Do it yourself for chrissakes! Stop whining about 'innovation' (a word Microsoft invented a year and a half ago). Have you actually peeked into the Helix/Gnome project??
I think you are correct in doing this. It makes me sick to see people making themselves martyrs in front of the moderators. Regardless of how well their post was formulated or expressed or whatever moderators fall so easily for (party-line).
Hehe, I remember a time when we sampled sound and music down into raw binary files, mixed them together and tweaked them with cool effects (this is probably illegal now;*).
On the other hand I don't think RIAA is saying MP3 is bad. It's just the use of MP3 to share copyrighted music to millions gives it a bad name in the mouths of bad reporters.
I agree that we shouldn't run or turn our backs now. We should fight to regain our freedom of the past and keep whatever freedom we've got now. It's also important to make people understand that companies shouldn't count for more than people, that patents and copyrights have been extended far beyond the scope of its primary intentions and that IT will change our social lives regarding information forever anyways (unless we agree to stop or ban IT for the masses).
I have an i820-based P3C-2000 (SDRAM only). When I first got the machine I noticed that all the slots on the board was set to "debug", which means that the board is setup to handle noise better (allowing overclocking). This is NOT the default setup from Intel. However still, my machine hang itself in most 3D games due to problems with my Rage Fury-something card. A new video card (same type/manufacturer) fixed that problem, I later bought a GeForce which also worked well.
However, try leaving your machine on with lots of 3D graphics going on over time, say 6-12 hours. At least MY box freezes up. Sometimes games freeze up also, but it happens VERY infrequently now. Perhaps once a day if I play all day (which I don't). It also happens during gameplay (once a week or so), so it's NOT the screensaver..
No, I didn't buy i820 out of choice, but got it cheaply through my (ignorant?) company.
Yeah, they're the one's who think the solution to ILOVEYOU-virii is putting a filter on the exchange server filtering out messages 'ILOVEYOU' in the topic..
From the Register Article: "The reason for Intel agreeing to these terms is likely to be the existence of patents which hold the two companies in a tight embrace."
Guess we should be happy about living in a "free" market, right?
Btw, I didn't buy my i820 out of choice. My company/seller made that choice for me sponsoring 80% of the cost over 3 years (yeah, I know I sold my soul on that one _NOW_;-).
"Having said this i am sure everyone will still block internet ads because we are humans and we are irrational and we do trhe best for ourselves even if it ends up being the worst for everyone(including us). Just remeber teh prisoners dilema."
People are irrational and therefore block ads? I would say the opposite is much more true. Many people like myself have perfectly good explanations and strong opinions on why everyone should block ads. I wouldn't wish ads on anyone, but I respect that there are people who want them. Just DON'T push your views over on me, saying I'm irrational to believe otherwise. It'd be like me saying you're pathetic because you actually watch the ads. Where did free choice go? Why put other people down? Just because I choose to take care of myself by trying to stay away from ads, doesn't make me a bad person or one that doesn't care for a greater good.
- Steeltoe
Why care for a pebble in another's eye when you got a brick in your own? People shouldn't blindly help others.
And many people don't understand that not everyone wants ads, and screw the sites that goes down because of lack of ad-revenue. Also, you don't earn money by people downloading the banners. People have to click on them, IF YOU DON'T CLICK ON BANNERS YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY STEALING? d;-)
Laugh, this discussion is silly. Me and my friends NEVER asked the commercial crackpots to turn WWW into World Wild Web.
At least IE does cache CGI-pages. Anyways, don't you think the poster knew what he was talking about? I think all his points is valid, since I've experienced them myself.
"It may not be illegal as such, but it is certainly immoral."
Just as you say for certain that it is immoral, I can say to you for certain that it is not. Pushing your morals on other people is a pointless excercise in mind-control.
Your ideas won't work in RL. If people start ignoring ads or simply put up with them, the ad-boxes become more and more obnoxious, intrusive and plentiful. Remember the old PC-mags, eg. Byte and Computer World? Think of it as the new commercial Internet on broadband.
Why should people put up with this? I don't want to be told what to buy. I'm tired of commercials and ads, some can be very funny but even those gets really boring after viewing them for the 50eth time. This is simply not going to work over time as people will avoid ads more and more.
Also, you're not making much sense _to me_. You say it doesn't make much sense filtering ads, afraid that the Internet will soon be content-free, yet you say that viewing filtered pages is not stealing. I believe that those sponsored websites out there have already lost their integrity. They're owned by their sponsors, and controled by that connection. I'll much rather have a WWW with free but less content.
