I didn't even bother with people using dial-up systems. Perhaps yo might reconsider this search decision. I'm on a DSL line@256K and I list my box on Napster as a 56k conection. It keeps my get requests down to a low number and also allows me to load/. and do other things.
The ID win, and this frivilous suit, is a good day for the gaming industry. ID isn't any more responsible that any other form of media that displays death in any form.
I do have to question any parent who lets a child be over exposed to this (or any other) form of media that displays death so much. I've played the hell out of Doom, Doom2, Quake1 2 and 3 and I haven't gone out on a shooting rampage (note: I did put in an application at an american post office the other day, but that's a different issue;). This is testiment to the fact that in moderation these games are fun.
If a parent sees a child displaying anti-social behaviour and leaves the kid alone in his room for 2 years to watch death (in a video game or Martin Scocesee movie) 24/7 . . . newsflash! Jr is gonna be a little depressed. _______________
If chuckD really feels that strongly about giving away his music, he should do it. The very fact that he's still signed to the label that "shut him down cold" means that he's ok with it.
It's good PR. He gets to appear like he's "sticking it to the man" and the big bad record company looks like the thug. The record company doesn't care because they don't have a rep in the buyers eyes and they're happy to help their artist appear as more of a rebel because the demographic they're selling to loves rebellion. _______________
Make no mistake, the "artists" are in for the money. They spend years of their lives living in a buss, playing dives for little or no pay, and strugle to make a meager living.
Given the countless undertakings one can pursue in life, why do they choose to torture themselves with this particular pursuit?
Some responses include: "It's all for the people" "We just want to bring happieness to people's lives" "We just want to keep the fans happy" I'm sorry, but like an MS press release, I just don't buy it. Chuck D and any other establish artists has no interest what-so-ever in giving away for free the very thing that provides for him and his family. After spending years and years of making sacrifices and finally "making it" you're going to tell this veteran road-warrior artist that he should be happy his record company is giving it all away? Me thinks not.
Record companies and hundreds of thousands of bands that beat down their doors daily exist because bands seek them out. The Bands want to be rich, and "Pimpco records" can provide.
I welcome the new distrobution model (free MP3s) and look forward to a day when the wealth is spread across many, many artists instead of being concentrated in the hands of few. After all, is Madona so skilled in her art that she deserves so much money? _______________
Given your comments: And then when I went to download those that I was actually interested in, I discovered that most of the sites were down or otherwise unavailable. Perhaps a better understanding of what napster is and how it works is in order.
These aren't "sites" in the normal sense of a 24/7 web site, they are OPC (Other Peoples' Computers). These OPCs pop on and off-line all the time. If you happened to do your search when 20 other people each had a copy of the same song, they will show up in your search. You're relying on the kindess and generosity of other napster users to share a lot of files for long periods of time.
Given this arangement, it's in your own best interest to share a lot of your own MP3s for a long period of time, thus making the searching and downloading of your files an enjoyable expierence for other users (and vise-versa). On any given night, there can be over 4000 users sharing 1,500 GB of data. If 4000 people all got on napster and shared one MP3 file (like I_want_to_be_a_cowboy___neal.mp3) it would loose it's interest very fast.
The old saying "You only get out of it what you put into it" applies in this case.
As for "There were many artists who were not even listed in the database." This is partly due to the small search result of 100 responses to a search queary. I would agree that as the user base grows, and duplicate files increase, there is almost as much noise as signal. However, I like the small search size for legal reasons. I don't want other users (read RIAA lawyers) to be able to pull down every single user name and slap a seace and desist order on them.
P.S. Have we gotten so spoiled that the ability to quickly search and download positivly *any* song our hearts could desire from 2Tb of music on a distributed world wide network for free...Sucks? _______________
The other point of view is: I'm in this business to make money. Microsoft has never taken any skin off my nose.
Then it's just a matter of time.
MSs conduct in this case should speek directly to people like you who write apps for windows. What it says is: "Write your program for Windows, just don't make a killer app". If MS is allowed to proceed unchecked, your company is not safe from MS embeding your app into windows.
