IIRC, the PDF spec includes many patented aspects (LZW compression, for one) that will mean that proprietary PDF encoders will always be superior to free alternatives.
However, the simple fact that there *is* a spec and free implementations that can decode any PDF document and, if necessary, convert to any other well disclosed file format makes PDF far superior to any of the Microsoft file formats. The PDF spec should be the model that the government uses as the minimum amount of documentation needed for government use. It is proprietary enough for Adobe to make a profit, yet open enough so that data is never locked inside.
You're just being paranoid. Amazon only changed their privacy policy to satisfy investors who worried that Amazon might go out of business and wanted every possibility to recoup some of their investment.
I too am paranoid. When I order things online and am required to give out my email address, I always create an address for that specific purpose (the joys of having your own domain). I've been a pretty consistant customer of Amazon's since 1998 and I have never received a piece of non-Amazon spam to that address (I do receive a lot of stuff from Amazon touting some product they think I might want to buy...I'm not sure what's worse, the SPAM or the fact that their usually right). In contrast, the majority of email addresses that I give out to other companies end up flooded with spam within a few months.
So, the dilemma is basically whether to trust your information to a company that is forthright enough to say that they have every right to share it in the future or whether to trust it to a company that will pay lip service to privacy until they need to sell your information. If you've read through most online privacy policies (I actually read most of them...I'm a bit perverse that way;), you'll notice that nearly all reserve the right to be changed at any time.
So, in reality, Amazon is no less safe a place for your personal information. It's actually probably a safer place due to the fact that it probably won't go out of business anytime soon and it's security is far better than most online retailers.
The hacker community releases instructions for constructing an antenna capable of decrypting the new broadcasts using only spare AOL CDs, 4 paperclips and a rubber band.
If the artist wants to be more appealing to a RIAA label, great
Dealing on the level of the individual artist would drive a stream operator nuts. There's just too many of them and since they're all pretty much out to get exposure, there's no easy way to find the good ones. Stream operators tend to deal with indie labels who find talented acts and find ways to promote that talent.
but perhaps Congress might try to make the compulsory license a little more compulsory in the future
So you're suggesting that if a copyright holder licenses a piece of content to someone else that the government may step in and declare that license to be invalid in favor of a different license? Compulsory doesn't mean that anyone is forced to use only that license, it *only* applies when no other agreement exists. Compulsory licenses exist so that copyright and patent holders cannot withold content that the public feels need be made public and yet still compensate them for their intellectual property. AFAIK, there's no such thing as a mandatory license. People are free to agree to whatever terms they want as long as they meet the legal requirement of what constitutes an agreement.
First, these webcasting fees would have absolutely no impact on your normal broadcasting operations. As long as you pay your ASCAP/BMI fees (which tend to be pretty reasonable), you're free to continue your over-the-air broadcasts.
Second, there's a nice loophole in these regulations for stations that also operate a FCC licensed over-the-air broadcast. This probably applies to you. The fees will probably still be quite exorbitant, but they might not be the death sentence that they are to most internet broadcasters.
Third, these regulations only govern the compulsory license to stream content. You're free to negociate your own agreement with content owners. Even the large record companies are much more willing to be reasonable with more established entities (a university with a real FM broadcast is more established than a stream run by a sysadmin in his spare time)
Well...based on the agreement you posted, each internet radio station would need 2-3 accountants just to figure out what "25 PERCENT of all revenue associated with this MP3 STREAMING" would be for each artist that signed the agreement. Not to mention the hassle of removing songs from the playlist when "SOME DATE IN THE FUTURE" comes up.
The RIAA realized some time ago that accounting with that level of granularity is more hassle than it is worth. Stations would much prefer to only have to mail one check to ASCAP/BMI than to deal with the hassles of paying every content source.
Then there's the fact that many small labels have an explicit goal to be bought out by the RIAA labels. That's the business model for many small labels. So why would they want to sign an agreement that makes them less appealing to the RIAA?
Oh...and what were you thinking with #4? This license would inherantly supercede any compulsory license so you wouldn't need to waive that right. Compulsory licenses only govern situations where there is no other license.
