If jobs said to the record labels "either drop/relax the DRM, or we're going to pull your music from the store" then we might actually see something happen.
Sure, Jobs could tell them to drop the DRM "or else," but if he made a threat like that, he'd have to back it up. We're talking about the music industry, which has been effectively a cartel for decades. The EMI move was the first time any of the major labels stopped playing along with the rest of them, and that only happened because EMI is having a tough time financially. Jobs can't run iTunes without music, and the labels know it. He has to do business with them while pushing them to get rid of DRM at the same time. I doubt that's an easy task.
I suppose Jobs could shut down iTunes out of spite if they all didn't remove DRM. But something tells me shareholders wouldn't be so keen on that idea.
First off, liberals don't know anymore what "neoconservative" actually means. It referred to Jews in the 1980s who supported Reagan. They use it today in short form, "neocon," because it sounds evil and war-like.
Second, conservatives in America are opposed to illegal immigration and want to build a big wall, while liberals want open borders and no screening.
It's interesting that you say "liberals" don't know what "neoconservative" actually means, then you say it is a term referring to "Jews in the 1980s." Although several top neocons are Jewish, not all of them are. They didn't just spring up in the 80s, and their story is far more complicated than your reductionist analysis makes it seem. That makes it difficult for anyone (liberal, conservative, or otherwise) to figure out exactly what the term means. Here's what Irving Kristol, one of the leading lights of the movement, says about neoconservatism. Note that he uses the term "neocon" a few times in the article. Maybe he does that because he thinks it makes him sound evil and war-like.
As for the bit about conservatives wanting to build a wall and liberals wanting no border at all, you may want to check in on that more thoroughly. The Republican Party had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House for almost six years and didn't change American immigration policy. One of the iron laws of politics is that when you have that degree of power, you use it. Look at the sweeping range of laws the Republican Party enacted over those same six years, covering every aspect of American life. If the party was truly unified in wanting to thwart illegal immigration, it would have done something.
But Free Softare is not in any way dependent on copyright law.
Actually, it is. "Copyleft" is just the FSF's way of saying "reciprocity", which is the term a lawyer would use to describe the relationship between the licensor and the licensee under the GPL. That reciprocity is brought about through the protections of copyright law, which defines ownership. If you don't own it, you can't license it.
"The term copyleft, of course, needn't disappear. It still has great rhetorical value. It is a useful word to toss back at those who mistakenly complain that the GPL destroys copyrights; the GPL requires copyright law to create a copyleft bargain."
The Wired headline makes it sound like this is a sure-fire thing. Umm... DARPA sometimes makes stuff that will work on the battlefield, but lots of times their projects fail. That's the nature of their mission. "As early as three years" really means, "We hope it makes it into service in three years, but it'll likely be more like six, if at all."
As for the actual combat effectiveness of a system like this, it seems like it *might* be helfpul for one of those free-fire zone situations that the guys in the Pentagon drool about. But in a close combat situation, where civilians and combatants are mixed, where reading body language, determining intention, using the full range of your senses is vitally important, this could be an impediment to a soldier's ability to gauge the situation.
To me this is a typical example of the technology-fixated DoD establishment trying to fight some imaginary war of the future, rather than the wars we're fighing right now. Micro-drones for scouting city blocks and into structures nearly invisibly are a great idea, and I'm happy to see DARPA working on projects like that. Advanced translation technology is another great one. Better, faster medical technology - awesome. But I have serious doubts that this project will function properly in the field or provide any real utility to soldiers.
Lawyers are just terrible leeches, drains on society - except when you've been accused of something you didn't do, and Big Corp, or the government, or someone with a grudge wants to work you over. Then suddenly a lawyer is your best friend. Ask anyone who has ever been sued or iniated a torts action, or been brought to court on criminal charges.
