Bear in mind, that at the moment, the uses of Paypal money are somewhat limited. So there is almost nothing to be gained by leaving cash in the account. It's primary use at this time, is a pay on demand system. At least that's how I use it. But going back to the network effects, as more people adopt the system, there will be more advantage to keeping a balance ready there. If you can use it for more than the occasional auction payment you will be more disposed to keeping float handy.
That's $12 per person, where they are leaving the money there instead of transferring it back to a checking account. I'm suprised that it's that high, based on my experience with it.
First off, my comments were mainly directed at his outrage at not being able to use lpr from a linux box to talk to the print server. And at least for that application, I think it would be more efficient to go directly to the printer via lpr.
But I do understand the utility of a single queue. But at the same time, I understand the target market for this appliance from HP, and heterogeneous networks probably aren't high on the list. It's designed as a small appliance for Windows shops. I would hazard a guess, that most linux shops would have the internal expertise, that if they wanted to have something like this that supports linux as well as other OS's, they would have built it ages ago on their own. Probably using similar hardware that had been recycled from a user upgrade in the past.
It apparently takes jobs from SMB clients and prints them to the printer using LPR (which basically every networked laser printer supports these days, including all the HPs, Tektronix, and so on, as well as the older HP Jetdirect cards and servers.).........HP is really missing the boat on this one, anyway. You should be able to print to it via lpr.......
Or alternatively, you could print to the printer directly using lpr couldn't you? Seems like making the traffic walk the wire once to the server, and again to the printer is a huge waste of bandwidth.
Is that there are a limited number of stories posted to slashdot every day. And by making a significant portion of the "approved" stories about anime, it seriously damages the signal to noise ratio of the main page. Sure they can be disabled completely, but it still means that stories that are better are being overlooked in favor of Anime, so that Taco, et al. can maintain the daily story count that they aim for.
Seems like more of a side project for a professional journalist. Like what the cringe did with Revenge of the Nerds, only bigger and longer running. But I think you're unlikely to find someone that's willing to hire you just for a project like that, without you being proven in the field at all.
Am I the only person that got screwed and actually paid to see "River of Death" (w/ the ever shakespearean Michael Dudikoff), "Eve of Destruction" (Greegory Hines & some cyborg chick), or "Blind Fury" (I worshipped Rutger Hauer until I saw this nightmare).
I have to confess renting "Spaced Invaders", having seen it in the theatres. Yes, I did enjoy it a little.
A friend of mine is nearing the finish line on building a desk for an executive of a company, oddly enough located in the Seattle area. The whole bloody thing is lego's. He's even got nice touches like a hole in the top, for passing cords through, with a movable cover. It's pretty insane. Apparently fairly stable tho (the desk, not the artist or the patron).
Pic's will be forthcoming, once he figures out how to avoid the/. effect.
This is the mighty slashdot. Where IP laws and corporations are denounced at every turn. I think the main reason that stories like this get posted on the main page, is becase the editors and readers here have a strong anti-corporatist bent. I can hardly wait to see how Katz will describe this company as commiting a heinous act, while he wholeheartedly supports Napster, et al.
And don't think for a moment that Napster doesn't have some plan to make money off what they do eventually. They are funded by VC's, and VC's are not known for their charity when it comes to fudning decisions.
They are building a significant infrastrcuture to support the distribution of these papers. Ask Taco, putting a server online that can distribute information isn't cheap. Making it 100% reliable is more expensive yet. And there are costs associated with the fullfillment of orders, processing and whatnot. And the advertising that they apparently plan on doing to make the site better known. It all adds up to some serious bucks.
Was that Time Warner, et al. worked to put all this information in a readily accessible location. They took the database that apparently was already out there, and slapped a web font-end on it. So that the papers can now be easily accessed.
They are not selling the works themselves. They are selling the service that makes the works available. It is a distribution company, not a content company at it's core.
I don't think that a $30 charge is too unreasonable. The data has to be stored, possibly many of the thesis are being stored and will never be purchased. Fullfillment is going to cost a significant amount, as credit card processing isn't free. And there is a large amount of infrastructure to make the system available at all. Plus I'm sure that the companies would like to make some money off the money that they are investing to make this distribution company run.
They are charging a fee for providing a service. They are collecting all the dissertations in one place, maintaining a library of them, and providing copies for people on request. The charges are to cover the expense of running the database, and distributing the materials.
If you read the fine print on their site, it appears that they are just reselling the data for a company called UMI. Seems to be owned by Bell & Howell. They also have a page that links to 2 other sources for dissertations. Seems to be something that has been available for awhile via the web and other means.
I'd be curious to see if kkkalen's dissertation is in all those places too. I would assume so.
