I owned Bard's Tale on my old Amiga. Don't have the Amiga any more, can't buy the game for the PC. Now I could copy it from any of a dozen abandonware sites and nobody would come after me, but I would be doing something that's technically illegal. Things that should be permissible and whose sanctions are not enforced shouldn't be illegal. It's illegal to have oral sex in Virginia. That law and copyright protection for abandonware have equal (that is zero) moral weight. Now I've never let these silly laws get in my way, but it annoys the heck out of me that just living my life, harming nobody, marks me as a criminal.
And the earlier posts about Frogger and Pac-Man - offbase there. You could remove copyright restrictions on the games, but still retain your registered trademark so that nobody else can make Frogger 2002, but people can play their childhood favorite for free.
It's not about using code. And it's not about giving away source code, just removing copyright protection. Briefly, if word processor company x went out of business and removed copyright protection from their program, anybody could then use it for no cost - nothing to prevent people copying it and giving it away. So that word processor company y would have a smaller group of people to sell to and their business would suffer. The assumption being of course that we should give a rat's ass about a soulless multi-nat or naive start-up. Which I don't, so the argument carries no weight with me.
I wouldn't have to point it out to the people saying they want to pay the artist for the material. That's not a possible legal solution for most of the music they want to access.
For new music this is correct. But if you want something by Madonna, the record companies already own all her old work. That's only accessible by making deals with the record company, the artist unfortunately has no say there.
The payment goes to the label because in 99% of circumstances the artist does NOT own the copyright on their own music. They agree to sign all rights to their work away for eternity to the record label before the record comes out. So you COULDN'T pay the artists directly in trade for licensing the mp3's, they no longer own the art, they already sold it. Contrast this to the book publishing world where authors sign away rights to a work for one printing. Very different.
This has nothing to do with paying artists and never did. The artist has already been paid. They may get a small cut of record sales, they more likely do not. So it's always only been about paying the record companies. Just for clarification....
"Microsoft said a new feature of Windows XP, known as "drizzle," can automatically download the free fix, which takes several minutes to download, and prompt consumers to install it."
They're being nice this time. Asking the current user. Anyone out there have XP installed? Go and look in your local users. 'Microsoft' is a local user. The installation configures it automatically. So that Microsoft I guess can run software on your computer without your knowledge to 'help' you. Wanna bet any local user could say yes to the drizzle request? Wanna bet they could fix this remote access hack by remotely hacking into your box and running code?;)
Social hacking. "Hey yeah, this is uh, Joe from finance. What's the password to log into the database again? Thanks." No use building million dollar impregnable walls if the gatekeeper waves the invading hordes right on through....
I agree that SSL does give a false sense of security, especially with credit card numbers. Truly private info like credit card numbers should always be stored in ecrypted form, not just transmitted in encrypted form. I'm amazed especially at stories of dot-coms where a hacker managed to penetrate a database and then have access to a million credit cards. Ridiculous. You can keep 9 out of 10 hackers out with good external security. Out of the ones that get thru, the 1 in 100 who could deal with and decrypt the card numbers in the database will probably decide it's not worthwhile and go steal them from someone less cautious.
What's your point? In 10 years everything anyone does in computers today will be obsolete. Does that mean nobody should bother? If nobody bothered then nobody would make the advances...
There is no perfect security. That doesn't mean you should just be happy with no security.
Just word play, the Weakly Interacting Massive Particle theory (WIMP) was competing with the MAssive Compact Halo Object (MACHO) theory.
They don't need to not emit ANY light, they just need to emit so little we can't normally see them. If the interstellar dust absorbs most of the light emitted by a distant dwarf star we can't see the light from the star. So we don't know there's a star there, but we can see the effects of it's gravity.
I went to school for 4 years studying architecture. I only realized in the last year that it wasn't for me. That though I often liked doing it, I simply was NOT talented at it. It was humbling to realize that many people that were less intelligent than me in a general sense were much more talented at architecture. And truthfully the idea of a lifetime spent in charette (an extended period of time spent in the studio cramming in all the final presentation work) filled me with dread.
