And there is a simple way to do this. Write into your local newspapers urging readers to not buy HDTV equipment because the motion picture industry plans on forcefully making their hugely expensive equipment obsolite in a few years.
The result is that you put a LOT of pressure on the electronics companies by killing their market. If there is no market bacause people think that their equipment will be made obsolite, the electronics industry WILL NOT build these new devices. The RIAA/MPAA's schemes are all at the mercy of the electronics manufactureres. If they don't build the hardware, these schemes will fail on the drawing board.
I definately second this advice. Either pay with cash and cary the merchandise out or pay with a credit card. The key is to make sure that you have a good card issuer that is looking out for you.
I do have a Visa debit card with a local bank. I had the unforunate experience of having a roommate in college "borrow" my card and purcahse some qustionable material online. I discovered it on my bank statement and immediately called the bank. They helped my track down what the charges were for and when we discovered they were unauthorized, I contested them and got my money back. My bank was very helpful. However, as with everything, your mileage may (and probablly will) vary.
One thing that everyone that uses a credit card should remember is the criteria for a merchant to "prove" that a charge is legit. First, they MUST have your signature. Second, they must prove that the credit card was actually presented to them, wither with an imprint of the card or by recording the full magnetic stripe data. If they don't have both of these, they don't have a legit charge and, if you contest the charge, they automatically lose. Accepting credit cards online is very risky for this reason because they will lack both requirements for a legit charge. Of course, this doesn't mean you should go buying stuff online and contest all the charges; that is fraud.
Its NOT a closed standard. Its a very much open standard PC built from off-the-shelf parts using the open PC hardware standards. It just happns to be that Microsoft is now treating it as a closed system. It seems like Microsoft is trying to bend the standards to what suits them, that is collecting a royaly on anything that could work with their product. We've seen them do this before many times (Kerbos, Java, HTML, XML, ad infium).
Actually, Microsoft is legally obligated to pay dividends. They are only allowed to retain a reasonable percentage of earnings for expansion, etc. The rest is required to go back to the shareholders.
If I were a shareholder of Microsoft, I would be very mad at this. Microsoft has never paid once cent in dividends and have made it known that they have no intention of doing so in the forseeable future. Instead, they have been retaining all profits. As a shareholder (which I am not, but if I was), I would be up in arms. This company has never paid me anything for investing in it and is now spending millions of dollars to buy off the government to "forget" about its illegal business practices.
If the market really was free, then IP laws wouldn't exist. If you want to make money off of something, be it a tangible object or intellectual work, you have to assume the risks of any business, including having that object or work not used in the way you desire.
Case in point: the Netpliance I-Opener. The company sold the computer at a loss, expecting that everyone that bought one would be subscribing to their service and they eventually would make up the loss. When people started buying them and not subscribing to the service, their business began to fall apart.
Risks such as the one that Netpliance took is all part of a free market. If you take the risks and sell a worthwhile product, you are rewarded with profits. The "intellectual property market" in not a free market. It is very much regulated.
With the IP law fiasco, the government takes many if those risks away. At one time, there was a benefit to the government stepping in and protecting intellectual property. But now, as IP laws give publishers* more and more protection, they're chipping away at your rights as a consumer and the ideal of a free market that everyone points to.
* I say publishers because beneficiaries to the latest IP laws are not those who actually create the work but the publishers that releases those works.
According the the article, the BSA sends warning letters demanding the company to prove to them that they're entirely legit. What's preventing a targeted company from just deleting any pirated software and responding to the BSA with a big "Go fuck youself?" If they bring in the US Marshalls to raid the company, they wouldn't find anything.
If you look at the testimonials, it reads just like the typical MLM/"Not MLM!" scam spams that I've been getting lately, complete with the vague (un)identifying info. But this really begs the question: Why are people stupid enough to fall for these scams in the first place? I am strongly convinced that a majority of Americans are completely braindead.
Its called the "doctrine of first sale". Essencially it says that once you buy a copy of a work (book, video, etc), the seller can not stop you from lending, renting, or reselling the copy to someone else.
