> Who wants to bet that you can't click on a google Ad-Sense link w/o javascript turned on.
Well, yes, you won't see the link without Javascript enabled for the website displaying the ads. But if you use Firefox + NoScript, you can have Javascript enabled only for that website, so you can click on the link (relatively) safely.
I do it all the time when I see an interesting ad from trusted websites, in order to generate a little income for them. I'd say >95% of the pages I arrive at don't work properly since Javascript and Flash aren't enabled for them when I arrive there, and I never enable Javascript or Flash for them just to see advertising.
"You probably already know that retail margins are anywhere from 10% (Amazon) to 50% and more (Best Buy, etc.) across all categories. Music is no different."
91% >> 50% (and 9% to the artist is a "very good deal"!)
"the end-to-end costs of recording, producing, marketing and selling a CD"... are mostly decreasing. Why are the labels not then increasing what they pay to the artists?
No, I'm not dense; considering that I personally use FOSS to a very large extent, I am quite aware of its warts. And the large differences in how people relate to its advantages and disadvantages, leading to the wearying flame wars.
I was just annoyed at the bizarre way these warts were being presented in this case:
> OSS: Use our software, please. > Former proprietary customer: OK
Analysis:
Logical people don't agree to do things just because others tell them to.
> Former proprietary customer: Hey! This has bugs. > OSS: Well you should fix it. > Former proprietary customer: Why should I? > OSS: Well because it's OSS.
Analysis:
This is a common and well-known drawback of using FOSS. A logical person who is switching to FOSS would do some research and not find this particularly surprising.
> Former proprietary customer: Well my proprietary solution worked. Analysis:
If FPC were a logical person, he would have understood that there was some risk upon switching that the FOSS solution would work worse than his working proprietary solution.
> OSS: But you weren't free. Analysis:
This person is someone who doesn't understand that others might have different viewpoints about the advantages and disadvantages of OSS. Yup, we've all met them.
> Former proprietary customer: Yeah, but I wasn't handicapped by a solution that was missing functionality, and buggier than an ant farm. Now you're telling me I have to fix it too? Analysis:
If FPC (Former proprietary customer) were a logical person, he wouldn't have blithely agreed to switch to a less stable solution missing functionality, unless there were other mitigating factors (cost?) which the poster is not mentioning.
There you have the full analysis. To the OSS guy, freedom is more important than anything else, but he's too dumb to understand that not everyone thinks that way. Since the FPC guy doesn't think that way, he shouldn't use FOSS, but also shouldn't complain. The big problem is that instead of living "viva la difference" they just incessantly call each other stupid on Slashdot.
Actually the original post is just as stupid as the phrase in your comment: >> when people try it and inevitably complain Why? It's obvious that "proprietary software" and "FOSS" encompass a wide range of programs of varying quality, and silly to think that anyone could think one set wholly better than the other, even ignoring the fact that "quality" is, in this case, multi-dimensional.
That's why the really delicious dog meat those Chinese are eating really makes you salivate, eh?
You (probably) don't really know whether you like the taste of dog meat, or not, do you? It's because the culture of the society in which you live prevents you from having the experience of tasting it. And it also has programmed (at least in most Americans) an automatic response of disgust at the very thought of eating dog meat.
If cultural influences do not affect preferences, how do you explain that almost 100% of Americans wouldn't eat dog meat if given the opportunity, and many (wealthy) Chinese do eat dog meat? This isn't related to the fact that most Americans don't like traditional Indian music? Or even to the fact that my parents don't like the same music that I like?
RIAA, et. al., are trying to do the same, to control what people are exposed to. So people won't understand what they are missing, or even reject it outright if exposed to it after their "RIAA programming" is in place....
Former proprietary customer: I switched from my proprietary software for no apparent logical reason and am unhappy! OSS: ??? Perhaps you need medication???
What might fix this is requiring all initial patents suits go through a court similar to "small claims court", where the initial decision is made if the (large corporation's) suit seems largely without merit. A typical example might be that the defendent exhibits the existence of clear prior art. In that case, the corporation from that point on has to disclose all expenditure on its legal council, etc., and pay matching funds to the defendent (e.g., small inventor) to enable him to have a fair trial.
