If you had RTFA you would know that those people ARE collecting unemployment. The point of UI is to use that time to find a job that pays, that way they're not fucked when UI runs out.
I think you are confusing the percentage of people who are unemployed with the "unemployment rate" which could go to zero while many many people would still be unemployed. In fact since congress did not extend UI you can expect the rate to decrease artificially.
If you had RTFA you would have found that the gov't imposes no penalties on the people who are working for free. With that in mind you should rewrite your statement: "for a govenment to tell me that i am not allowed to pay my labor for less than some $X which they arbitrarily choose, is an abuse of power, and infringes on my freedom."
Still feel the same? If so, are you a renter? Care to know what laws stop your landlord from fucking you over?
Hilarious, is that your argument strategy?
Say it enough times and it'll be true?
So exactly why is my example about the son being killed
a "strawman"? Would you not punish the killer?
Are you saying that if there was no possibility
of the killer committing future murders that you
would not punish him? How magnanimous of you.
Your counter examples to the Finding of Facts
are silly. That case was tried, reviewed, and
reviewed some more. On appeal the courts said
that the they agreed with the Finding of Facts,
just not the punishment.
The DMCA is a product of congress not the courts.
Big distinction. In fact, in the first test of
the DMCA with the Dmitri case, the courts found
that it did not hold. So yes, I guess I do agree
with the courts about the DMCA.
Similarly, your other examples are confusing
laws with what the courts found. Well, except for OJ,
where corrupt cops and bad handling destroyed
the evidence. Not to mention that that was a
jury case versus review by a highly intelligent
judge.
And why is Nintendo a stupid example? If I
had a Gamecube with net access and
a disk that had a web browser and a java
engine, it would have about as much compatibility
with the world of Microsoft Windows as Apple has.
Not much. That is the reality of the world.
I don't need to say whether Microsoft is a monopoly
or not, the facts stand on their own.
But, I find it funny that you're spouting off how all these non-degreed heathens should leave the field of programming. From the eyes of an electrical engineer you're no different. Calling yourself a "software engineer", why not "computer programmer"? Not haughty enough? Exactly what do you engineer? Or do you use that word in the sense of a railroad engineer?
Lisp/Java/C++/Python/blah blah blah... If you were really an engineer you would be more concerned with actually doing something than what kind of hammer you're using. All you software types are the same, so-and-so application is buggy/faulty etc because it's not coded in Lisp!
How many software projects do you know of that do something serious like audio or video compression? Yet there's about a 100 email programs, in various states of broken. And a new web browser every couple of months.
Tell me, what programming language would you use to implement a motion compensation algorithm on a 2D multiresolution wavelet decomposition of a video stream? What would you program the error correction in for say a block erasures versus randomly dropped bits within a block? What language do you program a frequency masking compression scheme?
The field of software needs to close their toolchests and learn how to solve real problems. A million monkeys with a million hammers will never even build a doghouse.
I may not know a lot about my field, I'm not an expert even though I'm working on a master's degree. But at least I recognize that fact and am willing to do something about it. I don't blame my tools for my inability.
"I'm sorry maam, this man killed your son but that was five years ago. Too late to do anything about it now."
The damage has been and continues to be done. The best the court can do is to stop the "continues" portion of the damage.
If you are quite read on the case, why do you continue to bring up Apple and operating systems in general? They are not relevant to the discussion in the least bit since MS is a monopoly in operating systems on x86. Bringing up Apple in that context is like bringing up Nintendo.
Is your entire argument hinging on the fact that perhaps today.NET is not distributed with the operating system? How much would you like to bet that it will soon be included in an upcoming operating system? I'm willing to bet anything. You?
And finally, no one cares what fantasies you have about MS being a monopoly. The reality that the rest of us live in is that the court issued a findings of fact that says they are. End of discussion.
I see that you've made this story your personal agenda.
The version of Java shipping with windows is broken crap. Everyday that it ships people continue to experience it and think that it is Sun's fault for that broken crap. Therefore it is Sun's reputation being damaged by MS's actions. The argument is not weak since this would be similar to slander. Please note that it's perfectly okay for Sun to fuck up their own reputation.
Also, MS is not an "illegal monopoly". They are however a monopoly. They were also found to be abusing that fact. You obviously do not understand what you are bitching about.
I don't know where you got that idea about JPEG2000. For JPEG2000, the primary latency is the network. Audio players tend to have extremely limited cpus so the load may be unacceptable. And just like JPEG2000 there are at least two ways to parse the data, by resolution (length of song) or by quality. I also fail to see what that 'peep'-like article has to do with any of this.
You're making another faulty assumption. Let's suppose that there is a method to have an initial low quality file, where each increment in quality requires appending another chunk of the file. Thus the highest quality file would be the concatenation of all the available chunks. Now suppose we have a way to overlay the file mappings, CD's can do this, such that we have what appears to be one file for each different quality level yet they all share overlapping parts.
