I think it is more than just about Silverlight. AJAX (and other technologies already existing - as well as creatable with the new scripting extensions) can be/become a big threat to MS's Active-X,.NET and other similar technologies - which can be leveraged into a cross platform, cross browser world - something MS doesnt want to see.
If MS doesnt "invent" a method to ensure that the new extensions are created in a manner they can control, it will creat a further slippage of their market - that means retaining/gaining control by making the new extensions part of a different language which they can then leverage and control (like they tried with JScript, etc).
Conversely, if the new programming extensions are added to JavaScript (where they should be), which has been decided to be a standardized, cross platform venue, then MS is "forced" to make their implementation conform to the standard to ensure they do not garner further heat for attempting to break standards (that they will then have little or no control over).
MS NEEDS the new scripting extensions to become part of another language, because it will allow them at least the chance of implementing an incompatible model, claim it is the standard, use IE to leverage that new "standard" and lock things like AJAX and other technologies out of the new enhanced web formats by ensuring there are a plethora of programmers using MS's closed model and "new" language.
Hmmmm... well, let's say you are right in 100% of the "RIAA Attack a Consumer Instances"(but that's not generally what they do" - which I do agree with... but even once is a misuse of the law)... or I am 100% right.... or it's you right for certain cases, me for others, and/or some that fit both scenarios...
I still think that boils down to one thing... they are making a mockery of the law by misleading technically inept judges, bringing fake evidence (ie: not evidence of anything, but they claim it is), etc... I think the truth is combination of what you and what I am saying (as I think you agreed to in the statement I quoted above). See, I believe they, just like anyone else, should be held liable for (even) that (one) time they engaged in such activity and frivoulously brought suit based off nonsense (or based off something that wasnt covered by the DMCA, etc). I wasnt trying to claim they always do it. Doing it a few times is a few more times than they ever should have been allowed to.
Oh well... I guess the important thing is that judges (universities, defense lawyers, the average consumer, etc) are getting wiser, and the RIAA is staying quite stupid. I guess time will tell...
I think you totally misread or misunderstood my post.
Wrong. You DO see the RIAA suing people for just downloading - by claiming they are uploading (distributing) by equating "making available" the same thing as "actually doing" - for instance in the lawsuit they recently won (as reported on/.)
Basically, they catch someone running a P2P client, catch them downloading, sue them for "making available" and pretend that "making available"="distributing" and hopes they can find a judge that believes them.
Otherwise, they'd just simply prove distribution (but cant in such cases as noted on/. where there was no distribution). That leave the method of finding the person a combination of finding "making availables" or MUCH MORE LIKELY BASED OFF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, finding people who are DOWNLOADING music (go look at the case yourself, look at the "evidence"), and then (as said earlier in this post by me) pretend that "making available"="distributing" and hopes they can find a judge that believes them.
Thus, it's the downloading that got the people in trouble, regardless of what the RIAA claimed was the "illegal" action in the suit.
Hope that explains what I was trying to say better. To sum up, just in case (it's been a long day, and I dont know how intelligible I am), they find someone downloading a bunch of music, they look for shares, then sue them for something that isnt even covered under the DMCA (making available) when they cant find any actual distribution to anyone else from those shares.
Virtually all the P2P software for Windows that any average user is aware of will set up the stuff to share... and I am sure that the RIAA doesnt care... they (mis)use the DMCA as a tool to go after people who download by suing for making available.
There is NO clause in the DMCA that mentions MAKING AVAILABLE. The DMCA specifically states DISTRIBUTING. The two are different things entirely.
Nor is MAKING AVAILABLE the same as UPLOADING.
Proper application of the law would be proving (1) distribution occurred, and (2) how much distribution occurred, especially since those are two of the REQUIRED steps the RIAA is SUPPOSED to be following, and especially because #2 is supposed to be one of the criteria used to determine fines/compensation/copyright holder's potential loss.
The RIAA should be required to prove the relevant points of fact AS REQUIRED by the DMCA... which is that actual distribution occurred... instead, a judge allowed them to prove that the files were available but show no indication if they were actually distributed.
Evil things like certifying gold and platinum record sales, and standardizing pre- and post-emphasis equalization formulas so that an LP pressed by any label will sound correct when played back on any turntable manufacturer's device?
There have already been artists out there who have garnered those certified sales level by the RIAA's associated company, and then been dropped by their labels because ACTUAL sales were abysmally lower than their gold or platinum certification actually claimed. Probably because on bands they are trying to heavily promote, those numbers are more akin to copies sold (to retailers) as opposed to copies purchased by consumers (much like Vista numbers during its initial weeks - where CompUSA sold a few HUNDRED copies to consumers on the release night NATIONWIDE, but MS was claiming a few hundred THOUSAND because thats how many CompUSA bought nationwide).
If you trust any of their numbers, you are being idiotic... they've proven (in many areas) they'll play with any number whatsoever if they think it will further whatever cause suits them [sales numbers, $$$ lost to piracy, % of music pirated online, # of CD sales (you add up their artist claims to their total sales figures and see), amount of damages (umm... irreperable? c'mon! Really?) for distributing a few songs... on and on]
Please feel free to believe them as much as you want. While they make many claims in areas they say are improved, reality is a different thing.
You don't see the RIAA suing people for downloading, do you? Because it's not illegal. It's the uploading (distribution) that is illegal.
Wrong. You DO see the RIAA suing people for just downloading - by claiming they are uploading (distributing) by equating "making available" the same thing as "actually doing" - for instance in the lawsuit they recently won (as reported on/.)
They are trying to convince judges that one is the other (and suceeded in at least that one case) when the facts are to the contrary.
For instance, should every one of us who has a car and drives it be convicted of vehicular manslaughter because our cars can be used to do so? Or if you forget to lock your house door, and a burglar walks in and steals everything, should they be allowed to walk because you were "making available" the contents of your home?
You have this in reverse.
Making the videos only work in Windows specific media players is more effort than using a common freely available codec....
You are both right and wrong. If *I* develop a web page, I purchase and use tools that are platform and browser agnostic. Then again, I work for a company I co-own. So for me, it would be more difficult to make a platform or browser specific video feed/system or website (well, perhaps not website... IE is still a nightmare to code any decent site to, since how it handles things varies per version and occassionally per update).