What was happening in this case was that Warner Home Video was selling two versions of DVDs... one that was not for rental and the other that was for rental. The for rental version was, of course, more expensive. The difference? A little sticker on the disc. The Australian video rental industry took Warner Home Video to court over this and won. Warner can not dictate what the purcahser does with the video disc. Warner was claiming that DVDs were software and could have use restrictions placed on them, ala a EULA. The court ruled that Warner can not claim DVDs as such.
First sale in the US came from a case (early 20th century?) between Macy's department store and a book publisher. The publisher indicated that on the book that it could not be sold lower than a certain price. Macy's sold it from a lower price and the publisher took them to court. The court decided that once the publisher sells the copies of the works, they have no say over what is done with them.
As far as I know, the fist sale doctrine has never been applied to software. I don't think that any of the "no resale" clauses of many EULAs has been contested in court. Presumably, there aren't many EULA violations claims made by publishers because they probablly aren't enforceable and the whole might of groups like the SPA and BSA are built unpon these unenforcable claims. Not bringing them to court allows they claims to continue because most people threatended with them will cave before any real legal action is made.
Incidentally, this is probablly what Warner's claims were based upon--the assumption that no one would challenge them.
It would probablly come down to the primary purpose of the DVD. If the DVD is a movie, is someone buying it for the crappy "PC extras"? Of course not. They're buying it for the movie.
Well, yes, they provide some guidence for how to get more than one computer on the service.
Quoth the FAQ:
Can I use the service on more than one computer?
Yes, customers with home networks may order additional network addresses in order to connect several computers to the service through one cable modem.
You must first subscribe to the basic Comcast High-Speed Internet Service.
Once you become a subscriber, you can sign up for a second and third address.
You will need to have access to network expertise because Comcast High-Speed Internet Service neither installs nor supports networks.
The cost is $6.95 per month for each additional outlet. Customers can have two additional addresses, for a total of three.
Comcast will install the network card and software on a second and third computer for a change of $49 for each computer.
Read that section very carefully. The language they use does not say that you can not run a router. It says that customers "may order". It does not say must. Also, if they say that only one computer can be on the service, then a router certainly is ONE compuer. It just happens to be that that one computer is connected to two networks, the Comcast network and your own internal network.
Beyond that, there was the decision years ago that said AT&T could not prohibit you from connecting a non-AT&T phone to their phone network, as long as it doesn't damage the phone network, of course. One could always argue that cable and cable modem services should be covered by that as well.
I'm one of those behind the counter people and here's the rest of the story...
Not too long ago, Kodak came up with a neat idea: a machine to allow consumers to make copies and enlargements of their photographs by scanning the picture and printing onto glossy paper with a high quality printer. They called this the Kodak Picture Maker and installed them in drugstores, supermarkets, discount stores... anyplace that offered photo developing. It was fast, convenient, and the printed output was barely distinguishable from a true photograph.
And there was much rejoicing.
Then one day, a group of professional photographers got together and sued Kodak (and K-Mart) for allowing professional photographs to be copied using their machines. And the photographers won. A lot of money in claimed damages.
The result is that any business that provides reproduction services is now wary of copyright infringement. Heck, Staples now has notices on their copiers that you can't copy copyrighted materials, ala the "Warning: HOT!" on cups that contain a beverage that might be thanks to the old lady that spilled McDonald's coffee on her lap while driving.
Its a fear of being sued, plain and simple. Thank those "Injured? We'll get you money!" lawyers on TV.
How would you classify N'Sync and Britney Spears? They have no musical talent of their own. They rely on others writing the lyrics and the music, yet many millions enjoy their music. In this case, the major record labels are needed in order to bring together a large number of people to produce the content.
Ah. You've pointed out where the "intellectual property system" begins to break down. Take a song produced under this system. The composer of the music creates the music but does not own the rights to their creation. The lyricist writes the words but does not own them either. The musicians play the music but do not own the preformance. The singers sing the lyrics but do not own the preformance either. Its the publisher that owns the finished song and all of its parts.
