EMI believes that consumers aren't allowed to store their music files online, and that MP3tunes is violating copyright law by providing a backup service.
Sadly, in some markets, he's probably correct. I can't speak for America, though I'd assume the Fair Use doctrine would apply, but in the UK I'm fairly certain that it's still, albeit perhaps only technically, illegal (sorry, I couldn't find a more authoritative source) to copy CDs for any purpose, whether for transfer to an iPod for practical purposes or simply as an archival backup.
I'd hazard a guess, insofar as I'd want to try and infer reason in the minds of music executives, that online storage is probably perceived as being equal to distribution via p2p. I hope that, some day, a music company might at least try to employ someone familiar with IT. Presumably it'd save them a little time and money.
I imagine that it's down to the difference between being able to see the source code and being legally/contractually/whatever-ly able to modify or distribute the source code, or implementing fragments of it in your own work.
I do agree with your point though; trying to implement JS as a closed-source implementation is an exercise in futility and frustration. Mind you that's pretty much my stand on most software: open source is probably the most efficient way forward.
Forget that it, alone, produces five times more agriculture than the entire Isle of England.
I'll assume you meant Great Britain. California is (bear in mind all numbers are from Wikipedia) 163,696 square miles with a population of 36,457,549, Great Britain is 80,823 square miles with a population of 58,845,700.
The population density of California would be 222.7 people per square mile and for Great Britain is 728.1 people per square mile.
So yeah, California generates more agricultural produce than Great Britain but it's got more room in which to do it. There's also the climate difference, which I'd assume helps the crops.
But were you really just expressing irritation at the fact that the US isn't leading that particular industry? 'Cause that's fair enough and, given the fact that the web was (so far as I can tell) more-or-less an American creation (with the exception of HTML), understandable.
I do have mod-points but, since I've replied to you, I can't mod you. Which is fair enough really, since I wouldn't know how to mod you. It's not Flamebait, I'm sure; but I don't think it's insightful either. And, while it's Informative, I'm not convinced that's the spirit in which you meant it. So I thought I'd reply instead.
Sooner or later someone will mention phone jammers, and a few posts later someone will counter with the fact that it might block a doctors phone.
On an aeroplane? Why would a doctor, needing to receive calls, be on an aeroplane? If the doctor's likely to get calls regarding medical emergencies (I assume that's why you specified that profession) while he, or she, is on an aeroplane that's about to take off, or already in flight, I strongly suspect they wouldn't answer anyway.
because there are far fewer "real" jobs to go around thanks to H1B stuff. Ignoring resources is harmful.
For the record I'm British, and not working in the US, or for a US company. But, there's two responses to your comment; the first is that 'ignoring resources' is not harmful, it's a violation of the H1B program; foreign workers are allowed into the US only if workers with a similar skill set cannot be found locally (I suspect that this doesn't take into account the cost of labour, but I'm not sure).
My second response regards the comment of 'fewer "real" jobs to go around.' First of all: what's a real job, as opposed to a 'non-real' job? But most importantly if a successful programmer (occupation chosen because of the primary audience of Slashdot) is brought into America surely that serves not to 'take' a job from an American (since a comparably skilled American couldn't be found) but to support the economy and, consequently create jobs? That person is going to take the wages and contribute to the local economy in some way, from buying/renting a house/apartment to using the local gym, to dining at a local restaurant. These 'service' jobs might be the 'non-real' jobs you refer to, but they provide employment and allow others to live in the local area as opposed to having to move elsewhere to find jobs/cheaper housing.
I'm not saying that everyone with a CS degree should be imported to a particular area to support an economy, but, if a company can't find someone to do the job they need to be done, why shouldn't they go elsewhere to look for their employees?
Perhaps I've mis-read your comments and, if I have, I apologise; assuming that I got it right, then I had to respond.
It's not that much of surprise when you think about it. It is, after all, the only logical progression for outsourcing; who's better for IT support? Some random guy or a spaceman? Soon, despite the cool, we'll be relieved that the help line's only over in Bangalore...
'The full image reveals features as small as a desk in a strip of terrain 3.7 miles (6 kilometers) wide and more than 10 times that long, at 84 degrees north latitude.
I know that we've sent various missions to mars; rovers, probes, environmental impact among other what-have-you; but, and this, I feel is important, when did we send the office furniture?