If I work for Company A, I'm stuck using the tools my IT Department licensed for our company (most decent sized companies will mandate certain tools or software - among other things, it helps ensure license compliance for every package used). If Company A's Idiot Technology Department (face it, many IT guys in a big company's IT departments are technological idiots who base purchasing decisions off the latest and greatest ad or brochure; with no understanding of the underlying technology or later implications based on their choice - and many of the good ones - because there are plenty of good ones - are limited to what their meddling upper management decides for them*), then I am stuck with using tools that may be geared for a _______ only solution.
Thus, without knowing more about the BBC's internal decisions when they purchased whatever video handling/processing tools, web tools, etc; speculation is a moot point - and their answers, as lame as they are (considering making a cross platform video delivery system is easy in principle) could entirely (or mostly) be to downplay the fact that they do not have an infrastructure set up to make a cross platform system due to the software/server/etc choices they made earlier.
The bigger the company (or less cash they have, or smaller IT/deployment team they have) the less likely they will be spending money switching the stuff they already bought with new stuff [it costs more money (since they are buying a 2nd package to do the "same" thing as the first), or even if it's open source they choose for round two, it's more money in deployment, training and support learning].
And of course, (wrongly) Open Source solutions scare most large companies who don't understand the (lack of) implications running Open Source software has (feeling they will have a lack of control/ownership over the finished product).
In a perfect (IT) world, where every IT manager knows what they are doing (or is unhindered by upper management forcing decisions on them), and corporate buying decisions are done keeping in mind that the web is supposed to be open access, you are correct. We just dont yet live in that perfect world.
-Robert
.
* At CompUSA, some idiot in upper management decided to use Siebel for their entire sales and service management system. The IT gang got stuck dealing with the consequences of a decision they became stuck with - meaning almost a decade after roll-out, the system still doesnt work properly, quickly or with all the features that were intended - and of course it limits all development to Windows, through IE or Excel or Access (etc). No Firefox, no MySQL/Oracle/whatever.
Actually, many employees I've dealt with don't realize it until they get caught by a manager/supervisor. The last place I worked with had the relevant info in the employee manual/handbook - which was a rather large book. I can guarantee you that 1/10 of the employees (or less) actually read it before signing the page that says "I read it" - most companies just block whatever isn't permitted (MySpace, AIM, etc)... or block them when they realize that too many employees are accessing them against company policy. Especially since the HR Managers at those locations summarize the thing for you (dress code, benefits, etc) - but almost always skip that section (due to lack of knowledge in the area).
Some (many nowadays?) companies have a specific person who is responsible for instructing and enforcing that specific section of the employee rules just because of that. (And that person is usually responsible for securing the network and computer assets as well).
Since most HR Managers I've encountered are quite computer illiterate, they never seem to go over that section. They'll tell you when your first payday is, how much vacation time you get, when you accumulate it, when you are eligible for raises, dress code, etc... but dont even touch on the "technology" oriented section at all.
Both, when I was a technician, and when I was a tech manager at CompUSA, I became the guy who had to make sure our demo laptops were secure, and certain things were blocked on the client end... the notice would go to (and be addressed to) the HR manager (who is responsible for compliance issues), who would pass it off to the tech department (who is NOT responsible for compliance issues) with no understanding of what she was supposed to do with it [and (rightly) assumed we knew how/could take care of it for her].
Keep in mind that most people who use computers at work aren't very computer saavy... and don't understand the security risks involved with violating certain portions of such a policy - much less the business aspect of violating them ("wasting" company time, etc). Most people equate a MySpace break, or leaving AIM running to "occassionally" chat with a friend the same as their 15 minute breaks or coffee/cigarette breaks; so see nothing wrong with it (and have likely NOT read the section of the employee handbook that spells out the things they shouldnt do on the company machines/network).
I'll agree with most of that. I've got a Mac, and it's running Leopard (yeah!). At work I surf behind a real firewall, a Watchguard I think. At home, I'm behind my Linksys. I could run no firewall and be OK. That said, I leave it on for one simple reason: I can go to other people's networks without having to think about turning the firewall on. This way if I were to go to Starbucks or something, I'd be much more safe from so guy a few tables over (malicious or just bot-infested). I don't expect things to be perfect. I don't expect a software firewall to be as good as a hardware one. It's just one more layer.
Regardless, if I am on a network where I dont have control of all the machines on it 24/7, then I think running the machine's OS (or add-on) Firewall is still a must. It really doesnt matter how great a hardware firewall is if someone infects their machine via a CD, DVD, USB Drive, etc from something they bring from their infected home machine or friend's machine or whatever. Since most direct network traffic doesnt (try to) pass through the hardware firewall, one should always be protected from the other machines on their network. For instance, in my office, we have a couple WinXP machines - and though they are not infected, they are constantly broadcasting nonsense trying to find their brethren (to EVERY machine on the network). Our "hardware" firewall does nothing to stop that - even though it does block the traffic from going OFF our network. I block that traffic on my other machines at their firewalls (no need to waste sockets or OS time handling the packets at all). If those XP machines were infected... well, you see the point.
Having one machine on the network, or a few machines that only you use (with taking precautions not to infect them from an external source), then yeah, a hardware firewall is probably all you need.
You are correct (in reference to many store branded stuff).
Insider info? Kind of. I worked there, so we installed the stuff all day (and thus would notice when a certain batch was made by ______). Finding a tech at the places (or a knowledgable salesman... ok... maybe skip that one;-) ) may result in finding out. In many cases, stuff like that aren't in sealed boxes, so a simple peek in the box will suffice.
In other cases, following stuff on/. or in business news will find you the information "JimBob's Widgets just signed a $2 Billion contract to manufacture the SuperWidget for Sony"
In some store brand stuff, you will find what you get in the box one day, will be the same the next day, and the next year... but it isnt always the case. The Connect line of hard drives we sold were for a while one of two good name brands... then switched to FuSHITsu for a while.
In the case of my speaker example, I bought 2 sets of speakers from JCW made by the company in question (Buffalo I *THINK*), the first set was definitely slated for a name-brand, the second set may not have been (I believe by then the name brand was making them themselves), but the second set was still identical to the quality of the first set (and thus the same quality as the original name brand it was sold as).