I'd say that posting the entire bill of rights to a story that relates to only specific parts of it, is troll. I have absolutely nothing against the BoR, or the rights that are delineated therein. But posting the entire thing to a discussion like this is a cheesy knee-jerk reaction that does nothing to move the dialogue at all.
What better use of 40,000+ linux "machines" than to build a really big Beowulf cluster.
The I suppose it's not terribly efficient to virtualize a million machines just to tie them all back into one big system. Oh well, it would be fun to try.
Music from an artist is essentially free in that if they do not want people copying the music, they only way to really stop that at this point is to not play it, or keep it locked away from people entirely. By performaing the music at all, by placing that music in the public, they have implicitly stated that anyone can have it for the cost of duplication.
They have said no such thing. When an artist releases something on CD, it's with the impicit understanding that if you want to own a copy of that song, you will buy the CD.
Most artists need more protection from media companies than from college kids downloading music online. How can the rights of artists be protected on the Net?
Artists need saving from the representatives that they have contractually agreed to work with? No one held a gun to any musicians head, and forced them to sign with a particular label. Money was given to the artist, and if they felt so strongly that they wanted to retain complete control they should have never given that control away.
And since books and documents were cumbersome and expensive to produce, copyright laws were easy to police. They aren't easy to police anymore.
Apparently, since it's not easy to police anymore, then all enforcement should be totally discarded? Just because something isn't easy, doesn't mean that it's inherently wrong.
The question of artist's rights is complex and urgent. Many artists not under contract to large corporations can't get their work seen or published at all.
Which is exactly why many artists chose to work with labels. Only a large corporation can devote the marketing dollars necessary to make a musician as successful as many manage to get.
Many artists who are under contract feel exploited by recording companies, who take a disproportionate share of profits, and who make enormous margins on conventional music sales.
And those artists are more than welcome to not work with a recording company. The net allows them to spread their music far and wide, under whatever terms they desire.
Millions of music lovers feel that they are overcharged...
If you feel overcharged, vote with your feet, and don't buy music from the companies that are overcharging you. Music is not necessary for life, and if you don't buy popular culture, you'll still survive quite nicely.
and offered too few choices and controls about the music they want to hear.
The record companies aren't preventing artists from creating music. They are merely distributing those artists that they feel have the most potential. The other artists are still out there, and can be found. Getting rid of labels won't make the marginal artists more successful, since they aren't being handled by the majors anyhow.
The Net provides a marketplace of cultural exchange, benefiting new artists and to music lovers. It's not simply a matter of theft, but of creating an environment in which culture thrives. That needs to be legally and politically acknowledged.
This is more of Jon's normal rhetoric about how the rights of the consumer are absolute. And the rights of the artsits/owners should be trampled as necessary for the consumers sake.
You say that the benefit typically doesn't go to the artist/creator. In the publishing industries whether music or book, the reason those benefits flow to a third party, is because they were sold to that party by the creator.
It's a fairly well established rule, that when rights to anything are given, unless specifically not allowed, those rights can be transferred to a third party just like any other property can be transferred to a third party. When you own something, you have every right to sell it, and copyright law gives ownership of the works to the creators, who then sell some or all of the ownership rights to publishers in order to get the work the widest distribution.
The framers of the Constitution were seeking to protect artists and authors when they enacted copyright laws. Their notion was that without some protection against copying and theft, writers would have no incentive to create new works. Copying books was difficult, and it was simple to enforce and prosecution laws against it. The Net is another story -- it's the biggest Xerox machine in the world, and it's almost impossible to completely shut down the copyrighting of intellectual property. Common sense would dictate that new ways of protecting artists and corporations be found that recognized the new reality of the Net.
So the copyright protections were created to protect content back when it was expensive and difficult to copy the works. Now it's cheap and easy to copy IP, and it's somehow less necessary for protections. Typically when an unwanted behavior becomes less difficult to do, the protections against it would deserve strengthening not weakening.
No such campaign has been launched on behalf of music fans, who were literally bled dry for decades not just for artistic compensation but for fat corporate profits.
They were willingly bled dry. I think it would be very difficult to prove that anyone was in a position where not spending money on music would have injured them in any significant way.
Fans are more than consumers. They are entitled to have some rights, just as artists and corporations are. They pay the freight, especially in cyberspace...
None of which flows to the people creating the art that is being freely distributed. Just like paying a fence for something does not suddenly make the purchase legitimate "but officer I paid someone for the car, and it was a hell of a deal too!"
They are constituents in their own folklore and have rights of access to their own culture.
And all they have to do is pay what the person that has a legal right of ownership to that work wants, and they are free to use a copy for their own personal use.
Microsoft doesn't provide the file sharing as a service that they manage and coordinate. They don't provide central index servers to what's available out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Bear in mind, that at the moment, the uses of Paypal money are somewhat limited. So there is almost nothing to be gained by leaving cash in the account. It's primary use at this time, is a pay on demand system. At least that's how I use it. But going back to the network effects, as more people adopt the system, there will be more advantage to keeping a balance ready there. If you can use it for more than the occasional auction payment you will be more disposed to keeping float handy.