Apple wants leverage over both Intel and AMD. Right now, it can pressure Intel to deliver, and it can if necessary entice AMD with promises to switch chip suppliers if AMD can leapfrog Intel in capabilities. If Apple AMD, it no longer has leverage over Intel.
Apple will have a new marketing problem if it buys AMD. Think of the reaction from John and Joan Q. Public: "Are Macs still 'compatible'?"
Apple is moving into the mobile phone market and expanding into the living room at the same time. Buying a chip company would be a huge diversion of resources at a dangerous time.
Would Apple's hardware competitors buy from an Apple-owned AMD? Probably many of them would, but an Apple-owned AMD wouldn't have as much lattitude as an independent AMD, and that would limit its options in selling to other hardware vendors.
Thanks for the info. I'm not surprised that they're using their own non-OSI approved license and calling it "open source." Still, I had hoped that they might clue in and use an existing OSI-approved license.
Jeebus, this is frustrating. Saying a company is "Open Sourcing" some of their technology tells me almost nothing about it. Will it be under a reciprocal licensce, an academic license, a Microsoft wannabe open license? You've got to hand it to Microsoft. They're spinning this one pretty well, even though they're coming late to the party and without any pants on.
I figure I must be missing something because the rest of your list was funny as heck, but, err... MP3 isn't open or free, not like OGG, at any rate.
That was exactly my point. AAC is really not better or worse than MP3, from a licensing standpoint. There seems to be widespread ignorance about MP3. People think that because they can obtain MP3 files for free, the MP3 standard is somehow free as in free speech.
It might be more instructional than reading dozens of comments that start with, "I don't know a thing about law, but...." It's like marketers talking about programming: "I don't know C# from sharp cheddar, but...." Here are a few views from lawyers who know patent law:
When thousands of marketers are being supported indirectly by Open Source software, you know Open Source is here to stay. The marketers are simply a manifestation of the larger trend. First they laugh at you, then they attack you, then they join you. The fact that large corporations are spending so much money marketing their Open Source bona fides, using "open" lingo, and trying to outdo each other as Open Source companies is good for the Open Source movement.
Perhaps Jeff underestimates buyers' ability to see past the marketing hoopla. He also seems to underestimate the power of Open Source licenses themselves. Say what you will in your marketing, but in the end you're still beholden to the licenses you're using. Holding companies' feet to the fire is a lot easier when you have a legally-enforceable mechanism.
... because it doesn't seem to be in England and Wales.
You wrote: "Doesn't change the fact that, by trampling on individual rights to self defense, Blair et al have increased, rather than decreased, crime." But the crime rate seems to have been headed downward since the mid-1990s, with a slight uptick in 2006.
This is exactly why we should rush to judgement, and arms. A violation of the right to free speech is unacceptable. Period. End of story.
So I take it you've got your AR-15 and a few thousand rounds and you're going to take care of business?
You do know that there is no such thing in American law as 100% free speech, right? Slander. Libel. Fraud via writings. Incitement. Fighting words. Restrictions on commercial speech. Limits on campaign donations. It is comforting to think that all speech should be protected by the 1st Amendment, but even at its inception, some speech was not considered worthy of protection.
Although you may think we should all be storming the barricades, the law already contains mechanisms for taking care of situations like this.
He was arrested for writing something in particular. We still don't know what he wrote. Perhaps we shouldn't rush to judgment (I know this is Slashdot.. stop laughing) until we know more about what he wrote.
...you might want to help the starving people dying people in the street before you give them free prOn
How about the idea that by putting in a more modern infrastructure, more high-paying modern jobs will be created, and all boats will rise? By your logic, it was a bad idea for the TVA to provide rural electrification, because people in poverty don't need electricity, they need food.
I don't know that free broadband will have the effect the Indian government thinks it will. It may not even get built by 2009. But if the government wants to stimulate economic growth, it isn't an unreasonable component of a larger plan to make it easier to do business in India.
