So very true. If "acting" is what's important, then why are all actresses (even the B-list ones), with a few minor exceptions, ridiculously hot? I mean, is it a coincidence? Something genetic (genes for hotness and acting related)? I'd buy the idea that hotter girls (and guys, it's the same there) are more self-confident, giving them a slight acting boost. But really, it's pretty clear that hot girl actresses don't need to act well in order to be famous.
But this two-bit protest became an issue because guards felt their manhood was being challenged. I work with the programs office at my college, and I often staff events. When you are working an event as security you are given very vague instructions (even from professional security companies). If something not covered comes up, you have two choices.
1) Let it go and assume the guy is basically honest 2) Stonewall and refuse.
Basically, if you stonewall and refuse, and you're wrong, at worst you get yelled at. If you let the guy get away with something that may or may not be OK, and he causes trouble as a result, it's your ass. The environment is set up such that an honors student at a top college is still going to want to stonewall as the safer thing to do, or at least pass the buck. It's not a question of the guard's pride or even intelligence, it's a "Cover Your Ass" thing.
Being on the front page of google for a mainstream subject is certainly rewarding. However, it is still POSSIBLE to displace a page by increasing the visibility of your content organically (such as getting it into the blogosphere) and thus eventually moving yourself onto that highly valuable first page.
Well said. There is no promise that your site will get to at the top of the search pile because you made it. If you are basing yourself on popular things, all you really need to do is do something that is unique (just like in real business). For instance, let's say you are a new website for a popular TV show. You can't do the same thing as the bigger, older sites and expect that people are going to flock to you for some reason. You have to do something different, or be vastly better. For instance, if you had links to the transcripts an hour after the show ended on the East Coast (US), you'd get traffic on "'X TV show' scripts" in Google/Yahoo, and hopefully the people who read the transcripts stick around to read the rest of your site, and it gets more internet attention, and thus overall higher rankings in search engines. There is no guarantee of a nice search engine spot, you have to earn it.
Well said. Additionally, there are a lot of classes which are non-mandatory attendence (or the teacher just doeesn't check it regularly *cough* ECON 303 *cough*). Rather than having people say you're surfing as opposed to notetaking, think of it as surfing in class versus not attending class. At least the people are in class, and maybe at least picking something up.
They said they'd take off the rootkit. Does that mean the DRM thing is still there? Because if it is, you so don't want the CDs. I mean, to me that's almost worse, since it phones home, and uses up your processor time, and also hurts your hard drive, right? Is that confirmed gone too?
Honestly, this is a cool thing, so i don't mean to demean it. But it's the sort of thing only a geek with more than a passing familarity of physics would get excited for.
I'm sure they thought that 75 years ago about Quantum Theory. This is a relatively big deal even if it isn't sexy. I mean, we have to test these things. How many chances do we get to observe major space-time dilation? I mean, minor stuff with satellites, right? But it's hard to get tests of theories involving planets.
People are going to go over this with a fine-toothed comb now. I wouldn't be suprised if some of the people involved in the lawsuits bought a brand new computer, ran the CDs, and had experts look into it. If Sony does anything, they lose the major argument of "we're not evil, we were just ignorant that this could be an issue, we're truly sorry..."
In fact, I'm sure there are some people who are going to go over the DRM on every CD everywhere with a fine-toothed comb now.
I'm 18, and I've noticed this at high school. I thought it was stupid, but I still noticed it. Think of the whole fashion thing. Essentially, the difference between preppy American Eagle or Abercrombie or whatever and my clothes is basically zero. But AE or A&F are more expensive, and are advertised as cooler. I can see the $2.49 section coming right to the front of iTunes or something, or being the only ones mentioned in "new releases" or whatever. And I can totally see the radio or MTV or whichever source of music controlled by the RIAA being forced to play primarily the $2.49 list. When I look at the "hot list" played at radio stations near where I went to HS, and I look at my iPod, most of the "hot list" songs are on the iPod. There are a lot of other songs on my iPod, as well, I'll grant you, but I'd say that the primary source of hearing new music is probably the radio, since it plays in the car, and you can just turn it on.
I think it's a foolish argument - paying for the privilege of hearing part of an album. It's like reading the first chapter of a book or watching the first scene of a movie. If you're so lukewarm to an artist that you only want to hear a single song off their album, then it's hardly worth getting even that one song.
