Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

186 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

12 times to install Windows XP??? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182395)

Hmmm, lets see...

Average AOL User : Installs Windows XP in 1 attempt.
Cmdr Taco : Cannot install Windows XP despite 12 attempts.

So, is this a Microsoft problem, or something more idiotic?

Re:12 times to install Windows XP??? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182401)

haha...

it's the 'interface behind the keyboard', that's were the problem is!

Re:12 times to install Windows XP??? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182435)

Where did CmdrTaco say this?

Re:12 times to install Windows XP??? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182516)

here [slashdot.org]

Re:12 times to install Windows XP??? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182532)

ROFLMAO

What a wanker.

Even my dog could install Windows XP in under 5 tries.

Re:12 times to install Windows XP??? (0)

weeerdo (267629) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182594)

no, taco (whoever the fuck taco is) does not say that in that link - someone else attributes it to him (her?)

Re:12 times to install Windows XP??? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182615)

he said it on TechTV, retard, the post just puts it in textual format.

and for christ's sakes if you don't know you taco is you sure as fuck don't belong on this (or should I say "his") site. moron.

Re:12 times to install Windows XP??? (0)

weeerdo (267629) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182683)

then point that out. and as to taco, well i don't know too much about this site, and i'd like to keep it that way. some people around here don't seem to have a life outside of slashdot. sad.

Re:12 times to install Windows XP??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182697)

But, I decided to flip on the tube and catch the TechTV deal with Taco and Gamara,

It's only in the second fucking line.

and as to taco, well i don't know too much about this site, and i'd like to keep it that way. some people around here don't seem to have a life outside of slashdot. sad.

Your UID is in the 200000s. That's like saying you don't know that Alex Trebek is the host of Jeopardy. Why don't you try fucking clicking that "About" link on the left?

In the beginning there was no Slashdot. Bored and confused geeks would scribble "First Post" in the sand. Grits were strictly for consumption and there wasn't a place to get nerd oriented news. Then in September of 97 Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda changed all that. With the help of Jeff "Hemos" Bates and others, Slashdot has stumbled forward with the simple mission to provide 'News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters'.

BTW, Taco, I love the "first post" comment.

Re:12 times to install Windows XP??? (0)

weeerdo (267629) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182711)

so someone claims to have seen something on tv. the question was where did taco say that and it sure wasn't that slashdot comment.

yes, of course i know who taco is - if i was too subtle for you, well that makes me smile.

Re:12 times to install Windows XP??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182722)

yes, of course i know who taco is - if i was too subtle for you, well that makes me smile.

The fact that you're a complete moron was not subtle to me at all.

Re:12 times to install Windows XP??? (0)

weeerdo (267629) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182729)

well i'm in good company here

Re:12 times to install Windows XP??? (0)

weeerdo (267629) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182720)

so someone claims to have seen something on tv. the question was where did taco say that and it sure wasn't that slashdot comment.

yes, of course i know who taco is - if i was too subtle for you, well that makes me smile.

Re:12 times to install Windows XP??? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182484)

That's cause the only "soft wear" that goes into CmdrTaco's "firewire port" is on Hemos's "hard drive".

I AM DRUNK (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182583)

Let's see how well I spelled this tomorrow, motherfuckers! Yup yup yup... Drinking is a fun part of everyday life and whatnot, motherfuckers!

HAHA CMDR TACO IS A FUCKING MORON!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182679)

Even my grandmother installed windows XP in 3 tries and she's blind!!!

Re:12 times to install Windows XP??? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182741)

PLEASE MOD ME DOWN

That's ok. (1, Funny)

Dunhausen (455277) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182397)

I prefer to just scroll through the 1's and 0's and decode them myself anyway.

Re:That's ok. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182470)

this is ot but, you have a creepy sig

Re:That's ok. (5, Funny)

cscx (541332) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182522)

I don't think that exempts you from the obligatory licensing fee.

Re:That's ok. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182652)

To decode and encode with licensed software is provided as a service...for a fee of course. However, if you wish to do it yourself free of cost then you may. Just be sure you don't provide the same method for others as you might run into a patent infrengment issue.

OV..does anyone know? (3, Interesting)

clambert (519009) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182400)

Do they already have Ogg? Was it added? Or will they be adding it? --clambert

Re:OV..does anyone know? (1)

NTmatter (589153) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182407)

If they don't already have Ogg, I have the feeling that they'll definitely be adding it soon.

Re:OV..does anyone know? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182448)

I have a feeling that you're a retarded monkey fucker

Re:OV..does anyone know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182452)

I have a feeling that you're right.

