When there is a large public outcry (such as this case of fair use of private information) it's a typical PR move to try and get your enemies on your side. Like micros~1 hiring ambitious programers that threaten their market share (only to stuff the programers into a fruitless cushy R&D job) , Double-click is buying the silence of people that would normally stand against them.
It fits the old saying "keep your allies close, but keep your enemies closer".
Imagine the big three automakers hiring Ralph Nader as a "consultant" back in the 70s. Imagine Richard Nixon hiring Archibald Cox to form an "exploritory panel". Imagine Bill Clinton hiring Ken Star as a "advisor" in the 90s. Would any of these people sell out and join the oposition? I think not.
Not to name names;) but these people:
Robert Abrams Robert Litan Harriet Pearson Lori Fena Daniel Weitzner Elizabeth Lascoutx David Stazer Stewart Baker
are all selling out your privacy and their own personal integrity. ___
Have you ever seen Carot Top? That lound and lame read headed prop comedian? Then you know what his hair looks like?
These wheels are made of fiber with much the same consistancy at Carot Tops nappy-doo. When the wheel begins to fail, a few of these strands begin to split off and compromises the airbearing, thus slowing the wheel and causing an imbalance. This further stresses the wheel causing even more strand to split off and slowing the wheel even more. Eventially, there are so many loose strands of fibre that the gap between the wheel and the housing is gone and the wheel grinds to a hault.
This small "seized up" flywheel poses very little threat for the same reason an internal combustion engine doesn't toss pistons through the hood of your car: Because there are forces acting on the wheel with an apposing force.
When they fail, they tend to fray (like carot tops hair) and seize up in their housing long before any pieces can cause damage. ___
If you've ever been on a school playground and seen kids playing on a merry-go-round, you've seen a flywheel. As the kids turn the merry-go-round, it goes faster and faster, then it coasts for a while until it slows down.
If you put 10 kids around the outside rim of the merry-go-round and try to turn it (called "spinning up") it takes more effort to turn all that weight, but once you get it going up to speed it keeps turning longer. Another approach is to only put 5 kids on and spin it faster. Both of these methods (high weight and high speed) releases energy as it coasts.
In the case of a flywheel, the middle of the flywheel is attached to a motor that serves both as a motor (to spin up the wheel) and as a generator (to collect the energy being released as it coasts). This time proven method of mechanical energy has a lot of potential because of how little wasted energy there is.
The 2 methods currenty under research are
1) Large and slow (buried inside a sub station on an electrical power grid) 2) Small and fast (portable in an automobile)
The issue with the small and fast approach is how you fabricate the spinning disk. If a small inacuracy in concentricity produces a "wobble" at 1000 PRM, it gets worse the faster you go. Most current methods employ a computer controled carbon fiber winding machine to collect SPC (Statistical Process Control) data as the wheel is being made and make adjustments "in process". The other area of research is air bearings and aerodynamics. Keeping the heat from friction to a minimum is important because thermal expantion can make the wheel grow a little larger, thus closing the air gap and causing a "touchdown" (this "air==bearing" thing is much like the method employed to "fly" a reader head on a hard drive above the platter).
As material research continues to explore new materials and computer power allows researchers to model these materials in new ways, there really is very little a fly wheel can't do. At the moment they (the large and slow kind) are being used to replace large battery racks in UPS stations in big buildings and on electrical power grids. ___
[Joke] A Father was explaining ethics to his son. "Ethics is about doing the right thing. Let's say someone comes into my store and I mistakenly over charge them by $20 for something they purchase. The question of Ethics is:
Anyone who believes that the TCO for such a change in platform is $0 must have no experience with such a move. It's incredibly expensive to retrain your sysadmins, help desk and users.
All I'm saying is the cost to buy Office is about 799.00 per seat. This price is without justification. If I payed you, personally, a quater million dollars to move your macrels to another productivity app, would you do it? Would it cost you that much? What if you could pocket the differance?
TCO is important in any decision, but don't let it distract you from the fact you'de pay $400,000 to ms for the glorious privilage of being locked into another cycle.
The only advantage to buying Office 2000 is that you'll be paying again when Office 2002 comes out and you'll be right back where you started.
$799.00 X 500 seats= $399,500.00 is real money to any company. There is no justification for this expedeture apart from the intelectual lazieness of the IT department and the users on the network. $400,000!
