I think they are launching this with Stern, because the intent is to draw in as many of his fans as possible. Not really the average listener. Else they would make the whole service available as a trial no?
It would also seem logical to me that they could expand their web service by making it a cheap add on for their current subscribers. Otherwise, as you said, who is going to pay almost twice as much as XM or Yahoo!'s Launcast for the same type of service (although Yahoo!'s service offers personalization). Not to mention it would turn current subscribers off since they will be paying the same fee twice just to get the right to blast it on their computers.
Mobile Device support would also be another area they could offer to really expand their coverage (if they aren't already offering this). As with more and more multimedia phones and higher speed wireless (cell-phone wireless) connections it can be seen as a way to offer their service without the hardware investment.
If those two things are not really met I don't seeing the service going too far. I haven't looked at XM's offering in a long time, but when i trialled it about a year ago those were the reasons it wasn't useful to me.
Where i live (Philadelphia, PA) USPS turnaround to get mail to anyone in the area is 1 day. Just as fast as UPS for $.39 compared to $8+ for UPS...
I've also noticed the USPS constantly beating private couriers like UPS in getting my letters and packages across the US. I've mailed (within the last 4 months) packages to Coos Bay, OR; Palo Alto, CA; and San Francisco, CA; to name a few and the speed has averaged 3-4 days! UPS or FedEx would take 5 days to deliver the same things. This was all sent USPS First Class Mail.
The USPS can't be beat in my books. Now that they've improved the speed of thier service so much i don't even think about using a private courier.
Firstly allowing unlimited transfers dosen't legalized warez sites simply because the warez traders aren't deleting all copies they've shared (that would defeat the purpose wouldn't it?). Also, what part of the license agreement are you quoting? As a previous quoting of mine allows you unlimited transfers (for OEM version, though i'm sure its the same for Retail minus the hardware requirement).
Secondly, you are very right that they changed the language to regard the hardware the way they previously regarded a person and that has serious implications. The license agreement used to base this news story is the retail EULA. Previously if you walked into Staples and purchased Windows you had the license to use that on your computer forever. If you wanted to upgrade your motherboard, video card, hell rebuilt a new box from scratch (provided you don't keep the same XP license installed on the old) you were free to do that. With Vista they are tying those rights of usage to the hardware, period. So if you decide to buy a new motherboard (or any amount of hardware that results in Windows seeing your computer as a new "device" as they didn't limit this to mobo changes) you get to do that once. Later on decide to build you a fresh PC to update the one you previously had and you'll learn you need to buy a new license. There are some people in the world like me, who build their own PCs period and, who don't use OEM versions for the more liberal license (up until XP). Also, your probably saying "What does it matter? If i change my hardware and keep my copy of Vista going beyond the allotted limit i'm still "legal" i paid for it!" and the truth is your not different than the software pirate (as you would become) who downloaded it from a torrent site, except you paid to become a pirate!
Thirdly, you are not allowed unlimited transfer rights. Firstly the language prevents that and secondly just plain common-sense prevents that. Your not creating a whole new license with MS when it is transferred. You are transferring a license! Which means you are taking the license you are currently bound by and giving that SAME license to someone else. Meaning they are bound to whatever you were bound to and they are subjects to the limits you were subject to minus any resources you've used under that agreement (for instance if you transferred to another device).
Hopefully this clears things up for you and doesn't allow people to have the same misconsceptions.
XP Pro OEM SP2 says this:
" 1.2 SOFTWARE as a Component of the COMPUTER - Transfer.
This license may not be shared, transferred to or used
concurrently on different computers. The SOFTWARE
is licensed with the COMPUTER as a single integrated
product and may only be used with the COMPUTER.
If the SOFTWARE is not accompanied by HARDWARE,
you may not use the SOFTWARE. You may permanently
transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as
part of a permanent sale or transfer of the COMPUTER,
provided you retain no copies of the SOFTWARE.