But, that again brings me back to my statement in the last post which was something like "a little research can..." - and no, I dont have a newsletter or any such thing... I simply research what I buy based off needs, performance, and reliability (with no concern about what label is on the actual item). It's a far better method than buying a specific name brand anyway, as every company releases a flop from time to time (regardless of how much of their product line is fantastic). For instance, if you compare the Sony line to the Toshiba line (laptops), you will find it is a much much much better bet to get a Sony laptop than a Toshiba... but Sony has released some specific model lines that outright suck (worse than most every Toshiba). Many people buy based off brand recognition instead of actually researching what they buy. That can create two scenarios: (1) they overspend greatly, and (2) they may end up buying from a product line (model/series) that is a lemon (even though the other lines from the brand are awesome).
Also, often buying "last year's model" (from places like JCW, Damark, Heartland, etc) can save a lot of money (or get you a piece of crap... it depends...). That also goes back to doing your research. If JVC creates a wonderful home theater unit, but then changes the line cosmetically to match new products coming out this year, then buying last year's model from (for example) Damark, can save you a small fortune and get you not much more than cosmetic differences. If JVC actually changed stuff in the model because of issues with it, then you are buying a sub-standard product - at a savings. That too all gets back to my previous post, which to summarize "You can save a fortune and get the same features, quality and reliabtility" IF "you take the time to do some research first"
So, to sum up, I was basically supporting the PP's statement, that you do not need to spend $3000 on an item when $300 can get you the same quality.
There was no audible difference between a $300 player and a $3,000 player.
Parent poster is actually quite on target in a lot of instances (though not all... many times "You get what you paid for").
As a matter of fact, for quite some time, J.C.Whitney used to sell "no-name" brand (well, they had a name, but it wasn't Sony, JVC, etc) speakers and such. I found a pair of free-air subs with amazing sound. Turns out that (besides being very cheap, going down to 18Hz, having a high signal to noise ratio and handling a lot of power) they were actually made by that "no-name" company for one of the "big name" companies, with the surplus (of an updated line) being labelled in the actual (no-name) manufacturer's name instead of the big-brand name.
Very thrilled with them... and at $20 a pop, far less than the $100+ each they were being sold for with the "Name Brand" on them. Same specs, same speakers, same company made them, different name on them.
The key is this part... A little research can save a lot of money... many times it's simply the company that no one has heard of - but has wonderful quality, or (as in my example) the company that actually manufactures the stuff for the name brand. CompUSA for instance (yeah, I know they suck as a whole) used to sell many CompUSA branded stuff made for them by big name companies. When BenQ WAS getting the best reviews on DVD-RW drives, we were selling them CompUSA branded for really cheap... 30% less than BenQ boxed drives (that were 100% identical right down to the BenQ label on the drive itself). A bunch of our cases were relabelled Antec cases (that you could buy for 20% from Antec - or us).
Just buying cheap though, will invariably mean you get what you pay for (older Apex DVD players, anyone?).
I thought hotplugging support was optional for the ordinary slot form factor.
Well, if the hardware supports it. By implementation, it's probably possible to unplug ANYTHING from a running system... much of my Netfinity is hot-pluggable/swappable. By board design, rarely (as it would mean more expensive motherboards, more "advanced" drivers, more OS hooks, etc). My Netfinity supports hot-plug in all slots (including the "regular" PCI slots)... but it's a function of the additional hardware (which you wont find on normal OEM or aftermarket boards) and a bunch of stuff that IBM wrote to help the OS handle it without crapping out. Some machines (like someone else already posted) have switches/buttons you press to turn off a slot so you can replace the card, some are controlled via software on the system, and some (like the Netfinity) have the "buttons" on top of the card retainer, so to remove the card, you have to flip up a retaining tab, that in actuality is connected to a switch that sends the appropriate signal to the appropriate mobo components and software side hook that "kill" the slot. Some support two or more of those methods [for instance, most that have a software console to handle such tasks; also have either a manual switch, or a card "lock" (like the Netfinity)]. I know of none that just support it through software alone (though they may exist). IBM's method (and presumably others who use a similar method) is probably the best/safest... since you cant remove the card without "pushing" the "button" [since the card lock tab IS (connected to) the button]. It makes it impossible to forget to press the button (or accidentally press the wrong one).
Someone else (hopefully in humour) suggested that it's not a problem as long as you get the grounds to disconnect/connect first when you are removing and replacing the cards... which is of course not possible or likely since the contacts are almost always the same length on the edge connector... and of course does nothing to prevent the OS from "freaking out" when the piece of hardware suddenly dissappears.
The "features" NetAvenger writes of actually will work on older hot-plug machines running older versions of Windows - but those machines have a bunch of hardware (and software updates) to make it work. It's no big deal or achievement that MS included such support with the OS for boards that support it (assuming the support didnt actually come from the MoBo manufacturers to begin with)... especially since this capability is over a decade old. In actuality, it's amazing that it took them so long to "borrow" an existing feature that others have implemented on MS's very own OS over a decade ago. Usually their "new" (errr... someone else thought of it/did it first) features don't take so long to show up in one of their OS's.
No, that last section isn't a troll... just the truth. The technology (both hardware and software) is well over a decade old... MS is known for innovation through copying others ideas... and took a long time to do it on this front. Just simply an observation.
Actually, I've been a tech for over 20 years. And I DO have a machine that I CAN rip out the video card, or network card, or whatever, with no adverse effects to the OS or hardware... this particular machine (one of numerous models) is an IBM Netfinity 7000 M10. But here are the relevant points that refute your statement. (1) It's a function of the HARDWARE, BIOS, (IBM's add-on software and updates for the OS), and DRIVERS, (2) That feature is supported on numerous NON-VISTA OS's... if the HARDWARE, ETC supports it (the feature is supported under far earlier versions of Windows than Vista, as well as OS/2 and now, I think Linux as well for my machine - for EVERY PCI and PCI-X slot).
On the machines that DONT support it (which is many non-high end server machines... such as what you'd buy retail), removing the card will either shut down the machine, hang the machine, damage the machine or numerous other things faaaar different than what you claim will happen. While a few of the newer buses support such a feature, it is still HARDWARE, DRIVER and BIOS allowing it, and NOT locked to Vista, and in NO WAY an indication of stability in Vista - NOR a feature specific to Vista.
Get your facts straight.
I could go on in length about the rest of your post, but dont feel like wasting my time... perhaps later when I am bored.
Vista is far more stable and bug free than XP SP2, and XP SP2 is fairly crash proof. Vista you can rip out the Video card wait 30secs and put it back it while it is running and not crash the system or even crash a 3D game running. This is something beyond XP, and beyond most OSes in terms of stability.