That's just nuts! You're paying $400,000.00 for the priviage of knowing you'll have to pay it again when Office 2002 comes out.
Are there more examples of protocols, specifications, API's, whatever, that had standards for interoperability, but the Windows or Microsoft implementation fails to meet them ?
With devolpers and capitol investment moving to a web API in the millions, what are you doing to make sure your company stays with the marketshare as it shifts? What are you doing to make sure your network is open to taking early advantage of the shift to distributed applications?
If you deploy Linux across a 500 seat network, you'll not only save the company over a quarter million dollars in licencing fees, but you'll be leveraging the devlopment effort of programers around the world to make sure your network is at the forfront of the shift. ___
There have been a lot of people talking about retraining a large user base that has been locked into another platform. They bring up (rightfully so) the high cost os rertaining the large user group on the new platform/application.
I would clarify this concern with the fact that nobody is born with knowledge on how to operate a computer. Yes it's true that many new employees have learned the application at another company. Yes it's true that many users have it at home.
What's more is most of the these same people already have aquired basic computer skills (point and click, RAM, hard drive, file structure). The cost in retraining these basic computer skills will not be redone. That cost has already been realised.
As a result of the user base already having basic computer skills, the cost in additional migration training to a new platform is less than the cost of the original training. ___
Who installed all that "free" software? The same people who would have installed proprietary junk.
How long did it take? The same time as the proprietary junk
Who retrained all the users to use a new O/S they aren't familiar with? The same help desk that trained on the proprietary junk. Perhaps HR would be happy when you offer all employees a free copy of their office desktop for them to take home with them to help this process. (licencing cost? zippo, nada, zero)
How long did that take and how much did that lost productivity cost? The same time it took the company to learn the proprietary junk.
Who handles the support questions when the software doesn't work (it sure isn't the "manufacturer" now, is it?) The same help desk that troubleshoots the existing proprietary junk but now the help desk is backed up by thousands of other users around the world, and the power of the source code at their fingertips.
How much overhead does that add to the company? The same amount of overhead that exists now. No more, no less.
And how long is it before you're out pounding the pavement because you just cost the company 10x what that off-the-shelf commercial solution would have cost?
On the FIRST DAY of deployment, the TCO is zarro, nada, zippo. All software has support costs (free or licenced) and no software has any kind of warrenty whatsoever (try suing ms for the LOVEYOU virus or any other work stopage caused by their sofware. Try taking legal action seeking punative damages against any software company on this planet (free or not) and you'll find it imposible. ___
We're not talking about the curvy singer that used to be married to Sonny, but we're talking about market share. It's the key goal of any software company (free or not) seaking lockin.
In the proprietary model, the user pays for the platform while the company moves around the API, security model, file formats, in an effort to gain market share. Each time a change/upgrade is made, you pay again and again in the form of development costs around the new changes.
In the free software model, you get to take advantage of a companies quest for share. If at some date later down the the line that same company decides to change the EULA and start charging it's users, you have all the source, openly documented API and open standard file formats to help you with the migration to the *next* company on a quest for share. ___
If you want to find out of Windows2000 is the platform you, you have to make a thousand dollar comitment to MS (the OS, Apps, Development tools) to find that out.
The high cost of proprietary software is the "lock in." If you've payed your ms tax and found out that the micosoft platform does not fit your needs, you're fucked out of thousands of dollars.
Making that same mistake on linux costs you nothing, zero, zippo, bumpkiss, null set, void, not one thin dime. The upside is huge because for the same zero, zippo, no cost you can copy the platform onto as many computers as you want all over your network.
Picture the meeting with the CFO when you show him how you deployed all the software on all 544 of your 32 bit workstations for zero dollars. Imagine the meeting with the CFO when you point out how on the first day of deployment you have a 100%=ROI! PAYOFF=INSTANT! TCO=0! ___
Albert, Jeong, and Barabasi 99. R. Albert, H. Jeong, and A.-L. Barabasi. Diameter of the World Wide Web, Nature 401:130-131, Sep 1999.
Barabasi and Albert 99. A. Barabasi and R. Albert. Emergence of scaling in random networks, Science, 286(509), 1999.
Barford et. al. 99. P. Barford, A. Bestavros, A. Bradley, and M. E. Crovella. Changes in Web client access patterns: Characteristics and caching implications, in World Wide Web, Special Issue on Characterization and Performance Evaluation, 2:15-28, 1999.