What is wrong with this? The music publishers use protecting the artists (and others involved in the creation process) when they rationalize copy prevention systems. But its not the artists that are damaged by piracy. They don't own the works that they created. Its the publishers.
If the publishers would just tell the truth about why they want copy prevention systems, they might get my sympathy. But something that is built on one huge lie deserves to never see daylight.
Well, look at who Philips is. They make hardware. They were (one of?) the first to the market with a consumer CD recorder for your sterio. These copy protected CD's probablly break the recording function of the recorders. Philips could care less about the copy protection except for the fact that it renders some of its products useless. They probablly don't like that the schemes also exploit flaws in their design, ala Macrovision and VHS.
So, they help themselves, help us, and spit in the face of the RIAA. What could be better?
Then maybe we should start a smear campaign against the recording industry. Write to the editors of your local newspapers and spread some of your own FUD about how the Recording Industry artifically raises the prices of blank tapes and recordable CDs. Nobody likes price fixing and if you can put enough of a slant on what you write, it could make the RIAA look REALLY BAD.
...then you have an even deeper problem that neither the software industry, or any other media publishers want to address.
And that is that more and more people, worldwide, are begining to believe that copyrights, and so-called "intelectual property" in general, do not deserve all the protections that they are afforded.
No one wants to address this because it is the publishers' biggest fear: copyright will lose respect and eventually be abolished. Their entire revenue stream is based upon the idea that data, be it software, music, video, or whatever, can be artifically kept scarce. And that's just not true.
What the whole Napster thing has done is to demonstrate that a good number of people (enough to make a "political majority") do not think that CDs are worth $18 a piece. People are now realizing that CDs cost under $1 to make and that the artists aren't getting the remainder. The people are making it known that the recording industry is NOT worth $16 a CD anymore. And since, unlike an ideal marketplace, you can not negotiate the price of a CD, potential customers are looking elsewhere to obtain the products at the price they feel it should be.
Piracy itself is not the primary target of these raids. The real target is attitudes towards copyrights. Since people are no longer respecting them on their face, the industry is attempting to convert the lost respect into fear of the law.
And that fear can only be provided by a copyright police state.
Because, like it or not, high school is, for most, valuable job training before they leave high school and enter the work force, be that as secretaries using MS Office or accountants using Excel, etc. When you teach them to use software that is completely irrelevant outside of school, you are crippling them for life as they have to retrain themselves on all the applications that school had taught them in order to use something as commonplace as Office.
Would any lessons learned on Office 97 become irrelivant when Office 2000 came out (and the same for XP)? Microsoft reworks the interface with every new version. Does someone taught on a new version need to be retaught?
Of course not. If the students are taught properly, then they should be able to go from one version to another, one program to another. A word processor is a word processor, regardless of the platform or package.
As Linux matures and administration becomes less complex, the savings of not having to buy licences to Microsoft software becomes clear.
A little side note here... The reason Microsoft wanted to "settle" with the government by giving away software to schools is to prevent this from occuring. They'd put themsleves on a level playing field with Linux by taking cost out of the equation.
The problem with computer GUI's is they haven't settled for 20 years - and people like these guys who come along and keep wanting to "create a new paradigm" (mark that off on your buzz-word bingo) are screwing things up - if it doesn't stay consistent for any length of time, no one will get accustomed to it.
Perfect.
You hit the nail right on the head. Why are computers so damned hard for a new user to use? Because a Windows PC works differently then a Macintosh PC which works differently than a Linux PC which works differently than... (ad naseum)
The GUIs of all those systems try to mimic the tools on an actual desk but each with enough subtle differences as to make the novice unable to move from one to another. And each new version changes everything COMPLETELY (although Apple had the same GUI from 1984 until 2000 with no "major" changes).
Calculators all look totally different. But anyone can look at one and know that it is a calculator. And when you know how to use one, you can use almost any other calculator. When it comes to icons on the GUI desktop, that isn't so easy. The icon for Microsoft Word is a green W. What is this W? Does this wash my comptuer for me? The Excel icon is an X. What is this X? Is this a computer xylophone?