Remind me to NEVER let you work on one of my computers. Oh, PLEASE go rip the video card out of your system right now while it's running and put it back in 30 seconds later...
I did read the rest, but dicsounted it. (the rest of it is more countless amounts of dribble)
Sorry, I didnt mean to change your relationship to "Foe" but there wasn't an "Idiot" choice.
No, actually, that isnt what they said. I even quoted them directly. You still are misreading it.
No. We do not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent.
They state NOTHING about traffic. They state they are not blocking access to any APPLICATIONS, including BitTorrent.
Here's another example. If I put a wheel lock on your car's tire, I can truthfully state I am not blocking your access to any car, including your Ford Pinto. I am not. I'm blocking your ability to DRIVE it... but in no way am hindering your ACCESS to it.
The issue shouldnt be whether they are telling the truth. The issues SHOULD be that they are NOT answering the question.
I agree with you in sentiment... but ComCast is telling the customers that answer... a little different than being in court or in front of a congressional hearing. Of course, when that time comes...
Well, when that time comes, with the courts flip-flopping over supporting stuff like the RIAA's games, who knows? I know what SHOULD happen (or at least what I think should happen), but I guess that's irreleant, no matter how much we agree about that topic.
Here's the best part that no one seems to have mentioned, but ComCast is 100% telling the truth. Please read their WORDING.
I read that Comcast is limiting customer access to BitTorrent. Is this true?
Respond:
No. We do not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent. We also respect our customers' privacy and don't monitor specific customer activities on the Internet or track individual online behavior, such as which websites they visit. Therefore, we do not know whether any individual user is visiting BitTorrent or any other site.
Note that ComCast states that they "do not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent" (emphasis mine). They do NOT at all answer the question of whether they are throttling or limiting BitTorrent traffic. And if that's their standard form response to everyone, it means they can tell the truth - by simply not answering the real question (and hoping they mislead the questioner into believing they have).
It's much like the cheap hamburger patties that are made with 100% real beef - as opposed to the ones that are 100% real beef. One statement claims that the beef portion in the patties are 100% real, while the other states that the patties are 100% real beef.
It seems far more likely that BMI/Universal actually found the video and are using this tactic to create bad publicity for Prince (without him having done or said anything).
He wouldn't be the first artist/band who had a clause in their contract stating that his publisher could, without contacting him, send takedown requests or enter suit on his behalf, in his name, using his name for those purposes, and attributing the action initiation to him personally. There are actually numerous legal situations where, legally, one person sends letters, does some act, or whatever in the name of another person. Much like numerous business or legal letters never written or signed by the person who's "signature" appears at the bottom (yet still written as if that person personally wrote that letter) and in many cases, that person never reads the letter (which is instead read by their marketing and/or legal staff - and then signed in their name by that same staff or secretary).
It just seems really odd that after all this time, Prince is suddenly interested in tracking down his music online PERSONALLY for music that is "owned" by a record label he despises. I think from all he has said, he'd be thrilled with any of the stuff that the label still controls being out there wherever.
Which points out what I am trying to say... with the ability to click a link, or subscribe to a content blocking service where the major corp (RIAA, Viacom, etc) get to decide what stays and what gets taken down - without using the proper methods in the DMCA (which include some sort of proof that you own the material) - puts more power (which will probably be abused as even the DMCA has) in the hands of corporations.
Also, keep in mind, a counterclaim does not prevent he issuer of the takedown notice from trying again - especially if the counterclaim is (a) faulty, or (b) erroneous.
It didnt take them years to do this. They've tried this before (they being big record labels and the porn industry). Some early cases that were before the DMCA were actually won. Later cases were tossed (except in the case of small NNTP providers who couldnt afford to continue the suit to it's logical conclusion).
This reeks of an attempt to circumvent the DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions, and makes this a bad thing.
The RIAA wouldnt be trying this unless they thought they had something really serious up their sleeves - they know (through their members who have lost before) that the DMCA will protect Usenet (except in the case of ignoring takedown requests, etc).
I'd hope I realize that since I moderate once every 10 days or so.
C'mon, in my original post, I even pointed out (more than once) how FUNNY I thought it was. Why my post was modded Informative, I dont know. I would have went with Off-Topic - or... perhaps funny.
Or perhaps, and I realize this is hard to wrap your head around, "the mods" are not an organized, solitary group; but are actually just an unrelated collection of thousands of people around the world, all with different opinions and backgrounds?
First, (and I think I indicated it enough times), the post was intended as (ironic) humor. Maybe I should have posted it a few more times.
Second, my original account is from literally the first days of/. - so I am well aware of how it works.
No, what's really humorous is that the VIRTUALLY EXACT SAME POST (substitute Linux for OSX & OS9, change a couple of the system specs - otherwise identical) was modded flamebait while this was modded informative.
Neat, huh? I love consistent moderation! Or perhaps we should ask what that says of/. mods of late? Is Linux (or Ubuntu Linux in particular) on the way out of/. mod's favs - and being replaced with OSX/OS9?
All in all, I think it funny! As is this post! Really! I swear!
Quote>I don't think your average user would do this.
I have learned that copying files using the UI in Vista is a very painful thing to do - even if you don't have 16K+ files.
You've kind of hit on exactly why the average user would do this... backing up data, moving their music collection to another drive or device or computer, etc... the list of possible reasons an average user (who wouldn't select something like RoboCopy or Total Commander or whatever) WOULD choose to use Windows Exploder to do this.
(I think) you are confusing your (correct) knowledge of using the right job for the right task - with an average user's "knowledge" of "Explorer is the only tool I know that does this task"
Very similar to way too many "average users" who click on the "Internet" button/icon on their Windows machine. We all know (well most of us here do) that IE is NOT the Internet. MANY "average users" dont realize there are other/better tools than Explorer to use for mass file transfer.
Regardless, it's not like Explorer is doing (or rather, SHOULD be doing) any massive, unseen mumbo-jumbo that should cause such problems (slow downs or memory leaks when copying)... but simply, that just isnt the case. Even if there are better tools (which I think we all are in agreement there are), the average user (rightly) has the expectation that copying a file is simply that... copying a file. It just isn't... so the average user is wrong, due to poor design (the thumbnailing routines and routines that handle music/video metadata, etc) and bugs just being patched (the OLE component), and who knows what else that will pop up later.