It would probably make sense to handle this at the ISP level, rather than the client level.
The ISP could setup some sort of repeater (the shoutcast server is basically just that) and then each ISP is only pulling 1 stream and distributing it locally to each of it's subscribers. This saves bandwidth for both internet radio stations *and* ISP's.
AOL currently donates bandwidth to many of the more popular streams. While this bandwidth can be a godsend for internet broadcasters, it also is an example of the method I've just described since each AOL subscriber that listens to the stream is not using any of AOL's external bandwidth.
Rusty mentioned that SomaFM actually loses money. It is more a "labor of love" than a business. He has a day job. So, even if Canada has roughly the same culture, he'd still be uprooting his life in order to save an endeavor that actually loses money...why would he want to do that?
(not to mention the fact that all of his donated bandwidth is probably in San Francisco and would have to be replaced when he got to Canada)
I like to take the opposite approach. I assume that any engineer reading my code is capable of understanding code. So I write my comments in code...even sprinkling comments in amongst my code. Take this, for example:
Even if you don't give a rat's ass about the classes and just want the work experience, college is the only place where you can get a job that's even close to sysadmining. In the current market, there's sysadmins with 4-5 years experience who have problems getting a job. Straight out of high school, you've got no shot.
But in 4 years when you go to interviews with a degree and 3-4 years of work experience as a work-study sysadmin on the university network, you'll look much more attractive to employers.
I would use it with one caveat. I must be able to challenge a charge if I didn't make it. The danger with a system like this is that there is a perception that fingerprint security is very secure. That perception could lead to fraud claims that aren't treated fairly.
So what's your point? Do you think the RIAA are morons?
The loophole for traditional radio broadcasters applies only to those broadcasters who have an FCC license. So it doesn't matter whether it's legal or not, it won't help with the CARP fees.
Mod original parent down...the question doesn't need to be answered.
Free software, on the other hand, is just 'out there'-- it's like finding a still-wrapped condom on the street. Sure, you can pick it up and use it, but if bad things happen, well, how is that anyone's fault but your own?
You might try using an analogy that most/.ites would understand...most won't see any possible risk in making a water baloon from condom found on the street.
I wish I had mod points, I'd mod this -1 has no clue.
Hi...kettle...this is the pot, you're black.
...java which isnt open source, but "open standard"
Ummm...Java *is* open source. The source is available at Sun's site. I've downloaded the source to all the JDK's since 1.1 (the code is often the best documentation).
Lawyers cost money. Microsoft has plenty of extra money...schools don't. The threat of a BSA audit is enough to make schools comply with a license whose legality is in doubt.
There were two things that changed the government's position towards microsoft...the views of the content industry and the views of Computer makers (Dell, Gateway etc).
The content industry realizes that it is unlikely that they'll be able to force hardware to include DRM (not that Fritzie will stop trying). However, they don't need that as long as MS controls 95% of the desktop OS market. If they can get DRM onto 95% of desktops, they'll be happy. If MS's monopoly position weakens, then consumers might start to look for an OS without a DRM solution.
The PC makers used to want MS punished. They were sick of MS's overly-restrictive OEM license agreements. But then the bottom dropped out of the PC market. People didn't feel the need to upgrade their computers since they could run everything they needed to on their current setups. There was no killer app driving people to upgrade their computers. This is where XP's bloat starts to work in its favor. XP, to PC makers, is the killer app that will drive people to upgrade.
So, when Intel, AMD, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, the RIAA and MPAA call their favorite senators and tell them that they'd like Microsoft to get a slap on the wrist, the government complies.
step 1: gather data step 2: apply trivial content protection step 3: hand over encryted content step 4: require subscription service to view data at $0.75/user's info (fees would be on a per-lawyer basis...sharing of the data would be expressly prohibited).
In concept, no. In practice, yes. Current CA driver's licenses encode each piece of data printed on the front into the magnetic stripe on the back. Businesses have begun swiping licenses and ID cards for age verification and capturing the other data for demographic purposes.
