You may have a point, there. DRM on expensive items doesn't work, when the alternative is a free unauthorized download. However, if legal downloads become dirt-cheap, but locked to a device with DRM, the situation might change. DRM will always be crackable, sure, but if you can easily buy music directly on a mobile device at a reasonable price, it could well appear worth the cost to avoid the hassle of getting on a computer, finding what you want, downloading the stuff, and loading it onto your device after potentially having to convert to another format as well. If the pricing is low enough, the user might not even mind having to pay again to download the media onto a different device.
This certainly goes against how we're used to consuming media right now, but if the industry's plans are to provide their services like described above, it would at least explain their stubborn insistence on DRM. Instead of selling a product once at a higher price, they would sell it many times at a lower price. If they're smart, that is. If they're not, they won't bring the pricing low enough and their downward spiral will continue.
well, that's another thing... It's secret, of course, and maintained by a single government official. Some people whose ISPs use the list have made an incomplete list of blocked sites simply by trying different addresses out and writing down the ones that redirect to the police notice that the site has been blocked. But in any case, in principle the list is not public knowledge, the police will not discuss the contents of the list at all, and so far it has seemed that if a site containing no illegal material should end up on the list... Well, too bad.
In fact, most recently the police have added lapsiporno.info to the list, which is a site criticizing the filter list and maintaining a list of known blocked sites. The block came into effect after the maintainer decided to test the limits of the law and added the option to view the sitelist as a list of direct links instead of just seeing the URLs typed out. The police won't comment on any specific site on the filter list, but they do say that the law enables them to block sites containing illegal pornography with minors, or sites linking to such sites. The text of the law actually seems to contain no such provision about linking, and also states that the filtering is to be applied only to sites based outside Finland, presumably with the idea that sites in.fi will be shut down and the operators prosecuted. Indeed, it is strange that the police would choose to ignore a crime and instead of investigating, just block the site. Or are they admitting there is nothing illegal about lapsiporno.info, but blocking it anyway?
My ISP doesn't fortunately use any filtering, and the usual method of bypassing the ISP's DNS servers will work, but still. Interesting times.
I can't wait for this type of legislation to snake its way into the country I live in. Why? We come well prepared already. The gov't here has instituted a "voluntary" filter list of "kiddie porn" sites (in quotes because, apparently, a lot of the sites on the list are completely legal porn) for ISPs to block, which they are now talking about extending to also cover gambling sites. So, we're making good progress in defining unwanted on-line activities already. If they additionally start banning people for file-sharing, why stop there? I mean, bad activity is bad activity, right? The logical step is then to also ban anyone who attempts to view the sites on the filter list, whatever they may be in a few years' time. I suspect the media industry won't be satisfied until everyone is banned from the internet, though.
Buying a ship and heading off to sea is starting to sound more and more tempting.
I wouldn't trust any fine print to begin with. Just assume whatever information you put online in a publicly accessible manner (read: someone other than you can view it) is out of your control. If there is even a single person you would not want to know something, and it really is important they do not know it, FFS, don't put that info on-line!
or maybe the U.S. government is just gathering data on how far they can push their citizens. Useful info.
Re:What about the CONTRIBUTIONS?
on
Has Ron Paul Quit?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yes, because obviously what matters to you must be what matters to the next geek. It's a great big geek monoculture, although some nutjobs seem to rail against it. Something needs to be done about those types, maybe that "dissolutioning" you speak of would be a good start. Sounds final enough at any rate.
Maybe the newer type of cellphone. A friend of mine had her old Nokia survive the usual drops etc., but also being lost in snow overnight in -20 centigrade or so, and once being run over by a car.
"whether or not you asked to be sent the material in question has no bearing on the matter." - me.
I just wanted to point out the GGP wasn't taking into account the nature of copyright, mainly that the default assumption for any copyrighted piece is that the creator has rights pertaining to the copying of the piece which need no further validation from any party, especially not the party wanting to do some copying. Whether or not the copyright on the piece in question is or should be valid is a different matter, but you can't sidestep that issue by claiming you haven't signed any agreement to honour copyright laws. That's not how laws work. You don't get to pick which laws you follow. Someone's made that decision for you, and the decision is you will follow all the laws or face the consequences.