Now, in MS's defense, copying through the UI (especially if it is handling the background tasks it should be - like verifying/fixing shortcuts, thumbnailing, etc) will have some more overhead then similar "Just copy/move the files" programs... that's to be expected. The only problem is MS hasnt fixed the routines that SHOULD BE handling those transparent, background tasks either.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it is more than just about Silverlight. AJAX (and other technologies already existing - as well as creatable with the new scripting extensions) can be/become a big threat to MS's Active-X, .NET and other similar technologies - which can be leveraged into a cross platform, cross browser world - something MS doesnt want to see.
If MS doesnt "invent" a method to ensure that the new extensions are created in a manner they can control, it will creat a further slippage of their market - that means retaining/gaining control by making the new extensions part of a different language which they can then leverage and control (like they tried with JScript, etc).
Conversely, if the new programming extensions are added to JavaScript (where they should be), which has been decided to be a standardized, cross platform venue, then MS is "forced" to make their implementation conform to the standard to ensure they do not garner further heat for attempting to break standards (that they will then have little or no control over).
MS NEEDS the new scripting extensions to become part of another language, because it will allow them at least the chance of implementing an incompatible model, claim it is the standard, use IE to leverage that new "standard" and lock things like AJAX and other technologies out of the new enhanced web formats by ensuring there are a plethora of programmers using MS's closed model and "new" language.
Hmmmm... well, let's say you are right in 100% of the "RIAA Attack a Consumer Instances"(but that's not generally what they do" - which I do agree with... but even once is a misuse of the law)... or I am 100% right.... or it's you right for certain cases, me for others, and/or some that fit both scenarios...
I still think that boils down to one thing... they are making a mockery of the law by misleading technically inept judges, bringing fake evidence (ie: not evidence of anything, but they claim it is), etc... I think the truth is combination of what you and what I am saying (as I think you agreed to in the statement I quoted above). See, I believe they, just like anyone else, should be held liable for (even) that (one) time they engaged in such activity and frivoulously brought suit based off nonsense (or based off something that wasnt covered by the DMCA, etc). I wasnt trying to claim they always do it. Doing it a few times is a few more times than they ever should have been allowed to.
Oh well... I guess the important thing is that judges (universities, defense lawyers, the average consumer, etc) are getting wiser, and the RIAA is staying quite stupid. I guess time will tell...
I think you totally misread or misunderstood my post.
Wrong. You DO see the RIAA suing people for just downloading - by claiming they are uploading (distributing) by equating "making available" the same thing as "actually doing" - for instance in the lawsuit they recently won (as reported onBasically, they catch someone running a P2P client, catch them downloading, sue them for "making available" and pretend that "making available"="distributing" and hopes they can find a judge that believes them.
Otherwise, they'd just simply prove distribution (but cant in such cases as noted on /. where there was no distribution). That leave the method of finding the person a combination of finding "making availables" or MUCH MORE LIKELY BASED OFF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, finding people who are DOWNLOADING music (go look at the case yourself, look at the "evidence"), and then (as said earlier in this post by me) pretend that "making available"="distributing" and hopes they can find a judge that believes them.
Thus, it's the downloading that got the people in trouble, regardless of what the RIAA claimed was the "illegal" action in the suit.
Hope that explains what I was trying to say better. To sum up, just in case (it's been a long day, and I dont know how intelligible I am), they find someone downloading a bunch of music, they look for shares, then sue them for something that isnt even covered under the DMCA (making available) when they cant find any actual distribution to anyone else from those shares.
Virtually all the P2P software for Windows that any average user is aware of will set up the stuff to share... and I am sure that the RIAA doesnt care... they (mis)use the DMCA as a tool to go after people who download by suing for making available.
There is NO clause in the DMCA that mentions MAKING AVAILABLE. The DMCA specifically states DISTRIBUTING. The two are different things entirely.
Nor is MAKING AVAILABLE the same as UPLOADING.
Proper application of the law would be proving (1) distribution occurred, and (2) how much distribution occurred, especially since those are two of the REQUIRED steps the RIAA is SUPPOSED to be following, and especially because #2 is supposed to be one of the criteria used to determine fines/compensation/copyright holder's potential loss.
The RIAA should be required to prove the relevant points of fact AS REQUIRED by the DMCA... which is that actual distribution occurred... instead, a judge allowed them to prove that the files were available but show no indication if they were actually distributed.
Puhleez!
Evil things like certifying gold and platinum record sales, and standardizing pre- and post-emphasis equalization formulas so that an LP pressed by any label will sound correct when played back on any turntable manufacturer's device?There have already been artists out there who have garnered those certified sales level by the RIAA's associated company, and then been dropped by their labels because ACTUAL sales were abysmally lower than their gold or platinum certification actually claimed. Probably because on bands they are trying to heavily promote, those numbers are more akin to copies sold (to retailers) as opposed to copies purchased by consumers (much like Vista numbers during its initial weeks - where CompUSA sold a few HUNDRED copies to consumers on the release night NATIONWIDE, but MS was claiming a few hundred THOUSAND because thats how many CompUSA bought nationwide).
If you trust any of their numbers, you are being idiotic... they've proven (in many areas) they'll play with any number whatsoever if they think it will further whatever cause suits them [sales numbers, $$$ lost to piracy, % of music pirated online, # of CD sales (you add up their artist claims to their total sales figures and see), amount of damages (umm... irreperable? c'mon! Really?) for distributing a few songs... on and on]
Please feel free to believe them as much as you want. While they make many claims in areas they say are improved, reality is a different thing.
Wrong. You DO see the RIAA suing people for just downloading - by claiming they are uploading (distributing) by equating "making available" the same thing as "actually doing" - for instance in the lawsuit they recently won (as reported on /.)
They are trying to convince judges that one is the other (and suceeded in at least that one case) when the facts are to the contrary.
For instance, should every one of us who has a car and drives it be convicted of vehicular manslaughter because our cars can be used to do so? Or if you forget to lock your house door, and a burglar walks in and steals everything, should they be allowed to walk because you were "making available" the contents of your home?
You are both right and wrong. If *I* develop a web page, I purchase and use tools that are platform and browser agnostic. Then again, I work for a company I co-own. So for me, it would be more difficult to make a platform or browser specific video feed/system or website (well, perhaps not website... IE is still a nightmare to code any decent site to, since how it handles things varies per version and occassionally per update).