GUIs and software publishers are very self-promoting. They use their own meaningless logos and marketing-drone generated names to identify their programs. And then they go nuts if you try an copy their "look and feel". That's all fine and dandy if you know how to use a computer and/or what you want to do with the computer. But for someone who never used a computer or that particular computer, they haven't got a clue.
All those fancy GUIs are supposed to make using computers easier. But they don't.
Here's how to design a computer that will truly be easy to use: Take someone who never has used a computer before. Sit them down in front of the computer. Don't tell them how to use the computer. Give them some tasks to do with the computer (ie, write a letter). If they can complete those tasks without needing help, you've designed an easy to use computer.
Anyway, back to my point... I don't think Verizon being the only game in town is necessarily a bad thing... as long as they're kept in check, rates are kept reasonable, customer service is a MUST, and they provide the services required.
Competition is definately NOT a bad thing, and for Verizon, its is a very good thing.
Turn on NJ 101.5 FM radio and you'll probablly hear a Verizon ad spreading FUD about what they're not allowed to sell long distance service in NJ. They claim that accorging to projections, their being in the long distance market in NY will eventuall save the typical phone user $20-$300 a year on long distance and urge that New Jersey consumers demand to their lawmakers that Verizon be allowed to enter long distance in New Jersey.
What they don't tell you is that the reason that they are not allowed to sell long distance service in New Jersey is because they have yet to open their phone system to competitors as they are required to do by the Telecommunications Reform Act FIRST. New York looked the other way on this and allowed them to get into long distance. New Jersey did not. New Jersey is holding them to the federal regulations that they are required to follow.
No matter what it has been, Verison, formerly Bell Atlantic, formerly Bell Atlantic and NYNEX, formerly New Jersey Bell, New York Telephone, and etc... has dragged their feet on everything. They should not be rewarded for that and be required, nay FORCED, to compete on a level playing field.
And as for restoring phone service in lower Manhattan... Whop-de-friggin-do. So they reconnected the phone lines in one building (the New York Stock Exchange) over a weekend. Does Verizon deserve a metal? No... they's what they are being paid to do... provide the phone service.
I would go further and get your local or state consumer protection and/or public utility board involved.
Why? The cable companies have been advertising how you can have "always on" "faster than dial-up" internet connections. No where in those ads do they say that the price offered is only for "casual surfing" or anything like that. Plain and simple, the cable companies are engaging in "bait and switch"... advertising one service then saying "Hey, that's not really for you. You want this much more expensive service."
Or, if you just want to be sly, just use another port than the usual VPN one (80, 21, etc).
It's amazing what the government will do to protect M$.
This is actually a more profound statement then the moderators make it out to be. Yes, its the typical Slashdotien Microsoft bashing, but its deeper than that.
The government is protecting the largest software and motion picture companies (the articles cited lots of pirated movies as well).
What about your small software house (are there any that still exist?) that is also suffering from software piracy (a LOT more than Microsoft could ever be). The government isn't running to their rescue.
This is a true problem when it comes to that little thing called "equal protection under the law". The government isn't equally protecting small software authors, in fact they probablly aren't protecting them at all.
If you doubted that the governemnt was corrupt and seeks to only protect big business, does it seem all clearer now?
2) Mechanics will get the machines that they need to read the computer codes. The car companies make money indirectly by working with the folks who build these boxes. The mechanics make money because they can charge somebody $40 because a light came on.
Unless it has changed dramaticlly since '95 (which I suppose it hasn't), you can read the computer codes with an electronic multimeter.
That's right, the "secret codes" are read with the piece of equipment that should be standard on every good geek's toolbox.
As for your specific question, I've got a Ford 4.6L engine (Grand Marq, baby!) and my Hayes repair manual has three pages of the codes (under $20 at Pep Boys). It would be trivial to write a program that takes the engine computer signals as input, look the signal up in a database, and spits out that the code means and how you could fix it. If you wanted to get flashy and have pictures and animations, you could do that, too.
Slashdot Mirror
And there is a simple way to do this. Write into your local newspapers urging readers to not buy HDTV equipment because the motion picture industry plans on forcefully making their hugely expensive equipment obsolite in a few years.