And your personal choice appears to be a minority one (which does not make it wrong). I'd be hard pressed to find the cheap CD deal you seem to have, and being in the US, I don't have the exchange rate issue. I just sorted my iPod's library, and the most I have from any one album (and when I get a song, I listen to all the songs on the album, or at least part of them) is 5. While this isn't a music taste discussion, I would say that the albums (two, each with 5 songs) are from far and away my favorite band, and I like at most 5 songs on any one CD. So the pricing for me works out to $4.96 for the 5 songs, or $12-15 for the album. It is worth it even if I later decide I want to download every song off the album because that would happen with one out of every 20-30 albums, if that.
Crazy idea: They aren't talking about OurTunes, are they? The program that lets people swipe music out of other users' shared libraries? I mean, that's limited to "local networks", right?
First. Please tell me, how is using allofmp3 different--morally or legally in the United States--from downloading the audio files from a P2P network?
Well, with P2P, you aren't supporting the Mob. I'm not a fan of the mob. therefore I would be cautious about using allofmp3. To my knowledge, P2P doesn't support any bad organizations (unless you count music pirates:) )
Yeah, that's true. But if you're an AV company, do you want to take the risk, knowing that if you remove the rootkit, and Sony successfully argues to a non-technically knowledgable judge, you're 100% out of business? I think they were waiting for some sort of sign that they wouldn't get slammed for it. And they got one.
It's a gray area because Sony claims it is DRM, which is illegal to remove. If this went the other way, and an AV company started removing it before it got out to the public fully, then the AV company is removing DRM, and Sony sues, and noone backs them (except EFF and a few nerds). The AV companies were powerless until they had the mob behind them.
I think's things are not so simple. While this is a rootkit, "infected" systems don't display the normal symptoms: no (appreciable) slowdown, no annoying popups, no self-propagation or open ports.
Didn't Mark Russovich say it wrecked your hard drive life by checking through some list for the applications on your HDD like every two minutes or something?
Or did you mean, no one noticed this? I mean, it's been out since March. But the AV companies should have come across it by now, right? I mean, they make efforts to get computers infected. Surely one of them would have run something to detect this on their computers in 6-7 months?
Um, that assumes that the EULA is accepted as valid. And that the judge doesn't rule something to the effect of it being invalid because they didn't mention that they were installing stuff that any serious computer guy could tell you was dangerous. You "agreed to" $5 liability on a music CD. Aren't all bets off if they violate the EULA (they misrepresented the "DRM"/rootkit/malware by saying it didn't phone home or damage the computer) If I mailed you a bomb inside a stereo, I don't care what you "agreed to", the judge is letting you sue my pants off.
I meant that we always say "in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue" and give him first credit for a transatlantic sea voyage, when Leif Erikson and co. reached the New World first. Yet Columbus gets the credit.
You think so? I think the only major flaw in the comment system is that it usually misses when it has modded something Informative/Interesting/Insightful that turns out to be false. I personally think the downmodding is more important than the upmodding. I mean, as long as they keep goatse and troll monologues out for the average user, they're doing a good job. but then again, I browse at -1.
Oh, his stuff got used. We certainly don't call it "fluxions" or whatever. But if I ask who invented calculus, 90% of the answers I get will be some form of "Newton". Actually, I'd get a lot of "no clue"s, but you get my point.
C: They secretly bought out the company that sells "Office for Dummies", because those guys are gonna be freaking loaded after this. I mean, I can't get my mom to switch from OS 9 to OS X because OS X "looks different" (I have both on the "family" computer back home). And OS X.2 is actually better than OS 9. I get the impression from here that she is only slightly below average in the computer use dept. compared to some bosses...
This infuriates me. They act as if they were the ones who came up with the idea of a new open format for office applications, and then talk about how near and dear to their heart it is. This sounds more like a hallmark commercial than a msdn blog
Don't forget that the Vikings found America first, and Leibniz beat Newton independently to some principles of calculus (note, I said some, not all). It isn't about who invents something, it's about who markets it.
2 million or so sold, and 4.7 million shipped. Which EULA says $5 a CD? I must have missed that.
That seems like the lowest figure I'd call fair. $10-11 million would represent most of their intended profits, and when you factor in recall and remaking with XCP, plus legal costs, they ought to have lost all their profits with that sort of a figure. Then there are the other, user-based lawsuits.
Look at an old story, all the posts will say "October", or "July" or some such month, but no year. How do I know if I'm looking at a discussion from last year or three years ago? Apparently we're just supposed to know.
Check the URL. There will be a part in older discussions (after they are off the front page I think) that'll be all like "sid=YY/MM/DD". Obviously it'll have numbers in there, but that's how you know.
Slashdot Mirror
More to the point, it's 11:33 PM on a Saturday at UVA, and I'm reading about quantum stuff. I'm far worse than Zonk right now. :(
So very true. If "acting" is what's important, then why are all actresses (even the B-list ones), with a few minor exceptions, ridiculously hot? I mean, is it a coincidence? Something genetic (genes for hotness and acting related)? I'd buy the idea that hotter girls (and guys, it's the same there) are more self-confident, giving them a slight acting boost. But really, it's pretty clear that hot girl actresses don't need to act well in order to be famous.
But this two-bit protest became an issue because guards felt their manhood was being challenged. I work with the programs office at my college, and I often staff events. When you are working an event as security you are given very vague instructions (even from professional security companies). If something not covered comes up, you have two choices.
1) Let it go and assume the guy is basically honest
2) Stonewall and refuse.
Basically, if you stonewall and refuse, and you're wrong, at worst you get yelled at. If you let the guy get away with something that may or may not be OK, and he causes trouble as a result, it's your ass. The environment is set up such that an honors student at a top college is still going to want to stonewall as the safer thing to do, or at least pass the buck. It's not a question of the guard's pride or even intelligence, it's a "Cover Your Ass" thing.
Being on the front page of google for a mainstream subject is certainly rewarding. However, it is still POSSIBLE to displace a page by increasing the visibility of your content organically (such as getting it into the blogosphere) and thus eventually moving yourself onto that highly valuable first page.
Well said. There is no promise that your site will get to at the top of the search pile because you made it. If you are basing yourself on popular things, all you really need to do is do something that is unique (just like in real business). For instance, let's say you are a new website for a popular TV show. You can't do the same thing as the bigger, older sites and expect that people are going to flock to you for some reason. You have to do something different, or be vastly better. For instance, if you had links to the transcripts an hour after the show ended on the East Coast (US), you'd get traffic on "'X TV show' scripts" in Google/Yahoo, and hopefully the people who read the transcripts stick around to read the rest of your site, and it gets more internet attention, and thus overall higher rankings in search engines. There is no guarantee of a nice search engine spot, you have to earn it.
Sony execs are still trying to figure out why. Tough call there. I mean, I wouldn't be able to figure it out either.
1) Rootkit?
2) Blu-Ray blows?
3) Charlie's Angels II?
Well said. Additionally, there are a lot of classes which are non-mandatory attendence (or the teacher just doeesn't check it regularly *cough* ECON 303 *cough*). Rather than having people say you're surfing as opposed to notetaking, think of it as surfing in class versus not attending class. At least the people are in class, and maybe at least picking something up.
They said they'd take off the rootkit. Does that mean the DRM thing is still there? Because if it is, you so don't want the CDs. I mean, to me that's almost worse, since it phones home, and uses up your processor time, and also hurts your hard drive, right? Is that confirmed gone too?
Honestly, this is a cool thing, so i don't mean to demean it. But it's the sort of thing only a geek with more than a passing familarity of physics would get excited for.
I'm sure they thought that 75 years ago about Quantum Theory. This is a relatively big deal even if it isn't sexy. I mean, we have to test these things. How many chances do we get to observe major space-time dilation? I mean, minor stuff with satellites, right? But it's hard to get tests of theories involving planets.
People are going to go over this with a fine-toothed comb now. I wouldn't be suprised if some of the people involved in the lawsuits bought a brand new computer, ran the CDs, and had experts look into it. If Sony does anything, they lose the major argument of "we're not evil, we were just ignorant that this could be an issue, we're truly sorry..."
In fact, I'm sure there are some people who are going to go over the DRM on every CD everywhere with a fine-toothed comb now.
I'm 18, and I've noticed this at high school. I thought it was stupid, but I still noticed it. Think of the whole fashion thing. Essentially, the difference between preppy American Eagle or Abercrombie or whatever and my clothes is basically zero. But AE or A&F are more expensive, and are advertised as cooler. I can see the $2.49 section coming right to the front of iTunes or something, or being the only ones mentioned in "new releases" or whatever. And I can totally see the radio or MTV or whichever source of music controlled by the RIAA being forced to play primarily the $2.49 list. When I look at the "hot list" played at radio stations near where I went to HS, and I look at my iPod, most of the "hot list" songs are on the iPod. There are a lot of other songs on my iPod, as well, I'll grant you, but I'd say that the primary source of hearing new music is probably the radio, since it plays in the car, and you can just turn it on.
I think it's a foolish argument - paying for the privilege of hearing part of an album. It's like reading the first chapter of a book or watching the first scene of a movie. If you're so lukewarm to an artist that you only want to hear a single song off their album, then it's hardly worth getting even that one song.
