Wait... you said 1930s, so there's some time there prior to full-on nazi party control...
You just pre-Godwined THEM! It's like Alice in Wonderland. You've derailed the opposition by claiming that TOMORROW they'll be like Hitler! They're doomed now!
(Oh please let this work. Oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please...)
If that doesn't pan out, we'll have to fight it with popular opinion. Think a good rallying cry would be "Works under Copyright don't fall under Patent"? How about "Patent and Copyright don't mix"?
I have no idea what to do about this, but it's really bad. I don't want to be property, but I'm already feeling like it. At least my 'owners' used to be good old-fashioned creditors, specifically credit card companies. I don't play into most money-scams for various industries, because I basically don't buy much of anything. On the other hand, this is taking food out of peoples' mouthes. It's not just taking away my rights of freedom of speech, it is going to make it more difficult for authors of any age to succeed.
As the SO of an playwright, I am very, very scared, and very angry. This is incredibly demeaning to authors, as it makes them more like 'professionals' and less like 'artists', not that authors cannot be very serious about their work. I think it is a sign of the apocalypse when everyone has to be a lawyer to survive. I think it is a warning sign regarding aspiring authors' bank balances when they also have to be lawyers.
We have to fight this. We really cannot let this stick. If it does, all of our cultural heritage will be used to destroy us. How far back can prior art for patent issues go? Will we end up only writing stories legally in the US that have 'prior art' in the public domain, rather than the other way around, i.e. 'original works'? There is no good outcome from this, and no utility.
I'd riot if I thought it would help. Where do we do that?
i mean after all, when you buy a console, sony/ms/nintendo are still the owners, it's THEIR machine. you have to pay them for the privilege of making addons for it or for executing any code on the processors.
I know that you're sarcastically stating that Sony will crush its competition as always, but that would be STUPID. Sony can sell MORE PSPs if people know about good add-ons. Nothing, no pride or anger, would lead one company to attack another company when both their bottom lines are improving. It seems like big corporations squish people a lot, but they're not going to do it this time. They only do it when they feel that it serves their interest, and attacking this doesn't.
This is especially true since the UMD video business is more profitable than game sales for the PSP, and the PSP has less games overall than its main competitor, the DS.
Also, this TV adapter keeps the PSP ahead of the iPod. It has been announced that some iPods in the future will play TV shows and such. If Sony doesn't watch out, they'll have Apple as a competitor in video and Nintendo as a competitor in games, both on the same machine. That will probably destroy them, since they haven't sold people enough PSPs to be sure of controlling either of those markets with it.
Local emergencies should be handled by city, the county, the state and then the federal. In that order.
I'm not really sure that I agree with this. The major efforts to rebuild New Orleans were conducted by Army engineers, and military hardware was a big part of multiple efforts. It's not appropriate to turn over control of military hardware and manpower to local authorities, given that a great amount of coordination is needed to use available tools most efficiently. That in turn means that some central authority, possibly military, possibly not, is needed for coordinating the military's assistance.
The gp was about consultation about a specific problem, probably not something that the doctor with DSL did every day, or even every week. Say a small office in the boondocks needs help fast, and the nearest hospital can be an hour away, even by helicopter (you've got to bring the chopper). A small place can generally call for help, and get a more-qualified surgeon on the line from said hospital in a few minutes, who suggests video transfer or specific slides online. This is not the normal use of the internet connection at a small office. A lot of doctors' practices are running by the skin of their teeth, given the rising number of people without health insurance who can't afford to see a doctor. An additional overhead of $550-$1800 a month (two figures quoted so far) can kill an office.
But the obvious answer: The majority of downloaders will be people who want the content without paying for it. Hence, people who do not have on-demand access to the content and therefore have no fair use rights to it.
There's something weird here. Normally, the court system is where you go for redress of wrongs. HBO feels wronged, but is not going through the courts. So how do we view their response? I do not see it as vigilante justice, as that is generally associated with mob mentality. This is a purposefully chosen course of action, by a large corporation, and it was publicly visible (at least for those who read slashdot). So, I think it is appropriate to react to HBO's decision as one does to any other publicly visible action by a large corporation.
In this case, it seems like a mean thing to do, both because they are interrupting other's activities and because they could have provided what the people wanted if they (HBO) wanted to. So, it makes me think poorly of HBO. Since HBO didn't go through the courts, I don't really feel like I have to think about the laws at all.
If you dont want to buy it because they wont give you a free sample, that is your choice. But that doesnt legitamize people who want to download, against the will of HBO. Their marketing descisions are not the same as your entitlment.
The GP, KFG, was not indicating that downloading was appropriate. I believe that the point was that HBO's decision was DUMB. I'll repeat it, too: HBO and all the other companies attempting to control downloads of material that can be legally recorded have the marketing knowledge of insects. They are DUMB, STUPID, MORONIC, and other all-caps words.
This doesn't mean that I think that downloading is appropriate.
Maybe you expect anyone who attacks copyright holders' choices to favor direct violation of the law. I'm not sure. On the other hand, you definitely have no clue what copyright and patent law are for. They encourage people to provide their artistic, intellectual, and technical work to the public. Ownership of such work is vested in the law of people, and is not a natural condition. Publishing companies have used these laws to profit from works created by many people, but that position is not written in stone, or even in law. It is merely an extension of the copyright laws and control of technology that have formed in the last few hundred years.
Re:Well, this has been coming for some time...
on
Nessus Closes Source
·
· Score: 1
The GP did say, "contributed." This is the icky side of the GPL... everyone has to be aware of the legal issues concerning their own work, even as friendly volunteers. To make the situation clear, the GP had access to code liscensed under the GPL, and added to it, afterwards handing that code back to someone. That someone, despite being the copyright owner of the original code, is now handed code that doesn't belong to them, but which they recieve under the GPL. Its incorporation into their own product therefore makes THE WHOLE CODEBASE OF NESSUS under the GPL outside of the sole ownership of its original creators.
Or does it? Somebody is going to take that to court someday, and it could get ugly. If it goes in favor of the original copyright owner, and not the GPL's terms, then the GPL suffers. If, as it probably should, it goes in favor of the GPL, then less companies will use the GPL, realizing that accepting feedback on a GPL'd project may screw them.
