Parallel port-ANYTHING is an abobination and deserves to be buried out back with a bushel of garlic.
Parallel prots are ddesigned for printers. Not for scanners. not for zip drives. tey peg the CPU and barely provide 2Mbps if you're lucky.
Not to mention that every parallel port device uses a different signal spec; there are no standards.
SANE supports most SCSI scanners under the sun, it couldn't care less about parallel port scanners.
Or you caould get a USB scanner; those are somewhat standardized and work well (IIRC) with the USB stuff in the Linux Kernel.
In Saudi Arabia, the single largest impedance of widespread internet service/access is the government, which (understandably..) doesn't want "subversive" materials to reach the masses.
They use the excuse of pornography, but that's already completely meaningless.. after all, with a satellite dish one can view all of that stuff with ease.
The money is there. I know several people who wanted to set up an ISP, or at least finance one.
The infrastructure is also largely there, barring the actual pipes to the outside which are really just a matter of getting some official ball rolling with the telecom.
But what really kills access is the requirement that EVERYTHING must go through a central proxy server. That's quite a bottleneck. And it's running NT. *sigh*
You claim that Napster violates the DMCA because it provides a way for students, people and their pet beanbags to bypass the "content control" in the music.
But.. what content control? MP3s have no content control whatsoever. Neither do CDs or audio casettes! So napster does not violate content control, thus it is not "illegal" in the same measure that DeCSS is "illegal".
Napster is a Distribution scheme that bypasses the RIAA's control and thus pockets. That's why they're getting sued -- because Napster makes it "easy" to foster copyright violations, not because they bypassed the anti-piracy measures that the RIAA set up.
Now what would happen if for every transaction on Napster the RIAA could get, say, $.15, much like audiocasettes and "music" CDs have said royalty imbedded in their prices? But of course, that would never do, they'd want the whole $15 for the "CD" or whatever. They're out to make money, after all.
And no matter how you look at it, piracy is still piracy and still (rightly) illegal. Send the artists money if you don't want to pay the record company, but otherwise you're just screwing the artists in the long run.
The only way out for the DMCA is to challenge it on a constitutional basis, not from the standpoint of greedy record execs. Because piracy is illegal. And reverse-engineering is perfectly legal, and the DMCA IS taking that away from us. Otherwise, the DMCA doesn't do much more than flesh out already-existing copyright laws.
Here at Georgia Tech They're experimenting with such a concept in a Junior-level OS class. CS3210 I was almost involved with the course but I ended up having way too stuff on my plate aleready this semester. Alas, as the course looks extremely interesting.
Anyway, check it out!
- Pizza
Re:There's something that everyone's ignoring.
on
Usenet Gag Order
·
· Score: 1
Grr. I keep forgetting that this stuff is HTML formatted.
Am I old-fashioned and/or naive for believing that people should be held accountable for what they say and do?
*shakes head*
- Pizza
There's something that everyone's ignoring.
on
Usenet Gag Order
·
· Score: 1
"I'm going to kill CmdrTaco because he pointed and laughed at me for having a penguin stamp on my forehead at the Atlanta Linux Showcase." Answer me this: Am I joking? Am I serious? How do you know? I mean, do you really know what's going on inside my head? Who's to say I won't be waiting outside his home tomorrow with a shotgun? Who's to say I will? The only "facts" that CmdrTaco has here is that I have expressed intent to kill him. Taking my words at face value, I have every intention of killing him. Now multiply that by the number of posts in a flame war. Threatening to kill or cause physical harm is illegal in nearly every country. If you threaten someone, they have every legal right to press charges. Saying "I was joking" isn't any way to get out of it, because you obviously didn't make it clear at the time. That said, I feel the same laws should apply to electronic media, and usenet is no exception. Now what really disturbs me is the "use of strong language" and "off-topic posts" which is not the court's power to restrict or comment on. (oh, and for the record, I consider it a [dubious] honor to be laughed at by CmdrTaco. ) - Pizza
Almost all of my current friends I met on-line, either directly or indirectly. "Meeting people online" is a means, not an end. I met my most recent girlfriend (albeit rather rocky, but we are still best friends) when I fixed her computer. The one before that I "met" when she directed a three-page flame at me. C'est la vie. People act differently in person than they do on-line... much differently. When behind a screen, they shed inhibitions and shells, and can open themselves up. It's usually pretty easy to tell when someone is bullshitting you. And, hey, talk is cheap. But it's often all a lot of us have to give. If people are more willing to speak about themselves on-line, then that is that. I have but a few criteria I look for in a SO.. but they are odd enough that it's one hell of an uphill battle to find someone. And the only way to find someone is to get out, meet people, spend hours conversing.. and find out what makes them tick. Without the pretense of "I'm looking for a relationship." I view people as books.. one has to take the effort to turn their pages. But admittedly, one really nice thing about on-line conversations via IRC or ICQ or whatever is that you can multitask.. consider your answers, choose the right words, and use it to lighen up a dreary day at the office. But, um, anyway. There's no quick way... good things take time. Perhaps even a lifetime. - Pizza
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there's your problem.