I think there's much more of a hard-wired biological component to this tragedy than most of the main stream media realizes. This guy obviously had serious mental issues that no amount of hand-holding and therapy sessions could fix. Looking for some sort of external stimulus for his behavior misses the point completely.
Nobody likes to think that some people are just screwed from the get-go, that their wiring is defective. We all want to think that we do things or say things to help mentally ill people cope. But often that's no more effective than trying to sweet-talk a tumor into remission.
So she believed that the ends justified the means.
In the US, the government has tremendous power, so it is a smart idea to keep tabs on it to make sure it doesn't grab more than it already has. But when you live in an environment where criminals and terrorists run the show, your most obvious threat isn't the government. It's the people who are stealing, killing, and terrorizing.
Fujimori obviously isn't going to go down in history as a promoter of the rule of law. But paradoxically he seems to have paved the way for the rule of law by wiping out the Sendaro Luminoso.
You can not install the update and deal with new apps not working with your Mac, or you can install Windows or Linux on your Mac, wasting the premium you paid for the box.
You're making the usual Apples v. Oranges mistake. Just as nobody would compare a $500 Windows machine with a $2,000 Windows machine, it is foolish to compare bargain basement PCs with Macs. If you want to compare quality hardware with quality hardware, compare $2,000 machines. You spend $2,000 each on three different laptops. Here are the three scenarios:
On your Mac, if you can not install the update and deal with new apps not working with your Mac, you CAN install Windows or you CAN install Linux on your Mac.
On your Windows machine, Microsoft comes out with an upgrade. You cannot install the update and deal with new apps not working with your Windows computer. You CAN install Linux on your machine. You CANNOT install Macintosh on your machine.
On your Linux machine, the latest and greatest Linux distro arrives. You cannot install the update and deal with new apps working sluggishly or not working at all on your computer because of processor speed, graphics card limitations, or limited disk space. You CAN install Windows on your machine. You CANNOT install Macintosh on your machine.
So the Macintosh hardware gives you three OS choices. The other two only give you two OS choices each. I fail to see how the Apple hardware locks you in more than PC hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
If jobs said to the record labels "either drop/relax the DRM, or we're going to pull your music from the store" then we might actually see something happen.
Sure, Jobs could tell them to drop the DRM "or else," but if he made a threat like that, he'd have to back it up. We're talking about the music industry, which has been effectively a cartel for decades. The EMI move was the first time any of the major labels stopped playing along with the rest of them, and that only happened because EMI is having a tough time financially. Jobs can't run iTunes without music, and the labels know it. He has to do business with them while pushing them to get rid of DRM at the same time. I doubt that's an easy task.
I suppose Jobs could shut down iTunes out of spite if they all didn't remove DRM. But something tells me shareholders wouldn't be so keen on that idea.
It's interesting that you say "liberals" don't know what "neoconservative" actually means, then you say it is a term referring to "Jews in the 1980s." Although several top neocons are Jewish, not all of them are. They didn't just spring up in the 80s, and their story is far more complicated than your reductionist analysis makes it seem. That makes it difficult for anyone (liberal, conservative, or otherwise) to figure out exactly what the term means. Here's what Irving Kristol, one of the leading lights of the movement, says about neoconservatism. Note that he uses the term "neocon" a few times in the article. Maybe he does that because he thinks it makes him sound evil and war-like.
As for the bit about conservatives wanting to build a wall and liberals wanting no border at all, you may want to check in on that more thoroughly. The Republican Party had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House for almost six years and didn't change American immigration policy. One of the iron laws of politics is that when you have that degree of power, you use it. Look at the sweeping range of laws the Republican Party enacted over those same six years, covering every aspect of American life. If the party was truly unified in wanting to thwart illegal immigration, it would have done something.
But Free Softare is not in any way dependent on copyright law.
Actually, it is. "Copyleft" is just the FSF's way of saying "reciprocity", which is the term a lawyer would use to describe the relationship between the licensor and the licensee under the GPL. That reciprocity is brought about through the protections of copyright law, which defines ownership. If you don't own it, you can't license it.