Is it the DMV who's violating my privacy? No. Is it the DMV who's at fault for my privacy being violated? Yes. Do I want the same people who thought it was a good idea to encode my age, address, height and weight on the back of my driver's license to also have access to my retinal scan data? Hell No!
I can give a police officer my driver's license and he can see a picture of me and read my name. What further identification is necessary?
Is allowing easy forging of them a bad thing?
Yes, it is. Is encorporating biometric information into them the best way to make them hard to forge? No. It is expressly the *wrong* way to do it.
With current technology, forging a retinal scan would probably be quite difficult. But criminals will always be pushing the envelope of technology trying to get ahead of the technology that law enforcement uses. We need to make a system that utilizes the latest technology, but remains as flexible as possible should criminals catch up. By using something like a retinal scan (something that cannot be changed), you limit the system's flexibility 10 and 20 years down the road.
Licenses are naturally complex things. That's ok. What isn't ok is that every company feels they need to write their own license specific to their product.
The strength of Open Source licenses for me is the fact that once I've read them through once, I can install countless applications without needing to read a license agreement.
If commercial software had a bunch of shrink-wrapped licenses that companies were free to use and each license was clearly identifiable near the top, then people could just click the "I agree" button and actually know what they were agreeing to.
Slashdot Mirror
Are there other games that would be suitable for a school sponsored event?
Ummm...chess, go, basketball, baseball (need I go on?)
Given the propensity for computer games to become addictive, it's kinda inappropriate for schools to encourage this kind of thing.
IIRC, the PDF spec includes many patented aspects (LZW compression, for one) that will mean that proprietary PDF encoders will always be superior to free alternatives.
However, the simple fact that there *is* a spec and free implementations that can decode any PDF document and, if necessary, convert to any other well disclosed file format makes PDF far superior to any of the Microsoft file formats. The PDF spec should be the model that the government uses as the minimum amount of documentation needed for government use. It is proprietary enough for Adobe to make a profit, yet open enough so that data is never locked inside.
You're just being paranoid. Amazon only changed their privacy policy to satisfy investors who worried that Amazon might go out of business and wanted every possibility to recoup some of their investment.
;), you'll notice that nearly all reserve the right to be changed at any time.
I too am paranoid. When I order things online and am required to give out my email address, I always create an address for that specific purpose (the joys of having your own domain). I've been a pretty consistant customer of Amazon's since 1998 and I have never received a piece of non-Amazon spam to that address (I do receive a lot of stuff from Amazon touting some product they think I might want to buy...I'm not sure what's worse, the SPAM or the fact that their usually right). In contrast, the majority of email addresses that I give out to other companies end up flooded with spam within a few months.
So, the dilemma is basically whether to trust your information to a company that is forthright enough to say that they have every right to share it in the future or whether to trust it to a company that will pay lip service to privacy until they need to sell your information. If you've read through most online privacy policies (I actually read most of them...I'm a bit perverse that way
So, in reality, Amazon is no less safe a place for your personal information. It's actually probably a safer place due to the fact that it probably won't go out of business anytime soon and it's security is far better than most online retailers.
5 minutes later...
The hacker community releases instructions for constructing an antenna capable of decrypting the new broadcasts using only spare AOL CDs, 4 paperclips and a rubber band.
ThinkGeek caffeine sampler
pepper spray/whistle for walking home from a late-night class
any kind of non-perishable food (boxes and boxes of candy)
drug testing kits (dancesafe.org sells them)...everyone knows kids will take drugs, why not make it as safe as possible.
return cab fare. label it specifically as such. with a note saying only to use when you have no way home or there is no sober driver.
It would happen literally the *day* after I ordered all the parts for my new computer.
This just ruins the feeling I get from paying significantly less for an Athlon...paying just "substantially less" is far less satisfying.