On a related note, is MySQL in the same position? Certainly the various security teams for various groups have contributed some code back to MySQL by now, unless the developers have been very guarded.
Somebody, please let me know if cases like this have already happened.
I've got some anger built up, so I'm going to vent it. You chose to insult the doctor who developed a useful technique, so I'm going to dissect your insult. No karma bonus, since this is just a rant.
You are obviously not a scientist, at least, not a serious one. Here's why: a real scientist looks at things from multiple perspectives. I suppose you're not dumb, just unaccustomed to thinking things through. For example, in this case, you suggest that seeing moving, working hearts is sufficient to understanding them. This narrow view is a sign of someone who hasn't tried to solve problems him- or herself very often. As other people have mentioned, inspiration comes from various places. If you knew anything about the history of scientific development, you would know that the most abrupt advances in science and technology have almost universally come from looking at a situation in ways that others were not. On of the common situations occurs when a scientist notes that the majority of his or her peers view a problem in a certain way, and seeks an alternate viewpoint simply because the majority might be missing something. Examples of this are Linear B, DNA structure, and interplanetary superhighways. A serious scientist who is humble enough to doubt his or her assumptions will look for alternate viewpoints, even searching for nonsensical connections between concepts, simply because the current assumption is that no such connection exists. Da Vinci's art was meticulous, detailed, and yet stylized. It does not live; it is flat, with the sections delineated. This alternate viewpoint is a valid source of inspiration, and ignoring it merely because of the presence of others is as arrogant and stupid as you make it sound. Pardon me, as U make it sound. I like being precise.
Of course, there's another side to your idiodicy. You are criticizing a scientist for seeking inspiration from a known artist/scientist. A few geniuses stand out, such as da Vinci and Verne. Their speculative designs have been crafted into working apparati for generations. This doctor was trying to improve the lives of those he served, and he looked to a source known to inspire useful devices in the real world from the sketches left from the past. And you want to degrade him for mentioning it. You insult his license, his education, his career, and his family life.
I'm sure you wanted some STFU rebuttals or maybe a simple, "You don't know what you're talking about." You don't. You have no idea what drives someone to understand and improve the world. I won't say that you are a disgrace as a human being, because you may have other qualities. I fear, however, that your lack of insight into science will hamper your "family", when and if you have one, because you may not be able to encourage your children to think for themselves about the scientific method.
I could say that people like you make me weep for the future of our environment, arts, and science, but I know we can get along without you. The truth is that people like you, as you are at the moment, make me sad because I know so many other people who work hard to benefit you in ways that you may not appreciate. I say, "at the moment," because people change. I have faith in the chance for you to help and encourage those around you, even though you have stated that you have none in this man.
Speaking of blogs, how does this rule work for servers that are outside of China?
Well, we know that China filters outside internet content and only allows some sites to reach Chinese people. It's a pretty good guess that they'd just keep that up and filter whatever site was used to spread 'anti-China' news.
I have played Guild Wars, and not World of Warcraft. I have been very curious about WoW, so I asked around a lot. I have a thesis:
WoW is an MMO Epic RPG, i.e. it is geared around the long haul, accumulating power, and abilities gained at later levels that put to shame those of early levels, giving players a sense of accomplishment when they level their character and gain abilities.
GW is an MMO Action RPG, i.e. it is geared around doing a specific task at a time, acquiring abilities is easy, and the skills you gain may be better but not in an earth-shattering way, leading the focus towards skill choice and skill use.
That's my thesis. I see it played out in how WoW has different sides, chosen at character creation (I think), which have access to completely separate classes. The game is balanced by the designers' choices of access to different powers for the different factions. On the other hand, there are no disparate sides in GW, and a dedicated player can reach max level and learn some impressive skills within a week of play or less. In that case, the balance comes from the relative strengths of skills, with no skill standing out to steal the show.
These games appeal to very different people, and I think that their audiences should not be compared directly. WoW appeals to the serious gamer, but specifically the power gamer, someone who wants a constant challenge to survive and reach personal goals, and who likes besting others or preventing that. GW also appeals to the serious gamer, but specifically the strategy gamer, someone who likes coordinating with others against equal adversaries and using skills exactly when needed.
Now for the fine points:
Each of these games also appeals to casual gamers, but WoW's monthly fee unfortunately forces many of them to shy away from it.
I do find it a pity that GW only has player mixing in towns, but since the journeys into combat areas are usually done for a specific purpose, that isn't so bad.
Both games are beautiful.
GW could take a hint from WoW and make it easier to articulate the stats for something you want to sell.
I personally don't want to play WoW, because the idea of waiting while playing (corpse camping, for instance) is not appealing, since I might not have much time to play.
In GW, you don't jump, but you can click to walk somewhere. It occasionally seems frustrating to not be able to clamber up hillsides, but I recognize that if you could, then the walls would have to be higher, and that would prevent you from seeing everything you need to see in a large fight.
I see and hear about a lot of 'screwing around' in WoW by bored people, such as taking an invulnerability potion in the middle of enemy territory and yelling "KILL ME!" (there's a video out there), forming a walking 'train' of people, then saying "Woo-wooo!" everywhere you go (a friend of mine), going to a different server and begging for gold, then giving it all to the player who gave them the most (same friend). And of course, playing a high-level character and killing people randomly. In GW, no one is that bored, assuming they find some pleasure in the strategy of the game's combat, except when they are looking for a group (see below).
GW is difficult to play without other humans with you on missions and some quests. For the first few dozen hours of gameplay, or maybe only the first ten if you're hurrying, you can get away with taking NPC henchman with you, but after that you need other people. There is no class combination that has more or less of that need, and there are no 'unwanted' classes. Because of this, everyone gets accustomed to grouping with people, and everyone gets about an equal chance to join any group. Pick-up groups happen everywhere you go. However, it is sometimes difficult to fill up a group, and this causes some waiting. You may wait fifteen minutes to form a group if you are particularly unlucky. However, if you have friends that play with you, this is not such a problem, e
You're a raving loony. "They" are out to get you. Go find a bunker somewhere, and leave us in peace, ok?
I really don't get where you're coming from. The 'trusted computing' storm has been on the horizon for years.
For an official description, why don't you read the Trusted Computing FAQ? The first paragraph of the second section, entitled "The Trusted Platform Module (TPM) and Implementation" has pertinent information.