Lawrence Rosen, who has written several Open Source licenses and served as General Counsel for the OSI (Open Source Initiative) put it this way in his book Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law (free under the Academic Free License):
"The term copyleft, of course, needn't disappear. It still has great rhetorical value. It is a useful word to toss back at those who mistakenly complain that the GPL destroys copyrights; the GPL requires copyright law to create a copyleft bargain."
Can't Internet radio stations just simply refuse to play RIAA music then?
Through SoundExchange, they'll still collect from the Internet radio stations anyway.
The article and the project bother me.
The Wired headline makes it sound like this is a sure-fire thing. Umm... DARPA sometimes makes stuff that will work on the battlefield, but lots of times their projects fail. That's the nature of their mission. "As early as three years" really means, "We hope it makes it into service in three years, but it'll likely be more like six, if at all."
As for the actual combat effectiveness of a system like this, it seems like it *might* be helfpul for one of those free-fire zone situations that the guys in the Pentagon drool about. But in a close combat situation, where civilians and combatants are mixed, where reading body language, determining intention, using the full range of your senses is vitally important, this could be an impediment to a soldier's ability to gauge the situation.
To me this is a typical example of the technology-fixated DoD establishment trying to fight some imaginary war of the future, rather than the wars we're fighing right now. Micro-drones for scouting city blocks and into structures nearly invisibly are a great idea, and I'm happy to see DARPA working on projects like that. Advanced translation technology is another great one. Better, faster medical technology - awesome. But I have serious doubts that this project will function properly in the field or provide any real utility to soldiers.
the author actually thinks that HP and Dell are not competing with Apple and therefore would not have a problem buying chips from Apple
Yeah, I didn't buy that argument. I mean, when someone opts to buy a Mac instead of an HP or a Dell, that's pretty direct competition.
Lawyers are just terrible leeches, drains on society - except when you've been accused of something you didn't do, and Big Corp, or the government, or someone with a grudge wants to work you over. Then suddenly a lawyer is your best friend. Ask anyone who has ever been sued or iniated a torts action, or been brought to court on criminal charges.
Thanks for the info. I'm not surprised that they're using their own non-OSI approved license and calling it "open source." Still, I had hoped that they might clue in and use an existing OSI-approved license.
Jeebus, this is frustrating. Saying a company is "Open Sourcing" some of their technology tells me almost nothing about it. Will it be under a reciprocal licensce, an academic license, a Microsoft wannabe open license? You've got to hand it to Microsoft. They're spinning this one pretty well, even though they're coming late to the party and without any pants on.
Funny post, but AAC existed before Apple.
That was part of the intended humor.
I figure I must be missing something because the rest of your list was funny as heck, but, err... MP3 isn't open or free, not like OGG, at any rate.
That was exactly my point. AAC is really not better or worse than MP3, from a licensing standpoint. There seems to be widespread ignorance about MP3. People think that because they can obtain MP3 files for free, the MP3 standard is somehow free as in free speech.
To sum up the list of objections to this move by Apple:
It might be more instructional than reading dozens of comments that start with, "I don't know a thing about law, but... ." It's like marketers talking about programming: "I don't know C# from sharp cheddar, but... ." Here are a few views from lawyers who know patent law:
KSR v. Teleflex:
Microsoft v. AT&T:
When thousands of marketers are being supported indirectly by Open Source software, you know Open Source is here to stay. The marketers are simply a manifestation of the larger trend. First they laugh at you, then they attack you, then they join you. The fact that large corporations are spending so much money marketing their Open Source bona fides, using "open" lingo, and trying to outdo each other as Open Source companies is good for the Open Source movement.
Perhaps Jeff underestimates buyers' ability to see past the marketing hoopla. He also seems to underestimate the power of Open Source licenses themselves. Say what you will in your marketing, but in the end you're still beholden to the licenses you're using. Holding companies' feet to the fire is a lot easier when you have a legally-enforceable mechanism.
