The problem is with copyright law and the length of the copyright monopoly. Copyright should be for 5 years, wherein if you haven't eeked out a living from that in that time, then you loose. Otherwise, during that timeframe you should go hog wild.
Basically the copyright laws give too much to a creator and the copyright holder for too long a time.
As has been asked--why should someone get a monopoly for multiple generations (their lifetime plus 75 years) for something they created probably with just a moment's intuition.
Please, refrain from the ad homenin attacks. Copying games, music, and videos isn't stealing. It's copyright infringement.
By your logic just defending their position makes you a criminal because you are telling others that it's not a crime, it's a violation of copyright. In their case they didn't host nor distribute any copyrighted material. None of the copyrighted material was hosted on their site. They simply provided links to the bittorrent hash. So, by providing information that defends their position, you are saying we are guilty of a crime?
Linking to content is not a crime. Even in the US you can't be held criminally liable for linking to content. They never hosted any content themselves, FYI.
Those individuals that infringed someone's copyright did so of their own volition.
It isn't over till it's over. I'm sure they have more appeals to go.
The list of alternatives have been published all over the web. It's not like the information wasn't going to be made available. What did they think was going to happen, everyone was just going to give up? If those types of stories aren't newsworthy then how do magazines remain relevant.
The letter makes false ridiculous claims, such as how many jobs and how much money have been lost due to piracy. The fact is that those numbers have been widely debunked so many times that even US government has stopped using some of them--particularly the job loss and monetary loss numbers.
The above article is very demonstrative of the truth of the insightful GP comment.
Very interesting article even for someone that lived through it. I can remember reading articles and thinking that Microsoft is just doing it better or doing what's best for us consumers, when all along they were out to kill superior products and were trying to take over certain technological advances (such as streaming video or authoring media). Very interesting article.
You all seem to think this was an even playing field. It wasn't. DOS was being pre-installed in a way that violated anti-trust laws. That sealed the deal for most of these alternative. It wasn't so much a failure, rather it was a monopolist exercising it's muscle.
If you think about it most of their technology was designed to lock in vendors. Everyone developing for any given OS had to make decisions because they couldn't afford to develop for multiples. And in designing it the way the did they effectively made the costs too high. There was no hope for development on other platforms and with the DOS pre-installs it made it prohibitive when Win 3.x came out.
As far as Windows 1 goes it had no impact on the industry whatsoever, none. It was actually quite creepy that they'd try to foist that on the public.
Most of the products listed in this thread didn't even come into existence till several years after 1.x was released.
No way, I am the type of person that says the $8.00 HDMI is as good as the $120 HDMI from Monster--because it is (www.3dguru.com). I'm the guy that says that the coat hanger sounds as good as the Monster audio cables. I am saying that the on-board sound is good enough for my audio system.
I've been in the industry for about 25 years. And I can tell. I have a media center set up with about 15 speakers in all. I definitely can tell. I don't disagree with you that sound quality and features are better with an add-in card. I just don't agree that sound quality is that bad with on-board audio.
Sound cards used to be sold because their ability to decode sound was done on the card rather than having the CPU doing it, which would slow down the gaming performance (somewhat). I'm sure that sound cards also have other features not found in on-board chipsets, but most of those are for things like high end gaming.
About 7 years ago I remember getting an on-board NVIDIA chipset that had hardware decoding of mp3 files. The CPU utilization of the system without the hardware decoding the CPU jumped to about 45% continuous while playing back the mp3 file. On the rig with the NVIDIA chipset with hardware decoding the CPU utilization was nearly imperceptible. It became to expensive for NVIDIA to offer those for long so they replaced them with generic sound chipsets.
Actually, the built in sound cards are pretty decent, for virtually everything (games, music, videos, etc). The average person doesn't care.
The built in cards are no more free than the on-board IDE/SATA/USB/network. It's part of the board and it has a component cost. Just because a component can be replaced with a PCI card doesn't mean that the on-board component is free.
When was the last time you were in America? When was the last time you spent any time with an American family? When was the last time you spent time working in an American job while supporting your family in America?
And spoken by the naive. Redoing forms for a tablet like that after having them completed on other systems means a lot of rework and thus more investment than the benefit of a mobile form.
I could use a form system to track my customer's machines for repairs. How much time would I spend making them, what format, where would I store the information long term, how would I print them out?
Again, there are just too many drawbacks. Business has had mobile computing for years. Look at FedEx and the other delivery companies. Those work fine but they are very limited to a specific purpose. Pen Computing was designing the same type of focus for their products.
Small business starting with those as systems where employees are pushed to use them might find some application. Big business has too many other demands. One could assess that Apple lost out in the desktop arena for thinking the same as they are about their tablets.