The result is that you put a LOT of pressure on the electronics companies by killing their market. If there is no market bacause people think that their equipment will be made obsolite, the electronics industry WILL NOT build these new devices. The RIAA/MPAA's schemes are all at the mercy of the electronics manufactureres. If they don't build the hardware, these schemes will fail on the drawing board.
I definately second this advice. Either pay with cash and cary the merchandise out or pay with a credit card. The key is to make sure that you have a good card issuer that is looking out for you.
I do have a Visa debit card with a local bank. I had the unforunate experience of having a roommate in college "borrow" my card and purcahse some qustionable material online. I discovered it on my bank statement and immediately called the bank. They helped my track down what the charges were for and when we discovered they were unauthorized, I contested them and got my money back. My bank was very helpful. However, as with everything, your mileage may (and probablly will) vary.
One thing that everyone that uses a credit card should remember is the criteria for a merchant to "prove" that a charge is legit. First, they MUST have your signature. Second, they must prove that the credit card was actually presented to them, wither with an imprint of the card or by recording the full magnetic stripe data. If they don't have both of these, they don't have a legit charge and, if you contest the charge, they automatically lose. Accepting credit cards online is very risky for this reason because they will lack both requirements for a legit charge. Of course, this doesn't mean you should go buying stuff online and contest all the charges; that is fraud.
Its NOT a closed standard. Its a very much open standard PC built from off-the-shelf parts using the open PC hardware standards. It just happns to be that Microsoft is now treating it as a closed system. It seems like Microsoft is trying to bend the standards to what suits them, that is collecting a royaly on anything that could work with their product. We've seen them do this before many times (Kerbos, Java, HTML, XML, ad infium).
Not to mention developers writing software for Winodws. Now they'd be able to see the undocumented traps that Microsoft uses for their own programs.
The big question awaits... does she get your root password?
Actually, Microsoft is legally obligated to pay dividends. They are only allowed to retain a reasonable percentage of earnings for expansion, etc. The rest is required to go back to the shareholders.
If I were a shareholder of Microsoft, I would be very mad at this. Microsoft has never paid once cent in dividends and have made it known that they have no intention of doing so in the forseeable future. Instead, they have been retaining all profits. As a shareholder (which I am not, but if I was), I would be up in arms. This company has never paid me anything for investing in it and is now spending millions of dollars to buy off the government to "forget" about its illegal business practices.
If the market really was free, then IP laws wouldn't exist. If you want to make money off of something, be it a tangible object or intellectual work, you have to assume the risks of any business, including having that object or work not used in the way you desire.
Case in point: the Netpliance I-Opener. The company sold the computer at a loss, expecting that everyone that bought one would be subscribing to their service and they eventually would make up the loss. When people started buying them and not subscribing to the service, their business began to fall apart.
Risks such as the one that Netpliance took is all part of a free market. If you take the risks and sell a worthwhile product, you are rewarded with profits. The "intellectual property market" in not a free market. It is very much regulated.
With the IP law fiasco, the government takes many if those risks away. At one time, there was a benefit to the government stepping in and protecting intellectual property. But now, as IP laws give publishers* more and more protection, they're chipping away at your rights as a consumer and the ideal of a free market that everyone points to.
* I say publishers because beneficiaries to the latest IP laws are not those who actually create the work but the publishers that releases those works.
According the the article, the BSA sends warning letters demanding the company to prove to them that they're entirely legit. What's preventing a targeted company from just deleting any pirated software and responding to the BSA with a big "Go fuck youself?" If they bring in the US Marshalls to raid the company, they wouldn't find anything.
But by the time that HDTV goes "mainstream" so will DVD burners and enough CPU time to do MPEG-4 encoding on the fly with cycles to spare.
If you look at the testimonials, it reads just like the typical MLM/"Not MLM!" scam spams that I've been getting lately, complete with the vague (un)identifying info. But this really begs the question: Why are people stupid enough to fall for these scams in the first place? I am strongly convinced that a majority of Americans are completely braindead.