Or we could now store all of the low quality files on our main server, with requests for the higher quality versions going to a different server with no overlap in disk space. Why would you want to do this? Maybe the low-quality server is not encrypted. (I'm actually more familar with JPEG2000 where this scenario is possible.)
The inherent problem with storing only one file is that it usually takes some non-negligible CPU power to parse out a lower bitrate version. This can be seen in JPEG2000 where one can progress in quality or resolution. But to change from resolution progression to quality progression requires the CPU to jump around in the file.
Uh no it's not the "I wasn't going to pay for it anyway" argument. Perhaps you should read more carefully. I said that people are watching the show that they have paid for (e.g. by subscribing to HBO) but they missed an episode. So they should be allowed to d/l it legally since they have already paid for the right to watch the show.
You then came to the opposite conclusion from what I said. I said that by being able to d/l missed episodes that the subscribers would remain more satisfied with the service. In fact to make this work properly, HBO themselves should be the ones providing this d/l service to their own subscribers. They could (and should) make it reduced quality to motivate people to watch the broadcast version.
Now why is it people always assume that everything is napster?
Your assumption that the perceived quality is linear with file size is probably not true. e.g., a 3/4 quality file might only be 3MB. Why you ask? Because in order to have lossless compression you typically have to recreate the teeny bits of noise which are useless and incompressible and shouldn't even be there in the first place. Some would describe these bits as "flavor", or "true to life", or "character", or some equally idiotic description.
I used to think that too, but there are some artists like Ani Difranco who seem to lose their drive in a studio. She simply can't perform as well in a studio. To me, her best CD is a fixup of some concert recordings, "Living in Clip" or something. Best of both worlds I suppose.
Indeed! Exactly how would you verify accuracy? Invite the actual performers over and say "is this what it it's supposed to sound like?" So it would appear that for lack of a way to verify accuracy, they persue precision in the hopes that it implies accuracy.
Lets assume that there is a TV show that everyone likes, so they do what you say, record/strip ads/redistribute. Then mid season the studio goes bankrupt and nobody gets to see what the fuck happens in the next episode. How long do you think people would enjoy a system like that?
Let's look at another possible outcome. People love a show. They miss an episode. They continue watching anyway. Some stuff doesn't make sense. (Think Sopranos or something.) They miss another episode. Oh well fuckit already I haven't a god damn clue what's going on.
Wouldn't everyone benefit in the second scenario if you could d/l the episodes you missed? If you haven't guessed by now, I watched Sopranos for a bit and said fuckit because I missed too many episodes. And you know what? I'll never bother watching it. In this case we're talking a pay serivce, HBO, but guess what, same outcome. I wouldn't bother subscribing to HBO because since I keep missing shit, it makes it not even worth the bother to subscribe == lost customer.
Fucking finally. I thought I was going to have to post this comment myself.
Not only do I wish they would pass it, I seriously wish that MS had perfect copy protection. These two issues are one and the same. It'll be like Circuit City's pathetic divx format. When the manufactures of these crippled products see pathetic sales and are on the verge of bankruptcy maybe then the industry will realize that getting what they want will destroy them.
Hard evidence? Prove you right? You can do neither, not now or ever. The performance of those audio encoders are subjective. The only way to "prove" one is better is to do a blind test and see which one he picks. You can only prove one better if the compression is lossless.
MS isn't trying to prevent them from using the word. They're just requesting that they use the OS name in a way that separates it from the third-party product.
Uh no. It may seem like that is what they are doing, but in reality they are trying to get people to use the word "Windows" in a manner that suggests they own it.
Why I could make a piece of software that created little people that would scroll down your windows and clean them just like real window cleaners do on skyscrapers. (ala xsnow) And just to be clear I was referring to my X11 windows and not any MS products. Confused? You needn't be, you see MS has no special claim to the word "Windows". Thus a product for X11 could just as easily be called "Cleaner for Windows" as idiotic as that sounds. As I said in another post, if they wanted clarity then they should request that people name stuff "Cleaner for Microsoft Windows". I have ZERO problem with that. In fact I heartily endorse that. In no shape or form does MS have any special claim to the word "Windows".
And btw, reading the article is only part of the process. You must also think about what is going on and what it means.
Perhaps you should research the term "cola" and the court cases that coca-cola attempted.
And yes, I am familar with the term "Windows" as it applies to software, I even remember when I used to have to fire up X manually to get Windows. Before that one was stuck with a single terminal window. Nowadays I have multiple virtual desktops with windows everywhere. Now that I am done reminiscing, I don't understand what company you are referring to? As far as I knew X is pretty much done by comitte now. Or are you referring to MIT?