If I work for Company A, I'm stuck using the tools my IT Department licensed for our company (most decent sized companies will mandate certain tools or software - among other things, it helps ensure license compliance for every package used). If Company A's Idiot Technology Department (face it, many IT guys in a big company's IT departments are technological idiots who base purchasing decisions off the latest and greatest ad or brochure; with no understanding of the underlying technology or later implications based on their choice - and many of the good ones - because there are plenty of good ones - are limited to what their meddling upper management decides for them*), then I am stuck with using tools that may be geared for a _______ only solution.
Thus, without knowing more about the BBC's internal decisions when they purchased whatever video handling/processing tools, web tools, etc; speculation is a moot point - and their answers, as lame as they are (considering making a cross platform video delivery system is easy in principle) could entirely (or mostly) be to downplay the fact that they do not have an infrastructure set up to make a cross platform system due to the software/server/etc choices they made earlier.
The bigger the company (or less cash they have, or smaller IT/deployment team they have) the less likely they will be spending money switching the stuff they already bought with new stuff [it costs more money (since they are buying a 2nd package to do the "same" thing as the first), or even if it's open source they choose for round two, it's more money in deployment, training and support learning].
And of course, (wrongly) Open Source solutions scare most large companies who don't understand the (lack of) implications running Open Source software has (feeling they will have a lack of control/ownership over the finished product).
In a perfect (IT) world, where every IT manager knows what they are doing (or is unhindered by upper management forcing decisions on them), and corporate buying decisions are done keeping in mind that the web is supposed to be open access, you are correct. We just dont yet live in that perfect world.
-Robert
.
* At CompUSA, some idiot in upper management decided to use Siebel for their entire sales and service management system. The IT gang got stuck dealing with the consequences of a decision they became stuck with - meaning almost a decade after roll-out, the system still doesnt work properly, quickly or with all the features that were intended - and of course it limits all development to Windows, through IE or Excel or Access (etc). No Firefox, no MySQL/Oracle/whatever.
Actually, many employees I've dealt with don't realize it until they get caught by a manager/supervisor. The last place I worked with had the relevant info in the employee manual/handbook - which was a rather large book. I can guarantee you that 1/10 of the employees (or less) actually read it before signing the page that says "I read it" - most companies just block whatever isn't permitted (MySpace, AIM, etc)... or block them when they realize that too many employees are accessing them against company policy. Especially since the HR Managers at those locations summarize the thing for you (dress code, benefits, etc) - but almost always skip that section (due to lack of knowledge in the area).
Some (many nowadays?) companies have a specific person who is responsible for instructing and enforcing that specific section of the employee rules just because of that. (And that person is usually responsible for securing the network and computer assets as well).
Since most HR Managers I've encountered are quite computer illiterate, they never seem to go over that section. They'll tell you when your first payday is, how much vacation time you get, when you accumulate it, when you are eligible for raises, dress code, etc... but dont even touch on the "technology" oriented section at all.
Both, when I was a technician, and when I was a tech manager at CompUSA, I became the guy who had to make sure our demo laptops were secure, and certain things were blocked on the client end... the notice would go to (and be addressed to) the HR manager (who is responsible for compliance issues), who would pass it off to the tech department (who is NOT responsible for compliance issues) with no understanding of what she was supposed to do with it [and (rightly) assumed we knew how/could take care of it for her].
Keep in mind that most people who use computers at work aren't very computer saavy... and don't understand the security risks involved with violating certain portions of such a policy - much less the business aspect of violating them ("wasting" company time, etc). Most people equate a MySpace break, or leaving AIM running to "occassionally" chat with a friend the same as their 15 minute breaks or coffee/cigarette breaks; so see nothing wrong with it (and have likely NOT read the section of the employee handbook that spells out the things they shouldnt do on the company machines/network).
Regardless, if I am on a network where I dont have control of all the machines on it 24/7, then I think running the machine's OS (or add-on) Firewall is still a must. It really doesnt matter how great a hardware firewall is if someone infects their machine via a CD, DVD, USB Drive, etc from something they bring from their infected home machine or friend's machine or whatever. Since most direct network traffic doesnt (try to) pass through the hardware firewall, one should always be protected from the other machines on their network. For instance, in my office, we have a couple WinXP machines - and though they are not infected, they are constantly broadcasting nonsense trying to find their brethren (to EVERY machine on the network). Our "hardware" firewall does nothing to stop that - even though it does block the traffic from going OFF our network. I block that traffic on my other machines at their firewalls (no need to waste sockets or OS time handling the packets at all). If those XP machines were infected... well, you see the point.
Having one machine on the network, or a few machines that only you use (with taking precautions not to infect them from an external source), then yeah, a hardware firewall is probably all you need.
You are correct (in reference to many store branded stuff).
Insider info? Kind of. I worked there, so we installed the stuff all day (and thus would notice when a certain batch was made by ______). Finding a tech at the places (or a knowledgable salesman... ok... maybe skip that one ;-) ) may result in finding out. In many cases, stuff like that aren't in sealed boxes, so a simple peek in the box will suffice.
In other cases, following stuff on /. or in business news will find you the information "JimBob's Widgets just signed a $2 Billion contract to manufacture the SuperWidget for Sony"
In some store brand stuff, you will find what you get in the box one day, will be the same the next day, and the next year... but it isnt always the case. The Connect line of hard drives we sold were for a while one of two good name brands... then switched to FuSHITsu for a while.
In the case of my speaker example, I bought 2 sets of speakers from JCW made by the company in question (Buffalo I *THINK*), the first set was definitely slated for a name-brand, the second set may not have been (I believe by then the name brand was making them themselves), but the second set was still identical to the quality of the first set (and thus the same quality as the original name brand it was sold as).
But, that again brings me back to my statement in the last post which was something like "a little research can..." - and no, I dont have a newsletter or any such thing... I simply research what I buy based off needs, performance, and reliability (with no concern about what label is on the actual item). It's a far better method than buying a specific name brand anyway, as every company releases a flop from time to time (regardless of how much of their product line is fantastic). For instance, if you compare the Sony line to the Toshiba line (laptops), you will find it is a much much much better bet to get a Sony laptop than a Toshiba... but Sony has released some specific model lines that outright suck (worse than most every Toshiba). Many people buy based off brand recognition instead of actually researching what they buy. That can create two scenarios: (1) they overspend greatly, and (2) they may end up buying from a product line (model/series) that is a lemon (even though the other lines from the brand are awesome).