Its called the "doctrine of first sale". Essencially it says that once you buy a copy of a work (book, video, etc), the seller can not stop you from lending, renting, or reselling the copy to someone else.
What was happening in this case was that Warner Home Video was selling two versions of DVDs... one that was not for rental and the other that was for rental. The for rental version was, of course, more expensive. The difference? A little sticker on the disc. The Australian video rental industry took Warner Home Video to court over this and won. Warner can not dictate what the purcahser does with the video disc. Warner was claiming that DVDs were software and could have use restrictions placed on them, ala a EULA. The court ruled that Warner can not claim DVDs as such.
First sale in the US came from a case (early 20th century?) between Macy's department store and a book publisher. The publisher indicated that on the book that it could not be sold lower than a certain price. Macy's sold it from a lower price and the publisher took them to court. The court decided that once the publisher sells the copies of the works, they have no say over what is done with them.
As far as I know, the fist sale doctrine has never been applied to software. I don't think that any of the "no resale" clauses of many EULAs has been contested in court. Presumably, there aren't many EULA violations claims made by publishers because they probablly aren't enforceable and the whole might of groups like the SPA and BSA are built unpon these unenforcable claims. Not bringing them to court allows they claims to continue because most people threatended with them will cave before any real legal action is made.
Incidentally, this is probablly what Warner's claims were based upon--the assumption that no one would challenge them.
It would probablly come down to the primary purpose of the DVD. If the DVD is a movie, is someone buying it for the crappy "PC extras"? Of course not. They're buying it for the movie.
Well, yes, they provide some guidence for how to get more than one computer on the service.
Quoth the FAQ:
Can I use the service on more than one computer?
Yes, customers with home networks may order additional network addresses in order to connect several computers to the service through one cable modem.
You must first subscribe to the basic Comcast High-Speed Internet Service.
Once you become a subscriber, you can sign up for a second and third address.
You will need to have access to network expertise because Comcast High-Speed Internet Service neither installs nor supports networks.
The cost is $6.95 per month for each additional outlet. Customers can have two additional addresses, for a total of three.
Comcast will install the network card and software on a second and third computer for a change of $49 for each computer.
Read that section very carefully. The language they use does not say that you can not run a router. It says that customers "may order". It does not say must. Also, if they say that only one computer can be on the service, then a router certainly is ONE compuer. It just happens to be that that one computer is connected to two networks, the Comcast network and your own internal network.
Beyond that, there was the decision years ago that said AT&T could not prohibit you from connecting a non-AT&T phone to their phone network, as long as it doesn't damage the phone network, of course. One could always argue that cable and cable modem services should be covered by that as well.
I'm one of those behind the counter people and here's the rest of the story...
Not too long ago, Kodak came up with a neat idea: a machine to allow consumers to make copies and enlargements of their photographs by scanning the picture and printing onto glossy paper with a high quality printer. They called this the Kodak Picture Maker and installed them in drugstores, supermarkets, discount stores... anyplace that offered photo developing. It was fast, convenient, and the printed output was barely distinguishable from a true photograph.
And there was much rejoicing.
Then one day, a group of professional photographers got together and sued Kodak (and K-Mart) for allowing professional photographs to be copied using their machines. And the photographers won. A lot of money in claimed damages.
The result is that any business that provides reproduction services is now wary of copyright infringement. Heck, Staples now has notices on their copiers that you can't copy copyrighted materials, ala the "Warning: HOT!" on cups that contain a beverage that might be thanks to the old lady that spilled McDonald's coffee on her lap while driving.
Its a fear of being sued, plain and simple. Thank those "Injured? We'll get you money!" lawyers on TV.
How would you classify N'Sync and Britney Spears? They have no musical talent of their own. They rely on others writing the lyrics and the music, yet many millions enjoy their music. In this case, the major record labels are needed in order to bring together a large number of people to produce the content.
Ah. You've pointed out where the "intellectual property system" begins to break down. Take a song produced under this system. The composer of the music creates the music but does not own the rights to their creation. The lyricist writes the words but does not own them either. The musicians play the music but do not own the preformance. The singers sing the lyrics but do not own the preformance either. Its the publisher that owns the finished song and all of its parts.
