It's likely that the world would be a very different place without France, without the US, and without any other major power. We all have lots to be thankful for to each other. Can't we all just get along?
Indeed, if anything there should be a law that requires vendors to give the option of buying a blank hard drive with the computer. Software bundles should be purely optional, including OS. Sort of like what the French ruling does, except without jumping through the hoops of having to apply for a refund.
It is NOT observably evident. What is observably evident is a mass increase of 20 percent. That in no way accounts for all of the unobserved matter. And I'm not applying Occam's, I'm saying Occam's doesn't apply here. Both situations are hypothetical. Get a clue.
Occam's tells us that we should select the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions. In this case, we can assume that the extra mass is accounted for by dark matter, or that the galaxies are emitting more light than we can see. Occam's doesn't appear to apply.
First sale, as applied to computer software, has never been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court one way or the other, and the lower courts vacillate from one side to the other. It's the TOS that's the sticky part. Do the software companies have a right to make you agree that you don't own a game you just bought in order to play it. I don't know. I wish this would go to the Supreme court, but I have a feeling it wouldn't go our way if it did.
'm surprised at the 10 days though. That seems kind of long to me. Sounds like something a cracker could exploit. If there is a timer there is a way to stop it. The question isn't whether or not it'll be cracked, its how convoluted the work around will be. The war between software companies and crackers isn't a crack or no crack battle, its whether the software company can make the DRM strong enough that cracking it isn't worthwhile to the average user.
DRM is a sign that the product sucks so much that its creators don't think it's good enough to pay for.
While I can get behind the fervor of your argument, I think this specific statement is wrong. People will download games no matter what. I don't believe DRM is the solution, but there is a mindset at software companies that it will increase their revenues. They know that any DRM will be cracked, but the more convoluted the workaround, the more likely someone is (in the minds of the software companies) to go and buy the software instead. I don't have any numbers to prove whether or not this is actually the case, but I believe that the persistence of DRM on new software titles proves that the software companies believe it is.
Not to mention traffic, such as email, that isn't SSL encrypted. Fact: Most users have one password for everything they do. Fact: GMail stores every email you've ever gotten unless you explicitly delete it. Even if people are smart and keep more than one password, how many "Forgot my password" emails do you suspect the average user has in their inbox/archive? Simply checking your email over an unsecured wireless network can compromise you.
Being anti-US for a US citizen is a big ol' bucket of self hate. Hate Bush. Hate Republicans. Hate the government in general. But hating the US is hating your own heritage.
Not to mention the distribution nightmares it would cause. Every supplier would have to run watermarking software. I think more likely the files that are given to each distributer will be watermarked.
You're also loading up your servers with a huge amount of processing required to produce a different version of the entire file for each customer.
Which is probably one of the reasons they claim they won't put individually identifying watermarks in the songs. Unless its all done ahead of time, a stock of songs so to speak. Once one is downloaded, delete it and mark the next one for download. That puts a strain on hard drive space, so that's not likely to happen either. No, I think personally identifying watermarks won't happen.
Along this line of thinking: I wonder what would happen if you converted it to an analog recording, and then back to digital. You would need specialized equipment, but I would think that it would destroy the watermark. Am I wrong?
I don't believe that even the RIAA would outright forge evidence. Not because I believe they have morals, but because if they were caught the consequences would be dire to both them as a company and to their anti-piracy campaign.
The rest of the solar system may be unlivable now, but there's something to be said for artificial environments. I think that creating some sort of livable structure with its own atmosphere is going to be the first step to colonizing other planets, perhaps being followed by terraforming.
Practical or not, we have two solutions to the growth problem: stop growing, or find other places to live. It's unlikely that people will stop procreating, and all the livable land on earth will eventually be used up. That leaves us with only one possibility: colonize outer space. It may not be an issue for this generation, and maybe not even the next, but any advances we make in space exploration will benefit our children's children. I would like to believe that by the time humans need to colonize the stars, we'll have the capability of doing so.
I just can't get upset about US children being involved in porn, when there are children all over the world being straight up murdered. We have the blood of many many Iraqi children on our hands...let's fix that shit first.
If we can't take care of our own, how can we possibly police the rest of the world? I agree that the tragedies overseas are important, but the purpose of a government is to take care of its own citizens first.
If you were in a coma on life-support with little or no brain function, but we were 99% certain that in nine months you'd recover completely, could you justify pulling the plug on the machines keeping you alive?