If the SOFTWARE is an upgrade, any transfer
must also include all prior versions of the
SOFTWARE. This transfer must also include
the Certificate of Authenticity label. The transfer
may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment.
Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving the
Software must agree to all the EULA terms."
I haven't the time to load the EULA for Retail, but if i remember it correctly you are allowed to transfer it as long as you destroy all your copies after the transfer. They are far more restrictive with Vista... XP allows freescale and other projects... Also notice the transfer rights are not limited. You can trasfer it and then the other person can transfer it etc. How will this new Vista way of doing it affect used computer sales??
In the American Civil War, the majority of people in the Confederacy were content with their government and its actions. Should the world community have respected their right to govern their country?
You made my point exactly...
The majority of the south was content with the way their states were run and were not content with the way the northern states were being run and when that seemed to spread into their states they rebelled. They believed their current form of government was not only disregarding their needs, but also oppressing them. The same thing led us to the war for independence from Britain (another civil war).
When people are unhappy with their form of government they will fight to remove it. No government, no matter how powerful, can withstand a dedicated revolution from within.
In all honesty, what makes us so sure our government is perfect and needs to be spread to others? If people want to change yes, otherwise they are just as right as we are with their government choice.
Bad is very subjective to the perspective of the person being subject to this...
I do not agree with the actions of the Chinese government in its extreme efforts to censor and control its citizens, but at the same time i support the right of a people to choose their governments. Although it can be argued how much choice the Chinese have when it comes to their form of government we cannot immediately assume that our form of democracy is some sort of perfect thing that needs to be instilled in the rest of the world. If the majority of the Chinese are content with their government or its actions (which is the case otherwise their country would be in a civil war until it changed) we as a world community have to respect their right to govern their country.
That being said any company operating in China has to respect that as well. If the international news agencies do not want to be subject to censorship they have a choice, they can leave. It is not the job of companies to decide when government policy should and should not be followed. They are required to, and should be, adhere to the laws of the land where they operate, no matter how wrong they think those laws are. If they don't leave the country and in turn try to reverse the policy of the government they are not only attempting to place themselves above the law, but (since they are not Chinese firms) they are also attempting to instill foreign ideals on Chinese society, both are wrong.
Even in our "democratic" society a core element is respect for the opinions of others, even if they don't agree with you. We have to remember to place that same respect in our thinking when it comes to other nations in the global community.
What does Canadian law have to do with US law? Why are people so quick to yell "The US Sucks!" whenever they hear the word lawsuit without even reading to see if it is in the US?
Is there really any negative implications that severely thwart what is doable now?
I'm a big fan of privacy, but I've never seen the license plate as something that warrants privacy laws. Simply because there is nothing you can do to protect it as the thing is on the car in public view 24/7. According to the article, they should make taking pictures of car license plates illegal. How would that law be realistically enforced? Seems it would only create more work for overburdened police forces for something that has no real threat potential.
Someone could hire a Private Investigator now and gain a ton of information on your whereabouts and habits... Simply the price you pay for stepping outside into the public each day.
The activity is illegal because it violates the US Constitution. If you are unfamiliar I'll do you the nice favor of quoting the document the president swore to uphold for you.
Amendment 4 to the US Constitution ----- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. -----
The president should not be allowed to act in a secretive and unrestricted manner, especially when we are at "war". Our system of government was designed so that no part of it supersedes the other and more importantly the president was designed to be strictly regulated by the legislative branch. The founders of our country believed the national government should not be overwhelmingly powerful and forgetful that is is an extension of the people not something that supersedes the people.
People today act like terrorism and related actions are something that are new and the founders did not have to deal with them. It only shows the lack of understanding one has with US history. If you look at the reasons for independence as well as the war of independence you will see that terrorism, as we see and define it, was very common in America. The King of England not only killed colonists and burned down whole towns, but he hired mercenaries to do the same things! Our constitution serves us well in times of war and in times of peace. After all, it was written in a time of war!