Tablet's have drawbacks. Long term use isn't a good application of the tablet. Hands get tired, you are staring more and the screen rather than glancing, and your neck gets stressed leaning down. The applications are under powered. Nothing like trying to run excel on one of those. Even for note taking it's cumbersome as you have to point with your fingers, which is slow and error prone, unlike touch typing. People are touch typists. Even in meetings they need appear to be paying attention, so typing while watching what's going on is necessary. Touch typing on those tablets just isn't practical. And doing anything with a tablet is pretty tedious and encumbering while sitting up or laying down.
Why use a tablet if you aren't going to be mobile with it? It's really simple.
With a desktop you can attach them to large screens. With a desktop your hands naturally lay upon the keyboard and/or the mouse.
There are many uses for tablets, but they aren't really suited for the endeavors of large businesses.
Soon you'll be hearing the odd question of why the tablet doesn't make a good server.
Hmmm, it was my understanding that most people will care. I wonder how that measures against your understanding.
Certainly they care. In fact, there's a precedent to show that people do care. Specifically the outcry at the spying on children by the high school where they snapped over 50,000 photos of children; with the faculty, including the Principle, made disparaging remarks about some of the children in emails regarding the photos. There are numerous ongoing lawsuits about that currently. And it all began by the school suspending a student for drugs when they took a photo of him eating a piece of candy that they mistook as drugs. This was a photo in his home, in his bedroom, while he was using the computer.
You have to be kidding me.
Of course they'll care and there'll be an outcry. Try for once to stop being a Microsoft employee or astroturfer and get with the bigger picture which is about privacy, especially in the home.
Those are probably exaggerated numbers, as clearly 1/3 of iPhone/iPad users don't download content from Apple's store. And even then it would be difficult to say how many are repeat customer purely from your 92%. Clearly there is exaggeration here as it isn't possible to measure both markets simultaneously. Apple might release it's numbers, but certainly their agenda leads to carefully crafted accounting. And, Apple has been selling the iPhone for a longer period of time, so the number is misleading in that it doesn't account for the percentage sold on each platform cross referenced by the time period that the device has been available.
People that develop for one generally develop for others. And the cost of developing for the iPhone is much more than $99 as you need to also have a Mac computer to do so, as XCode only works on OS X.
I own an iPhone and have downloaded quite a few free apps and purchased quite a few as well. My app usage is far from central to the device. There are apps that I use regularly but those are things like Netflix (which is free) & XBMC remote. I can't even think of the names of the other apps as I don't use them frequently enough to remember their names.
Primarily I use the phone as a phone. Two of three sisters had an iPhone and one of my nieces has one. Since, I've bought a competitor's phone, and so has one of my sisters. None of my sisters nor my niece downloads apps for long term use.
I want to point out that Android has a big share of the market right now and it is growing ever faster. It is an incredible mobile OS.
The second thing I want to point out is that all mobile Apps are tiny in comparison to desktop applications. There's a rather significant difference between the two.
The third thing is that the resources on the mobile device dictate the sophistication of the mobile apps, meaning, that because the platform is limited so are the apps and thus so is the sophistication.
The fourth thing is that due to the size of the apps and the lack of sophistication in mobile apps the disparity in features and quality will disappear sooner than later. Feature parity will win. The same developers for the one mobile OS will be developing their programs for the others.
The Woz was misleading when he made his corrective statement. Maybe he's caught in the fanboism prevalent in Apple's arena. Maybe he just didn't think it through. There's really no foundation for him saying what he said primarily because he's not seen all Android apps and he's comparing today's apps on Apple's iPhone to apps that were started more than a year after (meaning more development time and more time to polish the Apple mobile OS apps.)
So, the police get a warrant-less wiretap. They then check the premises to see if it has a kinect. When they find out it turns out that they can determine how many people are in the main room of the house, what the interior looks like, how people are positioned, and how they are moving. They then, without warning (thanks to the US Supreme court), bash down the front door.
They rush in and disrupt everything killing the dog and frightening everyone inside. Dad doesn't know it's the cops because they didn't announce themselves. He goes for his gun and they kill him. In the end it turns out it was just a family, that they had misleading information that led them to this place. They find a nickel bag of pot. Mom's arrested, the kids are put into foster homes, the house mortgage can't be paid for, the government seizes all other properties because the arrest involves drugs.
Technology should be used for less invasive things and should be done to improve our lives, to better our futures not to invade people's homes, for whatever reason.
Slashdot Mirror
What he fails to say is how the courts have interpreted these subsections--how the laws have been applied.
And, if you read it, it talks about distribution.
And, if you read it, it is US law, not the law of other countries.
The problem is with copyright law and the length of the copyright monopoly. Copyright should be for 5 years, wherein if you haven't eeked out a living from that in that time, then you loose. Otherwise, during that timeframe you should go hog wild.
