As part of a further clarification it was revealed that the "." part of Slash Dot . org would be an independent company which would compete with Sun in its monopoly on the "." in ". com
You sound like a spoilt kid. You don't have to have a car, a computer or a house. Your ancestors in the "good old days" you wax nostaligically about didn't.
People who whine about corporations making things they can't afford to buy sound like spoilt kids who want to eat the cake and have it too. You have the choice: "work hard and make the money for the stuff you want", "lease/rent the stuff you want" or "live without it". Claiming that society makes it necessary for you to have something is bullshit. You don't like modern society? You don't _have_ to live in it!
Everytime someone tries to stop you from doing something you want to, Slashdot screams out cliches claiming murder. You cry it out often enough and soon no one will come even if you're not lying.
I'm refering to, of course, the claim that this is censorship. This is NOT CENSORSHIP. Quit crying wolf.
DISCLAIMER: I think you have a very legitimate grievance and Mattel is in the wrong here - but don't let that take away from the fact that you're accusing them of something they're not doing.
What does people not paying for train tickets have ANYTHING to do with using the spare bandwidth on the railway communication links?
The proposal is to make internet access available at remote locations. It's admirable that they realize the need to make internet access available to the masses - even if all they can afford at the moment is cyber-cafe type places.
Who do you expect positive comments from? Let me think: I'm selling legit software and my auction was canceled. Would I post a positive comment? I'm selling illegit software and my auction was canceled. Would I post a positive comment? Absolutely the only person benefiting from this is Microsoft. Maybe they should send in their droves of astroturfers from Slashdot to post praise comments.
Some people seem to have forgotten how to think.
Re:Not likely to happen anytime soon...Here's why
on
Advertising Via GPS
·
· Score: 1
The telcos would probably be the ones selling the ability to send ads to your cellphones. The telcos know where your cellphone is - they could provide a simple service where an ad company pays x amount per ad and specifies when to send the ad.
I was only addressing your allegation that the RIAA doesn't want you to be able to sample music. The RIAA makes almost all of its money off of popular music. The rest is a smaller segment and the RIAA is not going to risk looking like a complete bunch of pricks in order to make a few extra dollars in that segment.
In summary, I think the RIAA are pricks but the not being able to sample music argument is not the reason.
You want to know why the RIAA is scared of Napster? Because consumers have more power. I can listen to ALL of the tracks on a cd to figure out if it's worth buying. Not just the 1 hit on a $15 CD that the RIAA thinks will sell the CD to 90% of the target audience. It means they have less control over their consumers. It means they can't manipulate us as they have in the past.
You've never ever been to a CD store have you? They have had these things called listening booths there for ages now where you can listen to all the tracks as many times as you want to before choosing to buy. Admittedly, this is only available for new music, but that's what the RIAA makes most of their money off anyway.
Yes, they make BILLIONS but stealing from the rich is still stealing. You're not supposed to not steal in order to prevent people from starving. You're supposed to not steal because it is WRONG to steal.
The purpose of paying for stuff is not in order to support the maker. You pay for stuff you get because that's what the seller wants in return for letting you have it. You decide whether or not it is worth it. Right now you're taking the goods without paying for them. Regardless of how much FUD you spread to hide this fact, it's still stealing.
Actually, I don't believe the purpose of pushing and then giving IE away was to win the "browser wars". From my understanding, MS felt threatened by Netscapes proclamations of being able to replace the desktop completely and IE was MS's response to the threat to Windows itself. I doubt MS would have cared unless it believed it was a threat to Windows or it was an application area with a lot of money to make.
Maybe I'm naive but I believe both MS and Netscape try to stick as closely to the W3C standards as closely as possible - except when they see this "really cool feature" they can implement which will make their browser better than the competitors - I don't blame either for doing that - it's a good thing in the interests of technology and the best way for it to advance - it would take just too long to wait for a standard to be approved by the W3C
You totally missed my point. A browser provides just as much essential and basic functionality as a text editor and "dir" does. Maybe geeks who studied Computer Science don't think it belongs as part of the OS but Joe User doesn't care what the geeks think. Joe User wants a Browser to be part of the OS just as much as he wants notepad or "dir" to be.
Where do you want to draw the line? Notepad is just as much an application as IE is. I'd like you to point out one good difference between the two with regards to being part of the OS - from a technical perspective.
Yes, the reasons why IE was included in the OS were less than competitive, to say the least, but the fact remains that requiring the separation is a step back for users using computers.
I was in Japan for a week last month (I live in the US) and one of the things that fascinated me most was the cellphones people had.
