Nope, not quite. Viacom specified 100,000 videos for take down, most of which were likely reposted to Youtube. I don't think Youtube should have to filter, but they should at least prevent infringing video from being reposted I think. Of course, I also think that Youtube won't really damage the networks and is mainly free publicity for them, and this whole thing is ridiculous anyways.
something that is pretty much blocked to hell and back by anyone with clue.
You mean 1% of the population? Outside of my household, I haven't seen a single ad-blocker installed on anyone's computer. Most people just ignore the ads.
Doubleclick is still making hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue every year, so they clearly still have a viable business model, however evil you think it is.
You post on Slashdot so you probably don't know too many people in the first place:-P
In reality though, I know a lot of people who didn't even have a pop-up blocker until it was finally added to Internet Explorer. Blocking ads on web pages? I don't know a single non-geek who has an adblocker installed. If they're not interested, they just ignore them.
Yeah, what are they doing releasing this? We all know that teh internet is a series of tubes that you can't just dump stuff on. All they are doing is filling up teh internets!!!
Do you have a point, or are posting out of boredom? If all it is is another FC6...well then, don't download it, while people that do find it useful will. Sound good?
Re:Does anyone even use this OS?
on
CentOS 5 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I would lend credence to what you say, but you don't even know Red Hat's name...
His point is that most of the code in Red Hat products is not owned or written by Red Hat, as is the case with every other distro. They simply feature freeze and stabilize it, and then sell support contracts for it. They are selling support, not the product.
If Red Hat did not want this to happen, they could simply not base their product on GPL software. Of course, if they did that, they would never have become profitable in the first place, because there is no way they could have built a product as capable as RHEL5 from the ground up completely on their own and stayed in business.
Red Hat, while contributing as you point out, piggyback's on other peoples' work, and CentOS is doing the exact same thing to Red Hat. I don't see an issue here.
Re:Does anyone even use this OS?
on
CentOS 5 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
All I see them doing is exercising their rights under the GPL using others' copyrighted code, which is, surprise surprise, exactly what Red Hat does with the vast majority of the code in their products...
While I agree the AppleTV won't do very well, calling it stillborn a couple weeks after launch with no sales data available is a bit of a stretch. In-fact, calling anything stillborn when it's just been released is a stretch.
Leopard being delayed 4 months isn't nearly as bad as Vista being delayed for...4 years. Also, Apple isn't stripping promised features and delaying at the same time, like what happened with Vista.
Maybe not on the desktop side of things, but the G4 which was the only suitable PPC chip for laptops was SLOW! There is simply no comparison between a Core 2 Duo and a G4. The G4 isn't just beat on MHz, but also on number of cores, overall speed, BUS speed (the G4 maxed out at 167 MHz if I'm not mistaken) and numerous other things. Before the switch I wasn't interested in Apple laptops for this reason. Apple's explosive growth in laptops in the marketplace pretty much confirms this.
Nice try. Even OS 9 supports two-button mice, and Apple has been shipping 4 button mice with 360 scrolling for quite a while now. If you're going to troll, at least make it entertaining. Thanks.
Explain to me why exactly IBM was still supplying Apple with chips up until the release of the Mac Pro, over a year after the Intel announcement, if Apple was "dumped" as a customer? When you dump a customer, you dump them, you don't tell them you're going to dump them and then wait a couple years to do so. That fact right there shows how illogical your argument is.
Oh, and you're the one dishing out insults instead of arguing like a grown-up, so who is "frothing at the mouth"? Pot, meet kettle.
Exactly. From my experience, most "normal" Mac users don't know the difference between a CPU and Powersupply. I upgraded a friend's Mac from Panther to Tiger and it took me a full 20 minutes to explain to her what I was doing because she thought Panther was built-into the Mac and couldn't comprehend how it could be replaced. She actually asked me if I ripped open the computer while she was in the bathroom!
You'll still have to open your AppleTV, repartition the hard drive on another Mac, etc etc. I somehow don't expect the AppleTV to hurt Mac sales all that much, just like OS X hacked onto a PC hasn't dented them thusfar.
