Let me make myself crystal clear on the subject: I don't like any of them either. But I insist that we don't have a better choice in the matter. It's not just one man or the other, it's one political party or the other. Do you really want 4 to 8 years OR MORE of the way things have already been under the rule of the republican party? After all it's worked out SO WELL hasn't it? Besides which, McCain has a palpable chance of dying in office from one disease or another, and do you really want to risk having Sarah Palin as president?
The history books will judge whether I'm right or wrong, not you, not I, nor anyone else. Modding me down is just misuse of the moderating mechanism for the purpose of disagreeing with me and I reject it just as I reject the neoconservative movement.
From TFA: Twitter is already used by some members to post and/or support extremist ideologies and perspectives..
According to our current NeoCon government: 'extremist ideologies and perspectives' == anything that criticizes our regime, or that we otherwise don't agree with.
Vote for Obama. Why? Two reasons:
This can no longer be a country for Old White Men, and (unfortunately)
We don't have any other choice
P.S.: Go ahead and mod me down to -1, Troll|Flamebait|$whatever. Doesn't change my opinion OR invalidate what I'm saying, and it sure as hell doesn't make you right, bitches. At least I have the guts to make a post like this as myself and not as Anonymous Coward.
The Australian government is apparently a bunch of myopic half-wits much like the government here in the U.S. has been for at least the last 8 years, and I hope it comes back to smack them in the face with a vengeance just like what is happening here right now.
I just read an article about how the U.S.-FCC wants to gradually phasing-out free television and replacing it with subscription-only whitespace devices.
Really? I live in the U.S. and read tech news all the time, would you please post links to articles backing that claim up?
While I like having the extra daylight into the evening hours during the spring and summer, the rest of the year gets pretty screwed up for me because of it. Our sleep patterns are tied to periods of light and dark, and while I'm not going to speak for everyone else, the time change screws with my sleep patterns as well as my overall mood. If it were up to me, I'd abolish the practice completely. I understand the original reasons for it, but farmers use machines with lots of lights on them now and not mule-driven ploughs, so they really couldn't care less I think whether or not it's light or dark outside when they're working.
Ah, so you're claiming that, as in my example, you purchase a copy of a printed book, and it should be ILLEGAL to loan it out to a friend or family member to allow them to read it? If so, then what's next? Jail sentences for people who, from memory, relate the general story of a book they've read to someone who isn't "authorized"? Or better yet, electro-shock treatments to delete the IP from someone's mind? Utterly preposterous, if that's what you mean.
BTW, in my experience, authors who are more interested in getting paid instead of getting more people to read their work, are rather poor authors.
I have an idea for a type of DRM that I believe hasn't been tried before and I'm curious what people would think of it:
What if the function of DRM wasn't to restrict what device or how many devices you could use it on, but instead it affected the quality for every generation that it was copied? Back in the days of vinyl and cassette tapes (and video tapes, for that matter) you'd lose quality of the recording every time you made a copy-of-a-copy, down to the point where the signal-to-noise ratio was low enough that it was basically garbage. That was regrettable -- but at the same time, the recording industry wasn't anywhere near as anal-retentive about it as they are now, and in fact they more or less turned a blind eye to it unless you were doing it on a commercial scale and selling the copies.
So the question is: Would you accept DRM that degraded the quality of the file every time you copied it, but otherwise let you do whatever you wanted to do with it?
Granted, the downside would be that there would have to be co-operation on a broad scale to make an idea like this work: you'd have to have a special utility to copy the song or movie, and P2P software would have to have the functionality built into it (most likely this would end up being built into the OS itself). The upside is that the song or movie could be copied freely and as much as you want. Naturally, someone would come up with a crack for even this type of DRM, and even as I write this I'm coming up with other implementation problems (like transcoding a song to a different, DRM-free format, like a plain.WAV file), but I'm accounting for that being part of the compromise that the industries would have to accept since I don't believe that you can completely and permanently stamp out all piracy.
If it's Open-source, then all that means is that it'll be cracked and nullified several orders of magnitude faster than Closed-source DRM. DVD and Bluray DRM has been cracked, there's Fairplay for Apple iTunes, etc, and those were Closed-source. Get a clue Sony, and give the hell up on DRM -- because even if you make it bulletproof, we'll just re-record it in analog anyway.
It recognizes the fact that most people will never get why it's infringement to share a CD or DVD across a family..
Now, see, I take issue with that statement. If that's true then it should apply to all IP, shouldn't it? That would include a printed book, too, shouldn't it? You're saying then that I can't loan a copy of a book I own to a friend or family member because it's copyright infringement. That's utter and complete bullshit. If I have physical media that I legally purchased, I should be able to loan that media out to whoever the hell I want to, and it's nobody's damned business.
Given that cyclists run stop signs, fail to yield right of way, are often on the wrong side of the road, and basically think they do not have to follow the rules of the road, it is no surprise at all when they are not seen.
You forgot to close your comment with "Get off my lawn".:p
Yes, it has nothing to do with bikers riding between traffic lines or other traffic infringements at 10 - 20 % above the speed limit...
I do it in a limited, restrained fashion: only when traffic is stopped, only when it's safe to do so, and never at an excessive speed. I am disgusted by other cyclists who abuse the fact that lane-splitting is neither legal nor illegal in most places by being unsafe about it and/or going too fast; they make life more difficult for the rest of us by making ALL of us look bad.
When I going running near roads, I typically take a blunt implement to defend myself from vehicles (mostly SUVs) who attempt to run me over at pedestrian crossings. If I can hit them with a big stick, they're too close!
Point well taken, since I also go running on a regular basis. One might question the wisdom of running down the street with a big stick in your hand, though -- the cops might get the wrong idea.:-/
Ditto, but I've also noticed while driving a car that they are all still actively trying to kill me. They'd just have less success if they hit me in while I was in a car rather than on my bike. People are stupid. Who'd a guessed?
That's fine, to each his own -- you can remain stuck in traffic and struggling to get 30MPG, and I'll cruise right past you while I'm getting 45 to 50MPG.;-)
Sure they do. I might even buy some of it one of these days, assuming I can find some that doesn't make me look like a motocross racer, or a crotch-rocket racer.:p
Regardless of all that, I'd sooner rely on my skills in the saddle as opposed to hoping that expensive clothing is going to save me -- because I know that when it comes right down to it, it won't.
Note: At first glance..
Precisely. Their printed catalog is thicker than the phone book, with thinner paper and smaller text.;-) You can browse by category, or you can browse by keyword. Either way, you can build damned near anything you could conceive of from what they sell.
I've been riding motorcycles for 26 years (more miles riding than driving cars) and my body of experience tells me this: it doesn't matter how many fancy gadgets they come up with, the average automobile driver just plain isn't looking for and doesn't see motorcyclists. The only way I have been able to preserve my life and retain all my original body parts is by assuming they're all actively trying to kill me, and protect myself accordingly.
Many of those domains have ownership outside the United States, and they think they can just "seize" them? If this was actual Real Estate we were discussing here, wouldn't that qualify as empire-building? Oh, wait, I forgot, that's my country's new shtick, isn't it? The Empire of the United States of America?:p
I'll tell you what I REALLY think this is about: They're trying to create the foundations for government censorship of the internet in general. Next step, if this is successful, would be to seize the domains they deem are "damaging to children". Somewhere down the road they seize domains that just plain disagree with or criticize them, like ALL social networking sites. FUCK THAT noise.
Unfortunately, our cowardly response to 9/11, following the paranoid and anxious example set by our leaders(*), has surely made it easy for those in the intelligence agencies to believe that Americans, deep down, really don't believe in our national rhetoric of liberty, and we really want to be taken care of by a strong national security apparatus acting outside of law and morality. In other words, we want the government to act like a loving, protective parent, in whom the safety of its children overrides any concern for propriety or morality.
*I* don't feel that way, and *I* don't want that. In fact I'll fight against it, up to and including taking up arms against my own unjust government, if it comes down to that. What keeps me from completely freaking out over the subject is that I know deep down that I'm not alone in feeling/thinking this way.
I'm categorizing this as "alarmist crap". Unless it's done clandestinely, there would be lawsuits, and as many have already stated in comments here, there's almost no chance that it could foil encrypted transfers, and there's a likelihood that it doesn't work at all. Not getting worried until I hear that it's actually being implemented.
If they can, then (all joking aside) it's time to go back to SneakerNet because NOTHING on the Internet would be safe anymore. At that point you may as well remove the word "private" and all it's derivatives from human language.
Remember, remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason, why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.
Hopefully it won't take someone in a Guy Fawkes mask who's amazingly good with knives and a subway train full of high explosives to get them to change their ways, hopefully it'll just take the Brittish people standing up and saying Bollocks, piss off! In the meantime, SneakerNet, paper letters, and Tor will have to do, I suppose. Good luck, Brits!
Slashdot Mirror
Let me make myself crystal clear on the subject: I don't like any of them either . But I insist that we don't have a better choice in the matter. It's not just one man or the other, it's one political party or the other. Do you really want 4 to 8 years OR MORE of the way things have already been under the rule of the republican party? After all it's worked out SO WELL hasn't it? Besides which, McCain has a palpable chance of dying in office from one disease or another, and do you really want to risk having Sarah Palin as president?
The history books will judge whether I'm right or wrong, not you, not I, nor anyone else. Modding me down is just misuse of the moderating mechanism for the purpose of disagreeing with me and I reject it just as I reject the neoconservative movement.
So you'd vote for 4 to 8 years of the same old crap, but probably worse? Just put a bullet in your head, it'll be faster and less painful.
According to our current NeoCon government: 'extremist ideologies and perspectives' == anything that criticizes our regime, or that we otherwise don't agree with.
Vote for Obama. Why? Two reasons:
P.S.: Go ahead and mod me down to -1, Troll|Flamebait|$whatever. Doesn't change my opinion OR invalidate what I'm saying, and it sure as hell doesn't make you right, bitches. At least I have the guts to make a post like this as myself and not as Anonymous Coward.
The Australian government is apparently a bunch of myopic half-wits much like the government here in the U.S. has been for at least the last 8 years, and I hope it comes back to smack them in the face with a vengeance just like what is happening here right now.
Really? I live in the U.S. and read tech news all the time, would you please post links to articles backing that claim up?
While I like having the extra daylight into the evening hours during the spring and summer, the rest of the year gets pretty screwed up for me because of it. Our sleep patterns are tied to periods of light and dark, and while I'm not going to speak for everyone else, the time change screws with my sleep patterns as well as my overall mood. If it were up to me, I'd abolish the practice completely. I understand the original reasons for it, but farmers use machines with lots of lights on them now and not mule-driven ploughs, so they really couldn't care less I think whether or not it's light or dark outside when they're working.
BTW, in my experience, authors who are more interested in getting paid instead of getting more people to read their work, are rather poor authors.
What if the function of DRM wasn't to restrict what device or how many devices you could use it on, but instead it affected the quality for every generation that it was copied? Back in the days of vinyl and cassette tapes (and video tapes, for that matter) you'd lose quality of the recording every time you made a copy-of-a-copy, down to the point where the signal-to-noise ratio was low enough that it was basically garbage. That was regrettable -- but at the same time, the recording industry wasn't anywhere near as anal-retentive about it as they are now, and in fact they more or less turned a blind eye to it unless you were doing it on a commercial scale and selling the copies.
So the question is: Would you accept DRM that degraded the quality of the file every time you copied it, but otherwise let you do whatever you wanted to do with it?
Granted, the downside would be that there would have to be co-operation on a broad scale to make an idea like this work: you'd have to have a special utility to copy the song or movie, and P2P software would have to have the functionality built into it (most likely this would end up being built into the OS itself). The upside is that the song or movie could be copied freely and as much as you want. Naturally, someone would come up with a crack for even this type of DRM, and even as I write this I'm coming up with other implementation problems (like transcoding a song to a different, DRM-free format, like a plain .WAV file), but I'm accounting for that being part of the compromise that the industries would have to accept since I don't believe that you can completely and permanently stamp out all piracy.
If it's Open-source, then all that means is that it'll be cracked and nullified several orders of magnitude faster than Closed-source DRM. DVD and Bluray DRM has been cracked, there's Fairplay for Apple iTunes, etc, and those were Closed-source. Get a clue Sony, and give the hell up on DRM -- because even if you make it bulletproof, we'll just re-record it in analog anyway.
Now, see, I take issue with that statement. If that's true then it should apply to all IP, shouldn't it? That would include a printed book, too, shouldn't it? You're saying then that I can't loan a copy of a book I own to a friend or family member because it's copyright infringement. That's utter and complete bullshit. If I have physical media that I legally purchased, I should be able to loan that media out to whoever the hell I want to, and it's nobody's damned business.
You forgot to close your comment with "Get off my lawn". :p
I do it in a limited, restrained fashion: only when traffic is stopped, only when it's safe to do so, and never at an excessive speed. I am disgusted by other cyclists who abuse the fact that lane-splitting is neither legal nor illegal in most places by being unsafe about it and/or going too fast; they make life more difficult for the rest of us by making ALL of us look bad.
Point well taken, since I also go running on a regular basis. One might question the wisdom of running down the street with a big stick in your hand, though -- the cops might get the wrong idea. :-/
*nodding* that goes without saying. If you spend most of your time in the saddle, the habits stay with you.
That's fine, to each his own -- you can remain stuck in traffic and struggling to get 30MPG, and I'll cruise right past you while I'm getting 45 to 50MPG. ;-)
Regardless of all that, I'd sooner rely on my skills in the saddle as opposed to hoping that expensive clothing is going to save me -- because I know that when it comes right down to it, it won't.
I'm waiting for the upgrade to my Shadow for all that. Don't like aftermarket so much. ;-)
Note: At first glance.. ;-) You can browse by category, or you can browse by keyword. Either way, you can build damned near anything you could conceive of from what they sell.
Precisely. Their printed catalog is thicker than the phone book, with thinner paper and smaller text.
I've been riding motorcycles for 26 years (more miles riding than driving cars) and my body of experience tells me this: it doesn't matter how many fancy gadgets they come up with, the average automobile driver just plain isn't looking for and doesn't see motorcyclists. The only way I have been able to preserve my life and retain all my original body parts is by assuming they're all actively trying to kill me, and protect myself accordingly.
I'll tell you what I REALLY think this is about: They're trying to create the foundations for government censorship of the internet in general. Next step, if this is successful, would be to seize the domains they deem are "damaging to children". Somewhere down the road they seize domains that just plain disagree with or criticize them, like ALL social networking sites. FUCK THAT noise.
*I* don't feel that way, and *I* don't want that. In fact I'll fight against it, up to and including taking up arms against my own unjust government, if it comes down to that. What keeps me from completely freaking out over the subject is that I know deep down that I'm not alone in feeling/thinking this way.
I'm categorizing this as "alarmist crap". Unless it's done clandestinely, there would be lawsuits, and as many have already stated in comments here, there's almost no chance that it could foil encrypted transfers, and there's a likelihood that it doesn't work at all. Not getting worried until I hear that it's actually being implemented.
If they can, then (all joking aside) it's time to go back to SneakerNet because NOTHING on the Internet would be safe anymore. At that point you may as well remove the word "private" and all it's derivatives from human language.
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason, why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.
Hopefully it won't take someone in a Guy Fawkes mask who's amazingly good with knives and a subway train full of high explosives to get them to change their ways, hopefully it'll just take the Brittish people standing up and saying Bollocks, piss off! In the meantime, SneakerNet, paper letters, and Tor will have to do, I suppose. Good luck, Brits!