Got my hopes up! I thought you meant John Cleese and Terry Gilliam had new work at Sun...
Have you followed Gilliam's career? Almost everything the guy works on is cursed, usually with multiply-redundant curses in case one of them fails...unless you want Sun to die you don't want him working there. The poor fella.
On the other hand it would be nice to see the giant foot falling from the sky to crush any run-time errors.
Since, unless my maths is hideously wrong, 0.00001% of a year (to use an arbitrary time period) is, in seconds, 60 (seconds) * 60 (minutes) * 24 (hours) * 365 (days) = 31536000seconds; 0.00001% of a year is: 315.36seconds or 5.256minutes.
Five and a quarter minutes loss of one's mobile phone or internet, per year, isn't going to hurt that much. Even for the Slashdot F5-monkeys (of which group I'm proud to be a member!). For a pacemaker or life-support machine it's not good enough, I agree; but for a utility communication?
Oh! That's right; they were resisting legislative impetus to monitor traffic, but now they have a financial impetus. Tch; if only the government had thought through the remuneration aspect...
The ISPs are citing technical and legal reasons for why they do not wish to do this. Legals reasons include surveillance laws which prohibit ISPs from monitoring a user's data unless compelled by a warrant.
But, looking at the American example of attempting to make illegal surveillance being retro-actively legal/non-impeachable (I'm not a lawyer so that may be entirely the wrong term), how long until we brits see the law changed to reduce by half the obstacles?
All of the "facts" are true, and yet Vista is still a slow giant that doesn't play well with others and needs an uber-machine to accomplish basic feats.
C'mon guys, the market isn't saying these criticisms based on fictional accounts - they bought/used Vista and it sucked as an experience.
And PLEASE, give up on the Aero-is-cool stuff. You are playing catchup on the desktop - by far.
You appear to be talking to Microsoft. They're probably not listening but, anyways, it was this that caught my eye:
You've simply been in GDI for so long you can't see the irony of cheering about abandoning it now.
I always assumed they were more akin to Nod...must...stop...playing...C&C...
Well, that sounds silly. I can't imagine that it'd be a good idea to make available one's biometric identifiers ready-encoded, still less wise to place that into the metadata. Which can be, quite simply, either stripped out, replaced or repurposed.
It might make some sense to embed some form of identifier within the image itself using old-fashioned steganography, where at least it's harder (though still absolutely possible) to remove or acquire, but, as it stands, this proposal seems to embody the worst of both worlds: we'll make your identifying information publically available and in an easy-to-remove format! Net gain: um...?
Still, I guess I can hope they'll patent it only to prevent other companies from implementing stupidity.
I realise I'm still very new to Linux, familiarising myself with Ubuntu Server and the desktop variants only recently, but 'sulphur'? The new improved Fedora: 'smells like rotting eggs'? Surely that's not the best name they could've come up with. Mind you, it's an Alpha release so maybe it's simply to prevent accidental downloads...
I've noticed that a number of candidates (I'm not naming names) and a number of administration officials will not answer a question in a clear and concise fashion. The subject could be anything from "Do you think waterboarding is torture?" to "What will be your stance toward the war in Iraq if you are elected?"
So my question to you is, "Do you think that I want someone in that office (Whichever one it is) who is deliberately attempting to deceive me?"
Even if you don't answer this question, I hope you think about it the next time someone asks you a question.
Ron Paul campaign:
The American people should expect clear and direct answers to their questions. Not only have I always strived to clearly state my position on issues, but my voting record backs up my commitment to the free-market, limited government philosophy I espouse on the campaign trail.
So he, or his campaign, agrees that the American people should expect clear and direct answers, and then prevaricates and fails to answer the question.
I'm not an American voter so while his advocacy of clear and direct answers doesn't apply to me I'm not quite sure of how dedicated he is to that philiosophy from the answer given.
Also, treating STDs would provide opportunity for conversion of high-risk behaviors into lower-risk behaviors, e.g. you're in the office anyway, why not have a little talk about safe sex while you're there?
And at the rate it was going, unless something like this happened, no one would ever be able to stop Google.
Does Google need to be 'stopped'? Really? I thought the purpose of competition in the market was not to 'stop' a business but to spur innovation and development to the better-satisfaction of the consumer.
While, for online advertising, the consumer is not the customer (for Google at least the customers are the businesses purchasing ad-space), the consumer still has the power, through use or non-use, to effect a level of control over the search engines selling the ads.