Re:OV..does anyone know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182433)

It's there. Much better then MP3.

Re: Java Bug 4499904 (5, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182477)

Adding support for Ogg Vorbis and Tarkin is bug 4499904 [sun.com] in the Bug Parade. This seems like a good time to vote for the bug and add your comments.

Re: Java Bug 4499904 (1)

Monkey-Man2000 (603495) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182501)

Mod parent up!

Re: Java Bug 4499904 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182664)

Mod parent into oblivion!

Re: Java Bug 4499904 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182685)

And beyond!

Tarkin? (3, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182600)

They'd be hard-pressed to add support for Tarkin, since it's barely even started, and not currently under active development (the Xiph coders are currently working on Theora, which is a project to integrate the VP3 codec -- which was originally closed-source and patented but has been donated to the Ogg project by the owners -- into the Ogg file format). Tarkin is still on the roadmap, but it's a long-term "what we'll do when we're done with everything else" goal with no timetable to completion.

Re:OV..does anyone know? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182480)

And... why would they? It sucks. You are such a tool, and you don't even know it.

Re:OV..does anyone know? (4, Informative)

hotgazpacho (573639) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182506)

Some quick Googling [google.com] turned up, among other things, JOrbis [jcraft.com] , an LGPL Ogg Vorbis Decoder in Java that decodes to PCM.

JOrbis (4, Insightful)

harmonica (29841) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182661)

JOrbis [jcraft.com] is a GPL'ed Ogg decoder. Maybe the developers and Sun can work something out to reuse that code (GPL probably won't be OK with Sun for JMF).

weak (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182402)

weak is all i have to say- i am so over the latest regs within all internet media- people are so damn ignorant its going to kill e-media

YEAH SUN (-1, Troll)

redhotchil (44670) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182406)

I run LINUX on my SPARC cause ITS MORE STABLE AND FASTR tahn SOLARIS..

they HSOULDNT" USE MP# but OGG

ogg is BETTER cause its made by LINUS TORVALODODOS

if this is modded down im going to kill myself

Re:YEAH [sic] SUN (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182434)

if this is modded down im going to kill myself
Hooray!!!! We = win!

oh well (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182408)

JMF is a buggy piece of shit anyways.

Unfortunate (2, Interesting)

shlong (121504) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182410)

I'm a big Java supported, but this is unfortunate. It will only serve to make Java less relevant. You'd think that Sun could have worked out something with donating the licensing fees and made it a 'goodwill' guesture towards the Java community. Oh well.

Re:Unfortunate (1)

X-Lancer (581569) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182439)

Would this have been enough? Wouldn't the license require every product produced that includes the decoding modules be licensed? But then if this is the case, Sun could have just left it up to the people building the products. Just wondering. Hany

Re:Unfortunate (3, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182451)

I see your point as to why you feel this is unfortunate, but would you mind explaining to the rest of us exactly why a company should invest licensing fees in something that's almost as free as air?

Re:Unfortunate (2)

coltrane99 (545982) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182461)

While this is definitely unfortunate, Sun has been pouring resources into this marvelous free platform with little (cash-money profit) to show for it for years now. I would think paying even a $1 per download would be pretty much out of the question for them.. How low can the licensing fees be?

Re:Unfortunate (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182486)

The problem with Sun "donating" the licenses is that commercial products using JMF would normally be required to pay for the encoder. Say, a portable MP3 player running on an embedded Java platform. Sun is not in a position to say who will be using the codec in an acceptable way and who won't. So the only solution they have is to drop the distributed support. They had a similar situation a while back with the Java Cryptography Extension.

All's not lost, however. JMF is a pluggable API, after all. Commercial products can make their own arrangements, while a freely-distributable codec could be made (by someone else) which can just be dropped in.

As for Ogg... give them a bit of time. It's easier to remove something (especially for legal reasons) than it is to put a replacement in. If you can't wait, write an Ogg codec for JMF and everyone using JMF will be able to drop it in and take advantage of it. :)

Re:Unfortunate (1)

mriker (571666) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182496)

Now that MP3 is now going to have a pricetag on it, it should be irradicated as far as I'm concerned. I think Sun is doing a service by dropping MP3 support. OggVorbis is the future.

Re:Unfortunate (1)

offpath3 (604739) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182536)

Hmm. Don't think the word should is necessary there. More like will naturally be irradicated through stupidity.

Re:Unfortunate (1)

proj_2501 (78149) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182619)

You means eradicated, right?