I got so depressed I almost dropped out of school. Came pretty close, but it was my last year so I finished up. Spent two years after that partying, relaxing, getting fed up with pizza delivery and waiting tables, and trying to figure out how I would be happy spending the rest of my life. C'mon, you don't know yourself when you're 17 or 18 and go to college. You don't know what you'll like. Don't think you have to justify the money spent on school by throwing the whole rest of your life away on something you don't like.
You don't have to lose your love of the subject. I'm still transfixed by beautiful buildings and spaces. But you may not be cut out for a life working in what you love. Sucks.... but it's very possible. I decided on programming (always been interested in computers but never really followed up on it) went to CLC for a bit and discovered that I had a strong natural talent for coding. My mind's just good at it. I don't love it per se, but I like being good at what I do.
So..... take some of those silly aptitude tests. Be open to other possibilities. A CS background is very helpful in a ton of areas.
TV stations live in a competitive world. The shows that have the most WIDESPREAD appeal have the best ratings, and are rewarded with higher ad revenue. What has the most widespread appeal? Anything that hits on our evolutionary hotspots: sex, danger, food, 'save the children' memes. People pay attention to those things not because they want to, but because millions of years of evolutionary programming compells us to. TV stations play to that. Is it their fault we're only human? No. But obviosly in a free market, evolutionarily driven system, we will produce shows that pander to humaniy's basest desires. We have to realize that this is the system we've set up, and shows like 'Married with Children', 'When Animals Attack', and 'Scariest Police Chases' are the inevitable result.
State sponsored systems like the BBC don't judge a show based solely on ratings. In the BBC, quality of the show actually determines whether it stays on or not. They also have an evolutionary system, but they kill shows with low quality, not shows with low ratings.
The networks are starting to feel entitled, forgetting that the public owns the airwaves. We used to force networks to show things about elections, other matters of public interest for free. Now they charge the politicians tons of money for runnign campaign ads. Ridiculous. I agree, we should re-take more control over the airwaves.
TV studios need to realize that people hate ads. They need to start getting companies to pay for product placement in tv shows rather than selling blocks of time for companies to try to promote themselves. If they do this their revenue model will be immune from the ad stripping they fear.
If they choose not to do this, they're idiots. They seem to think they have a right to follow the same business model that prevailed before people had vcr's or net connections and still profit from it. There is no such right. Adapt and stay strong, or fight change and wither. Why does America's business community have so little vision?
To make a claim for redress under copyright laws, the copyright owner must show ACTUAL loss, not possible loss, not potential loss. Otherwise they have no recourse under copyright law. Which is why they're so in love with the DMCA which makes no mention of loss, only of 'unauthorized' access.
I lived with a tape freak. He traded audio and video tapes with people all over the world. He recorded every episode of the Simpsons and, oddly, In the Heat of the Night, and cut out every commercial from every episode. It was basically a second job for him he spent so much time on it. So he was 'profiting' (the studios regard trading one copyrighted work for another copyrighted work as 'profiting', even though you could have seen it for free yourself, even could have copied it for free yourself) from their work. Specifically because he was adding value by taking out the commercials his product was more attractive.