Parallel port-ANYTHING is an abobination and deserves to be buried out back with a bushel of garlic.
Parallel prots are ddesigned for printers. Not for scanners. not for zip drives. tey peg the CPU and barely provide 2Mbps if you're lucky.
Not to mention that every parallel port device uses a different signal spec; there are no standards.
SANE supports most SCSI scanners under the sun, it couldn't care less about parallel port scanners.
Or you caould get a USB scanner; those are somewhat standardized and work well (IIRC) with the USB stuff in the Linux Kernel.
In Saudi Arabia, the single largest impedance of widespread internet service/access is the government, which (understandably..) doesn't want "subversive" materials to reach the masses.
They use the excuse of pornography, but that's already completely meaningless.. after all, with a satellite dish one can view all of that stuff with ease.
The money is there. I know several people who wanted to set up an ISP, or at least finance one.
The infrastructure is also largely there, barring the actual pipes to the outside which are really just a matter of getting some official ball rolling with the telecom.
But what really kills access is the requirement that EVERYTHING must go through a central proxy server. That's quite a bottleneck. And it's running NT. *sigh*
Anyway.
You claim that Napster violates the DMCA because it provides a way for students, people and their pet beanbags to bypass the "content control" in the music.
But.. what content control? MP3s have no content control whatsoever. Neither do CDs or audio casettes! So napster does not violate content control, thus it is not "illegal" in the same measure that DeCSS is "illegal".
Napster is a Distribution scheme that bypasses the RIAA's control and thus pockets. That's why they're getting sued -- because Napster makes it "easy" to foster copyright violations, not because they bypassed the anti-piracy measures that the RIAA set up.
Now what would happen if for every transaction on Napster the RIAA could get, say, $.15, much like audiocasettes and "music" CDs have said royalty imbedded in their prices? But of course, that would never do, they'd want the whole $15 for the "CD" or whatever. They're out to make money, after all.
And no matter how you look at it, piracy is still piracy and still (rightly) illegal. Send the artists money if you don't want to pay the record company, but otherwise you're just screwing the artists in the long run.
The only way out for the DMCA is to challenge it on a constitutional basis, not from the standpoint of greedy record execs. Because piracy is illegal. And reverse-engineering is perfectly legal, and the DMCA IS taking that away from us. Otherwise, the DMCA doesn't do much more than flesh out already-existing copyright laws.
- Pizza
Here at Georgia Tech They're experimenting with such a concept in a Junior-level OS class.
CS3210 I was almost involved with the course but I ended up having way too stuff on my plate aleready this semester. Alas, as the course looks extremely interesting.
Anyway, check it out!
- Pizza
Grr. I keep forgetting that this stuff is HTML formatted.
Am I old-fashioned and/or naive for believing that people should be held accountable for what they say and do?
*shakes head*
- Pizza
"I'm going to kill CmdrTaco because he pointed and laughed at me for having a penguin stamp on my forehead at the Atlanta Linux Showcase." Answer me this: Am I joking? Am I serious? How do you know? I mean, do you really know what's going on inside my head? Who's to say I won't be waiting outside his home tomorrow with a shotgun? Who's to say I will? The only "facts" that CmdrTaco has here is that I have expressed intent to kill him. Taking my words at face value, I have every intention of killing him. Now multiply that by the number of posts in a flame war. Threatening to kill or cause physical harm is illegal in nearly every country. If you threaten someone, they have every legal right to press charges. Saying "I was joking" isn't any way to get out of it, because you obviously didn't make it clear at the time. That said, I feel the same laws should apply to electronic media, and usenet is no exception. Now what really disturbs me is the "use of strong language" and "off-topic posts" which is not the court's power to restrict or comment on. (oh, and for the record, I consider it a [dubious] honor to be laughed at by CmdrTaco. ) - Pizza
Almost all of my current friends I met on-line, either directly or indirectly. "Meeting people online" is a means, not an end. I met my most recent girlfriend (albeit rather rocky, but we are still best friends) when I fixed her computer. The one before that I "met" when she directed a three-page flame at me. C'est la vie. People act differently in person than they do on-line... much differently. When behind a screen, they shed inhibitions and shells, and can open themselves up. It's usually pretty easy to tell when someone is bullshitting you. And, hey, talk is cheap. But it's often all a lot of us have to give. If people are more willing to speak about themselves on-line, then that is that. I have but a few criteria I look for in a SO.. but they are odd enough that it's one hell of an uphill battle to find someone. And the only way to find someone is to get out, meet people, spend hours conversing.. and find out what makes them tick. Without the pretense of "I'm looking for a relationship." I view people as books.. one has to take the effort to turn their pages. But admittedly, one really nice thing about on-line conversations via IRC or ICQ or whatever is that you can multitask.. consider your answers, choose the right words, and use it to lighen up a dreary day at the office. But, um, anyway. There's no quick way... good things take time. Perhaps even a lifetime. - Pizza
Of course NT outperformed Linux. It had FOUR TIMES THE BLOODY MEMORY TO WORK WITH!
Sheesh.
Identical hardware, my ass.
- Pizza