I would agree that the Netscape dominace of the browser market came from being in the right place at the right time.
What you left out is when Netscape slipped an object model (java) under the browser they were (and still are) a smart choice for developers looking to write a distributed application that runs across multiple platforms.
This was the threat that MS reacted to. Up untill that point, NS was just another app. in MSs eyes. Once NS went after develpoers they drew MS into the battle.
I would blame MarcA for this particular mistake. I remember him being interviewed after the 3.0 release and he spoke *very* boldly against MS without fully understanding their power and control over the market. He should have been saying to MS "nice doggie" while looking for a stick to whack it. Instead, he just came out swinging and MS took his stick away. _______________
Why you're post has been up for so long without being moderated as troll is beyond me. Perhaps when a few more moderators log on, they will correctly place your post in -1 land.
I was going to take your points one by one and dispute them, but there have been others that have done a wonderful job of pointing out the obvious. Instead, I decided to dismiss you're point of view as clearly uninformed and lacking critical thought.
The only thing I ask is that you please go here: http://www.isoc.org/zakon/Inter net/History/HIT.html to gain a better understanding of MSs lack of influence on anything internet. Please pay close attention to the fact that MSs started their company in the 70s when the internet was hitting it's stride and did nothing, nada, zipo, null-set, bupkiss, zilch, to help, grow, open, dominate, or sqelch the internet untill 2 decades later when a small start-up in Mtn. View threatened to take over their position as the primary development platform. _______________
Microsoft, first of all, uses parts of the IE engine for documentation. Second, they use parts of IE engine for ActiveX.
Third, they use parts of it for connectivity libraries.
Which parts? In what way? How do you know this? Because MS told you it's true?
You're telling me that with R&D funding that runs into the billions, there is absolutely, positively no possible way to do this another way? Pardon me if I doubt MSs stance on this issue.
They linked IE to almost everything they touch because they need the distrobution channel to grow share.
They made a deliberate and concious decision to break other programs and punish users if they *don't* have IE on their computers (in other words, leveraging their monopoly position in operating systems in order to cut off compitition). _______________
Now admittedly, the line for antitrust is a little fuzzy, and we don't want to be lopping heads off for the slightest infractions, but is it a bad thing if firms are encouraged to err on the side of legality?
I'm compeled to agree with this statement given MSs unlimited funds to fight. They've proven (what is it now, 2+ years?) that they have all the money in the world to delay and deny justice.
Regardung my earlier post about splitting up the company by characters on a computer keyboard, I have to admit, that it is mostly in gest and clearly not feasable. However it is an illustration of how the government must negotiate from strength.
There was a famous american president that said "always negotiate from strength" and I think it applies in this case. MSs obvious disregard for the law has given the states and the DoJ a hammer to swing. And swing they must. If they decide to give them a slap on the wrist for these actions, we'll be right back here again when the states bring an action regarding the 63,000 bugs in w2k.
A monopoly answers to nobody. They don't answer to their customers, they don't answer to their shareholders, they don't answer to their compitition.
The anti-trust law is the only means the people have to speak out (through their elected states AJ) about abuses and to seek a remedy. If the results of this case do not "punish" the company, it tells the CEO over at cisco that he can grow his company without acountability. It tells the CEO at Intel that he can do whatever he damn well pleases. There must be a disinsentive for these actions in order to avoid further actions. _______________
From the article in the NYT: Among the major points in the final draft of the proposed agreement put forward by the Justice Department were these:
*Microsoft would be required to establish a uniform pricing schedule for the Windows operating system so the company could not use price discrimination to penalize companies that defy its will.
*The company would be prohibited from tying any of its products to Windows by sales contract, though it would still be free to integrate applications or features into the program.
*Microsoft would be forbidden to strike exclusive contracts with other companies, as it did with Internet service providers who were asked to feature Microsoft's Web browser and none other.
*Microsoft would be required to share technical information about its products without discrimination with any company that had a right to it.
*The company would also be required to disclosure the software interfaces that allow programmers to like their programs to Windows.
*Microsoft would no longer be allowed to raise the price of older versions of Windows as soon as a new one is released, a tactic to prompt faster migration to the new version. The company would have to support the old version, and sell it at the same price, for three years.