Butafogo and Schniederman 91. R. A. Butafogo and B. Schneiderman. Identifying aggregates in hypertext structures, Proc. 3rd ACM Conference on Hypertext, 1991.
Chakrabarti et. al. (2) 98. S. Chakrabarti, B. Dom, D. Gibson, S. Ravi Kumar, P. Raghavan, S. Rajagopalan, and A. Tomkins. Experiments in topic distillation, Proc. ACM SIGIR workshop on Hypertext Information Retrieval on the Web, 1998.
Chakrabarti, Gibson, and McCurley 99. S. Chakrabarti, D. Gibson, and K. McCurley.Surfing the Web backwards, Proc. 8th WWW, 1999.
Cho and Garcia-Molina 2000 J. Cho, H. Garcia-Molina Synchronizing a database to Improve Freshness. To appear in 2000 ACM International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD), May 2000.
Faloutsos, Faloutsos, and Faloutsos 99. M. Faloutsos, P. Faloutsos, and C. Faloutsos. On power law relationships of the internet topology, ACM SIGCOMM, 1999.
Kumar et. al. (1) 99. R. Kumar, P. Raghavan, S. Rajagopalan, and A. Tomkins. Trawling the Web for cyber communities, Proc. 8th WWW , Apr 1999.
Kumar et. al. (2) 99. R. Kumar, P. Raghavan, S. Rajagopalan, and A. Tomkins. Extracting large scale knowledge bases from the Web, Proc. VLDB, Jul 1999.
Lukose and Huberman 98. R. M. Lukose and B. Huberman. Surfing as a real option, Proc. 1st International Conference on Information and Computation Economies, 1998.
Martindale and Konopka 96. C. Martindale and A K Konopka. Oligonucleotide frequencies in DNA follow a Yule distribution, Computer & Chemistry, 20(1):35-38, 1996.
Mendelzon, Mihaila, and Milo 97. A. Mendelzon, G. Mihaila, and T. Milo. Querying the World Wide Web, Journal of Digital Libraries 1(1), pp. 68-88, 1997.
5/15/2000 8:34 PM Pablo Elbow CA (/.) While clicking the link is the story above, I got this:
You don't have permission to access/news/science/science/20000514/t000045621.html on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Are we looking at the/. effect? a poorly configured server? Has the admin at latimes.com blocked the slashdot.org referer in an effort to avoid being/.ed? ___
Your assesment of the situation is interesting and I would be the first to sugest your insights to 2600 for cross posting. I have just a few questions that perhaps you could address.
Has recordtv.com has already gone to CBS, ABC, NBC and AOL/TimeWarner to get the rebroadcast rights?
Have they signed a deal with the NFL, NHL, and the NBA to pay for the rights to show their games?
If the answer is yes then you are correct in every detail. ___
Because: Plugging a VCR into a wide area network (in this case:the internet) in order to seek revenues from banner advertisements amounts to redistibution with comercial intent without the expressed writen consent of the copyright holder. ___
Re:"These people do not do anything that your average VCR can not do."
Plugging a VCR into a wide area network (in this case:the internet) in order to seek revenues from banner advertisements amounts to redistibution with comercial intent without the expressed writen consent of the copyright holder. ___
Slashdot Mirror
It fits the old saying "keep your allies close, but keep your enemies closer".
Imagine the big three automakers hiring Ralph Nader as a "consultant" back in the 70s. Imagine Richard Nixon hiring Archibald Cox to form an "exploritory panel". Imagine Bill Clinton hiring Ken Star as a "advisor" in the 90s. Would any of these people sell out and join the oposition? I think not.
Not to name names ;) but these people:
Robert Abrams
Robert Litan
Harriet Pearson
Lori Fena
Daniel Weitzner
Elizabeth Lascoutx
David Stazer
Stewart Baker
are all selling out your privacy and their own personal integrity.
___
You're missing a "Left-Arrow-slash-A-right-arrow" after the link text.
___
These wheels are made of fiber with much the same consistancy at Carot Tops nappy-doo. When the wheel begins to fail, a few of these strands begin to split off and compromises the airbearing, thus slowing the wheel and causing an imbalance. This further stresses the wheel causing even more strand to split off and slowing the wheel even more. Eventially, there are so many loose strands of fibre that the gap between the wheel and the housing is gone and the wheel grinds to a hault.