What is wrong with this? The music publishers use protecting the artists (and others involved in the creation process) when they rationalize copy prevention systems. But its not the artists that are damaged by piracy. They don't own the works that they created. Its the publishers.
If the publishers would just tell the truth about why they want copy prevention systems, they might get my sympathy. But something that is built on one huge lie deserves to never see daylight.
Well, look at who Philips is. They make hardware. They were (one of?) the first to the market with a consumer CD recorder for your sterio. These copy protected CD's probablly break the recording function of the recorders. Philips could care less about the copy protection except for the fact that it renders some of its products useless. They probablly don't like that the schemes also exploit flaws in their design, ala Macrovision and VHS.
So, they help themselves, help us, and spit in the face of the RIAA. What could be better?
Then maybe we should start a smear campaign against the recording industry. Write to the editors of your local newspapers and spread some of your own FUD about how the Recording Industry artifically raises the prices of blank tapes and recordable CDs. Nobody likes price fixing and if you can put enough of a slant on what you write, it could make the RIAA look REALLY BAD.
...then you have an even deeper problem that neither the software industry, or any other media publishers want to address.
And that is that more and more people, worldwide, are begining to believe that copyrights, and so-called "intelectual property" in general, do not deserve all the protections that they are afforded.
No one wants to address this because it is the publishers' biggest fear: copyright will lose respect and eventually be abolished. Their entire revenue stream is based upon the idea that data, be it software, music, video, or whatever, can be artifically kept scarce. And that's just not true.
What the whole Napster thing has done is to demonstrate that a good number of people (enough to make a "political majority") do not think that CDs are worth $18 a piece. People are now realizing that CDs cost under $1 to make and that the artists aren't getting the remainder. The people are making it known that the recording industry is NOT worth $16 a CD anymore. And since, unlike an ideal marketplace, you can not negotiate the price of a CD, potential customers are looking elsewhere to obtain the products at the price they feel it should be.
Piracy itself is not the primary target of these raids. The real target is attitudes towards copyrights. Since people are no longer respecting them on their face, the industry is attempting to convert the lost respect into fear of the law.
And that fear can only be provided by a copyright police state.
Because, like it or not, high school is, for most, valuable job training before they leave high school and enter the work force, be that as secretaries using MS Office or accountants using Excel, etc. When you teach them to use software that is completely irrelevant outside of school, you are crippling them for life as they have to retrain themselves on all the applications that school had taught them in order to use something as commonplace as Office.
Would any lessons learned on Office 97 become irrelivant when Office 2000 came out (and the same for XP)? Microsoft reworks the interface with every new version. Does someone taught on a new version need to be retaught?
Of course not. If the students are taught properly, then they should be able to go from one version to another, one program to another. A word processor is a word processor, regardless of the platform or package.
As Linux matures and administration becomes less complex, the savings of not having to buy licences to Microsoft software becomes clear.
A little side note here... The reason Microsoft wanted to "settle" with the government by giving away software to schools is to prevent this from occuring. They'd put themsleves on a level playing field with Linux by taking cost out of the equation.
The problem with computer GUI's is they haven't settled for 20 years - and people like these guys who come along and keep wanting to "create a new paradigm" (mark that off on your buzz-word bingo) are screwing things up - if it doesn't stay consistent for any length of time, no one will get accustomed to it.
Perfect.
You hit the nail right on the head. Why are computers so damned hard for a new user to use? Because a Windows PC works differently then a Macintosh PC which works differently than a Linux PC which works differently than... (ad naseum)
The GUIs of all those systems try to mimic the tools on an actual desk but each with enough subtle differences as to make the novice unable to move from one to another. And each new version changes everything COMPLETELY (although Apple had the same GUI from 1984 until 2000 with no "major" changes).
Calculators all look totally different. But anyone can look at one and know that it is a calculator. And when you know how to use one, you can use almost any other calculator. When it comes to icons on the GUI desktop, that isn't so easy. The icon for Microsoft Word is a green W. What is this W? Does this wash my comptuer for me? The Excel icon is an X. What is this X? Is this a computer xylophone?
