Any person who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under title 17, or any part thereof, from a performance of such work in a motion picture exhibition facility, shall--
`(1) be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both; or
`(2) if the offense is a second or subsequent offense, be imprisoned for no more than 6 years, fined under this title, or both.
Is it just me, or this bill is not only about file leaking?
I run a totally-free, totally-unsponsored web app. [...] It is surprising how often people send me things like -
One question. Would you allow these people to make improvements to your site by themselves? Sometimes owners/developers of non-commercial websites/applications serve as inquisitors of innovation. It's one thing to ignore request for thing that would require _your_ time and effort. However, It's another thing to prohibit other people to add something to your product out of sheer stubbornness. (I also support one non-commercial web site, so I have some knowledge about this.)
What the complainers don't realize, is that they only make up a small percentage of the users, and the other 95% use the system and are fairly happy.
You see, people do not care (and neither they should) about the size of group they represent. There are always someone with unpopular opinion, yes. But the fact that it's not popular should not make you disregard it completely.
From the Article:
IE6, for example, came out in 2001; an eternity ago, in computing terms. Except for a boatload of security updates and patches, it's still basically the same browser it was then.
So how Firefox 1.0 can be compared with IE then? Firefox gains new fetures constantly.
Let's say that one product has 1,000 customers, and a terrible reputation for reliability. The other has only 50 customers, but a great reputation. Why the difference in reputation? The small product has only 2 or 3 customers with problems, but the large product has fully 50 customers with problems.
This is a faulty logic. Let's assume that product A has 1000 customers, and product B has 50. If each of those 50 will experience problems with the product B, than it will have bad reputation. If 100 of that thousand will experience problems, than A will still be considered mediocre.
I agree that windows 2000 is more stable than XP. However, XP is _very_ good for running old DOS games. In fact, there are a lot of games that runs under XP and does not run under 98/ME/2000.
Wanna hear something funnier, for our critical stuff, the servers that make us $10,000 an hour running commercials, still run windows NT 4.0 Why not UNIX/BSD?
Slashdot Mirror
Quote from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./tem p/~c109WwlD4f:e1284::
Any person who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under title 17, or any part thereof, from a performance of such work in a motion picture exhibition facility, shall--
`(1) be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both; or
`(2) if the offense is a second or subsequent offense, be imprisoned for no more than 6 years, fined under this title, or both.
Is it just me, or this bill is not only about file leaking?
I run a totally-free, totally-unsponsored web app. [...] It is surprising how often people send me things like -
One question. Would you allow these people to make improvements to your site by themselves? Sometimes owners/developers of non-commercial websites/applications serve as inquisitors of innovation. It's one thing to ignore request for thing that would require _your_ time and effort. However, It's another thing to prohibit other people to add something to your product out of sheer stubbornness. (I also support one non-commercial web site, so I have some knowledge about this.)
What the complainers don't realize, is that they only make up a small percentage of the users, and the other 95% use the system and are fairly happy.
You see, people do not care (and neither they should) about the size of group they represent. There are always someone with unpopular opinion, yes. But the fact that it's not popular should not make you disregard it completely.
From the Article: IE6, for example, came out in 2001; an eternity ago, in computing terms. Except for a boatload of security updates and patches, it's still basically the same browser it was then. So how Firefox 1.0 can be compared with IE then? Firefox gains new fetures constantly. Let's say that one product has 1,000 customers, and a terrible reputation for reliability. The other has only 50 customers, but a great reputation. Why the difference in reputation? The small product has only 2 or 3 customers with problems, but the large product has fully 50 customers with problems. This is a faulty logic. Let's assume that product A has 1000 customers, and product B has 50. If each of those 50 will experience problems with the product B, than it will have bad reputation. If 100 of that thousand will experience problems, than A will still be considered mediocre.
I agree that windows 2000 is more stable than XP. However, XP is _very_ good for running old DOS games. In fact, there are a lot of games that runs under XP and does not run under 98/ME/2000.
Wanna hear something funnier, for our critical stuff, the servers that make us $10,000 an hour running commercials, still run windows NT 4.0
Why not UNIX/BSD?