For a description from the outside, try this link. Just the first paragraph under the first question is sufficient. Note also the date on the FAQ. It was written two years ago, when the Trusted Computing group was formed. These issues have been known for years, and have been discussed publicly many times.
If you are not aware of the music and movie industries' desires to distribute their collective assets using technologies that prevent unlicensed use, mention the words 'CDs', 'movies', and 'copy protection' to anyone on the street, and ask them how they are connected. For bonus points, you could find someone to point you to information about the RIAA's and MPAA's views on people sharing copyrighted works over the internet.
So... to bring this to a close, you could, perhaps, read the articles about trusted computing, or at the very least the paragraph in each which I mentioned specifically. After that, you could consider the opinions of powerful industry groups concerning the need for DRM-like technology to protect their assets. Finally, you could put two and two together. Maybe then you could stop bothering someone who actually reads things. I found the articles by typing 'trusted computing' into google. You could have tried it, too, but instead you trolled. Good bye.
The goal of 'broadband by 2007' is an arbitrary political goal. It would give the US some benefits, though:
1. Increase access to information for rural children.
We have a lot of 'backwater' areas where the schools aren't so great. If broadband was available, and common, it would encourage parents in rural areas to give their children a second source of information. It's a little hard to imagine this being a big deal unless you've been a kid in the middle of nowhere. There aren't very many sources of information at all in small towns and farther out.
2. Encourage cities to provide information online.
This is very big. If broadband is "everywhere", then your little town may decide that it's worthwhile to post its town meeting schedule online. Think about how pervasive a change could be... if finding out about city council meeting involved loading a bookmarked page, a lot of people might do it. Just an example. Big cities already put some stuff online, but if it becomes standard to put everything online then people will be more informed and more involved.
3. A government stamp of approval signals that it's time for the old farts to try out this thing.
Not too big a deal, especially since the administration is very un-vocal about this. However, an official push for broadband means that all the news shows that present the world the way the administration sees it have to include this 'internet' thing in their normal talks. Not that the major news sites haven't had great online sites for quite a while. A story here and there about our progress or lack of it towards the official goal of broadband availability will nudge the computer-illiterate gently towards computer use and acceptance.
So, it'd be good if it happened, and it's good that it gets an official push.
In spite of its irrelevance, class warfare just never gets old, does it?
No, it doesn't. It never grows old for those on the bottom, and it never seems relevant for those who think they are on top. YOU ARE IN MY FUCKING BOAT. This shit is going to affect every one of us, and the grandparent is illustrating in a humorous manner that many in power are grinding the scientists into the dust. It's fucking relevant, and it's fucking real.
If you think for a moment that you are not part of this, that you can be unconcerned, I would advise you to never touch a computer again. We are responsible for the world that we accept, and for preventing accidental harm to others. This GLOBAL WARMING which is happening, this DESTABILIZATION, it's important. And it is being dutifully reported by people who are then spurned and defaced by right-wing politicians, among others. And you are letting it happen, both the smears and the slow destabilization.
Well, all right. I don't want to bug anybody with this. How do you find out if your emergency system is really going to work, though? I mean, all my other backup and fail-safe systems get tested at least once. I guess you could just hope you've got a minor reason to call 911 before you've got a major reason, but that doesn't sound too good to me.
If 911 took too long from a cell phone, then I'd feel compelled to look up the local emergency numbers for my city and add them to my phone. True, that wouldn't help on a trip or something, but "when seconds count" as the ads went, you've got to make sure it works as well as it can. This is all about the 'safety of mission critical components', i.e. bodily health, so I can't see my way to not testing it.
Mind you, I did test it, because I stopped for other people's traffic accidents and called 911. Sometimes I was actually the first to report it, so I don't feel bad about the other times where I was a me-too poster, as it were.
Looks like Texas is better off than California in this regard, at least in my experience. 911 from a cellphone here gets me an immediate "What city, please?" followed by a transfer to that city's 911 service. Takes a few seconds, but it sounds much better than minutes.
Try it out yourself. During a non-peak and non-widespread emergency period (no rain, even), call 911, see how long it takes, and say "Sorry, just testing the system. Thank you for being there." Then hang up and don't tie up the line. Here it doesn't take long at all. If it does take a long time from a cell phone in your area, raise holy hell, because there's no reason for it.
Oh, okay. I found all sorts of interesting stuff about the subdermally implanted RFID chips while searching, though.
No one seems to be using them on people exactly, but it seems to be a pretty big threat. And by threat, I mean it's an invasion of privacy that doesn't help us be more secure, and the way it's pushed may actually work. I for one, will not get something implanted into me that anyone can read until I have some particularly strong need to be IDed everywhere I go.
All the examples they give in support of subdermal RFID are bad. A lot of people with severe medical allergies wear bracelets stating that so the paramedics can read them. Only a government-funded initiative could put RFID readers in every ambulance in the country. Of course, that's how RFID is being pushed, with the aim of securing a high-level government initiative. Me, I'll buy my own scanner, find the thing in my body, and pull it out with my bare hands if I have to.
On a related note, I think the thing to watch for in this campaign would be an attempt to make some form of RFID reader illegal to own for personal use, with some sort of government-issued license required. That's how they could justify the (non-useful) security.
There are a fair amount of people that would feel this sort of thing crosses the line, specifically crossing the line into their bodies. I'm not suggesting that a mass uprising would occur, but a minor one probably would, spearheaded by the truly paranoid and followed by the concerned.
That's the thing, really. There are always causes spearheaded by fanatics. If something happens that makes concerned people agree with fanatics, THEN you get an uprising or a cult. It doesn't have to be big, but one fanatic announcing their decision would probably attract some highly concerned people, and if the fanatic in question was charismatic enough, well, then you have the makings of a small army.
This particular issue seems like it could fall into the category where concerned people start agreeing with fanatics, so don't be surprised (assuming it happens) that a lot of people actually use physical force to defend themselves en masse.
Yes, you missed some marketing training. Not exactly basic marketing, but basic pricing training. To sum up: an offer from an unknown source for an unknown product for $0 is seen as a bad choice. There are also two other issues.