The weak link here is the (possibly bribable) judge of this initial court, who seems to have too much power. Anyone got ideas how to fix that?
> (hint: if prior art is found and accepted by either the patent office or the courts, the patent is invalidated).
My understanding (TGIANAL) of the current situation is that the individual claims for which there is prior art are invalidated. My impression is that the GP wants to change this so that the whole patent is invalidated if any prior art is found for any claim in it.
That's a big difference, and on the surface looks like a positive change. Unfortunately, without additional limitations, it probably would just lead to rich corporations filing even more patents, each with one narrow claim. But the Patent Office might go for it, since it would multiply the fees paid by these corporations by a factor of 10 or more.
You obviously don't use your computer on a crowded, noisy commute; or for that matter, in the middle of a meeting where everyone is quietly listening to the CEO. Which is why lots of people on Slashdot are interested in things like that EEG-driven interface (or at least in following the progress of their development).
> If your machine is 4+ years old you never upgrade.
Assuming that this is because you can't (easily) upgrade to a newer version of Windows because of lack of support for the older hardware, you should consider upgrading to a current version of Linux.
What is the state of the parallel open protocols? If their functionality is well-developed, an altruist with deep enough pockets might be able to release binary-only plugin modules which translate between protocols. Or perhaps a binary-only proxy server application which does that.
Unfortunately, I would guess that Microsoft's license tries to deal with this problem. Probably in a way analogous to Numerical Recipes' clause:
(ii) our software is bound into the programs in such a manner that it cannot be accessed as individual routines and cannot practicably be unbound and used in other programs. Specifically, under this license, your program user must not be able to use our programs as part of a program library or ``mix-and-match'' workbench.
Too bad the EU couldn't force them to go totally open.
In my opinion, you should look at your argument inverted. Since there are a very limited number of broadcast FM channels at any given terrestrial location, each station has very limited competition (especially since channels often specialize the music they play in order to get more branding identity). Therefore, a broadcast FM channel should pay more for the opportunity to reach a more captive audience.
Of course, logic and RIAA do not mix, so this actually has nothing to do with what's happening....
> So basically they treat musicians as another category of advertisers.
In that case, they haven't been fulfilling the obligation of disclosing to the public that the content in question, the music, is advertising. TFA goes into this, stating that the FCC has a requirement that a radio station announce that it has been paid to broadcast a song, if that is indeed true.
This isn't just an American thing, for example, in French magazines, when an ad is designed to look like content, there is always somewhere a disclaimer that it is advertising (sometimes not that easy to find it, of course).
Even after reading only the first three pages, I come off with the distinct impression that this "consumer" has been exposed to Linux before. At the very least, he read (and understood) an awful lot compared to what I would expect from your "average consumer". Look, for example, at his explanation of the history of software packaging for Linux.
If you copy/paste the text, the Firefox demo doesn't work.... a possible workaround?
The Firefox demo also is sensitive to the typing speed, for example, if you type "bnoot" instead of "boot" and you type the "n" very quickly after the "b" the demo tries to open the C:\bnoot.ini file instead.
I had always thought that RSA was the first software/algorithmic US patent granted. That would make MIT the Pandora who opened the software patent box, not the loathed BSA.
> This scenario is best of both worlds - it gives us the freedom to easily format shift, backup, keep a copy in my car
Right! Great thinkin' there!
Oh, and good luck finding car insurance which covers the damages caused when the content industry sues you over "distribution" of the content which was stolen with your car.
Hmm, I'd add "crontab"s and "at" queues to your list. An even more insidious (but much less reliable) technique is scanning the PATH for user-writable directories and the creation of wrapper scripts for executables found there. Or what about "customizing" the menu definitions on the desktop GUI to point to wrapper scripts?
See that was easy, and AFAIK, I'm not even particularly devious....
Slashdot Mirror
> you can have Javascript enabled only for that website
Ouch, I meant enabled for the Google Ad-Sense site (or maybe both). Anyway, if you read it, you probably understood...
> Who wants to bet that you can't click on a google Ad-Sense link w/o javascript turned on.
Well, yes, you won't see the link without Javascript enabled for the website displaying the ads. But if you use Firefox + NoScript, you can have Javascript enabled only for that website, so you can click on the link (relatively) safely.
I do it all the time when I see an interesting ad from trusted websites, in order to generate a little income for them. I'd say >95% of the pages I arrive at don't work properly since Javascript and Flash aren't enabled for them when I arrive there, and I never enable Javascript or Flash for them just to see advertising.
"You probably already know that retail margins are anywhere from 10% (Amazon) to 50% and more (Best Buy, etc.) across all categories. Music is no different."
If an artist receives 15 points in their deal (and remember, that's a very good deal) then he is entitled to aprox. $.09 a track.
91% >> 50% (and 9% to the artist is a "very good deal"!)
"the end-to-end costs of recording, producing, marketing and selling a CD" ... are mostly decreasing. Why are the labels not then increasing what they pay to the artists?
I was just annoyed at the bizarre way these warts were being presented in this case:
> OSS: Use our software, please.
> Former proprietary customer: OK
Analysis:
> Former proprietary customer: Hey! This has bugs.
> OSS: Well you should fix it.
> Former proprietary customer: Why should I?
> OSS: Well because it's OSS.
Analysis:
> Former proprietary customer: Well my proprietary solution worked.
Analysis:
> OSS: But you weren't free.
Analysis:
> Former proprietary customer: Yeah, but I wasn't handicapped by a solution that was missing functionality, and buggier than an ant farm. Now you're telling me I have to fix it too?
Analysis:
There you have the full analysis. To the OSS guy, freedom is more important than anything else, but he's too dumb to understand that not everyone thinks that way. Since the FPC guy doesn't think that way, he shouldn't use FOSS, but also shouldn't complain. The big problem is that instead of living "viva la difference" they just incessantly call each other stupid on Slashdot.
Actually the original post is just as stupid as the phrase in your comment:
>> when people try it and inevitably complain
Why? It's obvious that "proprietary software" and "FOSS" encompass a wide range of programs of varying quality, and silly to think that anyone could think one set wholly better than the other, even ignoring the fact that "quality" is, in this case, multi-dimensional.
You are confused, the phrase "security by obscurity" has a specific meaning in this context.
The secrecy of the password is, actually, the only secrecy not connected with it.
That's why the really delicious dog meat those Chinese are eating really makes you salivate, eh?
You (probably) don't really know whether you like the taste of dog meat, or not, do you? It's because the culture of the society in which you live prevents you from having the experience of tasting it. And it also has programmed (at least in most Americans) an automatic response of disgust at the very thought of eating dog meat.
If cultural influences do not affect preferences, how do you explain that almost 100% of Americans wouldn't eat dog meat if given the opportunity, and many (wealthy) Chinese do eat dog meat? This isn't related to the fact that most Americans don't like traditional Indian music? Or even to the fact that my parents don't like the same music that I like?
RIAA, et. al., are trying to do the same, to control what people are exposed to. So people won't understand what they are missing, or even reject it outright if exposed to it after their "RIAA programming" is in place....
Riiiiight... here's the analysis of your post:
Former proprietary customer: I switched from my proprietary software for no apparent logical reason and am unhappy!
OSS: ??? Perhaps you need medication???
A Chinese group lead by Xiaoyun Wang is currently leading, I'd say, the rest of the world in the crypanalysis of hash functions.
Their work has lead the NIST to start working on starting a process similar to AES, but this time for hash functions.
What might fix this is requiring all initial patents suits go through a court similar to "small claims court", where the initial decision is made if the (large corporation's) suit seems largely without merit. A typical example might be that the defendent exhibits the existence of clear prior art. In that case, the corporation from that point on has to disclose all expenditure on its legal council, etc., and pay matching funds to the defendent (e.g., small inventor) to enable him to have a fair trial.
The weak link here is the (possibly bribable) judge of this initial court, who seems to have too much power. Anyone got ideas how to fix that?
> (hint: if prior art is found and accepted by either the patent office or the courts, the patent is invalidated).
My understanding (TGIANAL) of the current situation is that the individual claims for which there is prior art are invalidated. My impression is that the GP wants to change this so that the whole patent is invalidated if any prior art is found for any claim in it.
That's a big difference, and on the surface looks like a positive change. Unfortunately, without additional limitations, it probably would just lead to rich corporations filing even more patents, each with one narrow claim. But the Patent Office might go for it, since it would multiply the fees paid by these corporations by a factor of 10 or more.
You should be careful, anyway, in legislative matters.... the devil is in the details....
> until the point computers can take dictation.
You obviously don't use your computer on a crowded, noisy commute; or for that matter, in the middle of a meeting where everyone is quietly listening to the CEO. Which is why lots of people on Slashdot are interested in things like that EEG-driven interface (or at least in following the progress of their development).
> If your machine is 4+ years old you never upgrade.
Assuming that this is because you can't (easily) upgrade to a newer version of Windows because of lack of support for the older hardware, you should consider upgrading to a current version of Linux.
Unfortunately, I would guess that Microsoft's license tries to deal with this problem. Probably in a way analogous to Numerical Recipes' clause:
Too bad the EU couldn't force them to go totally open.
Wasn't the Roman way of conquest more like "control and tax"? If you kill someone, he can't pay you tribute every year.
In my opinion, you should look at your argument inverted. Since there are a very limited number of broadcast FM channels at any given terrestrial location, each station has very limited competition (especially since channels often specialize the music they play in order to get more branding identity). Therefore, a broadcast FM channel should pay more for the opportunity to reach a more captive audience.
Of course, logic and RIAA do not mix, so this actually has nothing to do with what's happening....
The moderator meant to mod this +1 Funny (I would!) but forgot to actually try to understand the post.
Or perhaps this is a mod of a new experimental viral moderation system, but the viruses haven't evolved enough yet?
> So basically they treat musicians as another category of advertisers.
In that case, they haven't been fulfilling the obligation of disclosing to the public that the content in question, the music, is advertising. TFA goes into this, stating that the FCC has a requirement that a radio station announce that it has been paid to broadcast a song, if that is indeed true.
This isn't just an American thing, for example, in French magazines, when an ad is designed to look like content, there is always somewhere a disclaimer that it is advertising (sometimes not that easy to find it, of course).
Even after reading only the first three pages, I come off with the distinct impression that this "consumer" has been exposed to Linux before. At the very least, he read (and understood) an awful lot compared to what I would expect from your "average consumer". Look, for example, at his explanation of the history of software packaging for Linux.
If you copy/paste the text, the Firefox demo doesn't work.... a possible workaround?
The Firefox demo also is sensitive to the typing speed, for example, if you type "bnoot" instead of "boot" and you type the "n" very quickly after the "b" the demo tries to open the C:\bnoot.ini file instead.
> dreamt up by the BSA
I had always thought that RSA was the first software/algorithmic US patent granted. That would make MIT the Pandora who opened the software patent box, not the loathed BSA.
Or did you just mis-type?
> This scenario is best of both worlds - it gives us the freedom to easily format shift, backup, keep a copy in my car
Right! Great thinkin' there!
Oh, and good luck finding car insurance which covers the damages caused when the content industry sues you over "distribution" of the content which was stolen with your car.
> Am I missing anything here?
Hmm, I'd add "crontab"s and "at" queues to your list. An even more insidious (but much less reliable) technique is scanning the PATH for user-writable directories and the creation of wrapper scripts for executables found there. Or what about "customizing" the menu definitions on the desktop GUI to point to wrapper scripts?
See that was easy, and AFAIK, I'm not even particularly devious....
> Oooh, what a financial loss overall for the med/pharma complex, NOT!
Don't forget, though, that the government will take a significant financial loss on the extra 10 years of Medicare they will have to provide her.
Old news in US...
e /2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm :
From URL http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlif
> PITTSBURGH (AP) -- A 15-year-old girl has been arrested for taking nude photographs of her self
> and posting them on the Internet, police said.
(Found via the English Wikipedia article on Child Pornography, found via Google.)