Also, often buying "last year's model" (from places like JCW, Damark, Heartland, etc) can save a lot of money (or get you a piece of crap... it depends...). That also goes back to doing your research. If JVC creates a wonderful home theater unit, but then changes the line cosmetically to match new products coming out this year, then buying last year's model from (for example) Damark, can save you a small fortune and get you not much more than cosmetic differences. If JVC actually changed stuff in the model because of issues with it, then you are buying a sub-standard product - at a savings. That too all gets back to my previous post, which to summarize "You can save a fortune and get the same features, quality and reliabtility" IF "you take the time to do some research first"
So, to sum up, I was basically supporting the PP's statement, that you do not need to spend $3000 on an item when $300 can get you the same quality.
Parent poster is actually quite on target in a lot of instances (though not all... many times "You get what you paid for").
As a matter of fact, for quite some time, J.C.Whitney used to sell "no-name" brand (well, they had a name, but it wasn't Sony, JVC, etc) speakers and such. I found a pair of free-air subs with amazing sound. Turns out that (besides being very cheap, going down to 18Hz, having a high signal to noise ratio and handling a lot of power) they were actually made by that "no-name" company for one of the "big name" companies, with the surplus (of an updated line) being labelled in the actual (no-name) manufacturer's name instead of the big-brand name.
Very thrilled with them... and at $20 a pop, far less than the $100+ each they were being sold for with the "Name Brand" on them. Same specs, same speakers, same company made them, different name on them.
The key is this part... A little research can save a lot of money... many times it's simply the company that no one has heard of - but has wonderful quality, or (as in my example) the company that actually manufactures the stuff for the name brand. CompUSA for instance (yeah, I know they suck as a whole) used to sell many CompUSA branded stuff made for them by big name companies. When BenQ WAS getting the best reviews on DVD-RW drives, we were selling them CompUSA branded for really cheap... 30% less than BenQ boxed drives (that were 100% identical right down to the BenQ label on the drive itself). A bunch of our cases were relabelled Antec cases (that you could buy for 20% from Antec - or us).
Just buying cheap though, will invariably mean you get what you pay for (older Apex DVD players, anyone?).
Well, if the hardware supports it. By implementation, it's probably possible to unplug ANYTHING from a running system... much of my Netfinity is hot-pluggable/swappable. By board design, rarely (as it would mean more expensive motherboards, more "advanced" drivers, more OS hooks, etc). My Netfinity supports hot-plug in all slots (including the "regular" PCI slots)... but it's a function of the additional hardware (which you wont find on normal OEM or aftermarket boards) and a bunch of stuff that IBM wrote to help the OS handle it without crapping out. Some machines (like someone else already posted) have switches/buttons you press to turn off a slot so you can replace the card, some are controlled via software on the system, and some (like the Netfinity) have the "buttons" on top of the card retainer, so to remove the card, you have to flip up a retaining tab, that in actuality is connected to a switch that sends the appropriate signal to the appropriate mobo components and software side hook that "kill" the slot. Some support two or more of those methods [for instance, most that have a software console to handle such tasks; also have either a manual switch, or a card "lock" (like the Netfinity)]. I know of none that just support it through software alone (though they may exist). IBM's method (and presumably others who use a similar method) is probably the best/safest... since you cant remove the card without "pushing" the "button" [since the card lock tab IS (connected to) the button]. It makes it impossible to forget to press the button (or accidentally press the wrong one).
Someone else (hopefully in humour) suggested that it's not a problem as long as you get the grounds to disconnect/connect first when you are removing and replacing the cards... which is of course not possible or likely since the contacts are almost always the same length on the edge connector... and of course does nothing to prevent the OS from "freaking out" when the piece of hardware suddenly dissappears.
The "features" NetAvenger writes of actually will work on older hot-plug machines running older versions of Windows - but those machines have a bunch of hardware (and software updates) to make it work. It's no big deal or achievement that MS included such support with the OS for boards that support it (assuming the support didnt actually come from the MoBo manufacturers to begin with)... especially since this capability is over a decade old. In actuality, it's amazing that it took them so long to "borrow" an existing feature that others have implemented on MS's very own OS over a decade ago. Usually their "new" (errr... someone else thought of it/did it first) features don't take so long to show up in one of their OS's.
No, that last section isn't a troll... just the truth. The technology (both hardware and software) is well over a decade old... MS is known for innovation through copying others ideas... and took a long time to do it on this front. Just simply an observation.
Actually, I've been a tech for over 20 years. And I DO have a machine that I CAN rip out the video card, or network card, or whatever, with no adverse effects to the OS or hardware... this particular machine (one of numerous models) is an IBM Netfinity 7000 M10. But here are the relevant points that refute your statement. (1) It's a function of the HARDWARE, BIOS, (IBM's add-on software and updates for the OS), and DRIVERS, (2) That feature is supported on numerous NON-VISTA OS's... if the HARDWARE, ETC supports it (the feature is supported under far earlier versions of Windows than Vista, as well as OS/2 and now, I think Linux as well for my machine - for EVERY PCI and PCI-X slot).
On the machines that DONT support it (which is many non-high end server machines... such as what you'd buy retail), removing the card will either shut down the machine, hang the machine, damage the machine or numerous other things faaaar different than what you claim will happen. While a few of the newer buses support such a feature, it is still HARDWARE, DRIVER and BIOS allowing it, and NOT locked to Vista, and in NO WAY an indication of stability in Vista - NOR a feature specific to Vista.
Get your facts straight.
I could go on in length about the rest of your post, but dont feel like wasting my time... perhaps later when I am bored.
Vista is far more stable and bug free than XP SP2, and XP SP2 is fairly crash proof. Vista you can rip out the Video card wait 30secs and put it back it while it is running and not crash the system or even crash a 3D game running. This is something beyond XP, and beyond most OSes in terms of stability.
Remind me to NEVER let you work on one of my computers. Oh, PLEASE go rip the video card out of your system right now while it's running and put it back in 30 seconds later...
I did read the rest, but dicsounted it. (the rest of it is more countless amounts of dribble)
Sorry, I didnt mean to change your relationship to "Foe" but there wasn't an "Idiot" choice.