They were incredibly light compared to US phones and the Japanese people seem to like their phones brightly colored - even stuffy-looking businessmen in suits carried fluorescent green cellphones! In fact, looking at a few cellphones out on display on one of the street corners (like apples at a flea market), me and a friend swore it had to be a toy - turned out we were wrong. Light and bright as it was, it was a real cellphone. And the sound quality was incredibly good and the batteries lasted several days without having to be recharged too.
Another thing I saw was these little vending machines at street corners where you could put in a few yen, plug one of the adaptors into your phone, and download music onto it to play.
Looking at those phones compared to ours made me feel like a small-town bumpkin entering a city for the first time.
Apple is great at product design. Their products look cool and have really cool features. That being said, the "coolness" can't make up for missing functionality so I won't be buying one just as soon as I won't be buying a VW Bug. It's cool but cool is just not enough for me.
I'd like to add, however, that most computers are single-user devices now and there aren't typically "other users files" on your computer. I also read somewhere that with Win2K it's not possible to overwrite system files. (although I suppose a virus could just as easily destroy non-system applications).
I want to be able to execute attachments I receive easily. I want these attachments to be able to do what I can do. What I don't want is for these attachments to be able to do stuff without my explicit permission to do so.
I don't like the idea of sandboxed execution or chmoding the user permissions because they make it a pain-in-the-ass to actually do stuff that I want them to be able to do.
\begin{daydream> What I'd like to see is to see sandboxed execution or editing (instead of executing) being the default and it should be simple as a right-click "Execute" to allow an attachment to actually execute and do stuff. I'd also like to be able to easily tell it when I want to just view the thing and when I actually want to execute. \end{daydream}
PS: Damnit, I'm trying to post using Plain Old Text. Why won't Slashdot let me use XML tags for my "daydream"??
FUD = Detracting from the issue in question by bullshitting about unrelated topics. The letter in question does not talk about the copyright being illegal and does not talk about it being legal to post about circumventing copyrights - those are very valid arguments but THE LETTER DOES NOT MAKE THOSE POINTS. Instead the letter bullshits about asking why MS extended an open standard, etc. i.e. FUD.
I just wonder what type of FUD answers they'll come up with?
The issue in question was putting up copies of copyrighted material/ways to circumvent it. These questions, while great, have VERY LITTLE to do with that issue. Look up the definition of FUD somewhere.
How is that relevant at all? VA Linux/Andover/Slashdot has NO OWNERSHIP of the Kerberos spec. The fact that the people who wrote it now work for them is irrelevant unless they specifically granted VA Linux/Andover.. ownership of it.
"We will take your work, make it proprietary, then threaten legal action when you complain!" (emphasis mine)
I assuming you're being deliberately obtuse instead of being naturally stupid but I'll point out the flaws in your sentence nevertheless: 1. It's not their work (not that of VA Linux, etc. at least) 2. It's the extensions to it that they are trying to make proprietary and not the work, of course. 3. The legal action has nothing to do with Slashdot complaining - it has to do with them reproducing the spec/describing means to circumvent the EULA, etc., not with complaining.
Note that I'm not saying any side in the dispute is right or wrong, just pointing out some gross irrelevancies and logical jumps in a post I see moderated up to 5.
Hmm.. so if I reverse-engineered the emulator and made it so that it would allow you to play games even on pirated CDs (Playstation doesn't allow this without a mod chip) would that be considered legal too?
The problem in my opinion is that Outlook fails to make the distinction between safe viewing and executing of an attachment. What I'd like to see was if I try to open a.txt attachment it should go ahead and do it but if I try to open a.exe, it should come up with a clear warning that I am executing something which might potentially carry a virus. It does issue this warning right now - but the problem is it issues this warning _every_time_ - even when it's very obvious the file is safe - users tend to zone it out.
I didn't mean to imply your commanding officer lied to you or even that his commanding officer or even someone several levels higher did.
But if I was among the top brass, (I'm thinking President, secretary of state and a few top generals here) what I would let out of there is what I wanted people to believe - and it would not be an impossible story but a very realistic one - I would NEVER reveal plans to invade the Soviet Union or annihilate some country or spray Agent Orange on another - if we did that we wouldn't be the good guys anymore. But that doesn't mean we don't think of it and plan it and execute it when the risks and costs are acceptable. And I don't mean to imply these people did these things because they were evil but probably truly believed they would be doing it for the greater good of humanity or at least of their country.
Slashdot Mirror
As part of a further clarification it was revealed that the "." part of Slash Dot . org would be an independent company which would compete with Sun in its monopoly on the "." in ". com
You sound like a spoilt kid. You don't have to have a car, a computer or a house. Your ancestors in the "good old days" you wax nostaligically about didn't.