*Computer manufacturers would be allowed to license the source code to Windows so they could modify it, allowing them to change opening screen users see when they turn the computer on. They could also modify the program to feature a program they prefer, such as a different browser. But Microsoft would disclaim any responsibility for offering technical support for those parts of the program that have been changed, or affected by the changes.
One official said Judge Posner had been receiving e-mail messages and telephone calls from numerous state officials over the last several days, complaining that their interests were being ignored and warning that there could be no settlement without the states' agreement. Judge Posner, in his statement, noted: "I particularly want to emphasize that the collapse of the mediation is not due to any lack of skill, flexibility, energy, determination, or professionalism on the part of the Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation." Nowhere did he make mention of the states. _______________
It's YOUR choice to install another browser should you wish to do so, and many applications (Office 2000 for example) REQUIRE IE to be installed, so you end up with it anyway. One less rollout if you ask me....
This is the root of the case. Requiring you to take software you don't need. Requiring a user to use IE has nothing to do with technical reasons and everything to do with ms position in the market.
ms knew full well the consent decree they made with the government not to extend their OS, and they did it anyway. As a result of this blatant and obvious disregard for the law, ms deserves to be choped, minced, and diced into tiny little pieces.
One of the more interesting points made in Judge Jacksons finding of fact is: When a company offers: "buy one get one free" You're paying for both. This is what ms is doing with IE.
If a car company throws in a free tank of gas when you buy a car you could say that you payed $20k for the car and you got $20 of gas for free. You can also say you you payed $20k for a tank of gas and they gave you a free car. There is no differance, you've payed for both items.
One could make the same argument (I have) that Win98 was free and you payed $80 for the IE browser.
I've heard it before and I'll say it again: "ms is the phillip morris of the software industry and the goverment should force them to put Linux adds on TV." _______________
Take every character on a computer keyboard and name a ms company after it. 1)MS{ 2)MS} 3)MS! 4)MSa 5)MSb 6)MSc ect..ect.. If any programer from MS{ would like to use a } in his program, it would require full public disclosure on the part of the 2 companies.
Like a drunken samurai warrior from hell, I want the DOJ to slice and dice MS into such tiny pieces that Balmer and his frat buddies whimper and wine like the children they are.
"I have no sympathy for MS, but i don't want them to be a precedent that states the government has the right to interfere in scary ways with the internal workings of a software company."
In short? fuck em'.
Micros~1 has made it patently clear that as a whole, they have no intention of acting fair, honest, or legal. In light of these actions, MS deserves the full wrath of judgment being applied to them by the people.
I've heard it before, and I'll say it again, "MS is the Phillip-Morris of the software industry and it's time the government made them pay for Linux adds on TV." _______________
To be a member of a marketing team, the following changes need to be applied to CmdrTaco and Cowboy Neil:
1) Change your name to "Skip", "Chad" or "Rue Paul". 2) Start using words like "Synergies", "E-[everything]" and "Microsoft". 3) Sell all your computers [gasp] and buy a BMW. (cringe) 4) Open your scheduler (Not a PDA. you're too dumb to run it. you're in marketing now) and add these items once a week: "facial", "mancure", and "lobotomy".
I'm sure there are countless other changes needed to make them into marketing droids, but this is a good start. _______________
A close examination of the image on this page (http://www.zdnet.co.jp/news/9912/ 03/VAIO_Palm.jpg[29k.jpg]) shows that this is a computer generated 3-D model. A rendered prototype, and not an actual device.
The light source on the back cover is at a differant angle than the silver thing on the top. I give the modeler points for changing the light source on the battery cover, but the picture is clearly the result of a Sony engineer fucking around with Ray-dream studio while drinking one to many Kirins. What's more, on the pull out wand the light reflection is perfectly paralell along the long axis of the wand. Clearly rendered. Also, the view showing the back of the device shows the memory stick going right through the hinge for the camera, and the volume wheel. Unless the device is as thick as a brick, this is impossible. Oh, and the light reflection on the synch port is straight-on/all-pixel=R240/G250/B140. This doesn't happen naturally. This is vapor(hard)ware. _______________
Slashdot Mirror
Yikes! Clark and Barksdale made out ok fer trying a "stupid idea".