Unfortunately, copyright in it's base form isn't negotiated on a case-by-case basis. If someone sends you an unsolicited copy of a copyrighted piece, whatever that may be, that doesn't give you the legal right to make new copies. So whether or not you asked to be sent the material in question has no bearing on the matter. Lastly, IANAL.
Next to go: Blu-Ray.
Who's still going to be buying plastic discs in 5-10 years time, when a significant amount of people actually have the hardware necessary for viewing HD content?
GP does make a point, though... Any info on the security measures on this? Is there any verification system in place to make sure the legs are doing what the user wants them to, not what someone else wants? As humans begin to incorporate artificial, computerized parts into their bodies, the potential for mischief grows wildly.
And what about when the government deems some information so inflammatory to the general populace that releasing it would create a threat to the stability of the nation, and therefore national security?
You seem to be assuming consciousness is something that rises from, or is connected to, the physical body, but transcends it somehow. I don't see how that could be.
That said, I'd definitely stay the hell away from teleportation devices as portrayed in fiction. They all seem to involve mapping out the person's molecular structure and using that information to create a copy on the other end. In the process the original is destroyed. I don't much care for that, however perfect the copy might be.
Smart people being unstable isn't exactly unheard of. Or maybe an obsessive nature sometimes contributes to success in intellectual fields, and later gets out of hand.
So your first "dates" usually take place in pitch blackness, and you've found it necessary to thoroughly vet them for signs of decay or illness visually?
Leave the graveyards alone, man, there's plently of LIVE women out there, and you don't have to hide in the shadows to meet with them.
Slashdot Mirror
You may have a point, there. DRM on expensive items doesn't work, when the alternative is a free unauthorized download. However, if legal downloads become dirt-cheap, but locked to a device with DRM, the situation might change. DRM will always be crackable, sure, but if you can easily buy music directly on a mobile device at a reasonable price, it could well appear worth the cost to avoid the hassle of getting on a computer, finding what you want, downloading the stuff, and loading it onto your device after potentially having to convert to another format as well. If the pricing is low enough, the user might not even mind having to pay again to download the media onto a different device.
This certainly goes against how we're used to consuming media right now, but if the industry's plans are to provide their services like described above, it would at least explain their stubborn insistence on DRM. Instead of selling a product once at a higher price, they would sell it many times at a lower price. If they're smart, that is. If they're not, they won't bring the pricing low enough and their downward spiral will continue.
well, that's another thing... It's secret, of course, and maintained by a single government official. Some people whose ISPs use the list have made an incomplete list of blocked sites simply by trying different addresses out and writing down the ones that redirect to the police notice that the site has been blocked. But in any case, in principle the list is not public knowledge, the police will not discuss the contents of the list at all, and so far it has seemed that if a site containing no illegal material should end up on the list... Well, too bad.
.fi will be shut down and the operators prosecuted. Indeed, it is strange that the police would choose to ignore a crime and instead of investigating, just block the site. Or are they admitting there is nothing illegal about lapsiporno.info, but blocking it anyway?
In fact, most recently the police have added lapsiporno.info to the list, which is a site criticizing the filter list and maintaining a list of known blocked sites. The block came into effect after the maintainer decided to test the limits of the law and added the option to view the sitelist as a list of direct links instead of just seeing the URLs typed out. The police won't comment on any specific site on the filter list, but they do say that the law enables them to block sites containing illegal pornography with minors, or sites linking to such sites. The text of the law actually seems to contain no such provision about linking, and also states that the filtering is to be applied only to sites based outside Finland, presumably with the idea that sites in
My ISP doesn't fortunately use any filtering, and the usual method of bypassing the ISP's DNS servers will work, but still. Interesting times.
