I had a bet that Amazon's next patent would be for one-blink viewing- a method whereby a web page is presented within a time frame that should allow, at the most, one blink, before the entire page is visible.
Having said that, I have never purchased anything from Amazon, and I never will.
when faced with the choice of going legit and overpaying for music, or grabbing it for free, they're gonna grab it for free.
But this does nothing to address the stupidity of it all. They get their 'free' music, thinking that they've gotten away with something. Meanwhile, the people who have a clue are the ones who aren't downloading songs for free, and aren't buying the music at stores. In other words, they're the people who have decided to pick up their marbles and go play somewhere else until such time as the RIAA decides to play a fair game. It's the same that you'd do with any other product. The only difference is that the ability to transform music into a digital medium makes stealing it a nearly effortless proposition, so instead of playing by the rules, people opt to do this instead.
I've said it many times, and I completely support this effort (I practice what I preach, too). Because it's all about money, money is the only thing that will affect any real change. The absence of money (in the form of revenue) will be the only real influence that will change the current situation. I wouldn't worry about supporting your favorite artist, because all you're really doing when you buy RIAA-backed music is supporting their crack dependency (the reference to crack is a reference to the RIAA itself). Stop the cycle. Stop buying, and stop pirating. Support local shows and local distribution.
Patents should be treated like trademarks. If you fail to vigorously defend your trademark, you lose it. If patents were treated the same way, this might put an end to patent mills, and it would also prevent someone from patenting an idea, sitting on it while someone else unknowingly develops an infringing product, and then extorts money from them in the form of royalties after the product is proven successul.
But in the U.S. of the post 9/11 and pre-Gulf War II era, helping the "security forces" is considered a supreme act of patriotism.
I see patriotism as the willingness to protect our rights and freedoms, while this smacks of blind nationalism. They're promoting the same spin on this that Microsoft uses with respect to 'secure computing.'- it means what you think it means, but only if you're on the other side of the fence.
VirtualPC was a good idea, and it really did provide value for the people that needed to use it. I see this as a sign that Microsoft is attempting to tighten its grip on the marketplace, and most likely by limiting the options people have over the longer term. Fine. Piss customers off even more. Give them even more reasons to consider an alternative. I'm all for it!
Exactly. Another thing is that movie producers know very well about the effects that sound can have on their audience. They will sometimes introduce inaudible, low-frequency noise ( 20 Hz), because it has that very effect. Lower frequencies tend to raise anxiety, and so they're used in situations when they audience is supposed to be gripped with fear or suspense.
Go into another room. You'd be amazed at the effect that a little bit of stray bass can have on someone. For people that live in close quarters (condos, townhomes, and apartments), this effect is all too common - neighbors might think they're being very kind by keeping the volume low (which they are), but they don't realize that lower frequencies travel further, and are not absorbed by surrounding surfaces at the same rate as higher frequencies. Because of this, even bass at seemingly low levels can be heard clearly enough by people in close proximity to affect concentration, sleep, etc.
If you have ever paid for a bottle of water, then you know that your statement is totally bogus.
I was presuming an element of common sense. I've never purchased bottled water, and never will. What's bogus is that people pay for it in the first place, and only because of some perceived benefit that may or may not exist.
With repect to cell phones, what the user pays for is becoming largely irrelevant, since most modern call plans include more time than the average person can use.
If I look through all the junk mail that I get on a regular basis, it's very clear that having to pay in order to send it does nothing to curb its use. Out of 30 pieces of mail, I'll be lucky if three of them are of any value. All payment does it make it more expensive to use it legitimately.
Finally, though I can see why you've taken issue with my initial statement, it doesn't change the very real possibility that there will be a contingent of e-mail users who think the payment scheme is junk, and will devise a way to circumvent it.
Do you think for a minute that most people will even pay for something if they can get it for free? Isn't that one of the driving forces behind P2P file sharing (illegal as some of it is)? If this "pay to send" mentality takes hold, I imagine that there is an easy way to route mail around it - one that skips a traditional mail server and relies instead on a box that you have on your local PC. It might might even be an interesting extension to the existing P2P file sharing protocol.
I hired good technicians as subcontractors, and paid them the lion's share of their billable time (85/15 split - they get the 85 percent, after all, they are doing the work). I'm not getting rich by so doing, but I sleep well at night.
Awesome...I guess there still are some respectable people in the world. I hope your success continues.
One thing we've seen, is that terrorists are not stupid. Does Lt. Cmdr. Sewell really think that terrorists will communicate important details through e-mail? I suppose that if the threat of being discovered is there, it's less likely to be used, but there are varied ways of communicating that are not easy to track.
What worries me is that U.S. 'intelligence,' is taking the view that technology (and the invasiveness that comes with it) will offer a panacea to the current terrorist threat. I'm probably not the first to remind anyone that even WITH all the technology currently utilized by the US military, it has still been unable to bring down a man who lives in caves.
I agree with you...it's not a question of if, but when the current data surveillance/collection efforts will be repurposed to suit some other, unrelated interest.