Having read the featured article I can't help but feel that the language is somewhat inflammatory and provocative. Not quite the image that Google likes to usually present of itself.
On what grounds would you refuse them this power? Surely they should have the right to pursue litigation if they feel they, or their property, is being abused. Whether or not that's intellectual or actual property, though I do agree that they should be treated differently.
Just because Warner is suing Seeqpod doesn't mean that they have any over-arching power to do as they will, regardless of the majority/vocal opinion around the internet; but, and bear in mind I'm not American, so I could easily have this ass-backwards, if this goes to court then either the DMCA Safe Harbour will be found, in some way, inappropriate or the case will enforce the perceived strength of the Safe Harbour provision.
While I'd hope for the former (and coming from the UK I'm envious of the American Fair Use doctrine) I'd accept the risk of the latter, despite the obviously-limited effect that'd have on me. Surely to deny someone, corporation or individual, the right to pursue judicial support would be, if not unconstitutional, but unethical.
Yes, I know the patent trolls and various labels and companies have abused that right, but that right should be protected in order that everyone else can be safe in the knowledge that they can go to the courts for help and restitution. Denying one makes it easier to deny the second. Slippery-slopes and all that...
Despite all of that I do believe that Warners are acting like fools pursuing this, but that's their right.
It might be worth pointing out that, while the iPhone may be searched, it's not just a random 'I think I'll look through that guy's pockets' type search (not ostensibly anyway), but only an incident to arrest (if I remember the term correctly, though I'm from the UK not the US...). So, how I understand it, if a person is arrested for anything from solicitation, drug dealing or having a faulty brake-light, items in their possession may be searched by the police.
I guess the easiest way, in principle, would be to avoid arrest in the first place. Of course as legislation increases that, in itself, becomes more problematic. Whether or not I agree with the rights of the police to randomly search property following an arrest, particularly for evidence unrelated to the original arrest (I don't) is moot; but I thought it'd be worth pointing out.
Use the recent Dtrace-fix kernel module to get tracing working, and trace the offending program until you find the error. Then write a kenel module to fix that.
The Storage@Home thing that was mentioned, albeit possibly in the comments, a while back. I'm not sure, at all, whether or not the Folding@Home data is meant to be public domain but, were it so, then it'd be a preferable solution in part to using a p2p style storage alternative.
Of course the three terabyte limit might cause problems there.
The problem wiht(sic) usability experts is that they would never come up with vi. That's because it's complex, hard to learn and impossible for beginners to quit (never mind learn) without a cheat sheet.
I agree that a UI expert isn't going to come up with Vi in its current format, but I think you're equating a complex interface with a complex/powerful program. Ideally what would happen is that the programmer comes up with Vi then passes it to a UI expert who then passes it to an art department.
The fact that Vi is 'impossible for beginners to quit...without a cheat sheet' suggests not that it's a vindication of keeping UI experts away, but instead that a UI expert should've been consulted at some point.
Easy-to-use doesn't necessarily equate to simplistic or a minimal feature-set. Though sometimes it does, of course. But mostly in those circumstances it's because the shiny-UI came before the feature-set.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes; exactly.
Sadly, in some markets, he's probably correct. I can't speak for America, though I'd assume the Fair Use doctrine would apply, but in the UK I'm fairly certain that it's still, albeit perhaps only technically, illegal (sorry, I couldn't find a more authoritative source) to copy CDs for any purpose, whether for transfer to an iPod for practical purposes or simply as an archival backup.
I'd hazard a guess, insofar as I'd want to try and infer reason in the minds of music executives, that online storage is probably perceived as being equal to distribution via p2p. I hope that, some day, a music company might at least try to employ someone familiar with IT. Presumably it'd save them a little time and money.
I imagine that it's down to the difference between being able to see the source code and being legally/contractually/whatever-ly able to modify or distribute the source code, or implementing fragments of it in your own work.
I do agree with your point though; trying to implement JS as a closed-source implementation is an exercise in futility and frustration. Mind you that's pretty much my stand on most software: open source is probably the most efficient way forward.
I'll assume you meant Great Britain. California is (bear in mind all numbers are from Wikipedia) 163,696 square miles with a population of 36,457,549, Great Britain is 80,823 square miles with a population of 58,845,700.
The population density of California would be 222.7 people per square mile and for Great Britain is 728.1 people per square mile.