That's $12 per person, where they are leaving the money there instead of transferring it back to a checking account. I'm suprised that it's that high, based on my experience with it.
First off, my comments were mainly directed at his outrage at not being able to use lpr from a linux box to talk to the print server. And at least for that application, I think it would be more efficient to go directly to the printer via lpr.
But I do understand the utility of a single queue. But at the same time, I understand the target market for this appliance from HP, and heterogeneous networks probably aren't high on the list. It's designed as a small appliance for Windows shops. I would hazard a guess, that most linux shops would have the internal expertise, that if they wanted to have something like this that supports linux as well as other OS's, they would have built it ages ago on their own. Probably using similar hardware that had been recycled from a user upgrade in the past.
It apparently takes jobs from SMB clients and prints them to the printer using LPR (which basically every networked laser printer supports these days, including all the HPs, Tektronix, and so on, as well as the older HP Jetdirect cards and servers.).........HP is really missing the boat on this one, anyway. You should be able to print to it via lpr.......
Or alternatively, you could print to the printer directly using lpr couldn't you? Seems like making the traffic walk the wire once to the server, and again to the printer is a huge waste of bandwidth.
Is that there are a limited number of stories posted to slashdot every day. And by making a significant portion of the "approved" stories about anime, it seriously damages the signal to noise ratio of the main page. Sure they can be disabled completely, but it still means that stories that are better are being overlooked in favor of Anime, so that Taco, et al. can maintain the daily story count that they aim for.
Seems like more of a side project for a professional journalist. Like what the cringe did with Revenge of the Nerds, only bigger and longer running. But I think you're unlikely to find someone that's willing to hire you just for a project like that, without you being proven in the field at all.
Hopefully the offer is sufficiently buried in this thread, that I won't get slammed too badly.
Am I the only person that got screwed and actually paid to see "River of Death" (w/ the ever shakespearean Michael Dudikoff), "Eve of Destruction" (Greegory Hines & some cyborg chick), or "Blind Fury" (I worshipped Rutger Hauer until I saw this nightmare).
I have to confess renting "Spaced Invaders", having seen it in the theatres. Yes, I did enjoy it a little.
If you toss me an email, I'll forward some pics to anyone that asks, how's that?
A friend of mine is nearing the finish line on building a desk for an executive of a company, oddly enough located in the Seattle area. The whole bloody thing is lego's. He's even got nice touches like a hole in the top, for passing cords through, with a movable cover. It's pretty insane. Apparently fairly stable tho (the desk, not the artist or the patron).
/. effect.
Pic's will be forthcoming, once he figures out how to avoid the
This is the mighty slashdot. Where IP laws and corporations are denounced at every turn. I think the main reason that stories like this get posted on the main page, is becase the editors and readers here have a strong anti-corporatist bent. I can hardly wait to see how Katz will describe this company as commiting a heinous act, while he wholeheartedly supports Napster, et al.
And don't think for a moment that Napster doesn't have some plan to make money off what they do eventually. They are funded by VC's, and VC's are not known for their charity when it comes to fudning decisions.
They are building a significant infrastrcuture to support the distribution of these papers. Ask Taco, putting a server online that can distribute information isn't cheap. Making it 100% reliable is more expensive yet. And there are costs associated with the fullfillment of orders, processing and whatnot. And the advertising that they apparently plan on doing to make the site better known. It all adds up to some serious bucks.
Was that Time Warner, et al. worked to put all this information in a readily accessible location. They took the database that apparently was already out there, and slapped a web font-end on it. So that the papers can now be easily accessed.
They are not selling the works themselves. They are selling the service that makes the works available. It is a distribution company, not a content company at it's core.
I don't think that a $30 charge is too unreasonable. The data has to be stored, possibly many of the thesis are being stored and will never be purchased. Fullfillment is going to cost a significant amount, as credit card processing isn't free. And there is a large amount of infrastructure to make the system available at all. Plus I'm sure that the companies would like to make some money off the money that they are investing to make this distribution company run.
They are charging a fee for providing a service. They are collecting all the dissertations in one place, maintaining a library of them, and providing copies for people on request. The charges are to cover the expense of running the database, and distributing the materials.
If you read the fine print on their site, it appears that they are just reselling the data for a company called UMI. Seems to be owned by Bell & Howell. They also have a page that links to 2 other sources for dissertations. Seems to be something that has been available for awhile via the web and other means.
I'd be curious to see if kkkalen's dissertation is in all those places too. I would assume so.