The best quote i have ever read to summarize the mindset you have is the following: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
Slashdot Mirror
I think they are launching this with Stern, because the intent is to draw in as many of his fans as possible. Not really the average listener. Else they would make the whole service available as a trial no?
It would also seem logical to me that they could expand their web service by making it a cheap add on for their current subscribers. Otherwise, as you said, who is going to pay almost twice as much as XM or Yahoo!'s Launcast for the same type of service (although Yahoo!'s service offers personalization). Not to mention it would turn current subscribers off since they will be paying the same fee twice just to get the right to blast it on their computers.
Mobile Device support would also be another area they could offer to really expand their coverage (if they aren't already offering this). As with more and more multimedia phones and higher speed wireless (cell-phone wireless) connections it can be seen as a way to offer their service without the hardware investment.
If those two things are not really met I don't seeing the service going too far. I haven't looked at XM's offering in a long time, but when i trialled it about a year ago those were the reasons it wasn't useful to me.
Wow...
Where i live (Philadelphia, PA) USPS turnaround to get mail to anyone in the area is 1 day. Just as fast as UPS for $.39 compared to $8+ for UPS...
I've also noticed the USPS constantly beating private couriers like UPS in getting my letters and packages across the US. I've mailed (within the last 4 months) packages to Coos Bay, OR; Palo Alto, CA; and San Francisco, CA; to name a few and the speed has averaged 3-4 days! UPS or FedEx would take 5 days to deliver the same things. This was all sent USPS First Class Mail.
The USPS can't be beat in my books. Now that they've improved the speed of thier service so much i don't even think about using a private courier.
Your argument is very flawed imho...
Firstly allowing unlimited transfers dosen't legalized warez sites simply because the warez traders aren't deleting all copies they've shared (that would defeat the purpose wouldn't it?). Also, what part of the license agreement are you quoting? As a previous quoting of mine allows you unlimited transfers (for OEM version, though i'm sure its the same for Retail minus the hardware requirement).
Secondly, you are very right that they changed the language to regard the hardware the way they previously regarded a person and that has serious implications. The license agreement used to base this news story is the retail EULA. Previously if you walked into Staples and purchased Windows you had the license to use that on your computer forever. If you wanted to upgrade your motherboard, video card, hell rebuilt a new box from scratch (provided you don't keep the same XP license installed on the old) you were free to do that. With Vista they are tying those rights of usage to the hardware, period. So if you decide to buy a new motherboard (or any amount of hardware that results in Windows seeing your computer as a new "device" as they didn't limit this to mobo changes) you get to do that once. Later on decide to build you a fresh PC to update the one you previously had and you'll learn you need to buy a new license. There are some people in the world like me, who build their own PCs period and, who don't use OEM versions for the more liberal license (up until XP). Also, your probably saying "What does it matter? If i change my hardware and keep my copy of Vista going beyond the allotted limit i'm still "legal" i paid for it!" and the truth is your not different than the software pirate (as you would become) who downloaded it from a torrent site, except you paid to become a pirate!
Thirdly, you are not allowed unlimited transfer rights. Firstly the language prevents that and secondly just plain common-sense prevents that. Your not creating a whole new license with MS when it is transferred. You are transferring a license! Which means you are taking the license you are currently bound by and giving that SAME license to someone else. Meaning they are bound to whatever you were bound to and they are subjects to the limits you were subject to minus any resources you've used under that agreement (for instance if you transferred to another device).
Hopefully this clears things up for you and doesn't allow people to have the same misconsceptions.
XP Pro OEM SP2 says this:
I haven't the time to load the EULA for Retail, but if i remember it correctly you are allowed to transfer it as long as you destroy all your copies after the transfer. They are far more restrictive with Vista... XP allows freescale and other projects... Also notice the transfer rights are not limited. You can trasfer it and then the other person can transfer it etc. How will this new Vista way of doing it affect used computer sales??" 1.2 SOFTWARE as a Component of the COMPUTER - Transfer. This license may not be shared, transferred to or used concurrently on different computers. The SOFTWARE is licensed with the COMPUTER as a single integrated product and may only be used with the COMPUTER. If the SOFTWARE is not accompanied by HARDWARE, you may not use the SOFTWARE. You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the COMPUTER, provided you retain no copies of the SOFTWARE. If the SOFTWARE is an upgrade, any transfer must also include all prior versions of the SOFTWARE. This transfer must also include the Certificate of Authenticity label. The transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving the Software must agree to all the EULA terms."