So yeah, California generates more agricultural produce than Great Britain but it's got more room in which to do it. There's also the climate difference, which I'd assume helps the crops.
But were you really just expressing irritation at the fact that the US isn't leading that particular industry? 'Cause that's fair enough and, given the fact that the web was (so far as I can tell) more-or-less an American creation (with the exception of HTML), understandable.
I do have mod-points but, since I've replied to you, I can't mod you. Which is fair enough really, since I wouldn't know how to mod you. It's not Flamebait, I'm sure; but I don't think it's insightful either. And, while it's Informative, I'm not convinced that's the spirit in which you meant it. So I thought I'd reply instead.
On an aeroplane? Why would a doctor, needing to receive calls, be on an aeroplane? If the doctor's likely to get calls regarding medical emergencies (I assume that's why you specified that profession) while he, or she, is on an aeroplane that's about to take off, or already in flight, I strongly suspect they wouldn't answer anyway.
For the record I'm British, and not working in the US, or for a US company. But, there's two responses to your comment; the first is that 'ignoring resources' is not harmful, it's a violation of the H1B program; foreign workers are allowed into the US only if workers with a similar skill set cannot be found locally (I suspect that this doesn't take into account the cost of labour, but I'm not sure).
My second response regards the comment of 'fewer "real" jobs to go around.' First of all: what's a real job, as opposed to a 'non-real' job? But most importantly if a successful programmer (occupation chosen because of the primary audience of Slashdot) is brought into America surely that serves not to 'take' a job from an American (since a comparably skilled American couldn't be found) but to support the economy and, consequently create jobs? That person is going to take the wages and contribute to the local economy in some way, from buying/renting a house/apartment to using the local gym, to dining at a local restaurant. These 'service' jobs might be the 'non-real' jobs you refer to, but they provide employment and allow others to live in the local area as opposed to having to move elsewhere to find jobs/cheaper housing.
I'm not saying that everyone with a CS degree should be imported to a particular area to support an economy, but, if a company can't find someone to do the job they need to be done, why shouldn't they go elsewhere to look for their employees?
Perhaps I've mis-read your comments and, if I have, I apologise; assuming that I got it right, then I had to respond.
It's not that much of surprise when you think about it. It is, after all, the only logical progression for outsourcing; who's better for IT support? Some random guy or a spaceman? Soon, despite the cool, we'll be relieved that the help line's only over in Bangalore...
I know that we've sent various missions to mars; rovers, probes, environmental impact among other what-have-you; but, and this, I feel is important, when did we send the office furniture?
Have you followed Gilliam's career? Almost everything the guy works on is cursed, usually with multiply-redundant curses in case one of them fails...unless you want Sun to die you don't want him working there. The poor fella.
On the other hand it would be nice to see the giant foot falling from the sky to crush any run-time errors.
Since, unless my maths is hideously wrong, 0.00001% of a year (to use an arbitrary time period) is, in seconds, 60 (seconds) * 60 (minutes) * 24 (hours) * 365 (days) = 31536000seconds; 0.00001% of a year is: 315.36seconds or 5.256minutes.
Five and a quarter minutes loss of one's mobile phone or internet, per year, isn't going to hurt that much. Even for the Slashdot F5-monkeys (of which group I'm proud to be a member!). For a pacemaker or life-support machine it's not good enough, I agree; but for a utility communication?
I could've sworn we had a story recently in which ISPs were resistant to monitoring users; what happened..?
Oh! That's right; they were resisting legislative impetus to monitor traffic, but now they have a financial impetus. Tch; if only the government had thought through the remuneration aspect...
But, looking at the American example of attempting to make illegal surveillance being retro-actively legal/non-impeachable (I'm not a lawyer so that may be entirely the wrong term), how long until we brits see the law changed to reduce by half the obstacles?
You appear to be talking to Microsoft. They're probably not listening but, anyways, it was this that caught my eye:
I always assumed they were more akin to Nod...must...stop...playing...C&C...
Well, that sounds silly. I can't imagine that it'd be a good idea to make available one's biometric identifiers ready-encoded, still less wise to place that into the metadata. Which can be, quite simply, either stripped out, replaced or repurposed.
It might make some sense to embed some form of identifier within the image itself using old-fashioned steganography, where at least it's harder (though still absolutely possible) to remove or acquire, but, as it stands, this proposal seems to embody the worst of both worlds: we'll make your identifying information publically available and in an easy-to-remove format! Net gain: um...?