And your personal choice appears to be a minority one (which does not make it wrong). I'd be hard pressed to find the cheap CD deal you seem to have, and being in the US, I don't have the exchange rate issue. I just sorted my iPod's library, and the most I have from any one album (and when I get a song, I listen to all the songs on the album, or at least part of them) is 5. While this isn't a music taste discussion, I would say that the albums (two, each with 5 songs) are from far and away my favorite band, and I like at most 5 songs on any one CD. So the pricing for me works out to $4.96 for the 5 songs, or $12-15 for the album. It is worth it even if I later decide I want to download every song off the album because that would happen with one out of every 20-30 albums, if that.
Crazy idea: They aren't talking about OurTunes, are they? The program that lets people swipe music out of other users' shared libraries? I mean, that's limited to "local networks", right?
First. Please tell me, how is using allofmp3 different--morally or legally in the United States--from downloading the audio files from a P2P network?
Well, with P2P, you aren't supporting the Mob. I'm not a fan of the mob. therefore I would be cautious about using allofmp3. To my knowledge, P2P doesn't support any bad organizations (unless you count music pirates:) )
Yeah, that's true. But if you're an AV company, do you want to take the risk, knowing that if you remove the rootkit, and Sony successfully argues to a non-technically knowledgable judge, you're 100% out of business? I think they were waiting for some sort of sign that they wouldn't get slammed for it. And they got one.
You mean the black ball spherical object with a fuse coming out of the top?
... You don't? ... Oh, well that explains all the extra security.
Dude, doesn't everyone put their climbing rope in their bowling ball?
It's a gray area because Sony claims it is DRM, which is illegal to remove. If this went the other way, and an AV company started removing it before it got out to the public fully, then the AV company is removing DRM, and Sony sues, and noone backs them (except EFF and a few nerds). The AV companies were powerless until they had the mob behind them.
I think's things are not so simple. While this is a rootkit, "infected" systems don't display the normal symptoms: no (appreciable) slowdown, no annoying popups, no self-propagation or open ports.
Didn't Mark Russovich say it wrecked your hard drive life by checking through some list for the applications on your HDD like every two minutes or something?
Or did you mean, no one noticed this? I mean, it's been out since March. But the AV companies should have come across it by now, right? I mean, they make efforts to get computers infected. Surely one of them would have run something to detect this on their computers in 6-7 months?
Um, that assumes that the EULA is accepted as valid. And that the judge doesn't rule something to the effect of it being invalid because they didn't mention that they were installing stuff that any serious computer guy could tell you was dangerous. You "agreed to" $5 liability on a music CD. Aren't all bets off if they violate the EULA (they misrepresented the "DRM"/rootkit/malware by saying it didn't phone home or damage the computer) If I mailed you a bomb inside a stereo, I don't care what you "agreed to", the judge is letting you sue my pants off.
I meant that we always say "in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue" and give him first credit for a transatlantic sea voyage, when Leif Erikson and co. reached the New World first. Yet Columbus gets the credit.
You think so? I think the only major flaw in the comment system is that it usually misses when it has modded something Informative/Interesting/Insightful that turns out to be false. I personally think the downmodding is more important than the upmodding. I mean, as long as they keep goatse and troll monologues out for the average user, they're doing a good job. but then again, I browse at -1.
Oh, his stuff got used. We certainly don't call it "fluxions" or whatever. But if I ask who invented calculus, 90% of the answers I get will be some form of "Newton". Actually, I'd get a lot of "no clue"s, but you get my point.
C: They secretly bought out the company that sells "Office for Dummies", because those guys are gonna be freaking loaded after this. I mean, I can't get my mom to switch from OS 9 to OS X because OS X "looks different" (I have both on the "family" computer back home). And OS X.2 is actually better than OS 9. I get the impression from here that she is only slightly below average in the computer use dept. compared to some bosses...
This infuriates me. They act as if they were the ones who came up with the idea of a new open format for office applications, and then talk about how near and dear to their heart it is. This sounds more like a hallmark commercial than a msdn blog
Don't forget that the Vikings found America first, and Leibniz beat Newton independently to some principles of calculus (note, I said some, not all). It isn't about who invents something, it's about who markets it.
2 million or so sold, and 4.7 million shipped. Which EULA says $5 a CD? I must have missed that.
That seems like the lowest figure I'd call fair. $10-11 million would represent most of their intended profits, and when you factor in recall and remaking with XCP, plus legal costs, they ought to have lost all their profits with that sort of a figure. Then there are the other, user-based lawsuits.
Look at an old story, all the posts will say "October", or "July" or some such month, but no year. How do I know if I'm looking at a discussion from last year or three years ago? Apparently we're just supposed to know.
Check the URL. There will be a part in older discussions (after they are off the front page I think) that'll be all like "sid=YY/MM/DD". Obviously it'll have numbers in there, but that's how you know.