The Real Purpose of DRM

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Sunday April 2, 2006 @05:35AM from the man-keeping-us-down dept.

Roberto writes "Gorgeous nerd Annalee Newitz hacked a political interpretation to recent vacuum cleaner cockfights at O'Reilly's ETech: 'Hollywood corporations have finally admitted that the real reason they built digital restriction management (DRM) software into PVRs and DVD players was to stop geeks from turning their recording devices into back-alley combat machines. You haven't seen ugly until you've watched what a DVD player without DRM can do to a TiVo.' Don't try to even think of this at home."

17 of 235 comments (clear)

Dude... by SigILL · 2006-04-02 05:37 · Score: 5, Funny

April fools day is *so* yesterday.

--
Error: password can't contain reverse spelling of ancient Chinese emperor
The REAL Purpose of DRM by eldavojohn · 2006-04-02 05:40 · Score: 4, Funny

A late attempt to keep the secret of printed word hidden from the peasants and the surfs.

Those uprisings do cause ever so much trouble.

-Lord Rove II

--
My work here is dung.
What? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-04-02 05:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

"Don't try to even think of this at home."

What the hell does that mean?
Re:Gorgeous? by capt.Hij · 2006-04-02 05:44 · Score: 5, Funny

Dude! This chick just made a joke about Ubuntu *and* Gentoo users in the same sentence and then went on to disparage Red Hat users. I don't know what bug is up your nether regions, but I for one am in love. (She also discusses "USB devices." *drool*)
Err... by remembertomorrow · 2006-04-02 05:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

Am I the only one who feels more confused after reading TFA?

Is this supposed to be a joke, or some form of satire? A "jest" at "nerds"?

--
Registered Linux user #421033
Re:Gorgeous? by LouisZepher · 2006-04-02 05:52 · Score: 5, Funny

In your case then, "beer holder", not "beholder".
Re:Gorgeous? Take beer goggles off please! by munehiro · 2006-04-02 05:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, imho she is not that bad, and you should consider that:

1) you don't see the body
2) the photo is BW
3) the photo is small
4) the photo is crappy
5) there are people that appear not so good in photo but they are pretty in real life.
6) and most important, a girl can be gorgeous in her ideas and behavior, and you evaluate more and more this point of view as you get older.

therefore, you have to figure out in real life.

--
-- "If A equals success, then the formula is A=X+Y+Z. X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut." - Einstein
Looks... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-04-02 05:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

It would be nice if women could be judged on the merit of their ideas instead of their looks. Just a thought, you know :-P.
1. Re:Looks... by Lispy · 2006-04-02 06:05 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Please don't complain that /. is not women friendly. Not after yesterday. I am still suffering. :)
2. Re:Looks... by 91degrees · 2006-04-02 07:03 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Bet you're just saying that because you're ugly.
Re:Gorgeous? by PrvtBurrito · 2006-04-02 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

and one wonders why there aren't more geek women...

--
Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
Re:Gorgeous? Take beer goggles off please! by darkonc · 2006-04-02 06:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

All you can really tell from the picture is that she's not ugly. As a sometimes photographer, I'd say that they're not particularly flattering pictures.
I've seen people go from drab to sexy with just a change of clothes. These webcam images say that there's a good bit of room for potential. I definitely not expect a date with her to be drab.
.... and a freaking school photo! How many hot babes do you know that have ID pictures that make them look like complete blobs? Besides. Intelligence counts for alot, and she seems to be missing nothing there. we can work on the rest later.

--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? by svkal · 2006-04-02 06:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Do the Slashdot editors really feel that introducing a woman by a description of her (in this context irrelevant) physical looks is appropriate? (I say "woman" because I have a hard time imagining that Slashdot would introduce a male with a similar adjective: a case in point is that it was obviously a joke when they commended Linus Torvalds on his physical looks yesterday. If they were to do it in a non-joking manner, that would obviously be just as inappropriate as this.)
As was pointed out yesterday by several posters, this year's April Fool's was more than a little misogynistic in that it seemed to imply(obviously through exaggerations as Slashdot normally does on April Fool's) that women would like pink and ponies rather than technology news. I'm quite willing to let that slide, knowing that subtle humour is not really Slashdot's forte - but really, they shouldn't push their luck by describing female writers as being "gorgeous" the day afterwards.
(I do know that "political correctness" is largely frowned upon at Slashdot, but really, this isn't about submitting to some ever-changing and arbitrary standard, it's about basic politeness and showing respect for the people you are describing. You don't bring things like physical looks into the picture unless they are somehow relevant, and you certainly don't set different standards for what is relevant depending on the gender of the person being described.)
(Oh, and if anyone feels the need to argue that though "gorgeous" in this context obviously wouldn't be said about a male subject - given the gender of the Slashdot editors - it is a harmless one-word compliment which doesn't lastingly change the focus of the discussion: do note that there's already a thread contesting that Ms. Newitz is "gorgeous" based on a 120x130 grayscale picture in her profile. (Which in and of itself confirms some stereotypes about geeks.) Would there be such a thread debating this unless the submitter/editor had seen it fit to mention this in the introduction?)
1. Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? by cgenman · 2006-04-02 07:51 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  To be fair, it wasn't the slashdot editor but the story submitter that referred to the author in that way.
  
  Likewise that introduction would be obviously inappropriate if the author's story was about an OpenSSH vulnerability or a commentary on the sad state of Windows Vista. In that case writing about physical appearances would be an irrelevant distraction which would imply judgement of factual nature of the article in question based upon the physical appearance of the person. Whether or not that judgement is positive isn't important.
  
  But on a farcical story about cockfighting roombas that line isn't very clear. Can a comedian be demeaned by references to her appearance? Are they making less relevant a story that is already, at core, irrelevant? It again implies a degree of judgement, and a reminder of the prevalant nature of physical judgements in this culture. (I might add, the most insidiously judgemental people about women's appearances are largely other women)
  
  I personally would have edited out the reference to her "gorgeousness." But the question remains... In a non-serious, non-professional context, is it OK to slip in an irrelevant compliment about someone looks?
  
  --
  The ______ Agenda
2. Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-04-02 09:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Not a thing you wrote rings true. "Other side of the business world"? I work both and there is no other side, just the same distribution of assholes. She wore short skirts working IT, knowing the physical work entailed? She worked IT just for Comp Sci geeks who chased her from the field? None of the narrative, what little there is, makes any sense. It's a bullshit moral fable on a topic which doesn't need artificial stories to justify itself.
3. Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? by Pseudonym · 2006-04-02 11:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  As was pointed out yesterday by several posters, this year's April Fool's was more than a little misogynistic [...]
  
  You use that word a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means.
  
  Mysogyny is an aversion or hatred of women. I have a six year old daughter, and believe me, the "PONIES" stuff was a pretty good (if way, way too obvious to be a prank) parody. But it doesn't signify mysogyny in any way.
  
  Similarly, describing Ms. Newitz as "gorgeous" may be clumsy, insensitive and more than a little bit objectifying, but it's hardly mysogynistic. The overwhelming majority of single straight male slashdotters don't hate women, they just don't get them (in more ways than one).
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Re:Posted March 14, 2006. by PhYrE2k2 · 2006-04-02 07:41 · Score: 4, Funny

Slow news day :)
We used all the _real_ news yesterday.

--

when you see the word 'Linux', drink!