People who whine about corporations making things they can't afford to buy sound like spoilt kids who want to eat the cake and have it too. You have the choice: "work hard and make the money for the stuff you want", "lease/rent the stuff you want" or "live without it". Claiming that society makes it necessary for you to have something is bullshit. You don't like modern society? You don't _have_ to live in it!
Everything worth inventing has already been invented. - US Patent Officer circa 1900.
There is a worldwide demand for 3, maybe 4 computers - IBM CEO
No one will ever need more than 640K of RAM - Bill Gates
Everytime someone tries to stop you from doing something you want to, Slashdot screams out cliches claiming murder. You cry it out often enough and soon no one will come even if you're not lying.
I'm refering to, of course, the claim that this is censorship. This is NOT CENSORSHIP. Quit crying wolf.
DISCLAIMER: I think you have a very legitimate grievance and Mattel is in the wrong here - but don't let that take away from the fact that you're accusing them of something they're not doing.
I hope you're just trolling.
What does people not paying for train tickets have ANYTHING to do with using the spare bandwidth on the railway communication links?
The proposal is to make internet access available at remote locations. It's admirable that they realize the need to make internet access available to the masses - even if all they can afford at the moment is cyber-cafe type places.
They stamp, "not for resale," and make huge profits off of you and me.
The marginal cost of the software is $0. (Ok, except for the cost of printing the manuals and stamping the CD). Anything they sell it for is profit.
Microsoft is keeping the market from setting the prices on their software.
You're either trolling or have no concept of how market economics works.
Who do you expect positive comments from? Let me think: I'm selling legit software and my auction was canceled. Would I post a positive comment? I'm selling illegit software and my auction was canceled. Would I post a positive comment? Absolutely the only person benefiting from this is Microsoft. Maybe they should send in their droves of astroturfers from Slashdot to post praise comments.
Some people seem to have forgotten how to think.
The telcos would probably be the ones selling the ability to send ads to your cellphones. The telcos know where your cellphone is - they could provide a simple service where an ad company pays x amount per ad and specifies when to send the ad.
I was only addressing your allegation that the RIAA doesn't want you to be able to sample music. The RIAA makes almost all of its money off of popular music. The rest is a smaller segment and the RIAA is not going to risk looking like a complete bunch of pricks in order to make a few extra dollars in that segment.
In summary, I think the RIAA are pricks but the not being able to sample music argument is not the reason.
You want to know why the RIAA is scared of Napster? Because consumers have more power. I can listen to ALL of the tracks on a cd to figure out if it's worth buying. Not just the 1 hit on a $15 CD that the RIAA thinks will sell the CD to 90% of the target audience. It means they have less control over their consumers. It means they can't manipulate us as they have in the past.
You've never ever been to a CD store have you? They have had these things called listening booths there for ages now where you can listen to all the tracks as many times as you want to before choosing to buy. Admittedly, this is only available for new music, but that's what the RIAA makes most of their money off anyway.
Yes, they make BILLIONS but stealing from the rich is still stealing. You're not supposed to not steal in order to prevent people from starving. You're supposed to not steal because it is WRONG to steal.
The purpose of paying for stuff is not in order to support the maker. You pay for stuff you get because that's what the seller wants in return for letting you have it. You decide whether or not it is worth it. Right now you're taking the goods without paying for them. Regardless of how much FUD you spread to hide this fact, it's still stealing.
Good post - and well written
Actually, I don't believe the purpose of pushing and then giving IE away was to win the "browser wars". From my understanding, MS felt threatened by Netscapes proclamations of being able to replace the desktop completely and IE was MS's response to the threat to Windows itself. I doubt MS would have cared unless it believed it was a threat to Windows or it was an application area with a lot of money to make.
Maybe I'm naive but I believe both MS and Netscape try to stick as closely to the W3C standards as closely as possible - except when they see this "really cool feature" they can implement which will make their browser better than the competitors - I don't blame either for doing that - it's a good thing in the interests of technology and the best way for it to advance - it would take just too long to wait for a standard to be approved by the W3C
You totally missed my point. A browser provides just as much essential and basic functionality as a text editor and "dir" does. Maybe geeks who studied Computer Science don't think it belongs as part of the OS but Joe User doesn't care what the geeks think. Joe User wants a Browser to be part of the OS just as much as he wants notepad or "dir" to be.
Where do you want to draw the line? Notepad is just as much an application as IE is. I'd like you to point out one good difference between the two with regards to being part of the OS - from a technical perspective.
Yes, the reasons why IE was included in the OS were less than competitive, to say the least, but the fact remains that requiring the separation is a step back for users using computers.
How does MS make money off of Notepad? Off of "dir"? Maybe they exist only to dominate the industry and text-editing and "dir" is part of that.