This small "seized up" flywheel poses very little threat for the same reason an internal combustion engine doesn't toss pistons through the hood of your car: Because there are forces acting on the wheel with an apposing force.
When they fail, they tend to fray (like carot tops hair) and seize up in their housing long before any pieces can cause damage.
___
If you put 10 kids around the outside rim of the merry-go-round and try to turn it (called "spinning up") it takes more effort to turn all that weight, but once you get it going up to speed it keeps turning longer. Another approach is to only put 5 kids on and spin it faster. Both of these methods (high weight and high speed) releases energy as it coasts.
In the case of a flywheel, the middle of the flywheel is attached to a motor that serves both as a motor (to spin up the wheel) and as a generator (to collect the energy being released as it coasts). This time proven method of mechanical energy has a lot of potential because of how little wasted energy there is.
The 2 methods currenty under research are
1) Large and slow (buried inside a sub station on an electrical power grid)
2) Small and fast (portable in an automobile)
The issue with the small and fast approach is how you fabricate the spinning disk. If a small inacuracy in concentricity produces a "wobble" at 1000 PRM, it gets worse the faster you go. Most current methods employ a computer controled carbon fiber winding machine to collect SPC (Statistical Process Control) data as the wheel is being made and make adjustments "in process". The other area of research is air bearings and aerodynamics. Keeping the heat from friction to a minimum is important because thermal expantion can make the wheel grow a little larger, thus closing the air gap and causing a "touchdown" (this "air==bearing" thing is much like the method employed to "fly" a reader head on a hard drive above the platter).
As material research continues to explore new materials and computer power allows researchers to model these materials in new ways, there really is very little a fly wheel can't do. At the moment they (the large and slow kind) are being used to replace large battery racks in UPS stations in big buildings and on electrical power grids.
___
MS?interfaces and distributed XML based
oh wow, that's just to funny for words.
___
A Father was explaining ethics to his son. "Ethics is about doing the right thing. Let's say someone comes into my store and I mistakenly over charge them by $20 for something they purchase. The question of Ethics is:
Do you tell your partner?"
[bada-boom-tssss]
___
All I'm saying is the cost to buy Office is about 799.00 per seat. This price is without justification. If I payed you, personally, a quater million dollars to move your macrels to another productivity app, would you do it? Would it cost you that much? What if you could pocket the differance?
TCO is important in any decision, but don't let it distract you from the fact you'de pay $400,000 to ms for the glorious privilage of being locked into another cycle.
The only advantage to buying Office 2000 is that you'll be paying again when Office 2002 comes out and you'll be right back where you started.
___
$400,000!
That's just nuts!
You're paying $400,000.00 for the priviage of knowing you'll have to pay it again when Office 2002 comes out.
It's like an abusive cycle. Break the Cycle.
___
Every piece of software that they don't make.
___
$799.00
X 500 seats=
$399,500
OpenSource platform
$0
X 500 seats=
$0
What would you do with your network is you had an extra $399,500.00?
___
If you deploy Linux across a 500 seat network, you'll not only save the company over a quarter million dollars in licencing fees, but you'll be leveraging the devlopment effort of programers around the world to make sure your network is at the forfront of the shift.
___
I would clarify this concern with the fact that nobody is born with knowledge on how to operate a computer. Yes it's true that many new employees have learned the application at another company. Yes it's true that many users have it at home.
What's more is most of the these same people already have aquired basic computer skills (point and click, RAM, hard drive, file structure). The cost in retraining these basic computer skills will not be redone. That cost has already been realised.
As a result of the user base already having basic computer skills, the cost in additional migration training to a new platform is less than the cost of the original training.
___
Why not make the same time investment on a platform that gives you the source and uses open formats?
___
Who installed all that "free" software?
The same people who would have installed proprietary junk.
How long did it take?
The same time as the proprietary junk
Who retrained all the users to use a new O/S they aren't familiar with?
The same help desk that trained on the proprietary junk. Perhaps HR would be happy when you offer all employees a free copy of their office desktop for them to take home with them to help this process. (licencing cost? zippo, nada, zero)
How long did that take and how much did that lost productivity cost?
The same time it took the company to learn the proprietary junk.