...ummm...when I'm talking about the horrid state of security on wireless routers, I'm talking about people who don't use bittorrent, limewire, kazaa, etc period, but can have their wireless router hacked and their connection used to pirate copyrighted materials. Did you accidentally respond to the wrong comment?
I would use Azureus, but it is simply horrible to use on a Mac. It runs awesome on Windows, but for some reason is extremely unstable on Mac (I just tried it again the other day actually, and had it crash 3 times in about a half hour).
So people that own wireless routers that use, let's say, WEP encryption which is woefully insecure are going to be expected to write their own encryption scheme and replace WEP with it? While the RIAA will no doubt push for laws like this, I simply don't see them passing, especially with a democratic congress in power.
Not that I care, I live in Canada. If the US wants to litigate themselves into the stone age, they can do just that. Our lawmakers up here are insane, but not as insane as U.S. lawmakers:-P
Why was this modded insightful? I certainly don't feel anymore enlightened after reading this post, and it sure didn't provide an insight into anything that I'm aware of.
Not that I don't agree with the original poster, but come on, why waste mod points when there are plenty of more useful comments that still have a rating of 1 or 2???
I doubt legislation like that would pass. Considering, for instance, the relative ease of hacking into and (ab)using a wireless router, there is simply no practical way to completely control your internet connection, especially for non-techies.
No, a finding of copyright misuse does not place the work in the public domain. It is similar to sitting on knowledge of copyright violations for 10 years and then deciding to go after the infringer, you may be prohibited from asserting your copyrights against that infringer but you don't lose the rights entirely. You could still sue someone else.
You can't get "convicted" or be "guilty" of anything in a civil case. And to the best of my knowledge, criminal cases cannot be brought against corporations (would be nice though).
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, not quite. Viacom specified 100,000 videos for take down, most of which were likely reposted to Youtube. I don't think Youtube should have to filter, but they should at least prevent infringing video from being reposted I think. Of course, I also think that Youtube won't really damage the networks and is mainly free publicity for them, and this whole thing is ridiculous anyways.
As if Google doesn't track user behavior through adsense...
They are a data mining company after all.
something that is pretty much blocked to hell and back by anyone with clue.
You mean 1% of the population? Outside of my household, I haven't seen a single ad-blocker installed on anyone's computer. Most people just ignore the ads.
Doubleclick is still making hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue every year, so they clearly still have a viable business model, however evil you think it is.
You post on Slashdot so you probably don't know too many people in the first place :-P
In reality though, I know a lot of people who didn't even have a pop-up blocker until it was finally added to Internet Explorer. Blocking ads on web pages? I don't know a single non-geek who has an adblocker installed. If they're not interested, they just ignore them.
Hmmm...I didn't intend that to be funny, but I guess it is kind of funny :-P
Handbrake (now called Mediafork) for Mac is actually a pretty nice DVD ripping product. Of course, that is assuming that you own a Mac.
Yeah, what are they doing releasing this? We all know that teh internet is a series of tubes that you can't just dump stuff on. All they are doing is filling up teh internets!!!
Do you have a point, or are posting out of boredom? If all it is is another FC6...well then, don't download it, while people that do find it useful will. Sound good?
His point is that most of the code in Red Hat products is not owned or written by Red Hat, as is the case with every other distro. They simply feature freeze and stabilize it, and then sell support contracts for it. They are selling support, not the product.
If Red Hat did not want this to happen, they could simply not base their product on GPL software. Of course, if they did that, they would never have become profitable in the first place, because there is no way they could have built a product as capable as RHEL5 from the ground up completely on their own and stayed in business.
Red Hat, while contributing as you point out, piggyback's on other peoples' work, and CentOS is doing the exact same thing to Red Hat. I don't see an issue here.
All I see them doing is exercising their rights under the GPL using others' copyrighted code, which is, surprise surprise, exactly what Red Hat does with the vast majority of the code in their products...