I can't wait for this type of legislation to snake its way into the country I live in. Why? We come well prepared already. The gov't here has instituted a "voluntary" filter list of "kiddie porn" sites (in quotes because, apparently, a lot of the sites on the list are completely legal porn) for ISPs to block, which they are now talking about extending to also cover gambling sites. So, we're making good progress in defining unwanted on-line activities already. If they additionally start banning people for file-sharing, why stop there? I mean, bad activity is bad activity, right? The logical step is then to also ban anyone who attempts to view the sites on the filter list, whatever they may be in a few years' time. I suspect the media industry won't be satisfied until everyone is banned from the internet, though.
Buying a ship and heading off to sea is starting to sound more and more tempting.
I wouldn't trust any fine print to begin with. Just assume whatever information you put online in a publicly accessible manner (read: someone other than you can view it) is out of your control. If there is even a single person you would not want to know something, and it really is important they do not know it, FFS, don't put that info on-line!
Yes, why should people be allowed to run their own lives?
When you say "artist", I think you mean "designer".
or maybe the U.S. government is just gathering data on how far they can push their citizens. Useful info.
Yes, because obviously what matters to you must be what matters to the next geek. It's a great big geek monoculture, although some nutjobs seem to rail against it. Something needs to be done about those types, maybe that "dissolutioning" you speak of would be a good start. Sounds final enough at any rate.
What do you need a smart dispenser for when you lack the meds you need to fill it with?
it certainly won't happen if there is no alternative available.
On the other hand, a perfectly intuitive OS in a sense IS a completely invisible one.
More like 6000, you insensitive clod.
Maybe the newer type of cellphone. A friend of mine had her old Nokia survive the usual drops etc., but also being lost in snow overnight in -20 centigrade or so, and once being run over by a car.
mod parent up: 1000, Informative
"whether or not you asked to be sent the material in question has no bearing on the matter." - me.
I just wanted to point out the GGP wasn't taking into account the nature of copyright, mainly that the default assumption for any copyrighted piece is that the creator has rights pertaining to the copying of the piece which need no further validation from any party, especially not the party wanting to do some copying. Whether or not the copyright on the piece in question is or should be valid is a different matter, but you can't sidestep that issue by claiming you haven't signed any agreement to honour copyright laws. That's not how laws work. You don't get to pick which laws you follow. Someone's made that decision for you, and the decision is you will follow all the laws or face the consequences.
Unfortunately, copyright in it's base form isn't negotiated on a case-by-case basis. If someone sends you an unsolicited copy of a copyrighted piece, whatever that may be, that doesn't give you the legal right to make new copies. So whether or not you asked to be sent the material in question has no bearing on the matter. Lastly, IANAL.
Actually I was wondering how long this whole physical media thing will manage to drag on.
Next to go: Blu-Ray. Who's still going to be buying plastic discs in 5-10 years time, when a significant amount of people actually have the hardware necessary for viewing HD content?
GP does make a point, though... Any info on the security measures on this? Is there any verification system in place to make sure the legs are doing what the user wants them to, not what someone else wants? As humans begin to incorporate artificial, computerized parts into their bodies, the potential for mischief grows wildly.
And what about when the government deems some information so inflammatory to the general populace that releasing it would create a threat to the stability of the nation, and therefore national security?
You seem to be assuming consciousness is something that rises from, or is connected to, the physical body, but transcends it somehow. I don't see how that could be.
That said, I'd definitely stay the hell away from teleportation devices as portrayed in fiction. They all seem to involve mapping out the person's molecular structure and using that information to create a copy on the other end. In the process the original is destroyed. I don't much care for that, however perfect the copy might be.
Smart people being unstable isn't exactly unheard of. Or maybe an obsessive nature sometimes contributes to success in intellectual fields, and later gets out of hand.
So your first "dates" usually take place in pitch blackness, and you've found it necessary to thoroughly vet them for signs of decay or illness visually? Leave the graveyards alone, man, there's plently of LIVE women out there, and you don't have to hide in the shadows to meet with them.
True, under a free mandate. That means "my" representative doesn't represent me, though. I'll keep my own judgment, thank you.
yes, because certainly calling it "The Big ASSteroid" would totally discredit science as we know it.