Those who attempt to revise history are doomed to repeat it.*
This is stupid to do, it just reinforces the misconception that MS owns that word. They should name their products "Backup Wizard for Microsoft(R) Windows". Note the distinct lack of (R) on the word windows. I suppose if there was a way to scope the term, (Microsoft Windows)^(R), then that would be okay too. It's very important to realize that it is the PHRASE "Microsoft Windows" that is trademarked.
Slashdot Mirror
Hahaha! Will you take this as enough proof that Microsoft's .NET will be in a future release? Or is everything you say bullshit?
If you had RTFA you would know that those people ARE collecting unemployment. The point of UI is to use that time to find a job that pays, that way they're not fucked when UI runs out.
I think you are confusing the percentage of people who are unemployed with the "unemployment rate" which could go to zero while many many people would still be unemployed. In fact since congress did not extend UI you can expect the rate to decrease artificially.
Still feel the same? If so, are you a renter? Care to know what laws stop your landlord from fucking you over?
So exactly why is my example about the son being killed a "strawman"? Would you not punish the killer? Are you saying that if there was no possibility of the killer committing future murders that you would not punish him? How magnanimous of you.
Your counter examples to the Finding of Facts are silly. That case was tried, reviewed, and reviewed some more. On appeal the courts said that the they agreed with the Finding of Facts, just not the punishment.
The DMCA is a product of congress not the courts. Big distinction. In fact, in the first test of the DMCA with the Dmitri case, the courts found that it did not hold. So yes, I guess I do agree with the courts about the DMCA.
Similarly, your other examples are confusing laws with what the courts found. Well, except for OJ, where corrupt cops and bad handling destroyed the evidence. Not to mention that that was a jury case versus review by a highly intelligent judge.
And why is Nintendo a stupid example? If I had a Gamecube with net access and a disk that had a web browser and a java engine, it would have about as much compatibility with the world of Microsoft Windows as Apple has. Not much. That is the reality of the world.
I don't need to say whether Microsoft is a monopoly or not, the facts stand on their own.
But, I find it funny that you're spouting off how all these non-degreed heathens should leave the field of programming. From the eyes of an electrical engineer you're no different. Calling yourself a "software engineer", why not "computer programmer"? Not haughty enough? Exactly what do you engineer? Or do you use that word in the sense of a railroad engineer?
Lisp/Java/C++/Python/blah blah blah... If you were really an engineer you would be more concerned with actually doing something than what kind of hammer you're using. All you software types are the same, so-and-so application is buggy/faulty etc because it's not coded in Lisp!
How many software projects do you know of that do something serious like audio or video compression? Yet there's about a 100 email programs, in various states of broken. And a new web browser every couple of months.
Tell me, what programming language would you use to implement a motion compensation algorithm on a 2D multiresolution wavelet decomposition of a video stream? What would you program the error correction in for say a block erasures versus randomly dropped bits within a block? What language do you program a frequency masking compression scheme?
The field of software needs to close their toolchests and learn how to solve real problems. A million monkeys with a million hammers will never even build a doghouse.
I may not know a lot about my field, I'm not an expert even though I'm working on a master's degree. But at least I recognize that fact and am willing to do something about it. I don't blame my tools for my inability.
The damage has been and continues to be done. The best the court can do is to stop the "continues" portion of the damage.
If you are quite read on the case, why do you continue to bring up Apple and operating systems in general? They are not relevant to the discussion in the least bit since MS is a monopoly in operating systems on x86. Bringing up Apple in that context is like bringing up Nintendo.
Is your entire argument hinging on the fact that perhaps today .NET is not distributed with the operating system? How much would you like to bet that it will soon be included in an upcoming operating system? I'm willing to bet anything. You?
And finally, no one cares what fantasies you have about MS being a monopoly. The reality that the rest of us live in is that the court issued a findings of fact that says they are. End of discussion.
The version of Java shipping with windows is broken crap. Everyday that it ships people continue to experience it and think that it is Sun's fault for that broken crap. Therefore it is Sun's reputation being damaged by MS's actions. The argument is not weak since this would be similar to slander. Please note that it's perfectly okay for Sun to fuck up their own reputation.
Also, MS is not an "illegal monopoly". They are however a monopoly. They were also found to be abusing that fact. You obviously do not understand what you are bitching about.
The part you're missing is the "illegally abusing a monopoly position". Your attempt to compare a newer tech with an older tech is irrelevant.
And as the other posted mentioned already in a Nazi context, you cannot turn the other cheek when the other persons motto is "die infidel".
I don't know where you got that idea about JPEG2000. For JPEG2000, the primary latency is the network. Audio players tend to have extremely limited cpus so the load may be unacceptable. And just like JPEG2000 there are at least two ways to parse the data, by resolution (length of song) or by quality. I also fail to see what that 'peep'-like article has to do with any of this.