He'd leverage collections of these prepared shows into trades for bootleg concert recordings, whole tours, all kinds of stuff fans have always wanted and media companies have always REFUSED to provide for sale. I mean sheesh.... how do you stop bootleg concert recordings? A la Pearl Jam, sell professional versions. The point is - the technology to allow this kind of activity existed with the VCR in the Betamax case. Stripping out commercials, making copies (unlimited copies too), and profiting from the work. Replay is on slightly more dangerous grounds than Sony was - Betamax allowed you to copy, but did nothing to encourage you to trade copies. Had Sony organized tv show tape swapping events, the Supreme Court may have decided differently in that case. Replay seems to be actively encouraging trading. That is a bit shaky, but it's definitely one point on a slippery slope. VCRs ALLOWED all the activity the studios are now saying is forbidden in a DVR. Love that progress:)
The real problem with the studio's arguments is that THEY GIVE THEIR PRODUCT AWAY FOR FREE! In fact, they WANT to encourage as many people to see it as possible. Their shows are beaming through my brain right now. Their claims that they 'own' it just don't match common sense. When you give me something for free, I feel free doing whatever I want with it. The problem is they need to change their ad system and they're too stupid to realize it. Instead of blocks of ads, which are a distraction from their show, and which people hate, and which encourage people to change channels, they should follow the prescient advice in the Truman Show - product placement should occur for a fee INSIDE of the context of the show. Instead of Nike paying Michael Jordan to hawm their shoes, they should just pay NBC to have Jay Leno wear them on his show. As soon as ads aren't something that can be stripped off a show and discarded, the studios wouldn't have to worry about people making ad free copies and giving them away. With ads embedded in the product their business model could dispense with blocks of annoying ads and could embrace this new technology, the spread of copied tapes of the Enterprise would be a selling point for the network instead of a lost opportunity for profit.
So what do you want to bet? Will the TV studios meet the challenge of new technology by redefining their business model into something better, or will they force more draconian laws on us preventing us from doing things with digital media that we can already do with analog media? WHY does nobody in the business community have any vision?
nobody will buy a computer just to play games
nobody will buy a computer just to do email
nobody will buy a WORSE OS just to use MS Office.
stop saying people won't do something stupid. they have b4, they will again.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever lugged record cases around? What a pain. Songs are information, and information just shouldn't need to weigh so much.
That's a really good idea for the actual computer. How would you rack mount a keyboard or monitor though? What would that look like?
I had an amiga then... original disks don't help me now. Hm, still available huh? I'll try to hunt it up.
I owned Bard's Tale on my old Amiga. Don't have the Amiga any more, can't buy the game for the PC. Now I could copy it from any of a dozen abandonware sites and nobody would come after me, but I would be doing something that's technically illegal. Things that should be permissible and whose sanctions are not enforced shouldn't be illegal. It's illegal to have oral sex in Virginia. That law and copyright protection for abandonware have equal (that is zero) moral weight. Now I've never let these silly laws get in my way, but it annoys the heck out of me that just living my life, harming nobody, marks me as a criminal.
And the earlier posts about Frogger and Pac-Man - offbase there. You could remove copyright restrictions on the games, but still retain your registered trademark so that nobody else can make Frogger 2002, but people can play their childhood favorite for free.
It's not about using code. And it's not about giving away source code, just removing copyright protection. Briefly, if word processor company x went out of business and removed copyright protection from their program, anybody could then use it for no cost - nothing to prevent people copying it and giving it away. So that word processor company y would have a smaller group of people to sell to and their business would suffer. The assumption being of course that we should give a rat's ass about a soulless multi-nat or naive start-up. Which I don't, so the argument carries no weight with me.
Right on the money.... who cares about source code? I don't want to hack Bard's Tale, just to play it again....
Bad linux grammar makes me barfen. And what the hell is u*ix? Do you meanen *nix? They maden unix only.... go aheaden and usen the whole word.
I wouldn't have to point it out to the people saying they want to pay the artist for the material. That's not a possible legal solution for most of the music they want to access.
For new music this is correct. But if you want something by Madonna, the record companies already own all her old work. That's only accessible by making deals with the record company, the artist unfortunately has no say there.
The payment goes to the label because in 99% of circumstances the artist does NOT own the copyright on their own music. They agree to sign all rights to their work away for eternity to the record label before the record comes out. So you COULDN'T pay the artists directly in trade for licensing the mp3's, they no longer own the art, they already sold it. Contrast this to the book publishing world where authors sign away rights to a work for one printing. Very different.
This has nothing to do with paying artists and never did. The artist has already been paid. They may get a small cut of record sales, they more likely do not. So it's always only been about paying the record companies. Just for clarification....