There are many great sites out there on the WWW that DOESN'T have ads. They simply show what the WWW should have continued to be from the start. People contributing free pages _for the global community_ to _share_. By sharing resources freely you eliminate all the friction and ill-effects caused by a commercial/governmental machine.
Sales, revenue, profit, ads, brainwashing. So many people are stuck in such narrow thinking. I believe we'll become much healthier people by not viewing advertising and share what we can spare.
There's absolutely NOTHING illegal about sharing MP3 files. For the first, MP3 is just a file-format, not the content. For the second, friends may borrow your CD, that's legal (according to my common sense). However, that should also mean it's legal to borrow a copyrighted MP3 file, as long as you don't archive a copy of it afterwards..
The reason it's hard to shut down gun manufacturers is that noone in the government is working on it. The right to bear arms is written in the American Constitution methinks (I'm not American).
What's illegal tomorrow is impossible to say though, glad I'm not American.
A) It is artificial when you have to chase people copying your music, beating them and putting them in jail. If people think you are charging too much for your music, they will get it somewhere else. It's how the world is and should be. Noone has a right to own a music monopoly/trust (in the same sense Microsoft is a monopoly, think about the likeness), and charge ridiculous amounts of money for each CD (while stuffing them with mostly crap). Not to mention how little artists make per CD. When greedy people do such things, people WILL oppose them regardless of law. Not because they're such moral beings, but because they don't want to be screwed over and over.
B&C) Starting my own band with my music abilities?? You're totally missing the point here dude. This is a matter of freedom, not just of speech but of what people can do. Enforcing copyright laws are artificial and just as stupid as the "war on drugs" (NO, I don't use drugs myself, neither have I ever tried but thats besides the point totally!). Artificial laws leads to more struggle and pain until people learns to live more naturally.
What you are saying about creativity is that I should weep because Britanny Spears quits as an artists because she won't be making over 100 millions a year anymore? Good riddance, nobody has a "right" to make that much money anyways! Btw, artists doesn't make much money from CDs, but from tours and other media stunts. THAT's where the REAL work is involved, and they have to do it under RIAA to make any real money. They're basically slaves picked up when they're young and unknown. Think of all those that doesn't turn popular and are just thrown onto the garbage bin? This bussiness is rotten to the core.
So if anybody distributes a taped MP3 with Metallica songs from radio, they are doing something illegally? If it's not illegal yet, it will soon be IF WE DONT DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! We live in this world together. It won't work if everybody goes to their own corner with their own problems. Elitists do that, and they aren't making much of a difference in this world at all..
Yes britanny spears is BAD MUSIC IMHO, but that is PERSONAL PREFERENCE (she is a bit cute though). Your argument about "going somewhere else" just doesn't hold since you try to push the elitist attitude "all popular music is bad music", which is a totally ignorant at best. Just because I don't like your music or vica versa tells nothing of musical quality, neither of musical taste.
Let people do what they want, that's NATURAL. Educate of their choices instead of enforcing draconian laws on other people. Let money flow from the rich people down to the many poor, then the proletars will have less reason to fight among themselves for. Law enforcement is just a temporary solution to a problem we refuse to admit has a much more humane cure - caring.
But "stars" HAVE to go out on tours and generally meet with the public! EVEN if people buy their CDs like madmen. The deals they have to sign with RIAA members give them so little share of the profit of CD-sales they have to turn to MTV, movies, commercials and tours anyways.
Why do you think the girl-group TLC went bankrupt when they were at the peak of their career (a few years ago)? The contract they was in didn't allow them any more money, and it was impossible to get out of it in any decent manner. They were as popular as ever and their employer became stupid-rich from their success. But because their employer refused to increase their income, the cost of producing records/videos/tours became too much (plus a little personal spending from burning down houses illegally, but that was pocket-money really).
"If your name is on the list, you were violating their copyright, and would be found guilty pretty darn quickly."
YOU don't know that! He is innocent until _proven_ guilty. If that weren't true I'd really like YOU to stand in front of the judge and _prove your innocence_. Just because he's on a list doesn't mean he broke any law at all. Prove to me that those were real MP3 files of Metallica songs.
"Once you have purchased the music, you have the right to make copies for your personal use. You don't have the right to download them from the net."
Agreed, _legal rights_ anyways. What moral rights you have is individual. If I owned a CD I couldn't rip for backup-purposes myself, I would find it reasonable to be allowed to copy the same song off the net. It's not legal though.