Who handles the support questions when the software doesn't work (it sure isn't the "manufacturer" now, is it?)
The same help desk that troubleshoots the existing proprietary junk but now the help desk is backed up by thousands of other users around the world, and the power of the source code at their fingertips.
How much overhead does that add to the company?
The same amount of overhead that exists now. No more, no less.
And how long is it before you're out pounding the pavement because you just cost the company 10x what that off-the-shelf commercial solution would have cost?
Never :)
___
On the FIRST DAY of deployment, the TCO is zarro, nada, zippo. All software has support costs (free or licenced) and no software has any kind of warrenty whatsoever (try suing ms for the LOVEYOU virus or any other work stopage caused by their sofware. Try taking legal action seeking punative damages against any software company on this planet (free or not) and you'll find it imposible.
___
We're not talking about the curvy singer that used to be married to Sonny, but we're talking about market share. It's the key goal of any software company (free or not) seaking lockin.
In the proprietary model, the user pays for the platform while the company moves around the API, security model, file formats, in an effort to gain market share. Each time a change/upgrade is made, you pay again and again in the form of development costs around the new changes.
In the free software model, you get to take advantage of a companies quest for share. If at some date later down the the line that same company decides to change the EULA and start charging it's users, you have all the source, openly documented API and open standard file formats to help you with the migration to the *next* company on a quest for share.
___
The high cost of proprietary software is the "lock in." If you've payed your ms tax and found out that the micosoft platform does not fit your needs, you're fucked out of thousands of dollars.
Making that same mistake on linux costs you nothing, zero, zippo, bumpkiss, null set, void, not one thin dime. The upside is huge because for the same zero, zippo, no cost you can copy the platform onto as many computers as you want all over your network.
Picture the meeting with the CFO when you show him how you deployed all the software on all 544 of your 32 bit workstations for zero dollars. Imagine the meeting with the CFO when you point out how on the first day of deployment you have a 100%=ROI! PAYOFF=INSTANT! TCO=0!
___
Obviously they were short a couple fingers or soemthing, because that sure as hell seems like seven words to me =)
___
Adamic and Huberman (2) 99. L. Adamic and B. Huberman. Scaling behavior on the World Wide Web, Technical comment on Barabasi and Albert 99.
Aiello, Chung, and Lu 00. W. Aiello, F. Chung and L. Lu. A random graph model for massive graphs, ACM Symposium on the Theory and Computing 2000.
Albert, Jeong, and Barabasi 99. R. Albert, H. Jeong, and A.-L. Barabasi. Diameter of the World Wide Web, Nature 401:130-131, Sep 1999.
Barabasi and Albert 99. A. Barabasi and R. Albert. Emergence of scaling in random networks, Science, 286(509), 1999.
Barford et. al. 99. P. Barford, A. Bestavros, A. Bradley, and M. E. Crovella. Changes in Web client access patterns: Characteristics and caching implications, in World Wide Web, Special Issue on Characterization and Performance Evaluation, 2:15-28, 1999.
Bharat et. al. 98. K. Bharat, A. Broder, M. Henzinger, P. Kumar, and S. Venkatasubramanian. The connectivity server: fast access to linkage information on the web, Proc. 7th WWW, 1998.
Bharat and Henzinger 98. K. Bharat, and M. Henzinger. Improved algorithms for topic distillation in hyperlinked environments, Proc. 21st SIGIR, 1998.
Brin and Page 98. S. Brin, and L. Page. The anatomy of a large scale hypertextual web search engine, Proc. 7th WWW, 1998.
Butafogo and Schniederman 91. R. A. Butafogo and B. Schneiderman. Identifying aggregates in hypertext structures, Proc. 3rd ACM Conference on Hypertext, 1991.
Carriere and Kazman 97. J. Carriere, and R. Kazman. WebQuery: Searching and visualizing the Web through connectivity , Proc. 6th WWW, 1997.
Chakrabarti et. al. (1) 98. S. Chakrabarti, B. Dom, D. Gibson, J. Kleinberg, P. Raghavan, and S. Rajagopalan. Automatic resource compilation by analyzing hyperlink structure and associated text, Proc. 7th WWW, 1998.
Chakrabarti et. al. (2) 98. S. Chakrabarti, B. Dom, D. Gibson, S. Ravi Kumar, P. Raghavan, S. Rajagopalan, and A. Tomkins. Experiments in topic distillation, Proc. ACM SIGIR workshop on Hypertext Information Retrieval on the Web, 1998.
