Sure, there will always be artists willing to hold part-time jobs to subsidise their art. And corporate-produced junk designed to sell shoes.
I'd simply prefer a society where people could make an honest living selling high-quality digital artefacts without having every ass-hat on the internet deciding that it's their universal right to copy any data they can get their hands on. This is clearly impossible though, so that's why I'm working on a plague of self-replicating robot spiders with which to take over the world and enforce my will.
You'll run out of artefacts to share if the artefact building business model is broken, won't you? What business model would you recommend an artefact builder adopt?
No one has a right to a particular business model.
I didn't claim that they did. Pretty much all business models rely on screwing somebody else -- that's how capitalism works. I think the biggest problem with file sharing will be the next generation of business models that try to work around this issue, and a total absence of quality content (oh wait).
It's fairly straightforward. Let me try to explain: File sharing undermines somebody else's business model. Anybody who wants to make money by selling "digital artefacts" is basically screwed. People at large have no problem sharing digital artefacts with everybody else on the internet, meaning that only one sale is required -- often times not even that. Copy protection, dongles, etc, all exist to try to protect the business model, but typically these only get in the way of the legitimate user, so... All this has the effect of forcing different business models -- services instead of artefacts. Code that never runs on your computer -- no looking at the source code, no using it without internet access. Take your "oh but its just data" stance all you like, but unfettered & infinite sharing will continue to change the world in lots of ways that you really won't like. Not that there's anything that can be done about it...
Bank balances are just data too -- how long would society last if we were able to copy money around freely?
Pretty useful for nefarious purposes to have access to the last two years of somebody's traffic... Identity theft will be impossible to guard against. The ISPs responsible for storing all this data, need to do it at the lowest possible cost. That always works out well....
The best bit will be the assumption that all this data collected from the ISP couldn't possibly be wrong, incomplete, or misleading. Framing people for child pornography, murder, terrorism, sedition, etc, will become really really easy -- gain access to someone's LAN, and you can paint a big red X on them that lasts two years!
Aside from coming up with a better system of government that won't use Orwell as a how-to guide, we need to massively ramp up the level of cryptographic protection considered acceptable -- a million orders of magnitude ought to slow the bastards up for a while....
the longer one waits, the higher the probability of a (possibly accidental) trigger
This. Offtopic, but the same thing springs to mind when it comes to storing gigalitres of CO2 underground. Entire cities of people drowned in their sleep isn't something I'd advocate...
To my mind, the assertion that nukes are in any way useful is short-sighted and likely a result of inexperience
I agree, but I can understand why a state would want nuclear weapons when its rivals already have them. Until a technology is developed that can reasonably defend against nuclear annihilation (which really doesn't seem likely), or they all magically disappear at once (again not likely), along with the ability to recreate them (not very likely either), we're stuck. States will feel the need to retain their god-awful weapons so they don't feel naked against these other rogue nations that might want to blow them up, as unhelpful for the world as that might be.
FWIW, I write this from a nation without any (official) nuclear weapons. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the USA have hundreds of the things littered about the place.
What comes after the nuke in the development of how to be nasty to each other on a massive scale?
Something that raises the ante even further, in the same way that the Sherman Tank was a big improvement over the sharpened stick? I seem to recall someone proposing sharks in space with frickin' lasers or something... Personally I'm hoping for a self-replicating plague of robot monsters, but I think we're a little way off achieving that one yet.
Some sort of stasis bubble would be pretty neat -- nominate a sphere and slow-down time -- you could use that to counter all sorts of nasty things...
Summary says: "Shepherd compared three digital music files, including a Red Hot Chili Peppers song downloaded in the Mastered for iTunes format with a CD version of the same song, and said there were no differences." Emphasis Mine. If there were no difference, then this new format sounds great; what's the problem. Oh right, slashdot.
TFA says: "Shepherd says there was a sonic difference between the Mastered for iTunes waveform and the CD waveform."
We need a lot more people publishing "We tried X to do Y, but it didn't work because of Z." They may not be exciting and sexy, but they are good data points to have.
Are there a whole lot of academics out there who aren't writing anything at all? Are they writing absolute crap, that journals are rightly refusing to publish? Are they perhaps keeping all of their research secret, so that they can commercialise it themselves and diddle their institutions at the same time?
You are of course correct. I had envisaged swapping places with an astronaut that was due to go to the ISS, swapping out all the video feeds etc with computer generated replacements to keep the swap a secret for as long as possible, before finally boarding the ISS and then trying to reverse park it in the sea of tranquility, but that was a little tricky to fit into the subject line:-). And confusingly, this involves good-old-fashioned piracy in addition to cracking, hacking, and social engineering.
I do understand the pain of the unjustly stereotyped hacker - this is a decades old debate. Use more specific terminology or be doomed to be misunderstood. The part that confuses me is why do I expect more from a language with auto-antonyms? Dusting the cake? Dusting the floor? Ahrghrgrgrhg!
As for getting into space via unconventional means -- I'm going for a giant trebuchet.
Do Anonymous call themselves crackers? When companies suffer a serious security breach involving computers, do they say they have been cracked? Cracking involves hacking, but refers specifically to removing copy protection from software.
Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist. For example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting "the other side" to get both sides of a story. Without evidence of this nature, defendant is not "media."
I don't see a lot of news media ticking many of those boxes these days, apart from #2.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally, somebody hopefully willing to talk about alternatives, instead of assuming where I stand!
Please explain more about your business model -- how does it work?
Sure, there will always be artists willing to hold part-time jobs to subsidise their art. And corporate-produced junk designed to sell shoes.
I'd simply prefer a society where people could make an honest living selling high-quality digital artefacts without having every ass-hat on the internet deciding that it's their universal right to copy any data they can get their hands on. This is clearly impossible though, so that's why I'm working on a plague of self-replicating robot spiders with which to take over the world and enforce my will.
You'll run out of artefacts to share if the artefact building business model is broken, won't you?
What business model would you recommend an artefact builder adopt?
No one has a right to a particular business model.
I didn't claim that they did.
Pretty much all business models rely on screwing somebody else -- that's how capitalism works.
I think the biggest problem with file sharing will be the next generation of business models that try to work around this issue, and a total absence of quality content (oh wait).
It's fairly straightforward.
Let me try to explain: File sharing undermines somebody else's business model.
Anybody who wants to make money by selling "digital artefacts" is basically screwed.
People at large have no problem sharing digital artefacts with everybody else on the internet, meaning that only one sale is required -- often times not even that.
Copy protection, dongles, etc, all exist to try to protect the business model, but typically these only get in the way of the legitimate user, so...
All this has the effect of forcing different business models -- services instead of artefacts. Code that never runs on your computer -- no looking at the source code, no using it without internet access.
Take your "oh but its just data" stance all you like, but unfettered & infinite sharing will continue to change the world in lots of ways that you really won't like. Not that there's anything that can be done about it...
Bank balances are just data too -- how long would society last if we were able to copy money around freely?
Pretty useful for nefarious purposes to have access to the last two years of somebody's traffic...
Identity theft will be impossible to guard against.
The ISPs responsible for storing all this data, need to do it at the lowest possible cost. That always works out well....
The best bit will be the assumption that all this data collected from the ISP couldn't possibly be wrong, incomplete, or misleading.
Framing people for child pornography, murder, terrorism, sedition, etc, will become really really easy -- gain access to someone's LAN, and you can paint a big red X on them that lasts two years!
Aside from coming up with a better system of government that won't use Orwell as a how-to guide, we need to massively ramp up the level of cryptographic protection considered acceptable -- a million orders of magnitude ought to slow the bastards up for a while....
the longer one waits, the higher the probability of a (possibly accidental) trigger
This.
Offtopic, but the same thing springs to mind when it comes to storing gigalitres of CO2 underground. Entire cities of people drowned in their sleep isn't something I'd advocate...
To my mind, the assertion that nukes are in any way useful is short-sighted and likely a result of inexperience
I agree, but I can understand why a state would want nuclear weapons when its rivals already have them.
Until a technology is developed that can reasonably defend against nuclear annihilation (which really doesn't seem likely), or they all magically disappear at once (again not likely), along with the ability to recreate them (not very likely either), we're stuck.
States will feel the need to retain their god-awful weapons so they don't feel naked against these other rogue nations that might want to blow them up, as unhelpful for the world as that might be.
FWIW, I write this from a nation without any (official) nuclear weapons. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the USA have hundreds of the things littered about the place.
What comes after the nuke in the development of how to be nasty to each other on a massive scale?
Something that raises the ante even further, in the same way that the Sherman Tank was a big improvement over the sharpened stick?
I seem to recall someone proposing sharks in space with frickin' lasers or something...
Personally I'm hoping for a self-replicating plague of robot monsters, but I think we're a little way off achieving that one yet.
Some sort of stasis bubble would be pretty neat -- nominate a sphere and slow-down time -- you could use that to counter all sorts of nasty things...
But I don't eat the brains, that'd be wrong.
yeah that's going to be a fun year.
This behaviour is by design.
Summary says: "Shepherd compared three digital music files, including a Red Hot Chili Peppers song downloaded in the Mastered for iTunes format with a CD version of the same song, and said there were no differences." Emphasis Mine. If there were no difference, then this new format sounds great; what's the problem. Oh right, slashdot.
TFA says: "Shepherd says there was a sonic difference between the Mastered for iTunes waveform and the CD waveform."
Ugh.
We need a lot more people publishing "We tried X to do Y, but it didn't work because of Z."
They may not be exciting and sexy, but they are good data points to have.
Are there a whole lot of academics out there who aren't writing anything at all?
Are they writing absolute crap, that journals are rightly refusing to publish?
Are they perhaps keeping all of their research secret, so that they can commercialise it themselves and diddle their institutions at the same time?
Enquiring minds want to know.
You are of course correct. I had envisaged swapping places with an astronaut that was due to go to the ISS, swapping out all the video feeds etc with computer generated replacements to keep the swap a secret for as long as possible, before finally boarding the ISS and then trying to reverse park it in the sea of tranquility, but that was a little tricky to fit into the subject line :-). And confusingly, this involves good-old-fashioned piracy in addition to cracking, hacking, and social engineering.
I do understand the pain of the unjustly stereotyped hacker - this is a decades old debate. Use more specific terminology or be doomed to be misunderstood.
The part that confuses me is why do I expect more from a language with auto-antonyms? Dusting the cake? Dusting the floor? Ahrghrgrgrhg!
As for getting into space via unconventional means -- I'm going for a giant trebuchet.
Indeed they do. Hjsdfh qeo, gfhe eight!
No, it isn't.
Do Anonymous call themselves crackers?
When companies suffer a serious security breach involving computers, do they say they have been cracked?
Cracking involves hacking, but refers specifically to removing copy protection from software.
Otherwise, why call this hacking?
Engineering, anyone?
Green licence plates? Pah!
Everybody already knows that a sweeping line of red LEDs in the grill is how you recognise a self driving car.
Sheesh!
So roughly 12,000 customers at once can achieve the advertised speed of 12Mbps.
That's a pretty impressive satellite.
Shame you have to share.
What's the total bandwidth of the satellite?
If you can get 12Mbps when nobody else is using it, that sounds great until they have about 5 customers.
Of course I am a Journalist. Here is my Journal.
But seriously, from TFA:
Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist. For example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting "the other side" to get both sides of a story. Without evidence of this nature, defendant is not "media."
I don't see a lot of news media ticking many of those boxes these days, apart from #2.
At what point did people loose [sic] the ability to tell between "make believe" and the real world?
I'm not sure this was *ever* a prominent human trait...
Playing multiplayer with a shitty connection on a server located on the opposite side of the planet should definitely be considered a war crime.
I was going to post something, but the above analysis has taken all the fun out of it.
What, "some users" isn't good enough for you?
I would say that "some users" have flat batteries.