Re:Unfortunate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182597)

make a program that converts an entire directory of mp3 files to og vorbis. that would be great!

Re:Unfortunate (3, Insightful)

plierhead (570797) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182499)

Sun couldn't donate the license fees unless they struck a bulk deal with Thomson - they'd leave themselves wide open to someone downloading billions of copies of the JMF with the meter ticking for each one.

This does suck though, the JMF is a really nice framework, we built a servlet that played MP3s through the office stereo system using it.

The weird thing though is the disconnect here between Thomson, who claim the licensing rules have always been clear, and Sun, the sort of company who you would think would not embed someone else's IP unless they were very clear on the licensing issues. Sounds like Sun was very stupid and Thomson was very cunning.

Hello To All (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182411)

I am starting a pretty ambitious Open Source project and I was told this was the place to run it by people. I wish to reinact the American Civil War using chimpanzees with micro-computers planted inside their brains in order to control their behaviour. *Of course* I would like to run Linux on the apes, so I'd like to know if anyone would be interested in helping me with the coding. With all the brilliant minds I'm told are here on Slashdot.org I don't believe it will be very difficult to implement this project. I can take care of all the surgical procedures as I saw brain surgery done on the television once and as a computer science major I'm obviously much smarter than a medical student, so it should be easy. I'm most interested in recreating the battles as close to as they really happened as possible, so anyone who would like to help please reply to my post. Thanks so much.
Love,
Joe Dirte

WTF?!?! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182421)

OMG what the hell are you talking about this site has reached a new level of absurdity. I'd thought I'd seen it all, I guess I was wrong. Jeez.

Re:Hello To All (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182426)

I'd like to help!

But I have 1 condition: it has to run on Linux, cause even though it sucks, it might make us all feel better if we do everything on it!

Re:Hello To All (0, Offtopic)

NTmatter (589153) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182453)

The problem isn't one of being able to get linux running on your proprietary bioware implants. The real problem is going to be deciding which distro to use. I personally vote Caldera, since it's reportedly so simple that even a trained monkey could install it. Once the OS religious war is settled, the next major problem is going to be of establishing network connectivity between the primates. Given the nature of your project, I believe that it would be most effective to implement an 802.11b wireless network, with access points strategically tied to various trees about the area. Personally, I think it might be more cost effective to implement a traditional hard-wired ethernet network, but installing an ethernet card into a simian could prove to be problematic (IE, loose connections and such. It's reliability vs. useability and cost, I guess.)

If you would like to recieve more feedback, please submit this question to Slashback, and possibly to the Slashdot Polls. I'm sure that if we all knew what CowboyNeal would do, we'd be able to better decide a course of action.

Re:Hello To All (-1, Offtopic)

suffocate (90016) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182493)

CowboyNeal would sodomize all the monkeys as he was wiring the implants, of course.

Who wouldn't? n/t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182533)

I lied, it isn't n/t.

Re:Hello To All (0, Offtopic)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182698)

Caldera Linux is no more [slashdot.org] . Ransome Love is an anti opensource fanatic who actually wanted to charge a per seat licensing scheme for a free OS. What a joke. I believe their acquisition of SCO changed his mind on opensource. I am sure SCO Xenix is just going to come back from the coffin and beat out linux. NOT.

Caldera Version 1.2 lite was my first linux distro years ago and it will now be my last. It felt like a real unix with just fvwm and opendesktop file manager. It was so weird and the desktop was so alien compared to today.

ok. (-1, Offtopic)

I Love this Company! (547598) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182413)

yes.

90% of Linux Users Secretly Gay (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182418)

That's why they spend so much time fucking with their computers ... sexual frustration!

MP3 bite me (1)

f00zbll (526151) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182422)

Yet another slime ball company trying to squeeze everyone for another drop of blood. Haven't people learned yet that there should be a royalty free standards for these types of things?

Re:MP3 bite me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182716)

fuck off and die.

If not mp3... (1)

Suicide (45320) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182423)

Then why not add in something like Ogg Vorbis? I'm sure I'm not the only one to hink of this. Seriously though, wouldn't any available, comparable quality codec fill in instead of mp3?