Chakrabarti, Gibson, and McCurley 99. S. Chakrabarti, D. Gibson, and K. McCurley.Surfing the Web backwards, Proc. 8th WWW, 1999.
Cho and Garcia-Molina 2000 J. Cho, H. Garcia-Molina Synchronizing a database to Improve Freshness . To appear in 2000 ACM International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD), May 2000.
Faloutsos, Faloutsos, and Faloutsos 99. M. Faloutsos, P. Faloutsos, and C. Faloutsos. On power law relationships of the internet topology, ACM SIGCOMM, 1999.
Glassman 94. S. Glassman. A caching relay for the world wide web , Proc. 1st WWW, 1994.
Harary 75. F. Harary. Graph Theory, Addison Wesley, 1975.
Huberman et. al. 98. B. Huberman, P. Pirolli, J. Pitkow, and R. Lukose. Strong regularities in World Wide Web surfing, Science, 280:95-97, 1998.
Kleinberg 98. J. Kleinberg. Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment, Proc. 9th ACM-SIAM SODA, 1998.
Kumar et. al. (1) 99. R. Kumar, P. Raghavan, S. Rajagopalan, and A. Tomkins. Trawling the Web for cyber communities, Proc. 8th WWW , Apr 1999.
Kumar et. al. (2) 99. R. Kumar, P. Raghavan, S. Rajagopalan, and A. Tomkins. Extracting large scale knowledge bases from the Web, Proc. VLDB, Jul 1999.
Lukose and Huberman 98. R. M. Lukose and B. Huberman. Surfing as a real option, Proc. 1st International Conference on Information and Computation Economies, 1998.
Martindale and Konopka 96. C. Martindale and A K Konopka. Oligonucleotide frequencies in DNA follow a Yule distribution, Computer & Chemistry, 20(1):35-38, 1996.
Mendelzon, Mihaila, and Milo 97. A. Mendelzon, G. Mihaila, and T. Milo. Querying the World Wide Web, Journal of Digital Libraries 1(1), pp. 68-88, 1997.
Mendelzon and Wood 95. A. Mendelzon and P. Wood. Finding regular simple paths in graph databases, SIAM J. Comp. 24(6):1235-1258, 1995.
Pareto 1897. V Pareto. Cours d'economie politique, Rouge, Lausanne et Paris, 1897.
Pirolli, Pitkow, and Rao 96. P. Pirolli, J. Pitkow, and R. Rao. Silk from a sow's ear: Extracting usable structures from the Web , Proc. ACM SIGCHI, 1996.
Pitkow and Pirolli 97. J. Pitkow and P. Pirolli. Life, death, and lawfulness on the electronic frontier, Proc. ACM SIGCHI, 1997.
Simon 55. H.A. Simon. On a class of stew distribution functions, Biometrika, 42:425-440, 1955.
White and McCain 89. H.D. White and K.W. McCain, Bibliometrics, in: Ann. Rev. Info. Sci. and Technology, Elsevier, 1989, pp. 119-186.
Yule 44. G.U. Yule. Statistical Study of Literary Vocabulary, Cambridge University Press, 1944.
Zipf 49. G.K. Zipf. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort, Addison-Wesley, 1949.
___
Pablo Elbow CA (/.)
While clicking the link is the story above, I got this:
You don't have permission to access /news/science/science/20000514/t000045621.html on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Are we looking at the /. effect? a poorly configured server? Has the admin at latimes.com blocked the slashdot.org referer in an effort to avoid being /.ed?
___
___
Has recordtv.com has already gone to CBS, ABC, NBC and AOL/TimeWarner to get the rebroadcast rights?
Have they signed a deal with the NFL, NHL, and the NBA to pay for the rights to show their games?
If the answer is yes then you are correct in every detail.
___
500 Internal Server Error. Am I alone?
___
Because: Plugging a VCR into a wide area network (in this case:the internet) in order to seek revenues from banner advertisements amounts to redistibution with comercial intent without the expressed writen consent of the copyright holder.
___
Plugging a VCR into a wide area network (in this case:the internet) in order to seek revenues from banner advertisements amounts to redistibution with comercial intent without the expressed writen consent of the copyright holder.
___