually takes over a second. Same thing with compose, etc. About the only thing that I would say is *as* fast is the intelligent contact complete for email, pops up as fast as if it was local. Everything else lags just like the rest of the internet, and I don't care what connection you're on.
The Search Engine has been planned, talked about, and demoed LONG before Apple announced it. I predicted this would happen the very day Apple announced Spotlight
/usr, it's more analogous to /home.
Users was something WinNT did before Windows 2000. Though I agree its a rip from Unix, it's not quite the same function. Users isn't the same as
Ugh....
You know what I cant stand. When someone innovates and to counter the innovation someone claims prior art in something that is NOT the same thing.
Fast User Switching. Not User Switching. Fast User Switching lets me, with one keystroke, go to a logon box. This allows someone else to logon. I lose nothing, all of my programs are still active and running. Su isn't the same thing....at all. Su lets you switch users inside a terminal, not the same. No.
Wouldn't make a spec of difference, unless you are extremely extremely lucky.
Each copy is only subtly different, and even if you change yours, youre not going to change BACK any of the changes they made unless youre extremely lucky, to the point of impossible. If they find the copied document, they know all the changes you made because, well, they didnt make them. Thus leaving your original copy intact.
Exactly, Windows themes...
See how Apple dealt with Mac OS X themes for a counter example of MS's evil tyranny and massive slaughter of innocent children...
Come on people...
Your analogy is horribly flawed
Europeans invented the wheel, and Americans made their *own* wheels
Americans invented the protocol and the network, and the rest of the world *connected* to *that* network. They didn't build their own, separate network. They jacked into *ours*.
We financed it, I payed for it with my tax dollars. Similar to how I payed for GPS. Should the GPS satellites be controlled by the UN too because the rest of the world uses it? Hell no. Is the rest of the world free to make their own GPS equivalent and control that? Absolutely. Is the world free to make their own internet and use that and control it? Yup.
Does the whole world have the right to take control of a network they connected to? Absolutely not.
HERE's an analogy for you.
A man goes out and buys a fat pipe from an ISP. He then sets up a wireless router and doesn't protect it. He understands his neighbors might connect, and he has no problem with that. His neighbors in fact, do connect, tons of them connect and use it all the time. They even get little devices to extend the net further than it went before from just the mans router.
Now the neighbors want to take control of the mans network. They think since they use it, they should be in control, even though it was the man who bought and built it.
I apologize, I thought you were implying it was ironic because "wow?! what are the chances" but after further reading your comment I see now what you meant. Im sorry.