Or we could now store all of the low quality files on our main server, with requests for the higher quality versions going to a different server with no overlap in disk space. Why would you want to do this? Maybe the low-quality server is not encrypted. (I'm actually more familar with JPEG2000 where this scenario is possible.)
The inherent problem with storing only one file is that it usually takes some non-negligible CPU power to parse out a lower bitrate version. This can be seen in JPEG2000 where one can progress in quality or resolution. But to change from resolution progression to quality progression requires the CPU to jump around in the file.
You then came to the opposite conclusion from what I said. I said that by being able to d/l missed episodes that the subscribers would remain more satisfied with the service. In fact to make this work properly, HBO themselves should be the ones providing this d/l service to their own subscribers. They could (and should) make it reduced quality to motivate people to watch the broadcast version.
Now why is it people always assume that everything is napster?
and get a whole bunch of shitty sounding transcoded files! Repeat after me: "Transcoding is bad."
Your assumption that the perceived quality is linear with file size is probably not true. e.g., a 3/4 quality file might only be 3MB. Why you ask? Because in order to have lossless compression you typically have to recreate the teeny bits of noise which are useless and incompressible and shouldn't even be there in the first place. Some would describe these bits as "flavor", or "true to life", or "character", or some equally idiotic description.
I used to think that too, but there are some artists like Ani Difranco who seem to lose their drive in a studio. She simply can't perform as well in a studio. To me, her best CD is a fixup of some concert recordings, "Living in Clip" or something. Best of both worlds I suppose.
Indeed! Exactly how would you verify accuracy? Invite the actual performers over and say "is this what it it's supposed to sound like?" So it would appear that for lack of a way to verify accuracy, they persue precision in the hopes that it implies accuracy.
Lets assume that there is a TV show that everyone likes, so they do what you say, record/strip ads/redistribute. Then mid season the studio goes bankrupt and nobody gets to see what the fuck happens in the next episode. How long do you think people would enjoy a system like that?
Let's look at another possible outcome. People love a show. They miss an episode. They continue watching anyway. Some stuff doesn't make sense. (Think Sopranos or something.) They miss another episode. Oh well fuckit already I haven't a god damn clue what's going on.
Wouldn't everyone benefit in the second scenario if you could d/l the episodes you missed? If you haven't guessed by now, I watched Sopranos for a bit and said fuckit because I missed too many episodes. And you know what? I'll never bother watching it. In this case we're talking a pay serivce, HBO, but guess what, same outcome. I wouldn't bother subscribing to HBO because since I keep missing shit, it makes it not even worth the bother to subscribe == lost customer.
Not only do I wish they would pass it, I seriously wish that MS had perfect copy protection. These two issues are one and the same. It'll be like Circuit City's pathetic divx format. When the manufactures of these crippled products see pathetic sales and are on the verge of bankruptcy maybe then the industry will realize that getting what they want will destroy them.
Hard evidence? Prove you right? You can do neither, not now or ever. The performance of those audio encoders are subjective. The only way to "prove" one is better is to do a blind test and see which one he picks. You can only prove one better if the compression is lossless.
Why I could make a piece of software that created little people that would scroll down your windows and clean them just like real window cleaners do on skyscrapers. (ala xsnow) And just to be clear I was referring to my X11 windows and not any MS products. Confused? You needn't be, you see MS has no special claim to the word "Windows". Thus a product for X11 could just as easily be called "Cleaner for Windows" as idiotic as that sounds. As I said in another post, if they wanted clarity then they should request that people name stuff "Cleaner for Microsoft Windows". I have ZERO problem with that. In fact I heartily endorse that. In no shape or form does MS have any special claim to the word "Windows".
And btw, reading the article is only part of the process. You must also think about what is going on and what it means.
And yes, I am familar with the term "Windows" as it applies to software, I even remember when I used to have to fire up X manually to get Windows. Before that one was stuck with a single terminal window. Nowadays I have multiple virtual desktops with windows everywhere. Now that I am done reminiscing, I don't understand what company you are referring to? As far as I knew X is pretty much done by comitte now. Or are you referring to MIT?
Those who attempt to revise history are doomed to repeat it.*
*Mangled on purpose.
This is stupid to do, it just reinforces the misconception that MS owns that word. They should name their products "Backup Wizard for Microsoft(R) Windows". Note the distinct lack of (R) on the word windows. I suppose if there was a way to scope the term, (Microsoft Windows)^(R), then that would be okay too. It's very important to realize that it is the PHRASE "Microsoft Windows" that is trademarked.
You might want to research why Intel chose pentium as the name to the successor to the 486. Hint: you can't trademark a number.
Yeah, thats right, you can't go around naming your products Pepsi-Cola, or RC Cola, etc... because "Cola" is the sole property of Coca-Cola.