And the Appeals court has the power to overrule Judge J.
Having IE in its own company is a stupid idea. The only result will be to kill IE - I don't see any good being done to anyone at all.
I was in Japan for a week last month (I live in the US) and one of the things that fascinated me most was the cellphones people had.
They were incredibly light compared to US phones and the Japanese people seem to like their phones brightly colored - even stuffy-looking businessmen in suits carried fluorescent green cellphones! In fact, looking at a few cellphones out on display on one of the street corners (like apples at a flea market), me and a friend swore it had to be a toy - turned out we were wrong. Light and bright as it was, it was a real cellphone. And the sound quality was incredibly good and the batteries lasted several days without having to be recharged too.
Another thing I saw was these little vending machines at street corners where you could put in a few yen, plug one of the adaptors into your phone, and download music onto it to play.
Looking at those phones compared to ours made me feel like a small-town bumpkin entering a city for the first time.
Apple is great at product design. Their products look cool and have really cool features. That being said, the "coolness" can't make up for missing functionality so I won't be buying one just as soon as I won't be buying a VW Bug. It's cool but cool is just not enough for me.
You made some excellent points.
I'd like to add, however, that most computers are single-user devices now and there aren't typically "other users files" on your computer. I also read somewhere that with Win2K it's not possible to overwrite system files. (although I suppose a virus could just as easily destroy non-system applications).
I want to be able to execute attachments I receive easily. I want these attachments to be able to do what I can do. What I don't want is for these attachments to be able to do stuff without my explicit permission to do so.
I don't like the idea of sandboxed execution or chmoding the user permissions because they make it a pain-in-the-ass to actually do stuff that I want them to be able to do.
\begin{daydream>
What I'd like to see is to see sandboxed execution or editing (instead of executing) being the default and it should be simple as a right-click "Execute" to allow an attachment to actually execute and do stuff. I'd also like to be able to easily tell it when I want to just view the thing and when I actually want to execute.
\end{daydream}
PS: Damnit, I'm trying to post using Plain Old Text. Why won't Slashdot let me use XML tags for my "daydream"??
FUD = Detracting from the issue in question by bullshitting about unrelated topics. The letter in question does not talk about the copyright being illegal and does not talk about it being legal to post about circumventing copyrights - those are very valid arguments but THE LETTER DOES NOT MAKE THOSE POINTS. Instead the letter bullshits about asking why MS extended an open standard, etc. i.e. FUD.
I just wonder what type of FUD answers they'll come up with?
The issue in question was putting up copies of copyrighted material/ways to circumvent it. These questions, while great, have VERY LITTLE to do with that issue. Look up the definition of FUD somewhere.
How is that relevant at all? VA Linux/Andover/Slashdot has NO OWNERSHIP of the Kerberos spec. The fact that the people who wrote it now work for them is irrelevant unless they specifically granted VA Linux/Andover.. ownership of it.
"We will take your work, make it proprietary, then threaten legal action when you complain!" (emphasis mine)
I assuming you're being deliberately obtuse instead of being naturally stupid but I'll point out the flaws in your sentence nevertheless:
1. It's not their work (not that of VA Linux, etc. at least)
2. It's the extensions to it that they are trying to make proprietary and not the work, of course.
3. The legal action has nothing to do with Slashdot complaining - it has to do with them reproducing the spec/describing means to circumvent the EULA, etc., not with complaining.
Note that I'm not saying any side in the dispute is right or wrong, just pointing out some gross irrelevancies and logical jumps in a post I see moderated up to 5.
Hmm.. so if I reverse-engineered the emulator and made it so that it would allow you to play games even on pirated CDs (Playstation doesn't allow this without a mod chip) would that be considered legal too?
The problem in my opinion is that Outlook fails to make the distinction between safe viewing and executing of an attachment. What I'd like to see was if I try to open a .txt attachment it should go ahead and do it but if I try to open a .exe, it should come up with a clear warning that I am executing something which might potentially carry a virus. It does issue this warning right now - but the problem is it issues this warning _every_time_ - even when it's very obvious the file is safe - users tend to zone it out.
I didn't mean to imply your commanding officer lied to you or even that his commanding officer or even someone several levels higher did.
But if I was among the top brass, (I'm thinking President, secretary of state and a few top generals here) what I would let out of there is what I wanted people to believe - and it would not be an impossible story but a very realistic one - I would NEVER reveal plans to invade the Soviet Union or annihilate some country or spray Agent Orange on another - if we did that we wouldn't be the good guys anymore. But that doesn't mean we don't think of it and plan it and execute it when the risks and costs are acceptable. And I don't mean to imply these people did these things because they were evil but probably truly believed they would be doing it for the greater good of humanity or at least of their country.