GUIs and software publishers are very self-promoting. They use their own meaningless logos and marketing-drone generated names to identify their programs. And then they go nuts if you try an copy their "look and feel". That's all fine and dandy if you know how to use a computer and/or what you want to do with the computer. But for someone who never used a computer or that particular computer , they haven't got a clue.
All those fancy GUIs are supposed to make using computers easier. But they don't.
Here's how to design a computer that will truly be easy to use: Take someone who never has used a computer before. Sit them down in front of the computer. Don't tell them how to use the computer. Give them some tasks to do with the computer (ie, write a letter). If they can complete those tasks without needing help, you've designed an easy to use computer.
Anyway, back to my point... I don't think Verizon being the only game in town is necessarily a bad thing... as long as they're kept in check, rates are kept reasonable, customer service is a MUST, and they provide the services required.
Competition is definately NOT a bad thing, and for Verizon, its is a very good thing.
Turn on NJ 101.5 FM radio and you'll probablly hear a Verizon ad spreading FUD about what they're not allowed to sell long distance service in NJ. They claim that accorging to projections, their being in the long distance market in NY will eventuall save the typical phone user $20-$300 a year on long distance and urge that New Jersey consumers demand to their lawmakers that Verizon be allowed to enter long distance in New Jersey.
What they don't tell you is that the reason that they are not allowed to sell long distance service in New Jersey is because they have yet to open their phone system to competitors as they are required to do by the Telecommunications Reform Act FIRST. New York looked the other way on this and allowed them to get into long distance. New Jersey did not. New Jersey is holding them to the federal regulations that they are required to follow.
No matter what it has been, Verison, formerly Bell Atlantic, formerly Bell Atlantic and NYNEX, formerly New Jersey Bell, New York Telephone, and etc... has dragged their feet on everything. They should not be rewarded for that and be required, nay FORCED, to compete on a level playing field.
And as for restoring phone service in lower Manhattan... Whop-de-friggin-do. So they reconnected the phone lines in one building (the New York Stock Exchange) over a weekend. Does Verizon deserve a metal? No... they's what they are being paid to do... provide the phone service.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
I would go further and get your local or state consumer protection and/or public utility board involved.
Why? The cable companies have been advertising how you can have "always on" "faster than dial-up" internet connections. No where in those ads do they say that the price offered is only for "casual surfing" or anything like that. Plain and simple, the cable companies are engaging in "bait and switch"... advertising one service then saying "Hey, that's not really for you. You want this much more expensive service."
Or, if you just want to be sly, just use another port than the usual VPN one (80, 21, etc).
It's amazing what the government will do to protect M$.
This is actually a more profound statement then the moderators make it out to be. Yes, its the typical Slashdotien Microsoft bashing, but its deeper than that.
The government is protecting the largest software and motion picture companies (the articles cited lots of pirated movies as well).
What about your small software house (are there any that still exist?) that is also suffering from software piracy (a LOT more than Microsoft could ever be). The government isn't running to their rescue.
This is a true problem when it comes to that little thing called "equal protection under the law". The government isn't equally protecting small software authors, in fact they probablly aren't protecting them at all.
If you doubted that the governemnt was corrupt and seeks to only protect big business, does it seem all clearer now?
2) Mechanics will get the machines that they need to read the computer codes. The car companies make money indirectly by working with the folks who build these boxes. The mechanics make money because they can charge somebody $40 because a light came on.
Unless it has changed dramaticlly since '95 (which I suppose it hasn't), you can read the computer codes with an electronic multimeter.
That's right, the "secret codes" are read with the piece of equipment that should be standard on every good geek's toolbox.
As for your specific question, I've got a Ford 4.6L engine (Grand Marq, baby!) and my Hayes repair manual has three pages of the codes (under $20 at Pep Boys). It would be trivial to write a program that takes the engine computer signals as input, look the signal up in a database, and spits out that the code means and how you could fix it. If you wanted to get flashy and have pictures and animations, you could do that, too.