The problem is that they are educated stupid. They can't compute a time cube.
I don't have XP installed but my co-worker does and he showed it to me. Do some more digging.
all good tweakers maybe ;)
though i have coded for 30 hours straight before, i would not recommend it.
Myst does not improve critical thinking skills.
The only critical thought one needs when playing Myst is 'where is the off button?'
"Microsoft said a new feature of Windows XP, known as "drizzle," can automatically download the free fix, which takes several minutes to download, and prompt consumers to install it."
;)
They're being nice this time. Asking the current user. Anyone out there have XP installed? Go and look in your local users. 'Microsoft' is a local user. The installation configures it automatically. So that Microsoft I guess can run software on your computer without your knowledge to 'help' you. Wanna bet any local user could say yes to the drizzle request? Wanna bet they could fix this remote access hack by remotely hacking into your box and running code?
Social hacking. "Hey yeah, this is uh, Joe from finance. What's the password to log into the database again? Thanks." No use building million dollar impregnable walls if the gatekeeper waves the invading hordes right on through....
I agree that SSL does give a false sense of security, especially with credit card numbers. Truly private info like credit card numbers should always be stored in ecrypted form, not just transmitted in encrypted form. I'm amazed especially at stories of dot-coms where a hacker managed to penetrate a database and then have access to a million credit cards. Ridiculous. You can keep 9 out of 10 hackers out with good external security. Out of the ones that get thru, the 1 in 100 who could deal with and decrypt the card numbers in the database will probably decide it's not worthwhile and go steal them from someone less cautious.
What's your point? In 10 years everything anyone does in computers today will be obsolete. Does that mean nobody should bother? If nobody bothered then nobody would make the advances...
There is no perfect security. That doesn't mean you should just be happy with no security.
talking weird grammar you are, yes.
ancient wizard, you?
Jedi mind tricking your way past security, yes.
Just word play, the Weakly Interacting Massive Particle theory (WIMP) was competing with the MAssive Compact Halo Object (MACHO) theory.
They don't need to not emit ANY light, they just need to emit so little we can't normally see them. If the interstellar dust absorbs most of the light emitted by a distant dwarf star we can't see the light from the star. So we don't know there's a star there, but we can see the effects of it's gravity.
I went to school for 4 years studying architecture. I only realized in the last year that it wasn't for me. That though I often liked doing it, I simply was NOT talented at it. It was humbling to realize that many people that were less intelligent than me in a general sense were much more talented at architecture. And truthfully the idea of a lifetime spent in charette (an extended period of time spent in the studio cramming in all the final presentation work) filled me with dread.
I got so depressed I almost dropped out of school. Came pretty close, but it was my last year so I finished up. Spent two years after that partying, relaxing, getting fed up with pizza delivery and waiting tables, and trying to figure out how I would be happy spending the rest of my life. C'mon, you don't know yourself when you're 17 or 18 and go to college. You don't know what you'll like. Don't think you have to justify the money spent on school by throwing the whole rest of your life away on something you don't like.
You don't have to lose your love of the subject. I'm still transfixed by beautiful buildings and spaces. But you may not be cut out for a life working in what you love. Sucks.... but it's very possible. I decided on programming (always been interested in computers but never really followed up on it) went to CLC for a bit and discovered that I had a strong natural talent for coding. My mind's just good at it. I don't love it per se, but I like being good at what I do.
So..... take some of those silly aptitude tests. Be open to other possibilities. A CS background is very helpful in a ton of areas.
TV stations live in a competitive world. The shows that have the most WIDESPREAD appeal have the best ratings, and are rewarded with higher ad revenue. What has the most widespread appeal? Anything that hits on our evolutionary hotspots: sex, danger, food, 'save the children' memes. People pay attention to those things not because they want to, but because millions of years of evolutionary programming compells us to. TV stations play to that. Is it their fault we're only human? No. But obviosly in a free market, evolutionarily driven system, we will produce shows that pander to humaniy's basest desires. We have to realize that this is the system we've set up, and shows like 'Married with Children', 'When Animals Attack', and 'Scariest Police Chases' are the inevitable result.