Basically the copyright laws give too much to a creator and the copyright holder for too long a time.
As has been asked--why should someone get a monopoly for multiple generations (their lifetime plus 75 years) for something they created probably with just a moment's intuition.
Only copyright infringement isn't a crime. And no one stole a thing. The content creators and copyright holders still have their inventory.
Please, refrain from the ad homenin attacks. Copying games, music, and videos isn't stealing. It's copyright infringement.
By your logic just defending their position makes you a criminal because you are telling others that it's not a crime, it's a violation of copyright. In their case they didn't host nor distribute any copyrighted material. None of the copyrighted material was hosted on their site. They simply provided links to the bittorrent hash. So, by providing information that defends their position, you are saying we are guilty of a crime?
That's criminal thinking it its own right.
Linking to content is not a crime. Even in the US you can't be held criminally liable for linking to content. They never hosted any content themselves, FYI.
Those individuals that infringed someone's copyright did so of their own volition.
It isn't over till it's over. I'm sure they have more appeals to go.
In cartel ridden RIAA land.
The list of alternatives have been published all over the web. It's not like the information wasn't going to be made available. What did they think was going to happen, everyone was just going to give up? If those types of stories aren't newsworthy then how do magazines remain relevant.
The letter makes false ridiculous claims, such as how many jobs and how much money have been lost due to piracy. The fact is that those numbers have been widely debunked so many times that even US government has stopped using some of them--particularly the job loss and monetary loss numbers.
I've never had a pair of cables corrode, any that matter.
Good speakers aren't cheap. Using several of cheap speakers at once might have a good sound, but good speakers aren't cheap.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/5F0C866C-6DDF-4A9A-9515-531B0CA0C29C.html
The above article is very demonstrative of the truth of the insightful GP comment.
Very interesting article even for someone that lived through it. I can remember reading articles and thinking that Microsoft is just doing it better or doing what's best for us consumers, when all along they were out to kill superior products and were trying to take over certain technological advances (such as streaming video or authoring media). Very interesting article.
You all seem to think this was an even playing field. It wasn't. DOS was being pre-installed in a way that violated anti-trust laws. That sealed the deal for most of these alternative. It wasn't so much a failure, rather it was a monopolist exercising it's muscle.
If you think about it most of their technology was designed to lock in vendors. Everyone developing for any given OS had to make decisions because they couldn't afford to develop for multiples. And in designing it the way the did they effectively made the costs too high. There was no hope for development on other platforms and with the DOS pre-installs it made it prohibitive when Win 3.x came out.
As far as Windows 1 goes it had no impact on the industry whatsoever, none. It was actually quite creepy that they'd try to foist that on the public.
Most of the products listed in this thread didn't even come into existence till several years after 1.x was released.
Sorry, it's www.guru3d.com
No way, I am the type of person that says the $8.00 HDMI is as good as the $120 HDMI from Monster--because it is (www.3dguru.com). I'm the guy that says that the coat hanger sounds as good as the Monster audio cables. I am saying that the on-board sound is good enough for my audio system.
Don't buy from Monster!!!!
I've been in the industry for about 25 years. And I can tell. I have a media center set up with about 15 speakers in all. I definitely can tell. I don't disagree with you that sound quality and features are better with an add-in card. I just don't agree that sound quality is that bad with on-board audio.
Sound cards used to be sold because their ability to decode sound was done on the card rather than having the CPU doing it, which would slow down the gaming performance (somewhat). I'm sure that sound cards also have other features not found in on-board chipsets, but most of those are for things like high end gaming.
About 7 years ago I remember getting an on-board NVIDIA chipset that had hardware decoding of mp3 files. The CPU utilization of the system without the hardware decoding the CPU jumped to about 45% continuous while playing back the mp3 file. On the rig with the NVIDIA chipset with hardware decoding the CPU utilization was nearly imperceptible. It became to expensive for NVIDIA to offer those for long so they replaced them with generic sound chipsets.
Actually, the built in sound cards are pretty decent, for virtually everything (games, music, videos, etc). The average person doesn't care.
The built in cards are no more free than the on-board IDE/SATA/USB/network. It's part of the board and it has a component cost. Just because a component can be replaced with a PCI card doesn't mean that the on-board component is free.
When was the last time you were in America? When was the last time you spent any time with an American family? When was the last time you spent time working in an American job while supporting your family in America?
You walk around with a pad and pencil because it's easier to use and not much more effort to type it into a desktop when you are done.
And spoken by the naive. Redoing forms for a tablet like that after having them completed on other systems means a lot of rework and thus more investment than the benefit of a mobile form.
I could use a form system to track my customer's machines for repairs. How much time would I spend making them, what format, where would I store the information long term, how would I print them out?