The problem with this statement is that embryos used for stem cells won't be a human in nine months; they'll eventually be destroyed. One could argue that destroying them is unethical, but unless legislation is passed stating that all embryos must be matured to a living, breathing human being, using them for stem cell research and destroying them as medical waste are equivalent.
Slashdot Mirror
Disagree, unless China plans on cold calling me during dinner.
That may be true, but, in places like China, the punishment usually far exceeds the crime.
It's likely that the world would be a very different place without France, without the US, and without any other major power. We all have lots to be thankful for to each other. Can't we all just get along?
Indeed, if anything there should be a law that requires vendors to give the option of buying a blank hard drive with the computer. Software bundles should be purely optional, including OS. Sort of like what the French ruling does, except without jumping through the hoops of having to apply for a refund.
It is NOT observably evident. What is observably evident is a mass increase of 20 percent. That in no way accounts for all of the unobserved matter. And I'm not applying Occam's, I'm saying Occam's doesn't apply here. Both situations are hypothetical. Get a clue.
Occam's tells us that we should select the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions. In this case, we can assume that the extra mass is accounted for by dark matter, or that the galaxies are emitting more light than we can see. Occam's doesn't appear to apply.
First sale, as applied to computer software, has never been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court one way or the other, and the lower courts vacillate from one side to the other. It's the TOS that's the sticky part. Do the software companies have a right to make you agree that you don't own a game you just bought in order to play it. I don't know. I wish this would go to the Supreme court, but I have a feeling it wouldn't go our way if it did.
While I can get behind the fervor of your argument, I think this specific statement is wrong. People will download games no matter what. I don't believe DRM is the solution, but there is a mindset at software companies that it will increase their revenues. They know that any DRM will be cracked, but the more convoluted the workaround, the more likely someone is (in the minds of the software companies) to go and buy the software instead. I don't have any numbers to prove whether or not this is actually the case, but I believe that the persistence of DRM on new software titles proves that the software companies believe it is.
Not to mention traffic, such as email, that isn't SSL encrypted. Fact: Most users have one password for everything they do. Fact: GMail stores every email you've ever gotten unless you explicitly delete it. Even if people are smart and keep more than one password, how many "Forgot my password" emails do you suspect the average user has in their inbox/archive? Simply checking your email over an unsecured wireless network can compromise you.
Being anti-US for a US citizen is a big ol' bucket of self hate. Hate Bush. Hate Republicans. Hate the government in general. But hating the US is hating your own heritage.
Why, oh why, do I only have mod points when the conversations are boring.
So, you're saying that an undercover cop buying drugs is authorized to buy those drugs, so the person selling the drugs can't be prosecuted?
Not to mention the distribution nightmares it would cause. Every supplier would have to run watermarking software. I think more likely the files that are given to each distributer will be watermarked.
Which is probably one of the reasons they claim they won't put individually identifying watermarks in the songs. Unless its all done ahead of time, a stock of songs so to speak. Once one is downloaded, delete it and mark the next one for download. That puts a strain on hard drive space, so that's not likely to happen either. No, I think personally identifying watermarks won't happen.
Along this line of thinking: I wonder what would happen if you converted it to an analog recording, and then back to digital. You would need specialized equipment, but I would think that it would destroy the watermark. Am I wrong?
I don't believe that even the RIAA would outright forge evidence. Not because I believe they have morals, but because if they were caught the consequences would be dire to both them as a company and to their anti-piracy campaign.
The rest of the solar system may be unlivable now, but there's something to be said for artificial environments. I think that creating some sort of livable structure with its own atmosphere is going to be the first step to colonizing other planets, perhaps being followed by terraforming.
Enough Said
Sad, but true. Fortunately, the natural resources on other planets may be abundant enough to make pilfering them worthwhile.
Practical or not, we have two solutions to the growth problem: stop growing, or find other places to live. It's unlikely that people will stop procreating, and all the livable land on earth will eventually be used up. That leaves us with only one possibility: colonize outer space. It may not be an issue for this generation, and maybe not even the next, but any advances we make in space exploration will benefit our children's children. I would like to believe that by the time humans need to colonize the stars, we'll have the capability of doing so.
If we can't take care of our own, how can we possibly police the rest of the world? I agree that the tragedies overseas are important, but the purpose of a government is to take care of its own citizens first.
Of course not, it could have pee in it!
not to mention that it could rip your skin open if you moved during application
The problem with this statement is that embryos used for stem cells won't be a human in nine months; they'll eventually be destroyed. One could argue that destroying them is unethical, but unless legislation is passed stating that all embryos must be matured to a living, breathing human being, using them for stem cell research and destroying them as medical waste are equivalent.