Re:If not mp3... (4, Informative)

j3110 (193209) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182515)

It's a media framework. That means it's not SUN's job to make it work with everything :) You can add your own plugin audio codecs. Think of it as a portable version of the Windows Media Codec registry. I'm sure there will be sites that you can download MP3 plugins for the JMF. I'm pretty sure Ogg already exists, but I'm not sure about that. ( JavaZoom [javazoom.net] claims they have some kind of a version)

Expect to see lots of codec's for JMF provided by third parties, the way it should be. Should be because SUN's programmers don't have the time nor inclination (nor obligation) to learn every little detail about every little file format. It'll be better in the end to have a more dedicated support for each codec whilst keeping the portability and API static for all codecs.

not the reason?? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182424)

Maybe someone should check out this article first:

"Thomson has never charged a per unit royalty for freely distributed software decoders. For commercially sold decoders - primarily hardware mp3 players - the per-unit royalty has always been in place since the beginning of the program," a spokesman said"

"A Thomson spokesman told NewsForge's Robin Miller that it was a ruse by Ogg Vorbis advocates to get publicity.® "

http://www.theregus.com/content/4/26153.html

Re:not the reason?? (3, Informative)

gnoshi (314933) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182473)

As one would expect Thomson to say. What kind of poor-grade PR machines would they have to come up with anything less.

Disclaimer: I am not a Java dev...
That aside, there is a project to develop a Vorbis Java SPI [javazoom.net] , which (from the impression I get) makes Java decoding of vorbis easy, and fits a standard interface. Or something.

gnoshi

Re:not the reason??-Truth or dare. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182476)

Um..try reading what the License says, not what a suit says. Remember when push comes to shove that's what Thompson and a court of law will be going by.

Besides why take out the passage from the license if it already agrees with a policy?

ah but is this the final answer? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182495)

Maybe it was a ruse by Thomson to cause bad publicity to the Ogg Vorbis project by pretending that it was a ruse by Ogg Vorbis advocates to get publicity?

or maybe it was a ruse by Ogg Vorbis advocates to cause bad publicity to Thomson by pretending that it was a ruse by Thomson to cause bad publicity to the Ogg Vorbis project by pretending that it was a ruse by Ogg Vorbis advocates to get publicity?

Re:not the reason?? (3, Informative)

Trogre (513942) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182555)

This only applies to DECODERS. If you're using an ENCODER you're screwed.

What they're basically saying is, "Don't make any mp3's but it's okay if you play them."

Re:not the reason?? (1)

jsse (254124) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182563)

However, the implication is that for every device sold with that api in it would be charged for $0.75. That's something SUN wouldn't put up with.

I'm absolutely sure Thompson would do his best to make a deal with SUN. However, SUN is a company like to do his own way. I'm not a SUN hater, in fact if their way is good it'd definitely benefitial to the industry, like this time.

Re:not the reason?? (5, Informative)

ftobin (48814) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182610)

You're getting your information from a PR person. I'm getting mine from the licensing page [mp3licensing.com] . I see no such exception for free decoders.

Re:not the reason?? (2, Informative)

StArSkY (128453) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182676)

I agree. They are saying they have never charged for it. This is a statement of fact.... BUT now that it is removed from their licence, as menitioned by ftobin, they technically can, whenever they choose, pursue you for not adhering to the licence.

For example, Sun could be sued in 5 years time and have to make a retrospective licence payment. Thompson are making sure they keep a few cards up their sleeve.

The PR stunt in saying nothing has change is true for today, but not necessarily tomorrow.

Re:not the reason?? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182624)

You'll notice that the statement by Thompson is one of policy, not license text. Thompson can change that policy at any time, since it amounts to non-enforcement of their rights to collect on the patent.

Depending on the 'kindness of corporate strangers' with regards to just how long they will continue this non-collection policy seems a bad idea for anyone writing decoders.

Javalayer MP3 Player (5, Informative)

jpavel (129734) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182441)

Fortunately, there is an open source Java MP3 decoder, JavaLayer [javazoom.net] that I've found to work quite nicely.

Re:Javalayer MP3 Player (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182502)

which still has the patent issue, which may well invalidate the project being GPL.

Re:Javalayer MP3 Player (2)

g4dget (579145) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182572)

The existence of a patent somewhere in the world should not affect the GPL. After all, there are many places where MP3 isn't patented--should a patent in one part of the world invalidate the GPL license of a piece of software somewhere else?

Basically, all the GPL can do is keep someone who holds a patent from redistributing the software unless the patent holder allows the patent to be used freely with the GPL'ed software and its derivatives.

Re:Javalayer MP3 Player (2, Interesting)

innocent_white_lamb (151825) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182705)

The existence of a patent somewhere in the world should not affect the GPL.

