I can't help but wonder if you would actually say that to his face. If you did, though, I would have to tell you that the suit you are no doubt wearing looks very expencive, and that I hope that nobody decides to accidently spill hot coffee on it after a comment like that. Do you see how easy my generalization was? Do you see how much sense it made? I'd say it was about on par with yours.
The mandate doesn't say that every copy ever released while under copyright has to be accessable without restrictions after the copyright expires.
Exactly. When the copyright expires, you'll be able to purchase a non-DRM'd copy of the file for $.99 at the iTMS. I dunno about you, but that's not good enough for me!
If I'm not mistaken, this is the second (or so) document that has been "mistakenly released" from Google. Am I the only one who doesn't believe Google is this sloppy? I see this as a PR move (for better or worse), or maybe even a decoy to take our attention away from another decision we're not gonna like.. or something.
Will the primary colored blue, red, yellow and black ipod shaped like Mickey have the same appeal?
No. That particular model won't fit in your pocket unless you're wearing Disney brand pants with the specially shaped pocket. I, for one, am not willing to deal with that much hassle.
I may well be way off on this, but if my memory serves correctly, the DMCA allows for reverse engineering for purposes of compatibility (think about DVD playability on Linux). Is it reasonable to apply this scenario as a "compatibility issue"? If so, would it hold up in court?
(I realize it's quite a reach, and I'm sure I already know the answers to both, but I'd like to see how y'all feel about this particular way of thinking.)
I agree with you (almost) completely. I can't even imagine what Windows XP (or even as far back as ME) could have been if it weren't for Microsoft's appearent need for backwards compatability. Would ME have been as horrible as it was if it weren't built on top of DOS as a confused little 16/32 bit...defective hybrid..?
Granted, in their defense, it's nice to be able to play those Win95 games on XP, and cheaper than running two systems, but my fear is that Microsoft is always trying to appease the buisnesses who insist on using Word Perfect version 2. Backwards compatability is a great thing in many ways, but the question is always "How far backwards?" In my opinion, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this opinion, Microsoft always decides to go to far backward.
I honestly hope I'm proven wrong, but I just don't see "a new age of Internet trust" happening.. ever. To even put a dent in the mal-ware industry, this new software will have to use up every last bit of resources the Vista-generation computers might have. Even then, there will always be a way around it! Any/every new feature this new software might introduce will also introduce, along with it, a new flaw; another vulnerability which will have to be patched. Thus, the circle will continue, only in another location: Vista.
Your PC is probably slowed down by mal-ware allowed on your computer by a lack of anti-* software. This would unfortunatly mean that home PC users are forced to choose the lesser of two evils: slow, and slower...
I wouldn't just to conclusions just yet. The outcome, while it does look depressing from here, isn't set in stone yet. You're forgetting that capitalism is still a democracy: The monopolies won't offer what the people refuse to pay for.
You don't need to be on the whitelist to send personal emails today, so you won't need to pay to send email tomorrow.
I must beg to differ. With the money that could me made by forcing a white-list upon every user, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see this some time in the future.
Besides, would you say "It didn't rain today, so it won't rain tomorrow"? C'mon!
I don't mean to say you're lying, but are you sure he didn't just move everything to AIM? I canceled my AOL account under the impression that AIM was separate from AOL. My two screen names and their corresponding AOL e-mail addresses were deleted without any prior notice. I had to create new screen names and e-mail addresses and then had to track down all my friends by memory (I never did remember a few of their screen names). You're saying he can still use his AOL info without paying for it?!
Amen!! If it weren't for the fact that they're sending physical CDs to physical mail boxes, they'd very easily be considered spammers, and for what? I highly doubt a good percent of the people who receive AOL CDs actually use them (for their intended purposes).
Though I am missing the last few seasons from my DVD collection, what I've heard from the commentary thus far is that they are the only remaining, currently airing, hand-painted cell animation series out there (or something to that extent). I would assume that any digital intervention in the production process would be scanning each cell into a digital format for easier and faster clean-up and editing.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't help but wonder if you would actually say that to his face. If you did, though, I would have to tell you that the suit you are no doubt wearing looks very expencive, and that I hope that nobody decides to accidently spill hot coffee on it after a comment like that. Do you see how easy my generalization was? Do you see how much sense it made? I'd say it was about on par with yours.