... because it doesn't seem to be in England and Wales.
You wrote: "Doesn't change the fact that, by trampling on individual rights to self defense, Blair et al have increased, rather than decreased, crime." But the crime rate seems to have been headed downward since the mid-1990s, with a slight uptick in 2006.
Crime Statistics for England and Wales
What is this AOL you speak of?
This is exactly why we should rush to judgement, and arms. A violation of the right to free speech is unacceptable. Period. End of story.
So I take it you've got your AR-15 and a few thousand rounds and you're going to take care of business?
You do know that there is no such thing in American law as 100% free speech, right? Slander. Libel. Fraud via writings. Incitement. Fighting words. Restrictions on commercial speech. Limits on campaign donations. It is comforting to think that all speech should be protected by the 1st Amendment, but even at its inception, some speech was not considered worthy of protection.
Although you may think we should all be storming the barricades, the law already contains mechanisms for taking care of situations like this.
Point taken. I should have used a better analogy.
He was arrested for writing something in particular. We still don't know what he wrote. Perhaps we shouldn't rush to judgment (I know this is Slashdot.. stop laughing) until we know more about what he wrote.
How about the idea that by putting in a more modern infrastructure, more high-paying modern jobs will be created, and all boats will rise? By your logic, it was a bad idea for the TVA to provide rural electrification, because people in poverty don't need electricity, they need food.
I don't know that free broadband will have the effect the Indian government thinks it will. It may not even get built by 2009. But if the government wants to stimulate economic growth, it isn't an unreasonable component of a larger plan to make it easier to do business in India.
... die by the ComScore
Advertising isn't the only way, and ComScore isn't the only way to do advertising.
I think there's much more of a hard-wired biological component to this tragedy than most of the main stream media realizes. This guy obviously had serious mental issues that no amount of hand-holding and therapy sessions could fix. Looking for some sort of external stimulus for his behavior misses the point completely.
Nobody likes to think that some people are just screwed from the get-go, that their wiring is defective. We all want to think that we do things or say things to help mentally ill people cope. But often that's no more effective than trying to sweet-talk a tumor into remission.
So she believed that the ends justified the means.
In the US, the government has tremendous power, so it is a smart idea to keep tabs on it to make sure it doesn't grab more than it already has. But when you live in an environment where criminals and terrorists run the show, your most obvious threat isn't the government. It's the people who are stealing, killing, and terrorizing.
Fujimori obviously isn't going to go down in history as a promoter of the rule of law. But paradoxically he seems to have paved the way for the rule of law by wiping out the Sendaro Luminoso.
You can not install the update and deal with new apps not working with your Mac, or you can install Windows or Linux on your Mac, wasting the premium you paid for the box.
You're making the usual Apples v. Oranges mistake. Just as nobody would compare a $500 Windows machine with a $2,000 Windows machine, it is foolish to compare bargain basement PCs with Macs. If you want to compare quality hardware with quality hardware, compare $2,000 machines. You spend $2,000 each on three different laptops. Here are the three scenarios:
On your Mac, if you can not install the update and deal with new apps not working with your Mac, you CAN install Windows or you CAN install Linux on your Mac.
On your Windows machine, Microsoft comes out with an upgrade. You cannot install the update and deal with new apps not working with your Windows computer. You CAN install Linux on your machine. You CANNOT install Macintosh on your machine.
On your Linux machine, the latest and greatest Linux distro arrives. You cannot install the update and deal with new apps working sluggishly or not working at all on your computer because of processor speed, graphics card limitations, or limited disk space. You CAN install Windows on your machine. You CANNOT install Macintosh on your machine.
So the Macintosh hardware gives you three OS choices. The other two only give you two OS choices each. I fail to see how the Apple hardware locks you in more than PC hardware.