In this case, if the audience was computer savvy, and could judge the product (the OS) based on its merits, then a $0 price tag would be fine. However, when selling to an audience that is not conversant in the product, the audience uses the price to gauge the worth of the product.
A product with a nothing price of $0 or thereabouts is perceived as dangerous when it comes from a source you don't know, ASSUMING that you don't know the product. For instance, if someone approached me and offered me a hundred (empty) suitcases, I wouldn't tend to trust the offer. I don't know which types of suitcases are good, and this random offer of totally free suitcases is unusual. I would expect there to be severe drawbacks, flaws, or major strings attached.
However, a low price that still makes a small dent in the budget is seen as legitimate. In the nineties I worked for a company where $500 was the largest 'capital expense' an employee could file, i.e. anything more than $500 had to be approved as part of the company's budget. So $500 sends a message. It says, "This is a serious product, with a low cost." Attaching that price to an OS offered to a company sends the message that there is value in it. That message will get through even if the company is unfamiliar with the product.
On the other hand, if an employee of a company is familiar with the technology, they can (possibly) persuade their organization of its merits. A trusted source can do that, but a different organization or person making an offer generally cannot.
There is also a secondary aspect to this. Microsoft has generally convinced non-technical people that OSes cost money. Linspire takes this into account by charging money for the OS itself, as well as support contracts that everyone charges money for. So its product is seen by non-technical people as a real alternative, because in most cases they feel that they MUST pay for the OS. Debian is my favorite distribution, but I think I'd have a hard time convincing non-technical managers at a non-technical company to use it, unless I was going to charge them to install and maintain it and made it sound like that was how you paid for it.
Anyway, this is a pretty common issue for Linux. It's free, money-wise, and that means it looks weird to corporations. They EXPECT to pay money for good tools, and in general they expect to be able to get a refund for tools that don't work. If there's no cost, there's no refund, and instead, if something goes wrong, someone would have to get fired to even things out.
Thirdly, there's the issue of branding and a sense of control. Microsoft knows that its OS is not particularly configurable, and it markets it with smooth assurances that 'everything will work fine' with it. Linux is known, even in the non-technical world, to be finicky or difficult, despite the fact that Windows is even more finicky in many ways. The impact of all of this is that a manager or executive who sees Windows on their computer feels in control, whereas not so much with Linux. Microsoft does a lot of UI work to make that feeling stick, despite how the machine screws up. Linux's various UIs are made by thousands of volunteers and some paid programmers, and they aim at general usability, not the specific feelings of comfort and control. Not that there's anything comfortable or in-control about using Windows, but people feel those things strongly because of the UI designed with an eye to its psychological effects.
So Linux has three strikes against it: 1. A $0 price is scary on general principles. 2. A $0 price would mean that no other company would be at fault when things go wrong. 3. Its marketing and UI are not evil and do not promote vague s
Actually, I really like KVM switches and two towers under the desk for development tasks. My preference would be Debian on one and I something for the commercial apps on the other, basically Mac or Windows. On the server I can run a no-frills install linux server, not even x-windows, and on the other machine I use editing tools with built-in ftp features to move stuff to the server. This means the server is stable, free of crashes from anything except major errors on my part, and I can test to my heart's content, even run system-hogging stuff while other people check out my uploaded work.
The really big deal is that the linux server is up while you use the other OSes, meaning you can let people connect to it regardless of what you're doing, either for simple web access or ftp. That makes things really nice for small projects.
Of course, now I dual boot, and it sort of sucks, but I only boot to Windows for games. YMWV, because I'm a coder, and many coding tools are available in linux. I don't have any problems with synching anymore, since I wrote a rock-solid python script for that and glued it into both OSes.
There's no money involved, and if anything the artist is increasing public awareness both of the tool he used and the art work he referenced.
For more information on fair use in everyday life, you could check out various webcomics which blatantly rip off video games' graphics and yet persist for years.
What you describe is what I want, too. My point is, though, that there's enough money generated through the other, crappier, ways that big companies will be willing to go ahead with DRM in order to protect those ways. The industry supporters of DRM feel that they need it for their bottom line, and history is showing them to be correct. Despite the evidence inherent in cassette recorders, VCRs, CD-burners, and other devices in that vein, there is still a viable and low-risk income stream from well-hyped formula content. When creative talent is in surplus, that income stream is the safety net for the big companies. When creative talent is lacking, that income stream is the only income. DRM is seen as a way of protecting it, just as VCRs and CD burners are seen as attacks on it.
It does not matter what individual artists do, because an individual artist's accounts look different from those of a major record label. As long as the record labels and the movie companies need such a constant stream of income to survive, they will pursue DRM aggressively.
It is also not a solution to suggest that artists break away from record labels or movie studios. Those organizations have shown, in many ways, that the sizes of their organizations are the best for operating in their respective industries. Their sizes are the most efficient at making money, i.e. the economy of scale for the music and movie industries favors very large multi-production companies. Because of that, artists seeking to assure future income will inevitably group themselves in organizations of that size.
Because of that, there will always be organizations that feel they must force DRM on people.
You have not been paying attention to (American) music or movies for the last four decades. While in theory artistic effort cannot be commoditized, in practice, formulaic works sell very, very well.
There is a very well-defined production path for 'pop' music, as well as a few other mature genres. Specifically, check out the 'boy-band' scene.
Many movies released are 'safe', i.e. derivatives with a guaranteed low payoff rather than a potential high payoff. This is how it has to be if movie studios are to assure their stockholders that they will pay the bills.
Do not think for a minute that artists will rise up against this. Artists will complain and go their own ways, but way more than enough artists will go along with it.
Your site sucks because it SUCKS>>>>>> You wnat me to ues a suck-browser that sucks because you suck! I could write you something thaty ou would call'dignified' but I won't becaus your site is STUPID. Why did you let mpeope make you a site that only use "Internet Explorer" aka. the blue thing on yor desktop?! I want to go to your site but I cannot! ALl because I am using the best OS there is and not WindowsTM. What's wrong with youu? Make your site better, or I will tell everyone about how it sucks.! Please make your site better, i.e. no IE. If you don't know what that means then ask someone!
Sincerely, ________
P.S. If you can't tell that thesse is humar, then please replace your site with pr0n. Thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
You just Godwined us!
Wait... you said 1930s, so there's some time there prior to full-on nazi party control...