State sponsored systems like the BBC don't judge a show based solely on ratings. In the BBC, quality of the show actually determines whether it stays on or not. They also have an evolutionary system, but they kill shows with low quality, not shows with low ratings.
The networks are starting to feel entitled, forgetting that the public owns the airwaves. We used to force networks to show things about elections, other matters of public interest for free. Now they charge the politicians tons of money for runnign campaign ads. Ridiculous. I agree, we should re-take more control over the airwaves.
TV studios need to realize that people hate ads. They need to start getting companies to pay for product placement in tv shows rather than selling blocks of time for companies to try to promote themselves. If they do this their revenue model will be immune from the ad stripping they fear.
If they choose not to do this, they're idiots. They seem to think they have a right to follow the same business model that prevailed before people had vcr's or net connections and still profit from it. There is no such right. Adapt and stay strong, or fight change and wither. Why does America's business community have so little vision?
To make a claim for redress under copyright laws, the copyright owner must show ACTUAL loss, not possible loss, not potential loss. Otherwise they have no recourse under copyright law. Which is why they're so in love with the DMCA which makes no mention of loss, only of 'unauthorized' access.
I lived with a tape freak. He traded audio and video tapes with people all over the world. He recorded every episode of the Simpsons and, oddly, In the Heat of the Night, and cut out every commercial from every episode. It was basically a second job for him he spent so much time on it. So he was 'profiting' (the studios regard trading one copyrighted work for another copyrighted work as 'profiting', even though you could have seen it for free yourself, even could have copied it for free yourself) from their work. Specifically because he was adding value by taking out the commercials his product was more attractive.
:)
He'd leverage collections of these prepared shows into trades for bootleg concert recordings, whole tours, all kinds of stuff fans have always wanted and media companies have always REFUSED to provide for sale. I mean sheesh.... how do you stop bootleg concert recordings? A la Pearl Jam, sell professional versions. The point is - the technology to allow this kind of activity existed with the VCR in the Betamax case. Stripping out commercials, making copies (unlimited copies too), and profiting from the work. Replay is on slightly more dangerous grounds than Sony was - Betamax allowed you to copy, but did nothing to encourage you to trade copies. Had Sony organized tv show tape swapping events, the Supreme Court may have decided differently in that case. Replay seems to be actively encouraging trading. That is a bit shaky, but it's definitely one point on a slippery slope. VCRs ALLOWED all the activity the studios are now saying is forbidden in a DVR. Love that progress
The real problem with the studio's arguments is that THEY GIVE THEIR PRODUCT AWAY FOR FREE! In fact, they WANT to encourage as many people to see it as possible. Their shows are beaming through my brain right now. Their claims that they 'own' it just don't match common sense. When you give me something for free, I feel free doing whatever I want with it. The problem is they need to change their ad system and they're too stupid to realize it. Instead of blocks of ads, which are a distraction from their show, and which people hate, and which encourage people to change channels, they should follow the prescient advice in the Truman Show - product placement should occur for a fee INSIDE of the context of the show. Instead of Nike paying Michael Jordan to hawm their shoes, they should just pay NBC to have Jay Leno wear them on his show. As soon as ads aren't something that can be stripped off a show and discarded, the studios wouldn't have to worry about people making ad free copies and giving them away. With ads embedded in the product their business model could dispense with blocks of annoying ads and could embrace this new technology, the spread of copied tapes of the Enterprise would be a selling point for the network instead of a lost opportunity for profit.
So what do you want to bet? Will the TV studios meet the challenge of new technology by redefining their business model into something better, or will they force more draconian laws on us preventing us from doing things with digital media that we can already do with analog media? WHY does nobody in the business community have any vision?
nobody will buy a computer just to play games
nobody will buy a computer just to do email
nobody will buy a WORSE OS just to use MS Office.
stop saying people won't do something stupid. they have b4, they will again.