You made my point exactly...
The majority of the south was content with the way their states were run and were not content with the way the northern states were being run and when that seemed to spread into their states they rebelled. They believed their current form of government was not only disregarding their needs, but also oppressing them. The same thing led us to the war for independence from Britain (another civil war).
When people are unhappy with their form of government they will fight to remove it. No government, no matter how powerful, can withstand a dedicated revolution from within.
In all honesty, what makes us so sure our government is perfect and needs to be spread to others? If people want to change yes, otherwise they are just as right as we are with their government choice.
Bad is very subjective to the perspective of the person being subject to this...
I do not agree with the actions of the Chinese government in its extreme efforts to censor and control its citizens, but at the same time i support the right of a people to choose their governments. Although it can be argued how much choice the Chinese have when it comes to their form of government we cannot immediately assume that our form of democracy is some sort of perfect thing that needs to be instilled in the rest of the world. If the majority of the Chinese are content with their government or its actions (which is the case otherwise their country would be in a civil war until it changed) we as a world community have to respect their right to govern their country.
That being said any company operating in China has to respect that as well. If the international news agencies do not want to be subject to censorship they have a choice, they can leave. It is not the job of companies to decide when government policy should and should not be followed. They are required to, and should be, adhere to the laws of the land where they operate, no matter how wrong they think those laws are. If they don't leave the country and in turn try to reverse the policy of the government they are not only attempting to place themselves above the law, but (since they are not Chinese firms) they are also attempting to instill foreign ideals on Chinese society, both are wrong.
Even in our "democratic" society a core element is respect for the opinions of others, even if they don't agree with you. We have to remember to place that same respect in our thinking when it comes to other nations in the global community.
Late comment, but isn't Telus a Canadian company?
t ml
http://about.telus.com/contactus/storelocations.h
What does Canadian law have to do with US law? Why are people so quick to yell "The US Sucks!" whenever they hear the word lawsuit without even reading to see if it is in the US?
Is there really any negative implications that severely thwart what is doable now? I'm a big fan of privacy, but I've never seen the license plate as something that warrants privacy laws. Simply because there is nothing you can do to protect it as the thing is on the car in public view 24/7. According to the article, they should make taking pictures of car license plates illegal. How would that law be realistically enforced? Seems it would only create more work for overburdened police forces for something that has no real threat potential. Someone could hire a Private Investigator now and gain a ton of information on your whereabouts and habits... Simply the price you pay for stepping outside into the public each day.
The last time the US Congress declared war was in WWII
The activity is illegal because it violates the US Constitution. If you are unfamiliar I'll do you the nice favor of quoting the document the president swore to uphold for you.
Amendment 4 to the US Constitution
-----
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-----
The president should not be allowed to act in a secretive and unrestricted manner, especially when we are at "war". Our system of government was designed so that no part of it supersedes the other and more importantly the president was designed to be strictly regulated by the legislative branch. The founders of our country believed the national government should not be overwhelmingly powerful and forgetful that is is an extension of the people not something that supersedes the people.
People today act like terrorism and related actions are something that are new and the founders did not have to deal with them. It only shows the lack of understanding one has with US history. If you look at the reasons for independence as well as the war of independence you will see that terrorism, as we see and define it, was very common in America. The King of England not only killed colonists and burned down whole towns, but he hired mercenaries to do the same things! Our constitution serves us well in times of war and in times of peace. After all, it was written in a time of war!
The best quote i have ever read to summarize the mindset you have is the following: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin