I don't think that does what you imply that it does (not surprising for a document from MS, but none-the-less) it looks like this is for creating an unattended install script.
(oh, and ps the new captcha sux badly, I can't even read it)
See the problem with your logic is that you assume that affiliation with a particular group of people has anything at all to do with whether or not they're right. I don't much care for communisim or marxism, but I care even less for outright deception. If the person(s) exposing the truth happen to be of a certain political persuasion it doesn't negate the fact that they're telling the truth. The other problem I see is that if there is so much credible scientific evidence for global warming and its implied causal factors, then why the need to silence dissent?
Ok, your comment makes sense while the OS is still in Beta, but we're talking about something that MS is pushing to Joe user now. I know that upgrades are rarely painless, and usually require the replacement of software, as well as hardware. However, for the unsuspecting schmoe who just likes to turn it on and have things work I can see how it might be just a tad frustrating when he finds out he needs a new video card, sound card, oh and while your at it a whole new system. If I'm a general home user, and I'm going to shell out $200 + for a new OS that's being billed as an "upgrade" I ought to be able to come home, load it, and be done. This is what MS could have focused on if they were that concerned about the end user experience instead of catering to the **PA with the DRM nonsense.
...why they would have a problem releasing that information even from the US. I'd hate to be the American company protecting child pornography. Could be very bad for the image. Not to mention the stock price.
"if there were a liberal network I would put it here)"
Ok, I'll help you out there. How about CNN? How about the New York Times? Or The Washington Post? The predomanence of media is liberally biased in the US (IMNSHO anyway). Being on the fence back in 2000 (neither conservative or liberal) I found Fox News at least presents both sides of the story. I guess that's what really pisses liberals off. It's much easier to subscribe to the Michael Moore school of reality without having to worry about those pesky facts.
I think that the *AA is far more concerned about independent artists having an equal shot. Sure P2P is a thorn in their side, but at the end of the day even pirated music gets played for family and friends and ultimately supports the band. I don't know how many times someone has given me a "pirated" CD that I liked so much that I went out and bought it. Granted there are a lot of people who just leach, and don't give back, but those are typically people who would have never bought the CD in the first place. If independent artists that are not affiliated to the RIAA are just as likely to succeed as the artists that pay for the *AA protection the *AA will die. It's inevitable. DRM is a sneaky way to act like they are trying to join the digital age, but they have to know it's going to ultimately fail. They would very much like to keep their current business model, but consider this: What does it cost to run a web site, compared to press, distribute, warehouse, ship CDs? No wonder they're scared. I give 'em a couple more years, and their time is up.
I just had a similar assignment last quarter at a technical college in Southern California. The professor even told us where a company was that had a wide open wireless network. The company could "theoretically" be hit discretely sitting in a car in the supermarket parking lot with an 80% connection. Once there you would have access to their internal network as well as the Internet. But I would never do anything like that. That's just wrong.:)
"This is one of those urban myths like alligators in the toilet. MP3 is just a technology and the technology itself never did anything wrong! There are lots of legal MP3s from great artists on many, many online sites. The problem is that some people use MP3 to take one copy of an album and make that copy available on the Internet for hundreds of thousands of people. That's not fair. If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail. But the fact that technology exists to enable unlimited Internet distribution of music copies doesn't make it right. "
Could they be contradicting themselves, or just trying to see what they can get away with? It irks me, because I do exactly what they describe above. I rip all of my CDs to a central server at home that is connected to my stereo, and queue up tracks all day long. I also burn custom CDs to listen to in the car. All of this I would consider fair use. I bought the CDs. I'm not uploading them to a file sharing service. Quite frankly if the RIAA is going to take this position described in TFA, then I am thinking that it may be time boycott them all together. I found a really great site that allows users to choose not to buy from any artist that supports them. I think it's been listed here bfore but I'll post it again.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that does what you imply that it does (not surprising for a document from MS, but none-the-less) it looks like this is for creating an unattended install script.
(oh, and ps the new captcha sux badly, I can't even read it)
See the problem with your logic is that you assume that affiliation with a particular group of people has anything at all to do with whether or not they're right. I don't much care for communisim or marxism, but I care even less for outright deception. If the person(s) exposing the truth happen to be of a certain political persuasion it doesn't negate the fact that they're telling the truth. The other problem I see is that if there is so much credible scientific evidence for global warming and its implied causal factors, then why the need to silence dissent?
Ok, your comment makes sense while the OS is still in Beta, but we're talking about something that MS is pushing to Joe user now. I know that upgrades are rarely painless, and usually require the replacement of software, as well as hardware. However, for the unsuspecting schmoe who just likes to turn it on and have things work I can see how it might be just a tad frustrating when he finds out he needs a new video card, sound card, oh and while your at it a whole new system. If I'm a general home user, and I'm going to shell out $200 + for a new OS that's being billed as an "upgrade" I ought to be able to come home, load it, and be done. This is what MS could have focused on if they were that concerned about the end user experience instead of catering to the **PA with the DRM nonsense.
Yep, SOUTHWEST!!
...why they would have a problem releasing that information even from the US. I'd hate to be the American company protecting child pornography. Could be very bad for the image. Not to mention the stock price.
"if there were a liberal network I would put it here)"
Ok, I'll help you out there. How about CNN? How about the New York Times? Or The Washington Post? The predomanence of media is liberally biased in the US (IMNSHO anyway). Being on the fence back in 2000 (neither conservative or liberal) I found Fox News at least presents both sides of the story. I guess that's what really pisses liberals off. It's much easier to subscribe to the Michael Moore school of reality without having to worry about those pesky facts.
I think that the *AA is far more concerned about independent artists having an equal shot. Sure P2P is a thorn in their side, but at the end of the day even pirated music gets played for family and friends and ultimately supports the band. I don't know how many times someone has given me a "pirated" CD that I liked so much that I went out and bought it. Granted there are a lot of people who just leach, and don't give back, but those are typically people who would have never bought the CD in the first place. If independent artists that are not affiliated to the RIAA are just as likely to succeed as the artists that pay for the *AA protection the *AA will die. It's inevitable. DRM is a sneaky way to act like they are trying to join the digital age, but they have to know it's going to ultimately fail. They would very much like to keep their current business model, but consider this: What does it cost to run a web site, compared to press, distribute, warehouse, ship CDs? No wonder they're scared. I give 'em a couple more years, and their time is up.
I just had a similar assignment last quarter at a technical college in Southern California. The professor even told us where a company was that had a wide open wireless network. The company could "theoretically" be hit discretely sitting in a car in the supermarket parking lot with an 80% connection. Once there you would have access to their internal network as well as the Internet. But I would never do anything like that. That's just wrong. :)
"This is one of those urban myths like alligators in the toilet. MP3 is just a technology and the technology itself never did anything wrong! There are lots of legal MP3s from great artists on many, many online sites. The problem is that some people use MP3 to take one copy of an album and make that copy available on the Internet for hundreds of thousands of people. That's not fair. If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail. But the fact that technology exists to enable unlimited Internet distribution of music copies doesn't make it right. "
Could they be contradicting themselves, or just trying to see what they can get away with? It irks me, because I do exactly what they describe above. I rip all of my CDs to a central server at home that is connected to my stereo, and queue up tracks all day long. I also burn custom CDs to listen to in the car. All of this I would consider fair use. I bought the CDs. I'm not uploading them to a file sharing service. Quite frankly if the RIAA is going to take this position described in TFA, then I am thinking that it may be time boycott them all together. I found a really great site that allows users to choose not to buy from any artist that supports them. I think it's been listed here bfore but I'll post it again.
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/