If the artist wants to be more appealing to a RIAA label, great
Dealing on the level of the individual artist would drive a stream operator nuts. There's just too many of them and since they're all pretty much out to get exposure, there's no easy way to find the good ones. Stream operators tend to deal with indie labels who find talented acts and find ways to promote that talent.
but perhaps Congress might try to make the compulsory license a little more compulsory in the future
So you're suggesting that if a copyright holder licenses a piece of content to someone else that the government may step in and declare that license to be invalid in favor of a different license? Compulsory doesn't mean that anyone is forced to use only that license, it *only* applies when no other agreement exists. Compulsory licenses exist so that copyright and patent holders cannot withold content that the public feels need be made public and yet still compensate them for their intellectual property. AFAIK, there's no such thing as a mandatory license. People are free to agree to whatever terms they want as long as they meet the legal requirement of what constitutes an agreement.
First, these webcasting fees would have absolutely no impact on your normal broadcasting operations. As long as you pay your ASCAP/BMI fees (which tend to be pretty reasonable), you're free to continue your over-the-air broadcasts.
Second, there's a nice loophole in these regulations for stations that also operate a FCC licensed over-the-air broadcast. This probably applies to you. The fees will probably still be quite exorbitant, but they might not be the death sentence that they are to most internet broadcasters.
Third, these regulations only govern the compulsory license to stream content. You're free to negociate your own agreement with content owners. Even the large record companies are much more willing to be reasonable with more established entities (a university with a real FM broadcast is more established than a stream run by a sysadmin in his spare time)
Well...based on the agreement you posted, each internet radio station would need 2-3 accountants just to figure out what "25 PERCENT of all revenue associated with this MP3 STREAMING" would be for each artist that signed the agreement. Not to mention the hassle of removing songs from the playlist when "SOME DATE IN THE FUTURE" comes up.
The RIAA realized some time ago that accounting with that level of granularity is more hassle than it is worth. Stations would much prefer to only have to mail one check to ASCAP/BMI than to deal with the hassles of paying every content source.
Then there's the fact that many small labels have an explicit goal to be bought out by the RIAA labels. That's the business model for many small labels. So why would they want to sign an agreement that makes them less appealing to the RIAA?
Oh...and what were you thinking with #4? This license would inherantly supercede any compulsory license so you wouldn't need to waive that right. Compulsory licenses only govern situations where there is no other license.
It would probably make sense to handle this at the ISP level, rather than the client level.
The ISP could setup some sort of repeater (the shoutcast server is basically just that) and then each ISP is only pulling 1 stream and distributing it locally to each of it's subscribers. This saves bandwidth for both internet radio stations *and* ISP's.
AOL currently donates bandwidth to many of the more popular streams. While this bandwidth can be a godsend for internet broadcasters, it also is an example of the method I've just described since each AOL subscriber that listens to the stream is not using any of AOL's external bandwidth.
This is kinda missing the point.
Rusty mentioned that SomaFM actually loses money. It is more a "labor of love" than a business. He has a day job. So, even if Canada has roughly the same culture, he'd still be uprooting his life in order to save an endeavor that actually loses money...why would he want to do that?
(not to mention the fact that all of his donated bandwidth is probably in San Francisco and would have to be replaced when he got to Canada)
I like to take the opposite approach. I assume that any engineer reading my code is capable of understanding code. So I write my comments in code...even sprinkling comments in amongst my code. Take this, for example:
// report.print() if foo =~ /^[0123]$/ // {
/*} elsif(1 == bar) // {
//} elsif(3 == bar) {
int foo(int bar) {
if(0 == bar)
printf("bar equals zero");
printf("bar equals one");
} elsif(2 == bar) */ {
printf("bar equals two");
printf("bar equals three");
}
}
It should be immediately obvious to any engineer what foo(1) does.
you forgot my personal favorite...
Verbal Kent is Keyser Soze
Even if you don't give a rat's ass about the classes and just want the work experience, college is the only place where you can get a job that's even close to sysadmining. In the current market, there's sysadmins with 4-5 years experience who have problems getting a job. Straight out of high school, you've got no shot.
But in 4 years when you go to interviews with a degree and 3-4 years of work experience as a work-study sysadmin on the university network, you'll look much more attractive to employers.
I would use it with one caveat. I must be able to challenge a charge if I didn't make it. The danger with a system like this is that there is a perception that fingerprint security is very secure. That perception could lead to fraud claims that aren't treated fairly.
So what's your point? Do you think the RIAA are morons?