You just pre-Godwined THEM! It's like Alice in Wonderland. You've derailed the opposition by claiming that TOMORROW they'll be like Hitler! They're doomed now!
(Oh please let this work. Oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please...)
If that doesn't pan out, we'll have to fight it with popular opinion. Think a good rallying cry would be "Works under Copyright don't fall under Patent"? How about "Patent and Copyright don't mix"?
I have no idea what to do about this, but it's really bad. I don't want to be property, but I'm already feeling like it. At least my 'owners' used to be good old-fashioned creditors, specifically credit card companies. I don't play into most money-scams for various industries, because I basically don't buy much of anything. On the other hand, this is taking food out of peoples' mouthes. It's not just taking away my rights of freedom of speech, it is going to make it more difficult for authors of any age to succeed.
As the SO of an playwright, I am very, very scared, and very angry. This is incredibly demeaning to authors, as it makes them more like 'professionals' and less like 'artists', not that authors cannot be very serious about their work. I think it is a sign of the apocalypse when everyone has to be a lawyer to survive. I think it is a warning sign regarding aspiring authors' bank balances when they also have to be lawyers.
We have to fight this. We really cannot let this stick. If it does, all of our cultural heritage will be used to destroy us. How far back can prior art for patent issues go? Will we end up only writing stories legally in the US that have 'prior art' in the public domain, rather than the other way around, i.e. 'original works'? There is no good outcome from this, and no utility.
I'd riot if I thought it would help. Where do we do that?
i mean after all, when you buy a console, sony/ms/nintendo are still the owners, it's THEIR machine. you have to pay them for the privilege of making addons for it or for executing any code on the processors.
I know that you're sarcastically stating that Sony will crush its competition as always, but that would be STUPID. Sony can sell MORE PSPs if people know about good add-ons. Nothing, no pride or anger, would lead one company to attack another company when both their bottom lines are improving. It seems like big corporations squish people a lot, but they're not going to do it this time. They only do it when they feel that it serves their interest, and attacking this doesn't.
This is especially true since the UMD video business is more profitable than game sales for the PSP, and the PSP has less games overall than its main competitor, the DS.
Also, this TV adapter keeps the PSP ahead of the iPod. It has been announced that some iPods in the future will play TV shows and such. If Sony doesn't watch out, they'll have Apple as a competitor in video and Nintendo as a competitor in games, both on the same machine. That will probably destroy them, since they haven't sold people enough PSPs to be sure of controlling either of those markets with it.
Local emergencies should be handled by city, the county, the state and then the federal. In that order.
I'm not really sure that I agree with this. The major efforts to rebuild New Orleans were conducted by Army engineers, and military hardware was a big part of multiple efforts. It's not appropriate to turn over control of military hardware and manpower to local authorities, given that a great amount of coordination is needed to use available tools most efficiently. That in turn means that some central authority, possibly military, possibly not, is needed for coordinating the military's assistance.
The gp was about consultation about a specific problem, probably not something that the doctor with DSL did every day, or even every week. Say a small office in the boondocks needs help fast, and the nearest hospital can be an hour away, even by helicopter (you've got to bring the chopper). A small place can generally call for help, and get a more-qualified surgeon on the line from said hospital in a few minutes, who suggests video transfer or specific slides online. This is not the normal use of the internet connection at a small office. A lot of doctors' practices are running by the skin of their teeth, given the rising number of people without health insurance who can't afford to see a doctor. An additional overhead of $550-$1800 a month (two figures quoted so far) can kill an office.
But the obvious answer: The majority of downloaders will be people who want the content without paying for it. Hence, people who do not have on-demand access to the content and therefore have no fair use rights to it.
There's something weird here. Normally, the court system is where you go for redress of wrongs. HBO feels wronged, but is not going through the courts. So how do we view their response? I do not see it as vigilante justice, as that is generally associated with mob mentality. This is a purposefully chosen course of action, by a large corporation, and it was publicly visible (at least for those who read slashdot). So, I think it is appropriate to react to HBO's decision as one does to any other publicly visible action by a large corporation.
In this case, it seems like a mean thing to do, both because they are interrupting other's activities and because they could have provided what the people wanted if they (HBO) wanted to. So, it makes me think poorly of HBO. Since HBO didn't go through the courts, I don't really feel like I have to think about the laws at all.
This is too easy.
If you dont want to buy it because they wont give you a free sample, that is your choice. But that doesnt legitamize people who want to download, against the will of HBO. Their marketing descisions are not the same as your entitlment.
The GP, KFG, was not indicating that downloading was appropriate. I believe that the point was that HBO's decision was DUMB. I'll repeat it, too: HBO and all the other companies attempting to control downloads of material that can be legally recorded have the marketing knowledge of insects. They are DUMB, STUPID, MORONIC, and other all-caps words.
This doesn't mean that I think that downloading is appropriate.
Maybe you expect anyone who attacks copyright holders' choices to favor direct violation of the law. I'm not sure. On the other hand, you definitely have no clue what copyright and patent law are for. They encourage people to provide their artistic, intellectual, and technical work to the public. Ownership of such work is vested in the law of people, and is not a natural condition. Publishing companies have used these laws to profit from works created by many people, but that position is not written in stone, or even in law. It is merely an extension of the copyright laws and control of technology that have formed in the last few hundred years.
I hope people realize that the parent is a joke.
The GP did say, "contributed." This is the icky side of the GPL... everyone has to be aware of the legal issues concerning their own work, even as friendly volunteers. To make the situation clear, the GP had access to code liscensed under the GPL, and added to it, afterwards handing that code back to someone. That someone, despite being the copyright owner of the original code, is now handed code that doesn't belong to them, but which they recieve under the GPL. Its incorporation into their own product therefore makes THE WHOLE CODEBASE OF NESSUS under the GPL outside of the sole ownership of its original creators.
Or does it? Somebody is going to take that to court someday, and it could get ugly. If it goes in favor of the original copyright owner, and not the GPL's terms, then the GPL suffers. If, as it probably should, it goes in favor of the GPL, then less companies will use the GPL, realizing that accepting feedback on a GPL'd project may screw them.
On a related note, is MySQL in the same position? Certainly the various security teams for various groups have contributed some code back to MySQL by now, unless the developers have been very guarded.