~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
You mean these wonderfull little gems?
http://slashdot.org/comm ents.pl?sid=00/04/03/115218&cid=74
http://slashdot.org/comm ents.pl?sid=00/04/03/115218&cid=43
http://slashdot.org/comme nts.pl?sid=00/04/03/115218&cid=4
http://slashdot.org/comme nts.pl?sid=00/04/03/115218&cid=3
http://slashdot.org/comm ents.pl?sid=00/04/03/115218&cid=64
At the risk of soundung trollish, I ask you: Where is the in these drive-buy-digital-puke posts?
~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
junk micros~1 tags. boooooooo
_______________
_______________
I do have to question any parent who lets a child be over exposed to this (or any other) form of media that displays death so much. I've played the hell out of Doom, Doom2, Quake1 2 and 3 and I haven't gone out on a shooting rampage (note: I did put in an application at an american post office the other day, but that's a different issue;). This is testiment to the fact that in moderation these games are fun.
If a parent sees a child displaying anti-social behaviour and leaves the kid alone in his room for 2 years to watch death (in a video game or Martin Scocesee movie) 24/7 . . . newsflash! Jr is gonna be a little depressed.
_______________
If chuckD really feels that strongly about giving away his music, he should do it. The very fact that he's still signed to the label that "shut him down cold" means that he's ok with it.
It's good PR. He gets to appear like he's "sticking it to the man" and the big bad record company looks like the thug. The record company doesn't care because they don't have a rep in the buyers eyes and they're happy to help their artist appear as more of a rebel because the demographic they're selling to loves rebellion.
_______________
Given the countless undertakings one can pursue in life, why do they choose to torture themselves with this particular pursuit?
Some responses include:
"It's all for the people"
"We just want to bring happieness to people's lives"
"We just want to keep the fans happy"
I'm sorry, but like an MS press release, I just don't buy it. Chuck D and any other establish artists has no interest what-so-ever in giving away for free the very thing that provides for him and his family. After spending years and years of making sacrifices and finally "making it" you're going to tell this veteran road-warrior artist that he should be happy his record company is giving it all away? Me thinks not.
Record companies and hundreds of thousands of bands that beat down their doors daily exist because bands seek them out. The Bands want to be rich, and "Pimpco records" can provide.
I welcome the new distrobution model (free MP3s) and look forward to a day when the wealth is spread across many, many artists instead of being concentrated in the hands of few. After all, is Madona so skilled in her art that she deserves so much money?
_______________
These aren't "sites" in the normal sense of a 24/7 web site, they are OPC (Other Peoples' Computers). These OPCs pop on and off-line all the time. If you happened to do your search when 20 other people each had a copy of the same song, they will show up in your search. You're relying on the kindess and generosity of other napster users to share a lot of files for long periods of time.
Given this arangement, it's in your own best interest to share a lot of your own MP3s for a long period of time, thus making the searching and downloading of your files an enjoyable expierence for other users (and vise-versa). On any given night, there can be over 4000 users sharing 1,500 GB of data. If 4000 people all got on napster and shared one MP3 file (like I_want_to_be_a_cowboy___neal.mp3) it would loose it's interest very fast.
The old saying "You only get out of it what you put into it" applies in this case.
As for "There were many artists who were not even listed in the database." This is partly due to the small search result of 100 responses to a search queary. I would agree that as the user base grows, and duplicate files increase, there is almost as much noise as signal. However, I like the small search size for legal reasons. I don't want other users (read RIAA lawyers) to be able to pull down every single user name and slap a seace and desist order on them.
P.S. Have we gotten so spoiled that the ability to quickly search and download positivly *any* song our hearts could desire from 2Tb of music on a distributed world wide network for free...Sucks?
_______________
_______________
_______________
Can't Bluetooth do all the without wires?
_______________
Then it's just a matter of time.