The loophole for traditional radio broadcasters applies only to those broadcasters who have an FCC license. So it doesn't matter whether it's legal or not, it won't help with the CARP fees.
Mod original parent down...the question doesn't need to be answered.
Free software, on the other hand, is just 'out there'-- it's like finding a still-wrapped condom on the street. Sure, you can pick it up and use it, but if bad things happen, well, how is that anyone's fault but your own?
/.ites would understand...most won't see any possible risk in making a water baloon from condom found on the street.
You might try using an analogy that most
Is java open source?
yes.
Java isn't an open standard, nor is it open source in the truest sense.
How many senses of the words "open-source" are there? Either the code is available to the public, or it isn't? Remember, Open-Source != Free.
I wish I had mod points, I'd mod this -1 has no clue.
...java which isnt open source, but "open standard"
Hi...kettle...this is the pot, you're black.
Ummm...Java *is* open source. The source is available at Sun's site. I've downloaded the source to all the JDK's since 1.1 (the code is often the best documentation).
Legality is beside the point.
Lawyers cost money. Microsoft has plenty of extra money...schools don't. The threat of a BSA audit is enough to make schools comply with a license whose legality is in doubt.
No...that's not what changed.
There were two things that changed the government's position towards microsoft...the views of the content industry and the views of Computer makers (Dell, Gateway etc).
The content industry realizes that it is unlikely that they'll be able to force hardware to include DRM (not that Fritzie will stop trying). However, they don't need that as long as MS controls 95% of the desktop OS market. If they can get DRM onto 95% of desktops, they'll be happy. If MS's monopoly position weakens, then consumers might start to look for an OS without a DRM solution.
The PC makers used to want MS punished. They were sick of MS's overly-restrictive OEM license agreements. But then the bottom dropped out of the PC market. People didn't feel the need to upgrade their computers since they could run everything they needed to on their current setups. There was no killer app driving people to upgrade their computers. This is where XP's bloat starts to work in its favor. XP, to PC makers, is the killer app that will drive people to upgrade.
So, when Intel, AMD, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, the RIAA and MPAA call their favorite senators and tell them that they'd like Microsoft to get a slap on the wrist, the government complies.
No no...you have it wrong...a more enlightened Exchange(TM) would be a solid argument for the advantages that proprietary software could bring.
The current version of exchange only serves as an argument for free software.
step 1: gather data
step 2: apply trivial content protection
step 3: hand over encryted content
step 4: require subscription service to view data at $0.75/user's info (fees would be on a per-lawyer basis...sharing of the data would be expressly prohibited).
Are drivers licenses a bad thing?
In concept, no. In practice, yes. Current CA driver's licenses encode each piece of data printed on the front into the magnetic stripe on the back. Businesses have begun swiping licenses and ID cards for age verification and capturing the other data for demographic purposes.
Is it the DMV who's violating my privacy? No. Is it the DMV who's at fault for my privacy being violated? Yes. Do I want the same people who thought it was a good idea to encode my age, address, height and weight on the back of my driver's license to also have access to my retinal scan data? Hell No!
I can give a police officer my driver's license and he can see a picture of me and read my name. What further identification is necessary?
Is allowing easy forging of them a bad thing?
Yes, it is. Is encorporating biometric information into them the best way to make them hard to forge? No. It is expressly the *wrong* way to do it.
With current technology, forging a retinal scan would probably be quite difficult. But criminals will always be pushing the envelope of technology trying to get ahead of the technology that law enforcement uses. We need to make a system that utilizes the latest technology, but remains as flexible as possible should criminals catch up. By using something like a retinal scan (something that cannot be changed), you limit the system's flexibility 10 and 20 years down the road.
Licenses are naturally complex things. That's ok. What isn't ok is that every company feels they need to write their own license specific to their product.
The strength of Open Source licenses for me is the fact that once I've read them through once, I can install countless applications without needing to read a license agreement.
If commercial software had a bunch of shrink-wrapped licenses that companies were free to use and each license was clearly identifiable near the top, then people could just click the "I agree" button and actually know what they were agreeing to.