Somebody, please let me know if cases like this have already happened.
I've got some anger built up, so I'm going to vent it. You chose to insult the doctor who developed a useful technique, so I'm going to dissect your insult. No karma bonus, since this is just a rant.
You are obviously not a scientist, at least, not a serious one. Here's why: a real scientist looks at things from multiple perspectives. I suppose you're not dumb, just unaccustomed to thinking things through. For example, in this case, you suggest that seeing moving, working hearts is sufficient to understanding them. This narrow view is a sign of someone who hasn't tried to solve problems him- or herself very often. As other people have mentioned, inspiration comes from various places. If you knew anything about the history of scientific development, you would know that the most abrupt advances in science and technology have almost universally come from looking at a situation in ways that others were not. On of the common situations occurs when a scientist notes that the majority of his or her peers view a problem in a certain way, and seeks an alternate viewpoint simply because the majority might be missing something. Examples of this are Linear B, DNA structure, and interplanetary superhighways. A serious scientist who is humble enough to doubt his or her assumptions will look for alternate viewpoints, even searching for nonsensical connections between concepts, simply because the current assumption is that no such connection exists. Da Vinci's art was meticulous, detailed, and yet stylized. It does not live; it is flat, with the sections delineated. This alternate viewpoint is a valid source of inspiration, and ignoring it merely because of the presence of others is as arrogant and stupid as you make it sound. Pardon me, as U make it sound. I like being precise.
Of course, there's another side to your idiodicy. You are criticizing a scientist for seeking inspiration from a known artist/scientist. A few geniuses stand out, such as da Vinci and Verne. Their speculative designs have been crafted into working apparati for generations. This doctor was trying to improve the lives of those he served, and he looked to a source known to inspire useful devices in the real world from the sketches left from the past. And you want to degrade him for mentioning it. You insult his license, his education, his career, and his family life.
I'm sure you wanted some STFU rebuttals or maybe a simple, "You don't know what you're talking about." You don't. You have no idea what drives someone to understand and improve the world. I won't say that you are a disgrace as a human being, because you may have other qualities. I fear, however, that your lack of insight into science will hamper your "family", when and if you have one, because you may not be able to encourage your children to think for themselves about the scientific method.
I could say that people like you make me weep for the future of our environment, arts, and science, but I know we can get along without you. The truth is that people like you, as you are at the moment, make me sad because I know so many other people who work hard to benefit you in ways that you may not appreciate. I say, "at the moment," because people change. I have faith in the chance for you to help and encourage those around you, even though you have stated that you have none in this man.
Speaking of blogs, how does this rule work for servers that are outside of China?
Well, we know that China filters outside internet content and only allows some sites to reach Chinese people. It's a pretty good guess that they'd just keep that up and filter whatever site was used to spread 'anti-China' news.
I have played Guild Wars, and not World of Warcraft. I have been very curious about WoW, so I asked around a lot. I have a thesis:
WoW is an MMO Epic RPG, i.e. it is geared around the long haul, accumulating power, and abilities gained at later levels that put to shame those of early levels, giving players a sense of accomplishment when they level their character and gain abilities.
GW is an MMO Action RPG, i.e. it is geared around doing a specific task at a time, acquiring abilities is easy, and the skills you gain may be better but not in an earth-shattering way, leading the focus towards skill choice and skill use.
That's my thesis. I see it played out in how WoW has different sides, chosen at character creation (I think), which have access to completely separate classes. The game is balanced by the designers' choices of access to different powers for the different factions. On the other hand, there are no disparate sides in GW, and a dedicated player can reach max level and learn some impressive skills within a week of play or less. In that case, the balance comes from the relative strengths of skills, with no skill standing out to steal the show.
These games appeal to very different people, and I think that their audiences should not be compared directly. WoW appeals to the serious gamer, but specifically the power gamer, someone who wants a constant challenge to survive and reach personal goals, and who likes besting others or preventing that. GW also appeals to the serious gamer, but specifically the strategy gamer, someone who likes coordinating with others against equal adversaries and using skills exactly when needed.
Now for the fine points:
Each of these games also appeals to casual gamers, but WoW's monthly fee unfortunately forces many of them to shy away from it.
I do find it a pity that GW only has player mixing in towns, but since the journeys into combat areas are usually done for a specific purpose, that isn't so bad.
Both games are beautiful.
GW could take a hint from WoW and make it easier to articulate the stats for something you want to sell.
I personally don't want to play WoW, because the idea of waiting while playing (corpse camping, for instance) is not appealing, since I might not have much time to play.
In GW, you don't jump, but you can click to walk somewhere. It occasionally seems frustrating to not be able to clamber up hillsides, but I recognize that if you could, then the walls would have to be higher, and that would prevent you from seeing everything you need to see in a large fight.
I see and hear about a lot of 'screwing around' in WoW by bored people, such as taking an invulnerability potion in the middle of enemy territory and yelling "KILL ME!" (there's a video out there), forming a walking 'train' of people, then saying "Woo-wooo!" everywhere you go (a friend of mine), going to a different server and begging for gold, then giving it all to the player who gave them the most (same friend). And of course, playing a high-level character and killing people randomly. In GW, no one is that bored, assuming they find some pleasure in the strategy of the game's combat, except when they are looking for a group (see below).
GW is difficult to play without other humans with you on missions and some quests. For the first few dozen hours of gameplay, or maybe only the first ten if you're hurrying, you can get away with taking NPC henchman with you, but after that you need other people. There is no class combination that has more or less of that need, and there are no 'unwanted' classes. Because of this, everyone gets accustomed to grouping with people, and everyone gets about an equal chance to join any group. Pick-up groups happen everywhere you go. However, it is sometimes difficult to fill up a group, and this causes some waiting. You may wait fifteen minutes to form a group if you are particularly unlucky. However, if you have friends that play with you, this is not such a problem, e
You're a raving loony. "They" are out to get you. Go find a bunker somewhere, and leave us in peace, ok?
I really don't get where you're coming from. The 'trusted computing' storm has been on the horizon for years.
For an official description, why don't you read the Trusted Computing FAQ? The first paragraph of the second section, entitled "The Trusted Platform Module (TPM) and Implementation" has pertinent information.