"The law says you must agree to the TOS to use the service. The law says you must also enter the agreement in good faith. By entering into the TOS with previous deliberate intent to violate it you have broken the law."
That must be the stupidest thing I've heard today. What is meant by "intent" here, plans as in bank-robbery, or mere thought?:-? Can you be arrested and convicted before doing the actual crime?
You can't write just any TOS and hope to be able to enforce it. In fact, most of shrink-wrap licenses just state what the owner of software already got through his/her software-license, patents, trademarks and copyrights (you don't even need (C)Copyright anymore to own general IP of your works). TOS applies perhaps the most to the software-license as that can be just anything as long as it is legal. At least people think they can write just any license, however, forget it has to be tested in court also. Fines in a shrinkwrap-license are just bogus, or right to the user's first born son. Many Judges are not without common sense and humour..
Unfortunately shrinkwrap licenses are one of the shadiest sides of IP laws. Noone really knows how binding these "contracts" really are. For example, you can usually negotiate a normal contract, but not such shrinkwrap licenses. Most companies use them because they want to intimidate the users, not because they really need them.
However, there are examples of shrinkwrap licenses where the company (Verant) expressively forbids users to trade game-equipment or the game itself (Everquest) among other users over Real-Life channels. How legally binding this contract is is VERY questionable. Especially since they update this license AFTER people have bought the game, _and_ is paying monthly fees for 3-6 months in advance to etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Do it yourself for chrissakes! Stop whining about 'innovation' (a word Microsoft invented a year and a half ago). Have you actually peeked into the Helix/Gnome project??
- Steeltoe
I think you are correct in doing this. It makes me sick to see people making themselves martyrs in front of the moderators. Regardless of how well their post was formulated or expressed or whatever moderators fall so easily for (party-line).
- Steeltoe
All this work of abiding to and working around patents.. I can think of more effective ways to develop tools, protocols and formats.
- Steeltoe
This is a joke right? RIGHT?? ;-)
Hehe, it's pretty funny. Moderate this up!
- Steeltoe
Hehe, I remember a time when we sampled sound and music down into raw binary files, mixed them together and tweaked them with cool effects (this is probably illegal now ;*).
On the other hand I don't think RIAA is saying MP3 is bad. It's just the use of MP3 to share copyrighted music to millions gives it a bad name in the mouths of bad reporters.
I agree that we shouldn't run or turn our backs now. We should fight to regain our freedom of the past and keep whatever freedom we've got now. It's also important to make people understand that companies shouldn't count for more than people, that patents and copyrights have been extended far beyond the scope of its primary intentions and that IT will change our social lives regarding information forever anyways (unless we agree to stop or ban IT for the masses).
- Steeltoe
Where's ARC now?
:*)
Maybe there's some hope afterall.. Weeee!
- Steeltoe
I have an i820-based P3C-2000 (SDRAM only). When I first got the machine I noticed that all the slots on the board was set to "debug", which means that the board is setup to handle noise better (allowing overclocking). This is NOT the default setup from Intel. However still, my machine hang itself in most 3D games due to problems with my Rage Fury-something card. A new video card (same type/manufacturer) fixed that problem, I later bought a GeForce which also worked well.
However, try leaving your machine on with lots of 3D graphics going on over time, say 6-12 hours. At least MY box freezes up. Sometimes games freeze up also, but it happens VERY infrequently now. Perhaps once a day if I play all day (which I don't). It also happens during gameplay (once a week or so), so it's NOT the screensaver..
No, I didn't buy i820 out of choice, but got it cheaply through my (ignorant?) company.
- Steeltoe
- Steeltoe
From the Register Article: "The reason for Intel agreeing to these terms is likely to be the existence of patents which hold the two companies in a tight embrace."
;-).
Guess we should be happy about living in a "free" market, right?
Btw, I didn't buy my i820 out of choice. My company/seller made that choice for me sponsoring 80% of the cost over 3 years (yeah, I know I sold my soul on that one _NOW_
- Steeltoe
EXCACTLY! The i820-based P3C-2000 motherboard only takes 100 Mhz SDRAM (but has a 133 Mhz front bus go figure!).
:-)
I'm very glad this is happening, I'm calling my hardware dealer right now.
- Steeltoe
Perhaps someone has to think it up before it can become reality?
- Steeltoe
"Having said this i am sure everyone will still block internet ads because we are humans and we are irrational and we do trhe best for ourselves even if it ends up being the worst for everyone(including us). Just remeber teh prisoners dilema."