The mandate doesn't say that every copy ever released while under copyright has to be accessable without restrictions after the copyright expires.
Exactly. When the copyright expires, you'll be able to purchase a non-DRM'd copy of the file for $.99 at the iTMS. I dunno about you, but that's not good enough for me!
Yup! I'm totally sold on Vista
If I'm not mistaken, this is the second (or so) document that has been "mistakenly released" from Google. Am I the only one who doesn't believe Google is this sloppy? I see this as a PR move (for better or worse), or maybe even a decoy to take our attention away from another decision we're not gonna like.. or something.
No. That particular model won't fit in your pocket unless you're wearing Disney brand pants with the specially shaped pocket. I, for one, am not willing to deal with that much hassle.
I may well be way off on this, but if my memory serves correctly, the DMCA allows for reverse engineering for purposes of compatibility (think about DVD playability on Linux). Is it reasonable to apply this scenario as a "compatibility issue"? If so, would it hold up in court?
(I realize it's quite a reach, and I'm sure I already know the answers to both, but I'd like to see how y'all feel about this particular way of thinking.)
I agree with you (almost) completely. I can't even imagine what Windows XP (or even as far back as ME) could have been if it weren't for Microsoft's appearent need for backwards compatability. Would ME have been as horrible as it was if it weren't built on top of DOS as a confused little 16/32 bit ...defective hybrid..?
Granted, in their defense, it's nice to be able to play those Win95 games on XP, and cheaper than running two systems, but my fear is that Microsoft is always trying to appease the buisnesses who insist on using Word Perfect version 2. Backwards compatability is a great thing in many ways, but the question is always "How far backwards?" In my opinion, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this opinion, Microsoft always decides to go to far backward.
It's a shame that the AOL software doesn't fit on a floppy disk anymore. Floppy disks can be re-written to; CDs can't.
Oh.. Well, I'm only human, work with me! :-D
I honestly hope I'm proven wrong, but I just don't see "a new age of Internet trust" happening.. ever. To even put a dent in the mal-ware industry, this new software will have to use up every last bit of resources the Vista-generation computers might have. Even then, there will always be a way around it! Any/every new feature this new software might introduce will also introduce, along with it, a new flaw; another vulnerability which will have to be patched. Thus, the circle will continue, only in another location: Vista.
Your PC is probably slowed down by mal-ware allowed on your computer by a lack of anti-* software. This would unfortunatly mean that home PC users are forced to choose the lesser of two evils: slow, and slower...
So.. uh.. Where can a Gmail user go to help these poor lost AOL users with an invite?
Sadly, it sounds reasonable. However, if you set up a Gmail account, why on earth would you forward it to AOL? You've got Gmail.. use it!
I wouldn't just to conclusions just yet. The outcome, while it does look depressing from here, isn't set in stone yet. You're forgetting that capitalism is still a democracy: The monopolies won't offer what the people refuse to pay for.
You don't need to be on the whitelist to send personal emails today, so you won't need to pay to send email tomorrow. I must beg to differ. With the money that could me made by forcing a white-list upon every user, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see this some time in the future. Besides, would you say "It didn't rain today, so it won't rain tomorrow"? C'mon!
I don't mean to say you're lying, but are you sure he didn't just move everything to AIM? I canceled my AOL account under the impression that AIM was separate from AOL. My two screen names and their corresponding AOL e-mail addresses were deleted without any prior notice. I had to create new screen names and e-mail addresses and then had to track down all my friends by memory (I never did remember a few of their screen names). You're saying he can still use his AOL info without paying for it?!
Amen!! If it weren't for the fact that they're sending physical CDs to physical mail boxes, they'd very easily be considered spammers, and for what? I highly doubt a good percent of the people who receive AOL CDs actually use them (for their intended purposes).
Just how does that work? How can one value what they don't use, and in the case of e-mailing one's mother, would have no need for?
Though I am missing the last few seasons from my DVD collection, what I've heard from the commentary thus far is that they are the only remaining, currently airing, hand-painted cell animation series out there (or something to that extent). I would assume that any digital intervention in the production process would be scanning each cell into a digital format for easier and faster clean-up and editing.