For a description from the outside, try this link. Just the first paragraph under the first question is sufficient. Note also the date on the FAQ. It was written two years ago, when the Trusted Computing group was formed. These issues have been known for years, and have been discussed publicly many times.
If you are not aware of the music and movie industries' desires to distribute their collective assets using technologies that prevent unlicensed use, mention the words 'CDs', 'movies', and 'copy protection' to anyone on the street, and ask them how they are connected. For bonus points, you could find someone to point you to information about the RIAA's and MPAA's views on people sharing copyrighted works over the internet.
So... to bring this to a close, you could, perhaps, read the articles about trusted computing, or at the very least the paragraph in each which I mentioned specifically. After that, you could consider the opinions of powerful industry groups concerning the need for DRM-like technology to protect their assets. Finally, you could put two and two together. Maybe then you could stop bothering someone who actually reads things. I found the articles by typing 'trusted computing' into google. You could have tried it, too, but instead you trolled. Good bye.
The goal of 'broadband by 2007' is an arbitrary political goal. It would give the US some benefits, though:
1. Increase access to information for rural children.
We have a lot of 'backwater' areas where the schools aren't so great. If broadband was available, and common, it would encourage parents in rural areas to give their children a second source of information. It's a little hard to imagine this being a big deal unless you've been a kid in the middle of nowhere. There aren't very many sources of information at all in small towns and farther out.
2. Encourage cities to provide information online.
This is very big. If broadband is "everywhere", then your little town may decide that it's worthwhile to post its town meeting schedule online. Think about how pervasive a change could be... if finding out about city council meeting involved loading a bookmarked page, a lot of people might do it. Just an example. Big cities already put some stuff online, but if it becomes standard to put everything online then people will be more informed and more involved.
3. A government stamp of approval signals that it's time for the old farts to try out this thing.
Not too big a deal, especially since the administration is very un-vocal about this. However, an official push for broadband means that all the news shows that present the world the way the administration sees it have to include this 'internet' thing in their normal talks. Not that the major news sites haven't had great online sites for quite a while. A story here and there about our progress or lack of it towards the official goal of broadband availability will nudge the computer-illiterate gently towards computer use and acceptance.
So, it'd be good if it happened, and it's good that it gets an official push.
In spite of its irrelevance, class warfare just never gets old, does it?
No, it doesn't. It never grows old for those on the bottom, and it never seems relevant for those who think they are on top. YOU ARE IN MY FUCKING BOAT. This shit is going to affect every one of us, and the grandparent is illustrating in a humorous manner that many in power are grinding the scientists into the dust. It's fucking relevant, and it's fucking real.
If you think for a moment that you are not part of this, that you can be unconcerned, I would advise you to never touch a computer again. We are responsible for the world that we accept, and for preventing accidental harm to others. This GLOBAL WARMING which is happening, this DESTABILIZATION, it's important. And it is being dutifully reported by people who are then spurned and defaced by right-wing politicians, among others. And you are letting it happen, both the smears and the slow destabilization.
Well, all right. I don't want to bug anybody with this. How do you find out if your emergency system is really going to work, though? I mean, all my other backup and fail-safe systems get tested at least once. I guess you could just hope you've got a minor reason to call 911 before you've got a major reason, but that doesn't sound too good to me.
If 911 took too long from a cell phone, then I'd feel compelled to look up the local emergency numbers for my city and add them to my phone. True, that wouldn't help on a trip or something, but "when seconds count" as the ads went, you've got to make sure it works as well as it can. This is all about the 'safety of mission critical components', i.e. bodily health, so I can't see my way to not testing it.
Mind you, I did test it, because I stopped for other people's traffic accidents and called 911. Sometimes I was actually the first to report it, so I don't feel bad about the other times where I was a me-too poster, as it were.
Looks like Texas is better off than California in this regard, at least in my experience. 911 from a cellphone here gets me an immediate "What city, please?" followed by a transfer to that city's 911 service. Takes a few seconds, but it sounds much better than minutes.
Try it out yourself. During a non-peak and non-widespread emergency period (no rain, even), call 911, see how long it takes, and say "Sorry, just testing the system. Thank you for being there." Then hang up and don't tie up the line. Here it doesn't take long at all. If it does take a long time from a cell phone in your area, raise holy hell, because there's no reason for it.
Oh, okay. I found all sorts of interesting stuff about the subdermally implanted RFID chips while searching, though.
No one seems to be using them on people exactly, but it seems to be a pretty big threat. And by threat, I mean it's an invasion of privacy that doesn't help us be more secure, and the way it's pushed may actually work. I for one, will not get something implanted into me that anyone can read until I have some particularly strong need to be IDed everywhere I go.
All the examples they give in support of subdermal RFID are bad. A lot of people with severe medical allergies wear bracelets stating that so the paramedics can read them. Only a government-funded initiative could put RFID readers in every ambulance in the country. Of course, that's how RFID is being pushed, with the aim of securing a high-level government initiative. Me, I'll buy my own scanner, find the thing in my body, and pull it out with my bare hands if I have to.
On a related note, I think the thing to watch for in this campaign would be an attempt to make some form of RFID reader illegal to own for personal use, with some sort of government-issued license required. That's how they could justify the (non-useful) security.
I can't find any information about that. Can you post a link or something? Or just name a city where it's happening?
There are a fair amount of people that would feel this sort of thing crosses the line, specifically crossing the line into their bodies. I'm not suggesting that a mass uprising would occur, but a minor one probably would, spearheaded by the truly paranoid and followed by the concerned.
That's the thing, really. There are always causes spearheaded by fanatics. If something happens that makes concerned people agree with fanatics, THEN you get an uprising or a cult. It doesn't have to be big, but one fanatic announcing their decision would probably attract some highly concerned people, and if the fanatic in question was charismatic enough, well, then you have the makings of a small army.
This particular issue seems like it could fall into the category where concerned people start agreeing with fanatics, so don't be surprised (assuming it happens) that a lot of people actually use physical force to defend themselves en masse.
I'm really curious. Did I miss something?
Yes, you missed some marketing training. Not exactly basic marketing, but basic pricing training. To sum up: an offer from an unknown source for an unknown product for $0 is seen as a bad choice. There are also two other issues.