People are irrational and therefore block ads? I would say the opposite is much more true. Many people like myself have perfectly good explanations and strong opinions on why everyone should block ads. I wouldn't wish ads on anyone, but I respect that there are people who want them. Just DON'T push your views over on me, saying I'm irrational to believe otherwise. It'd be like me saying you're pathetic because you actually watch the ads. Where did free choice go? Why put other people down? Just because I choose to take care of myself by trying to stay away from ads, doesn't make me a bad person or one that doesn't care for a greater good.
- Steeltoe
Why care for a pebble in another's eye when you got a brick in your own? People shouldn't blindly help others.
You are either a plant or on idiot.
:-)
Wow, I must use this one time
- Steeltoe
And many people don't understand that not everyone wants ads, and screw the sites that goes down because of lack of ad-revenue. Also, you don't earn money by people downloading the banners. People have to click on them, IF YOU DON'T CLICK ON BANNERS YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY STEALING? d;-)
Laugh, this discussion is silly. Me and my friends NEVER asked the commercial crackpots to turn WWW into World Wild Web.
- Steeltoe
At least IE does cache CGI-pages. Anyways, don't you think the poster knew what he was talking about? I think all his points is valid, since I've experienced them myself.
- Steeltoe
"It may not be illegal as such, but it is certainly immoral."
Just as you say for certain that it is immoral, I can say to you for certain that it is not. Pushing your morals on other people is a pointless excercise in mind-control.
- Steeltoe
Your ideas won't work in RL. If people start ignoring ads or simply put up with them, the ad-boxes become more and more obnoxious, intrusive and plentiful. Remember the old PC-mags, eg. Byte and Computer World? Think of it as the new commercial Internet on broadband.
Why should people put up with this? I don't want to be told what to buy. I'm tired of commercials and ads, some can be very funny but even those gets really boring after viewing them for the 50eth time. This is simply not going to work over time as people will avoid ads more and more.
Also, you're not making much sense _to me_. You say it doesn't make much sense filtering ads, afraid that the Internet will soon be content-free, yet you say that viewing filtered pages is not stealing. I believe that those sponsored websites out there have already lost their integrity. They're owned by their sponsors, and controled by that connection. I'll much rather have a WWW with free but less content.
There are many great sites out there on the WWW that DOESN'T have ads. They simply show what the WWW should have continued to be from the start. People contributing free pages _for the global community_ to _share_. By sharing resources freely you eliminate all the friction and ill-effects caused by a commercial/governmental machine.
Sales, revenue, profit, ads, brainwashing. So many people are stuck in such narrow thinking. I believe we'll become much healthier people by not viewing advertising and share what we can spare.
- Steeltoe
There's absolutely NOTHING illegal about sharing MP3 files. For the first, MP3 is just a file-format, not the content. For the second, friends may borrow your CD, that's legal (according to my common sense). However, that should also mean it's legal to borrow a copyrighted MP3 file, as long as you don't archive a copy of it afterwards..
The reason it's hard to shut down gun manufacturers is that noone in the government is working on it. The right to bear arms is written in the American Constitution methinks (I'm not American).
What's illegal tomorrow is impossible to say though, glad I'm not American.
- Steeltoe
"if it's easy to make a napster clone, why would anyone use a version tha forced them to watch ads?"
Because they aren't told that alternatives exists.
- Steeltoe
A) It is artificial when you have to chase people copying your music, beating them and putting them in jail. If people think you are charging too much for your music, they will get it somewhere else. It's how the world is and should be. Noone has a right to own a music monopoly/trust (in the same sense Microsoft is a monopoly, think about the likeness), and charge ridiculous amounts of money for each CD (while stuffing them with mostly crap). Not to mention how little artists make per CD. When greedy people do such things, people WILL oppose them regardless of law. Not because they're such moral beings, but because they don't want to be screwed over and over.
B&C) Starting my own band with my music abilities?? You're totally missing the point here dude. This is a matter of freedom, not just of speech but of what people can do. Enforcing copyright laws are artificial and just as stupid as the "war on drugs" (NO, I don't use drugs myself, neither have I ever tried but thats besides the point totally!). Artificial laws leads to more struggle and pain until people learns to live more naturally.