That is an excellent point. If this project is somehow patent-encumbered in the USA but not in Canada or Europe, then it should be perfectly legal to use it in Canada and Europe under the terms of the GPL as was intended by the author. However, it seems to me that this project and others like it would be illegal in the USA.

Yet another reason why I'm thinking that advanced software development (hell, software development in general) may soon be moving out of the USA due to the prevailing legal climate in a manner similar to the way that some doctors are leaving due to the high cost of malpractice insurance created as a result of outrageous jury awards in malpractice suits.

Oh (2, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182457)

Oh, you mean the recent news that you irresponsibly covered, without amending the original post, resulting in much ado about nothing, as basically nothing changed?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26893.htm l

Next time, when you post a story that's clearly going to cause paranoia and misunderstanding, try to be a bit more adult about it. Mod this down as far as you like - I like Ogg, too, but if this is what it takes for it to gain widespread acceptance, something's wrong.

Re:Oh (1, Insightful)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182467)

Next time, when you post a story that's clearly going to cause paranoia and misunderstanding, try to be a bit more adult about it.

Take all the fun outa reading /. now wouldn't it? Yee freakin gads, if a person just checks /. for all their news then yah they are gonna be screwed.

Then again, err, /. has a comments section, want more info/discussion on/about a story? Go to comments. Oh look, you are already there, congrats.

Mod Parent Up! (3, Informative)

cscx (541332) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182548)

The licensing fee DOES NOT apply to software decoders, only hardware decoders.

From the Register article:

A Thomson spokesman told NewsForge's Robin Miller that it was a ruse by Ogg Vorbis advocates to get publicity.®

Hmmph.

Re:Oh (1)

innocent_white_lamb (151825) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182717)

as basically nothing changed?

Much as you may wiish it different, and protestations by Thomson public relations folks aside, the license page did change. Words were removed that were there previously and the words that were removed were the ones that exempted free software from the license fee.

resulting in much ado about nothing

Not at all. Much ado, and if you don't think that the change makes any difference then you haven't been paying attention. Would you believe Microsoft's public relations people if they said that security on the Windows platform is as good as security on the Linux platform? I'm sure that words to that effect will have come from that quarter before.

Public relations, advertising, bafflegab and wishful thinking don't make unpleasant realities go away and in this case the reality is that the terms of license have changed and free software for MP3 is no longer a safe project to undertake in the USA - as a programmer or distributor you may be placing yourself in legal jeopardy. Are you sure you want to take that chance?

Re:Oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182745)

Would you believe Microsoft's public relations people if they said that security on the Windows platform is as good as security on the Linux platform?

Yes.

No, Don't mod parent up (5, Informative)

hayden (9724) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182738)

From the article you posted:
[In reference to charging licence fees] For commercially sold decoders - primarily hardware mp3 players
Keyword, "primarily" meaning mostly but not only hardware decoders. Also:
Therefore, there is no change in our licensing policy
Keyword, "policy" meaning yes the licence has changed but our intent currently remains the same.

Basically Thompson have said they currently don't plan to sue anyone making a software decoder but they don't grant you the right to use their patent either. Nobody selling or planning on selling software can use their patent without risk of infringement (and compensation pays triple if you knowingly infringe a patent) and being sued by Thompson in the future.

What some PR flack said doesn't change that. It's only what's in the licence that counts.

Next time, when you post a story that's clearly going to cause paranoia and misunderstanding, try to be a bit more adult about it.
Next time when you are clearing posting to spread misinformation and crap, try posting as you so you can get modded down for it.

Ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182458)

That one non-open technology gets rid of support for another non-open technology.

boo fscking hoo (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182468)

I already pirate music.
Why should I care if I have to pirate the codec as well?

In case you're wondering, yes, I really do board boats, rape the women, kill the crew and take all the CDs on board. So there.

Re:boo fscking hoo (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182551)

Then the Nimo Codec Pack [btinternet.com] is just what you're looking for. It's the very best collection of (windows-only) "illegal" codecs around.

This convenient package of codec's would never be possible in a normal business environment. You'd drown in licensing hell first.

Confusion.... (3, Insightful)

MortisUmbra (569191) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182485)

I thought it was already decided that the "changes" weren't new at all to the MP3 license terms.... I could be wrong though but thats what I thought the follow-up said....

Write once run nowhere (0, Troll)

agraham (123576) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182504)

So now the Java programs I wrote last year --those "write once run everywhere" programs-- cannot be run on today's JVM. The only way to make them run will be to insist the user installs an old JVM. Like that's gonna happen.