No, actually, that isnt what they said. I even quoted them directly. You still are misreading it.
No. We do not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent.They state NOTHING about traffic. They state they are not blocking access to any APPLICATIONS, including BitTorrent.
Here's another example. If I put a wheel lock on your car's tire, I can truthfully state I am not blocking your access to any car, including your Ford Pinto. I am not. I'm blocking your ability to DRIVE it... but in no way am hindering your ACCESS to it.
The issue shouldnt be whether they are telling the truth. The issues SHOULD be that they are NOT answering the question.
I agree with you in sentiment... but ComCast is telling the customers that answer... a little different than being in court or in front of a congressional hearing. Of course, when that time comes...
Well, when that time comes, with the courts flip-flopping over supporting stuff like the RIAA's games, who knows? I know what SHOULD happen (or at least what I think should happen), but I guess that's irreleant, no matter how much we agree about that topic.
Here's the best part that no one seems to have mentioned, but ComCast is 100% telling the truth. Please read their WORDING.
I read that Comcast is limiting customer access to BitTorrent. Is this true?Respond:
No. We do not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent. We also respect our customers' privacy and don't monitor specific customer activities on the Internet or track individual online behavior, such as which websites they visit. Therefore, we do not know whether any individual user is visiting BitTorrent or any other site.
Note that ComCast states that they "do not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent" (emphasis mine). They do NOT at all answer the question of whether they are throttling or limiting BitTorrent traffic. And if that's their standard form response to everyone, it means they can tell the truth - by simply not answering the real question (and hoping they mislead the questioner into believing they have).
It's much like the cheap hamburger patties that are made with 100% real beef - as opposed to the ones that are 100% real beef. One statement claims that the beef portion in the patties are 100% real, while the other states that the patties are 100% real beef.
Semantics is/are a wonderful thing.
It seems far more likely that BMI/Universal actually found the video and are using this tactic to create bad publicity for Prince (without him having done or said anything).
He wouldn't be the first artist/band who had a clause in their contract stating that his publisher could, without contacting him, send takedown requests or enter suit on his behalf, in his name, using his name for those purposes, and attributing the action initiation to him personally. There are actually numerous legal situations where, legally, one person sends letters, does some act, or whatever in the name of another person. Much like numerous business or legal letters never written or signed by the person who's "signature" appears at the bottom (yet still written as if that person personally wrote that letter) and in many cases, that person never reads the letter (which is instead read by their marketing and/or legal staff - and then signed in their name by that same staff or secretary).
It just seems really odd that after all this time, Prince is suddenly interested in tracking down his music online PERSONALLY for music that is "owned" by a record label he despises. I think from all he has said, he'd be thrilled with any of the stuff that the label still controls being out there wherever.
Which points out what I am trying to say... with the ability to click a link, or subscribe to a content blocking service where the major corp (RIAA, Viacom, etc) get to decide what stays and what gets taken down - without using the proper methods in the DMCA (which include some sort of proof that you own the material) - puts more power (which will probably be abused as even the DMCA has) in the hands of corporations.
Also, keep in mind, a counterclaim does not prevent he issuer of the takedown notice from trying again - especially if the counterclaim is (a) faulty, or (b) erroneous.
It didnt take them years to do this. They've tried this before (they being big record labels and the porn industry). Some early cases that were before the DMCA were actually won. Later cases were tossed (except in the case of small NNTP providers who couldnt afford to continue the suit to it's logical conclusion).
This reeks of an attempt to circumvent the DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions, and makes this a bad thing.
The RIAA wouldnt be trying this unless they thought they had something really serious up their sleeves - they know (through their members who have lost before) that the DMCA will protect Usenet (except in the case of ignoring takedown requests, etc).
I'd hope I realize that since I moderate once every 10 days or so.
C'mon, in my original post, I even pointed out (more than once) how FUNNY I thought it was. Why my post was modded Informative, I dont know. I would have went with Off-Topic - or... perhaps funny.
Well, on the same level equipment (ie: Vista on an equivalent Wintel box) it is ;-)
I'm thinking maybe I should pre-mod my posts so that /. moderators know my intent and where to start... such as +1 Funny
First, (and I think I indicated it enough times), the post was intended as (ironic) humor. Maybe I should have posted it a few more times.
Second, my original account is from literally the first days of /. - so I am well aware of how it works.
No, what's really humorous is that the VIRTUALLY EXACT SAME POST (substitute Linux for OSX & OS9, change a couple of the system specs - otherwise identical) was modded flamebait while this was modded informative.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=329765&cid=20999373
Neat, huh? I love consistent moderation! Or perhaps we should ask what that says of /. mods of late? Is Linux (or Ubuntu Linux in particular) on the way out of /. mod's favs - and being replaced with OSX/OS9?
All in all, I think it funny! As is this post! Really! I swear!
Quote>I don't think your average user would do this.
I have learned that copying files using the UI in Vista is a very painful thing to do - even if you don't have 16K+ files.
You've kind of hit on exactly why the average user would do this... backing up data, moving their music collection to another drive or device or computer, etc... the list of possible reasons an average user (who wouldn't select something like RoboCopy or Total Commander or whatever) WOULD choose to use Windows Exploder to do this.
(I think) you are confusing your (correct) knowledge of using the right job for the right task - with an average user's "knowledge" of "Explorer is the only tool I know that does this task"
Very similar to way too many "average users" who click on the "Internet" button/icon on their Windows machine. We all know (well most of us here do) that IE is NOT the Internet. MANY "average users" dont realize there are other/better tools than Explorer to use for mass file transfer.
Regardless, it's not like Explorer is doing (or rather, SHOULD be doing) any massive, unseen mumbo-jumbo that should cause such problems (slow downs or memory leaks when copying)... but simply, that just isnt the case. Even if there are better tools (which I think we all are in agreement there are), the average user (rightly) has the expectation that copying a file is simply that... copying a file. It just isn't... so the average user is wrong, due to poor design (the thumbnailing routines and routines that handle music/video metadata, etc) and bugs just being patched (the OLE component), and who knows what else that will pop up later.
Now, in MS's defense, copying through the UI (especially if it is handling the background tasks it should be - like verifying/fixing shortcuts, thumbnailing, etc) will have some more overhead then similar "Just copy/move the files" programs... that's to be expected. The only problem is MS hasnt fixed the routines that SHOULD BE handling those transparent, background tasks either.