What you are saying about creativity is that I should weep because Britanny Spears quits as an artists because she won't be making over 100 millions a year anymore? Good riddance, nobody has a "right" to make that much money anyways! Btw, artists doesn't make much money from CDs, but from tours and other media stunts. THAT's where the REAL work is involved, and they have to do it under RIAA to make any real money. They're basically slaves picked up when they're young and unknown. Think of all those that doesn't turn popular and are just thrown onto the garbage bin? This bussiness is rotten to the core.
So if anybody distributes a taped MP3 with Metallica songs from radio, they are doing something illegally? If it's not illegal yet, it will soon be IF WE DONT DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! We live in this world together. It won't work
if everybody goes to their own corner with their own problems. Elitists do that, and they aren't making much of a difference in this world at all..
Yes britanny spears is BAD MUSIC IMHO, but that is PERSONAL PREFERENCE (she is a bit cute though). Your argument about "going somewhere else" just doesn't hold since you try to push the elitist attitude "all popular music is bad music", which is a totally ignorant at best. Just because I don't like your music or vica versa tells nothing of musical quality, neither of musical taste.
Let people do what they want, that's NATURAL. Educate of their choices instead of enforcing draconian laws on other people. Let money flow from the rich people down to the many poor, then the proletars will have less reason to fight among themselves for. Law enforcement is just a temporary solution to a problem we refuse to admit has a much more humane cure - caring.
- Steeltoe
But "stars" HAVE to go out on tours and generally meet with the public! EVEN if people buy their CDs like madmen. The deals they have to sign with RIAA members give them so little share of the profit of CD-sales they have to turn to MTV, movies, commercials and tours anyways.
Why do you think the girl-group TLC went bankrupt when they were at the peak of their career (a few years ago)? The contract they was in didn't allow them any more money, and it was impossible to get out of it in any decent manner. They were as popular as ever and their employer became stupid-rich from their success. But because their employer refused to increase their income, the cost of producing records/videos/tours became too much (plus a little personal spending from burning down houses illegally, but that was pocket-money really).
Yes, the world is crazy.
- Steeltoe
"If your name is on the list, you were violating their copyright, and would be found guilty pretty darn quickly."
YOU don't know that! He is innocent until _proven_ guilty. If that weren't true I'd really like YOU to stand in front of the judge and _prove your innocence_. Just because he's on a list doesn't mean he broke any law at all. Prove to me that those were real MP3 files of Metallica songs.
"Once you have purchased the music, you have the right to make copies for your personal use. You don't have the right to download them from the net."
Agreed, _legal rights_ anyways. What moral rights you have is individual. If I owned a CD I couldn't rip for backup-purposes myself, I would find it reasonable to be allowed to copy the same song off the net. It's not legal though.
- Steeltoe
"The law says you must agree to the TOS to use the service. The law says you must also enter the agreement in good faith. By entering into the TOS with previous deliberate intent to violate it you have broken the law."
:-? Can you be arrested and convicted before doing the actual crime?
That must be the stupidest thing I've heard today. What is meant by "intent" here, plans as in bank-robbery, or mere thought?
You can't write just any TOS and hope to be able to enforce it. In fact, most of shrink-wrap licenses just state what the owner of software already got through his/her software-license, patents, trademarks and copyrights (you don't even need (C)Copyright anymore to own general IP of your works). TOS applies perhaps the most to the software-license as that can be just anything as long as it is legal. At least people think they can write just any license, however, forget it has to be tested in court also. Fines in a shrinkwrap-license are just bogus, or right to the user's first born son. Many Judges are not without common sense and humour..
Unfortunately shrinkwrap licenses are one of the shadiest sides of IP laws. Noone really knows how binding these "contracts" really are. For example, you can usually negotiate a normal contract, but not such shrinkwrap licenses. Most companies use them because they want to intimidate the users, not because they really need them.
However, there are examples of shrinkwrap licenses where the company (Verant) expressively forbids users to trade game-equipment or the game itself (Everquest) among other users over Real-Life channels. How legally binding this contract is is VERY questionable. Especially since they update this license AFTER people have bought the game, _and_ is paying monthly fees for 3-6 months in advance to etc.
- Steeltoe
That's how they do it!
;-)
Always wondered about how you can target ads at people based on profiling content of the same people. How clever! Not to mention innovative!!
Hopefully this patent will destroy the whole datawarehouse concept.
- Steeltoe
I'm getting fed up with the pathetic attempts of companies and script-kiddies at targetting ME.
/. already knows this..
You can use Internet Junkbuster if you don't want to look at ads, but I guess most
Now Junk-mail is a worse fenomenon, I guess I'll have to start a mail-account for surfing the web on soon.
- Steeltoe