Hey Sun, take a page from the W3 and don't add standards to your standard that you can't depend on for reasonable licencing terms.

One Word... (1)

RebelTycoon (584591) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182534)

Cheapies...

Seriously... Shell out the cash and give us the code... How lame (no pun)...

If Sun was as big and powerful as MS, we'd be making Sun-of-a-bitch jokes just a Micro-soft penis choices...

Cheapies...

Re:One Word... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182632)

What if the demands were not for a fixed sum of
monies, but instead a royalty interest?

How can you be sure of what caused the negotiations
to fall through?

A Critical Look at Goat Sex (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182562)

According to a recent study by the Institute of Beastiality in Alabama, goat sex is gaining in popularity. Once a subject just talked about in usenet newsgroups [google.com] , goat sex is poised to become the next national craze. "I r'ally luv ta feeln' ah tha' goat's saft fur on mah nahkid bady." said Mr. Ray, when asked his thoughts on what was so appealing about goat sex. "It's a lotta fun. Ever'on shoud try it." While goat sex was originally a taboo subject in the past, it has been rapidly gaining popularity and acceptance in recent years thanks to the work of goat sex promotion sites like goatse.cx [goatse.cx] . However, not everyone in the deviant sexual act business is happy. "We've been trying to promote sex with underage boys for a lot longer than those goat lovers!" Said a man who wished to be anonymous from NAMBLA, the North Atlantic Man-Boy Love Association. "Who would want to screw a goat anyway? Underage boys are where it's at." With the growing popularity of goat sex, NAMBLA's future looks bleak. "We're not getting nearly as many new members as we used to and a lot of our members have left to join goat sex organizations." Jon Katz of the popular geek news site Slashdot, a known NAMBLA member, couldn't be reached for comment. Despite the loathing by rival deviant sex organizations such as NAMBLA, goat sex's future looks bright and it's definitly a trend to watch in the coming months ahead.

Oh No There Is No License Problem! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182582)

Back Under Your Rocks With You Then. It was all solved then wasn't it. No issue, same as it ever was. Bend Over Idiots.

No one should EVER deal lightly with intellectual property issues. They must be explicit. :)

Anyway, if they don't feel like explicitly stating their 'policy' anymore, that is different from never stating it. It took effort to add ambiguity. They did it for a reason.

Bad news for Harlem VR (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182604)

I guess this means that there'll be no nigger music to accompany the VR tour of Coontown.

the licencing terms have changed again (3, Informative)

tanveer1979 (530624) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182611)

This link [theregister.co.uk] is carrying the story. Apparantly thomson has also said that they never said that this was applicable to software mp3 players! They blame it on rumours by vorbis group. At newsforge [newsforge.com] thomson has said that ogg is trying to get publicity and attention etc., they actually never had any restrictive terms for software mp3 playeres... no royalties for those.

Re:the licencing terms have changed again (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182626)

And you believe the hype the PR department is spewing out? They did in FACT change their licensing agreement to disclude mp3 decoders. Their PR department can state that they will never charge licensing for mp3 players till their face turns blue, but what is in the license is what matters. There is NO exclusion in the revised license that allows free mp3 decoders. The fears layed out by ogg vorbis may be extending a bit, but they are still true.

I can think of another company that claimed that they would do one thing, but changed their mind when it suited them since their license stated otherwise.

Re:the licencing terms have changed again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182713)

Right now, Van Halen SUCKS.

OT - question? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182633)

Do you think the hand in this [slashdot.org] banner is real or rendered?

Re:OT - question? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182638)

Real. It is cheaper to make the advertisement.

Java Virtual Machine (3, Funny)

thelinuxking (574760) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182646)

You know, if they left in the MP3 code, every time you wanted to use the Java Virtual Machine, you would have to insert your three quarters...

Re:Java Virtual Machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182721)

You know, if they left in the MP3 code, every time you wanted to use the Java Virtual Machine, you would have to insert your three quarters...

... of an inch?

Re:Java Virtual Machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182736)

just tell them you were using Java Virtual Currency and you should be off the hook...

Fuck MP3 licensing terms... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4182715)

lol, like anyone's going to pay for that shit anyway. the net was meant to be free - fuck you and your company - this is the age of software "piracy", avast ye mateys!

Ogg (1)

AlgUSF (238240) | more than 11 years ago | (#4182734)

I guess this is redundant, but Sun should start implementing ogg! I am a java developer, and I hope that Sun implements ogg in the next version of Java!

ogg is to mp3, what png is to jpg?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>