I'd say that posting the entire bill of rights to a story that relates to only specific parts of it, is troll. I have absolutely nothing against the BoR, or the rights that are delineated therein. But posting the entire thing to a discussion like this is a cheesy knee-jerk reaction that does nothing to move the dialogue at all.
What better use of 40,000+ linux "machines" than to build a really big Beowulf cluster.
The I suppose it's not terribly efficient to virtualize a million machines just to tie them all back into one big system. Oh well, it would be fun to try.
Music from an artist is essentially free in that if they do not want people copying the music, they only way to really stop that at this point is to not play it, or keep it locked away from people entirely. By performaing the music at all, by placing that music in the public, they have implicitly stated that anyone can have it for the cost of duplication.
They have said no such thing. When an artist releases something on CD, it's with the impicit understanding that if you want to own a copy of that song, you will buy the CD.
Napster is causing a vast number of consumers to believe that free music on the internet is an entitlement.
/. fairly well.
That seems to sum up the view of the Jon Katz contingent on
Most artists need more protection from media companies than from college kids downloading music online. How can the rights of artists be protected on the Net?
Artists need saving from the representatives that they have contractually agreed to work with? No one held a gun to any musicians head, and forced them to sign with a particular label. Money was given to the artist, and if they felt so strongly that they wanted to retain complete control they should have never given that control away.
And since books and documents were cumbersome and expensive to produce, copyright laws were easy to police. They aren't easy to police anymore.
Apparently, since it's not easy to police anymore, then all enforcement should be totally discarded? Just because something isn't easy, doesn't mean that it's inherently wrong.
The question of artist's rights is complex and urgent. Many artists not under contract to large corporations can't get their work seen or published at all.
Which is exactly why many artists chose to work with labels. Only a large corporation can devote the marketing dollars necessary to make a musician as successful as many manage to get.
Many artists who are under contract feel exploited by recording companies, who take a disproportionate share of profits, and who make enormous margins on conventional music sales.
And those artists are more than welcome to not work with a recording company. The net allows them to spread their music far and wide, under whatever terms they desire.
Millions of music lovers feel that they are overcharged...
If you feel overcharged, vote with your feet, and don't buy music from the companies that are overcharging you. Music is not necessary for life, and if you don't buy popular culture, you'll still survive quite nicely.
and offered too few choices and controls about the music they want to hear.
The record companies aren't preventing artists from creating music. They are merely distributing those artists that they feel have the most potential. The other artists are still out there, and can be found. Getting rid of labels won't make the marginal artists more successful, since they aren't being handled by the majors anyhow.
The Net provides a marketplace of cultural exchange, benefiting new artists and to music lovers. It's not simply a matter of theft, but of creating an environment in which culture thrives. That needs to be legally and politically acknowledged.
This is more of Jon's normal rhetoric about how the rights of the consumer are absolute. And the rights of the artsits/owners should be trampled as necessary for the consumers sake.
You say that the benefit typically doesn't go to the artist/creator. In the publishing industries whether music or book, the reason those benefits flow to a third party, is because they were sold to that party by the creator.
It's a fairly well established rule, that when rights to anything are given, unless specifically not allowed, those rights can be transferred to a third party just like any other property can be transferred to a third party. When you own something, you have every right to sell it, and copyright law gives ownership of the works to the creators, who then sell some or all of the ownership rights to publishers in order to get the work the widest distribution.
The framers of the Constitution were seeking to protect artists and authors when they enacted copyright laws. Their notion was that without some protection against copying and theft, writers would have no incentive to create new works. Copying books was difficult, and it was simple to enforce and prosecution laws against it. The Net is another story -- it's the biggest Xerox machine in the world, and it's almost impossible to completely shut down the copyrighting of intellectual property. Common sense would dictate that new ways of protecting artists and corporations be found that recognized the new reality of the Net.
So the copyright protections were created to protect content back when it was expensive and difficult to copy the works. Now it's cheap and easy to copy IP, and it's somehow less necessary for protections. Typically when an unwanted behavior becomes less difficult to do, the protections against it would deserve strengthening not weakening.
No such campaign has been launched on behalf of music fans, who were literally bled dry for decades not just for artistic compensation but for fat corporate profits.
They were willingly bled dry. I think it would be very difficult to prove that anyone was in a position where not spending money on music would have injured them in any significant way.
Fans are more than consumers. They are entitled to have some rights, just as artists and corporations are. They pay the freight, especially in cyberspace...
None of which flows to the people creating the art that is being freely distributed. Just like paying a fence for something does not suddenly make the purchase legitimate "but officer I paid someone for the car, and it was a hell of a deal too!"
They are constituents in their own folklore and have rights of access to their own culture.
And all they have to do is pay what the person that has a legal right of ownership to that work wants, and they are free to use a copy for their own personal use.
Microsoft doesn't provide the file sharing as a service that they manage and coordinate. They don't provide central index servers to what's available out there.