Again, there are just too many drawbacks. Business has had mobile computing for years. Look at FedEx and the other delivery companies. Those work fine but they are very limited to a specific purpose. Pen Computing was designing the same type of focus for their products.
Small business starting with those as systems where employees are pushed to use them might find some application. Big business has too many other demands. One could assess that Apple lost out in the desktop arena for thinking the same as they are about their tablets.
Tablet's have drawbacks. Long term use isn't a good application of the tablet. Hands get tired, you are staring more and the screen rather than glancing, and your neck gets stressed leaning down. The applications are under powered. Nothing like trying to run excel on one of those. Even for note taking it's cumbersome as you have to point with your fingers, which is slow and error prone, unlike touch typing. People are touch typists. Even in meetings they need appear to be paying attention, so typing while watching what's going on is necessary. Touch typing on those tablets just isn't practical. And doing anything with a tablet is pretty tedious and encumbering while sitting up or laying down.
Why use a tablet if you aren't going to be mobile with it? It's really simple.
With a desktop you can attach them to large screens. With a desktop your hands naturally lay upon the keyboard and/or the mouse.
There are many uses for tablets, but they aren't really suited for the endeavors of large businesses.
Soon you'll be hearing the odd question of why the tablet doesn't make a good server.
Thank goodness for someone with their head being on straight.
Hmmm, it was my understanding that most people will care. I wonder how that measures against your understanding.
Certainly they care. In fact, there's a precedent to show that people do care. Specifically the outcry at the spying on children by the high school where they snapped over 50,000 photos of children; with the faculty, including the Principle, made disparaging remarks about some of the children in emails regarding the photos. There are numerous ongoing lawsuits about that currently. And it all began by the school suspending a student for drugs when they took a photo of him eating a piece of candy that they mistook as drugs. This was a photo in his home, in his bedroom, while he was using the computer.
You have to be kidding me.
Of course they'll care and there'll be an outcry. Try for once to stop being a Microsoft employee or astroturfer and get with the bigger picture which is about privacy, especially in the home.
Those are probably exaggerated numbers, as clearly 1/3 of iPhone/iPad users don't download content from Apple's store. And even then it would be difficult to say how many are repeat customer purely from your 92%. Clearly there is exaggeration here as it isn't possible to measure both markets simultaneously. Apple might release it's numbers, but certainly their agenda leads to carefully crafted accounting. And, Apple has been selling the iPhone for a longer period of time, so the number is misleading in that it doesn't account for the percentage sold on each platform cross referenced by the time period that the device has been available.
People that develop for one generally develop for others. And the cost of developing for the iPhone is much more than $99 as you need to also have a Mac computer to do so, as XCode only works on OS X.
I own an iPhone and have downloaded quite a few free apps and purchased quite a few as well. My app usage is far from central to the device. There are apps that I use regularly but those are things like Netflix (which is free) & XBMC remote. I can't even think of the names of the other apps as I don't use them frequently enough to remember their names.
Primarily I use the phone as a phone. Two of three sisters had an iPhone and one of my nieces has one. Since, I've bought a competitor's phone, and so has one of my sisters. None of my sisters nor my niece downloads apps for long term use.
I want to point out that Android has a big share of the market right now and it is growing ever faster. It is an incredible mobile OS.
The second thing I want to point out is that all mobile Apps are tiny in comparison to desktop applications. There's a rather significant difference between the two.
The third thing is that the resources on the mobile device dictate the sophistication of the mobile apps, meaning, that because the platform is limited so are the apps and thus so is the sophistication.
The fourth thing is that due to the size of the apps and the lack of sophistication in mobile apps the disparity in features and quality will disappear sooner than later. Feature parity will win. The same developers for the one mobile OS will be developing their programs for the others.
The Woz was misleading when he made his corrective statement. Maybe he's caught in the fanboism prevalent in Apple's arena. Maybe he just didn't think it through. There's really no foundation for him saying what he said primarily because he's not seen all Android apps and he's comparing today's apps on Apple's iPhone to apps that were started more than a year after (meaning more development time and more time to polish the Apple mobile OS apps.)
So, the police get a warrant-less wiretap. They then check the premises to see if it has a kinect. When they find out it turns out that they can determine how many people are in the main room of the house, what the interior looks like, how people are positioned, and how they are moving. They then, without warning (thanks to the US Supreme court), bash down the front door.
They rush in and disrupt everything killing the dog and frightening everyone inside. Dad doesn't know it's the cops because they didn't announce themselves. He goes for his gun and they kill him. In the end it turns out it was just a family, that they had misleading information that led them to this place. They find a nickel bag of pot. Mom's arrested, the kids are put into foster homes, the house mortgage can't be paid for, the government seizes all other properties because the arrest involves drugs.
Technology should be used for less invasive things and should be done to improve our lives, to better our futures not to invade people's homes, for whatever reason.