Still, I guess I can hope they'll patent it only to prevent other companies from implementing stupidity.
I realise I'm still very new to Linux, familiarising myself with Ubuntu Server and the desktop variants only recently, but 'sulphur'? The new improved Fedora: 'smells like rotting eggs'? Surely that's not the best name they could've come up with. Mind you, it's an Alpha release so maybe it's simply to prevent accidental downloads...
So he, or his campaign, agrees that the American people should expect clear and direct answers, and then prevaricates and fails to answer the question.
I'm not an American voter so while his advocacy of clear and direct answers doesn't apply to me I'm not quite sure of how dedicated he is to that philiosophy from the answer given.
So...what is it that you do in your office?
Does Google need to be 'stopped'? Really? I thought the purpose of competition in the market was not to 'stop' a business but to spur innovation and development to the better-satisfaction of the consumer.
While, for online advertising, the consumer is not the customer (for Google at least the customers are the businesses purchasing ad-space), the consumer still has the power, through use or non-use, to effect a level of control over the search engines selling the ads.
Having read the featured article I can't help but feel that the language is somewhat inflammatory and provocative. Not quite the image that Google likes to usually present of itself.
On what grounds would you refuse them this power? Surely they should have the right to pursue litigation if they feel they, or their property, is being abused. Whether or not that's intellectual or actual property, though I do agree that they should be treated differently.
Just because Warner is suing Seeqpod doesn't mean that they have any over-arching power to do as they will, regardless of the majority/vocal opinion around the internet; but, and bear in mind I'm not American, so I could easily have this ass-backwards, if this goes to court then either the DMCA Safe Harbour will be found, in some way, inappropriate or the case will enforce the perceived strength of the Safe Harbour provision.
While I'd hope for the former (and coming from the UK I'm envious of the American Fair Use doctrine) I'd accept the risk of the latter, despite the obviously-limited effect that'd have on me. Surely to deny someone, corporation or individual, the right to pursue judicial support would be, if not unconstitutional, but unethical.
Yes, I know the patent trolls and various labels and companies have abused that right, but that right should be protected in order that everyone else can be safe in the knowledge that they can go to the courts for help and restitution. Denying one makes it easier to deny the second. Slippery-slopes and all that...
Despite all of that I do believe that Warners are acting like fools pursuing this, but that's their right.
It might be worth pointing out that, while the iPhone may be searched, it's not just a random 'I think I'll look through that guy's pockets' type search (not ostensibly anyway), but only an incident to arrest (if I remember the term correctly, though I'm from the UK not the US...). So, how I understand it, if a person is arrested for anything from solicitation, drug dealing or having a faulty brake-light, items in their possession may be searched by the police.
I guess the easiest way, in principle, would be to avoid arrest in the first place. Of course as legislation increases that, in itself, becomes more problematic. Whether or not I agree with the rights of the police to randomly search property following an arrest, particularly for evidence unrelated to the original arrest (I don't) is moot; but I thought it'd be worth pointing out.
It's also been discussed on Techdirt recently.
I'm sorry, Dave; I can't let you do that.
--Happle
The Storage@Home thing that was mentioned, albeit possibly in the comments, a while back. I'm not sure, at all, whether or not the Folding@Home data is meant to be public domain but, were it so, then it'd be a preferable solution in part to using a p2p style storage alternative.
Of course the three terabyte limit might cause problems there.
Power Over eSata?
Look at those uppercases, the only acronym/abbreviation they can go for is either POeS (not too great, but better than) POS...
I can only hope it's a meta-commentary, the designers' own reaction to another port and yet-another-acronym...
I agree that a UI expert isn't going to come up with Vi in its current format, but I think you're equating a complex interface with a complex/powerful program. Ideally what would happen is that the programmer comes up with Vi then passes it to a UI expert who then passes it to an art department.
The fact that Vi is 'impossible for beginners to quit...without a cheat sheet' suggests not that it's a vindication of keeping UI experts away, but instead that a UI expert should've been consulted at some point.
Easy-to-use doesn't necessarily equate to simplistic or a minimal feature-set. Though sometimes it does, of course. But mostly in those circumstances it's because the shiny-UI came before the feature-set.
Quite a bit of it comes from Google every time you use the integrated Google search bar.