MSs conduct in this case should speek directly to people like you who write apps for windows. What it says is: "Write your program for Windows, just don't make a killer app". If MS is allowed to proceed unchecked, your company is not safe from MS embeding your app into windows.
_______________
6-bit URL is....: http://282582303367210/
48-bit URL is....: http://1107326656554/
40-bit URL is....: http://7815028778/
32-bit URL is....: http://3520061482/
8/24-bit URL is....: http://209.13623338/
8/8/16-bit URL is....: http://209.207.57386/
8/8/8/8-bit URL is....: http://209.207.224.42/
OCTALS:
8/8/8/8-bit URL is....: http://0321.0317.0340.0052/
8/8/16-bit URL is....:http://0321.0317.0160052/
8/24-bit URL is....: http://0321.063760052/
32-bit URL is....: http://032163760052/
_______________
What you left out is when Netscape slipped an object model (java) under the browser they were (and still are) a smart choice for developers looking to write a distributed application that runs across multiple platforms.
This was the threat that MS reacted to. Up untill that point, NS was just another app. in MSs eyes. Once NS went after develpoers they drew MS into the battle.
I would blame MarcA for this particular mistake. I remember him being interviewed after the 3.0 release and he spoke *very* boldly against MS without fully understanding their power and control over the market. He should have been saying to MS "nice doggie" while looking for a stick to whack it. Instead, he just came out swinging and MS took his stick away.
_______________
I was going to take your points one by one and dispute them, but there have been others that have done a wonderful job of pointing out the obvious. Instead, I decided to dismiss you're point of view as clearly uninformed and lacking critical thought.
The only thing I ask is that you please go here: http://www.isoc.org/zakon/Inter net/History/HIT.html to gain a better understanding of MSs lack of influence on anything internet. Please pay close attention to the fact that MSs started their company in the 70s when the internet was hitting it's stride and did nothing, nada, zipo, null-set, bupkiss, zilch, to help, grow, open, dominate, or sqelch the internet untill 2 decades later when a small start-up in Mtn. View threatened to take over their position as the primary development platform.
_______________
Second, they use parts of IE engine for ActiveX.
Third, they use parts of it for connectivity libraries.
Which parts? In what way? How do you know this? Because MS told you it's true?
You're telling me that with R&D funding that runs into the billions, there is absolutely, positively no possible way to do this another way? Pardon me if I doubt MSs stance on this issue.
They linked IE to almost everything they touch because they need the distrobution channel to grow share.
They made a deliberate and concious decision to break other programs and punish users if they *don't* have IE on their computers (in other words, leveraging their monopoly position in operating systems in order to cut off compitition).
_______________
I'm compeled to agree with this statement given MSs unlimited funds to fight. They've proven (what is it now, 2+ years?) that they have all the money in the world to delay and deny justice.
Regardung my earlier post about splitting up the company by characters on a computer keyboard, I have to admit, that it is mostly in gest and clearly not feasable. However it is an illustration of how the government must negotiate from strength.
There was a famous american president that said "always negotiate from strength" and I think it applies in this case. MSs obvious disregard for the law has given the states and the DoJ a hammer to swing. And swing they must. If they decide to give them a slap on the wrist for these actions, we'll be right back here again when the states bring an action regarding the 63,000 bugs in w2k.
A monopoly answers to nobody. They don't answer to their customers, they don't answer to their shareholders, they don't answer to their compitition.
The anti-trust law is the only means the people have to speak out (through their elected states AJ) about abuses and to seek a remedy. If the results of this case do not "punish" the company, it tells the CEO over at cisco that he can grow his company without acountability. It tells the CEO at Intel that he can do whatever he damn well pleases. There must be a disinsentive for these actions in order to avoid further actions.
_______________
Among the major points in the final draft of the proposed agreement put forward by the Justice Department were these:
*Microsoft would be required to establish a uniform pricing schedule for the Windows operating system so the company could not use price discrimination to penalize companies that defy its will.
*The company would be prohibited from tying any of its products to Windows by sales contract, though it would still be free to integrate applications or features into the program.
*Microsoft would be forbidden to strike exclusive contracts with other companies, as it did with Internet service providers who were asked to feature Microsoft's Web browser and none other.
*Microsoft would be required to share technical information about its products without discrimination with any company that had a right to it.
*The company would also be required to disclosure the software interfaces that allow programmers to like their programs to Windows.
*Microsoft would no longer be allowed to raise the price of older versions of Windows as soon as a new one is released, a tactic to prompt faster migration to the new version. The company would have to support the old version, and sell it at the same price, for three years.
*Computer manufacturers would be allowed to license the source code to Windows so they could modify it, allowing them to change opening screen users see when they turn the computer on. They could also modify the program to feature a program they prefer, such as a different browser. But Microsoft would disclaim any responsibility for offering technical support for those parts of the program that have been changed, or affected by the changes.
One official said Judge Posner had been receiving e-mail messages and telephone calls from numerous state officials over the last several days, complaining that their interests were being ignored and warning that there could be no settlement without the states' agreement. Judge Posner, in his statement, noted: "I particularly want to emphasize that the collapse of the mediation is not due to any lack of skill, flexibility, energy, determination, or professionalism on the part of the Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation." Nowhere did he make mention of the states.
_______________
This is the root of the case. Requiring you to take software you don't need. Requiring a user to use IE has nothing to do with technical reasons and everything to do with ms position in the market.
ms knew full well the consent decree they made with the government not to extend their OS, and they did it anyway. As a result of this blatant and obvious disregard for the law, ms deserves to be choped, minced, and diced into tiny little pieces.
One of the more interesting points made in Judge Jacksons finding of fact is: When a company offers: "buy one get one free" You're paying for both. This is what ms is doing with IE.
If a car company throws in a free tank of gas when you buy a car you could say that you payed $20k for the car and you got $20 of gas for free. You can also say you you payed $20k for a tank of gas and they gave you a free car. There is no differance, you've payed for both items.
One could make the same argument (I have) that Win98 was free and you payed $80 for the IE browser.
I've heard it before and I'll say it again: "ms is the phillip morris of the software industry and the goverment should force them to put Linux adds on TV."
_______________
Take every character on a computer keyboard and name a ms company after it.
1)MS{
2)MS}
3)MS!
4)MSa
5)MSb
6)MSc
ect..ect..
If any programer from MS{ would like to use a } in his program, it would require full public disclosure on the part of the 2 companies.
_______________
"I have no sympathy for MS, but i don't want them to be a precedent that states the government has the right to interfere in scary ways with the internal workings of a software company."
In short? fuck em'.
Micros~1 has made it patently clear that as a whole, they have no intention of acting fair, honest, or legal. In light of these actions, MS deserves the full wrath of judgment being applied to them by the people.
I've heard it before, and I'll say it again, "MS is the Phillip-Morris of the software industry and it's time the government made them pay for Linux adds on TV."
_______________
http://www.mozilla.org/party/2000/flyer.html has details about the party celebrating the N6B1.
To all the hard working programers that have helped to build the lizard over the years: Thank You and have fun!
_______________
1) Change your name to "Skip", "Chad" or "Rue Paul".
2) Start using words like "Synergies", "E-[everything]" and "Microsoft".
3) Sell all your computers [gasp] and buy a BMW. (cringe)
4) Open your scheduler (Not a PDA. you're too dumb to run it. you're in marketing now) and add these items once a week: "facial", "mancure", and "lobotomy".
I'm sure there are countless other changes needed to make them into marketing droids, but this is a good start.
_______________
The light source on the back cover is at a differant angle than the silver thing on the top. I give the modeler points for changing the light source on the battery cover, but the picture is clearly the result of a Sony engineer fucking around with Ray-dream studio while drinking one to many Kirins.
What's more, on the pull out wand the light reflection is perfectly paralell along the long axis of the wand. Clearly rendered. Also, the view showing the back of the device shows the memory stick going right through the hinge for the camera, and the volume wheel. Unless the device is as thick as a brick, this is impossible. Oh, and the light reflection on the synch port is straight-on/all-pixel=R240/G250/B140. This doesn't happen naturally.
This is vapor(hard)ware.
_______________
_______________