In this case, if the audience was computer savvy, and could judge the product (the OS) based on its merits, then a $0 price tag would be fine. However, when selling to an audience that is not conversant in the product, the audience uses the price to gauge the worth of the product.
A product with a nothing price of $0 or thereabouts is perceived as dangerous when it comes from a source you don't know, ASSUMING that you don't know the product. For instance, if someone approached me and offered me a hundred (empty) suitcases, I wouldn't tend to trust the offer. I don't know which types of suitcases are good, and this random offer of totally free suitcases is unusual. I would expect there to be severe drawbacks, flaws, or major strings attached.
However, a low price that still makes a small dent in the budget is seen as legitimate. In the nineties I worked for a company where $500 was the largest 'capital expense' an employee could file, i.e. anything more than $500 had to be approved as part of the company's budget. So $500 sends a message. It says, "This is a serious product, with a low cost." Attaching that price to an OS offered to a company sends the message that there is value in it. That message will get through even if the company is unfamiliar with the product.
On the other hand, if an employee of a company is familiar with the technology, they can (possibly) persuade their organization of its merits. A trusted source can do that, but a different organization or person making an offer generally cannot.
There is also a secondary aspect to this. Microsoft has generally convinced non-technical people that OSes cost money. Linspire takes this into account by charging money for the OS itself, as well as support contracts that everyone charges money for. So its product is seen by non-technical people as a real alternative, because in most cases they feel that they MUST pay for the OS. Debian is my favorite distribution, but I think I'd have a hard time convincing non-technical managers at a non-technical company to use it, unless I was going to charge them to install and maintain it and made it sound like that was how you paid for it.
Anyway, this is a pretty common issue for Linux. It's free, money-wise, and that means it looks weird to corporations. They EXPECT to pay money for good tools, and in general they expect to be able to get a refund for tools that don't work. If there's no cost, there's no refund, and instead, if something goes wrong, someone would have to get fired to even things out.
Thirdly, there's the issue of branding and a sense of control. Microsoft knows that its OS is not particularly configurable, and it markets it with smooth assurances that 'everything will work fine' with it. Linux is known, even in the non-technical world, to be finicky or difficult, despite the fact that Windows is even more finicky in many ways. The impact of all of this is that a manager or executive who sees Windows on their computer feels in control, whereas not so much with Linux. Microsoft does a lot of UI work to make that feeling stick, despite how the machine screws up. Linux's various UIs are made by thousands of volunteers and some paid programmers, and they aim at general usability, not the specific feelings of comfort and control. Not that there's anything comfortable or in-control about using Windows, but people feel those things strongly because of the UI designed with an eye to its psychological effects.
So Linux has three strikes against it:
1. A $0 price is scary on general principles.
2. A $0 price would mean that no other company would be at fault when things go wrong.
3. Its marketing and UI are not evil and do not promote vague s
Actually, I really like KVM switches and two towers under the desk for development tasks. My preference would be Debian on one and I something for the commercial apps on the other, basically Mac or Windows. On the server I can run a no-frills install linux server, not even x-windows, and on the other machine I use editing tools with built-in ftp features to move stuff to the server. This means the server is stable, free of crashes from anything except major errors on my part, and I can test to my heart's content, even run system-hogging stuff while other people check out my uploaded work.
The really big deal is that the linux server is up while you use the other OSes, meaning you can let people connect to it regardless of what you're doing, either for simple web access or ftp. That makes things really nice for small projects.
Of course, now I dual boot, and it sort of sucks, but I only boot to Windows for games. YMWV, because I'm a coder, and many coding tools are available in linux. I don't have any problems with synching anymore, since I wrote a rock-solid python script for that and glued it into both OSes.
or just go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
There's no money involved, and if anything the artist is increasing public awareness both of the tool he used and the art work he referenced.
For more information on fair use in everyday life, you could check out various webcomics which blatantly rip off video games' graphics and yet persist for years.
What you describe is what I want, too. My point is, though, that there's enough money generated through the other, crappier, ways that big companies will be willing to go ahead with DRM in order to protect those ways. The industry supporters of DRM feel that they need it for their bottom line, and history is showing them to be correct. Despite the evidence inherent in cassette recorders, VCRs, CD-burners, and other devices in that vein, there is still a viable and low-risk income stream from well-hyped formula content. When creative talent is in surplus, that income stream is the safety net for the big companies. When creative talent is lacking, that income stream is the only income. DRM is seen as a way of protecting it, just as VCRs and CD burners are seen as attacks on it.
It does not matter what individual artists do, because an individual artist's accounts look different from those of a major record label. As long as the record labels and the movie companies need such a constant stream of income to survive, they will pursue DRM aggressively.
It is also not a solution to suggest that artists break away from record labels or movie studios. Those organizations have shown, in many ways, that the sizes of their organizations are the best for operating in their respective industries. Their sizes are the most efficient at making money, i.e. the economy of scale for the music and movie industries favors very large multi-production companies. Because of that, artists seeking to assure future income will inevitably group themselves in organizations of that size.
Because of that, there will always be organizations that feel they must force DRM on people.
You have not been paying attention to (American) music or movies for the last four decades. While in theory artistic effort cannot be commoditized, in practice, formulaic works sell very, very well.
There is a very well-defined production path for 'pop' music, as well as a few other mature genres. Specifically, check out the 'boy-band' scene.
Many movies released are 'safe', i.e. derivatives with a guaranteed low payoff rather than a potential high payoff. This is how it has to be if movie studios are to assure their stockholders that they will pay the bills.
Do not think for a minute that artists will rise up against this. Artists will complain and go their own ways, but way more than enough artists will go along with it.
Dear maker of site ______,
Your site sucks because it SUCKS>>>>>> You wnat me to ues a suck-browser that sucks because you suck! I could write you something thaty ou would call'dignified' but I won't becaus your site is STUPID. Why did you let mpeope make you a site that only use "Internet Explorer" aka. the blue thing on yor desktop?! I want to go to your site but I cannot! ALl because I am using the best OS there is and not WindowsTM. What's wrong with youu? Make your site better, or I will tell everyone about how it sucks.! Please make your site better, i.e. no IE. If you don't know what that means then ask someone!
Sincerely,
________
P.S. If you can't tell that thesse is humar, then please replace your site with pr0n. Thank you.