While I agree the AppleTV won't do very well, calling it stillborn a couple weeks after launch with no sales data available is a bit of a stretch. In-fact, calling anything stillborn when it's just been released is a stretch.
For B, that's precisely what the AppleTV is for.
Apparently the part of the brain that processes humor isn't present in yours. Moron...
Yep, Apple wouldn't want users to watch these on their TVs, which is why they aren't selling a device to allow you to do so. Oh, wait...
Leopard being delayed 4 months isn't nearly as bad as Vista being delayed for...4 years. Also, Apple isn't stripping promised features and delaying at the same time, like what happened with Vista.
Maybe not on the desktop side of things, but the G4 which was the only suitable PPC chip for laptops was SLOW! There is simply no comparison between a Core 2 Duo and a G4. The G4 isn't just beat on MHz, but also on number of cores, overall speed, BUS speed (the G4 maxed out at 167 MHz if I'm not mistaken) and numerous other things. Before the switch I wasn't interested in Apple laptops for this reason. Apple's explosive growth in laptops in the marketplace pretty much confirms this.
Nice try. Even OS 9 supports two-button mice, and Apple has been shipping 4 button mice with 360 scrolling for quite a while now. If you're going to troll, at least make it entertaining. Thanks.
Explain to me why exactly IBM was still supplying Apple with chips up until the release of the Mac Pro, over a year after the Intel announcement, if Apple was "dumped" as a customer? When you dump a customer, you dump them, you don't tell them you're going to dump them and then wait a couple years to do so. That fact right there shows how illogical your argument is.
Oh, and you're the one dishing out insults instead of arguing like a grown-up, so who is "frothing at the mouth"? Pot, meet kettle.
Exactly. From my experience, most "normal" Mac users don't know the difference between a CPU and Powersupply. I upgraded a friend's Mac from Panther to Tiger and it took me a full 20 minutes to explain to her what I was doing because she thought Panther was built-into the Mac and couldn't comprehend how it could be replaced. She actually asked me if I ripped open the computer while she was in the bathroom!
You'll still have to open your AppleTV, repartition the hard drive on another Mac, etc etc. I somehow don't expect the AppleTV to hurt Mac sales all that much, just like OS X hacked onto a PC hasn't dented them thusfar.
...ummm...when I'm talking about the horrid state of security on wireless routers, I'm talking about people who don't use bittorrent, limewire, kazaa, etc period, but can have their wireless router hacked and their connection used to pirate copyrighted materials. Did you accidentally respond to the wrong comment?
I would use Azureus, but it is simply horrible to use on a Mac. It runs awesome on Windows, but for some reason is extremely unstable on Mac (I just tried it again the other day actually, and had it crash 3 times in about a half hour).
So people that own wireless routers that use, let's say, WEP encryption which is woefully insecure are going to be expected to write their own encryption scheme and replace WEP with it? While the RIAA will no doubt push for laws like this, I simply don't see them passing, especially with a democratic congress in power.
:-P
Not that I care, I live in Canada. If the US wants to litigate themselves into the stone age, they can do just that. Our lawmakers up here are insane, but not as insane as U.S. lawmakers
Why was this modded insightful? I certainly don't feel anymore enlightened after reading this post, and it sure didn't provide an insight into anything that I'm aware of.
Not that I don't agree with the original poster, but come on, why waste mod points when there are plenty of more useful comments that still have a rating of 1 or 2???
I doubt legislation like that would pass. Considering, for instance, the relative ease of hacking into and (ab)using a wireless router, there is simply no practical way to completely control your internet connection, especially for non-techies.
Whoops, didn't put everything in my last comment.
No, a finding of copyright misuse does not place the work in the public domain. It is similar to sitting on knowledge of copyright violations for 10 years and then deciding to go after the infringer, you may be prohibited from asserting your copyrights against that infringer but you don't lose the rights entirely. You could still sue someone else.
You can't get "convicted" or be "guilty" of anything in a civil case. And to the best of my knowledge, criminal cases cannot be brought against corporations (would be nice though).