It may be that it becomes more difficult to locate items of "value," as the choices become more numerous,
This is what I was trying to communicate, though I probably didn't do a very good job.:)
But were any of them as great as, say, Jimi Hendrix, who came along when the art form was older and a lot more musicians participated?
A fair question. I'll answer by saying that being first is in no way commensurate with being the best. Further, it would seem that as the popularity of something like blogging grows and the power law takes hold, not only does the signal-to-noise ratio plummet, it becomes increasingly difficult to rise above the din.
As long as the IEEE's request is accompanied by a check (preferably in the $100K range), they shouldn't have any problem at all getting someone to listen.
This is way human behavior manifests itself, like it or not. We see it everywhere, not just the net.
I had a friend ask me if I had set up a blog yet, and I told him, "well, I've considered it, but it just seems too much like the 'trend-du-jour'." He jokingly scoffed at me, drawing a comparison between my comment and someone who may have thought that the internet was nothing more than a temporary distraction.
Well, what happens when the economies of scale start to set in, as the article points out? I'd argue that the more prevalent this becomes, the less value it has. One is less likely to encounter 'differently-thinking' participants, or to be confronted with legitimate ideas that challenge the status quo. We can see these dynamics at work in one aspect of our culture that gets discussed regularly here on Slashdot: the music industry: a small number of artists produce a relatively small amount of music that is making a very small number of people very rich. And of course, when I see this happening, I have to start wondering about both motives and the integrity of the artist...popularity has a certain allure to many people, but how willing is an artist (or blogger) willing to sell their soul/integrity in order to reach that objective?
Either the RIAA's layers did a good job of fooling Reuters, or they just didn't understand the implications of this... and the implications are exactly what they deny-- that songs bought on the internet could be tracked to the buyer if they ever end up being shared.
I really don't see this as anything too different than Microsoft's Trusted Computing initiative. The marketspeak would have the consumer believe that it was their security that was being protected, while in reality, it was to protect the security of those who hold the copyright to the software on the computer. Now that the media has exposed this sleight-of-hand, Microsoft has refactored the market spin, and is now pushing it under a new name. I wonder how long it will take the RIAA.
I walked into CompUSA to purchase a copy of Visual C++.net, and as I was reading the box cover, it said:
You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use this product. If you do not accept the terms of the License Agreement, you should promptly retrun the product for a refund.
Seeing, this, I thought, "cool, any stupid tricks like the last SP on XP, and I can rid myself of this scourge with no problem." Then, as I finished paying for it in the checkout line, I glanced down at the bottom of the receipt, where it basically said that they do not accept returns on opened software.
Dilemma, dilemma. I then proceeded to ask the checkout clerk what I should do if I didn't agree with the enclosed license. She didn't know, so she fetched someone else. After waiting for a bit, a gentleman showed up, to whom I reiterated my concern. He took me over behind a counter, where he attempted to have me read the license online (on Microsoft's web site), and agree to it in the store before I left with the software. As he was rifling through the various links on the site (unable to find what he was looking for), I told him I really didn't understand what the issue was- the box says I can return it if I do not agree with the license, and that as a Microsoft retailer, I'd think they were bound to this policy. He said they wouldn't honor it because too many people buy software, install it, and then return it. Just then, a third gentleman walked up, at which point he too was apprised of the situation. He suggested that if I wanted to return it, I should return it to Microsoft. At that point, I was pissed, and I told him that perhaps it would just be best if I let them keep it and get my money back.
Later on that day, I attempted to locate another copy locally, but was unable to do so. I then called a CompUSA store at a different location, and after explaining my situation to the Manager on Duty, he gave me an entirely different story: he said that I could return the software if I didn't agree with the license, so long as the seal on the CD wasn't broken. This is what I expected to hear in the first place. I then went back to CompUSA to purchase the software a second time. Funny thing is, as soon as I returned home and opened the box, I discovered that this software wasn't packaged in sealed CD cases like I'd seen before. After reading the license, I decided that it was ok - but I do wonder what would have happened had I decided that I wanted to return it.
All I have to say is this: this little catch-22 makes it very difficult for consumers who want to make sure they're acquiring and using software legally. I hope this class-action lawsuit will put a stop to this mess.
My only reason for bringing this up is that Bush, being a politician, does what sells. These days, religion sells, even though most people who profess to 'believe' are rarely willing to put the tenets of their religion into practice. It's no less plastic than many other aspects of American popular culture.
personally i find it amazing that with all the high-falutin' talk about the us gov't being secular and non-discriminatory that the bible is still used in the court house and religious organizations continue to receive preferential tax treatments and other "special rights".
In very recent history (a few days ago), it was very evident from the number of times Bush used the word "god" in his little speech shortly after the Challenger disaster. Anyone with a few synapses knows good and well what he's referring to, and it's not allah.
Slashdot Mirror
The companion article states, In a response to Smith published at his Website, Microsoft states it doesn't use the information at all.
Well, then, why is it being sent?
I had a bet that Amazon's next patent would be for one-blink viewing- a method whereby a web page is presented within a time frame that should allow, at the most, one blink, before the entire page is visible.
Having said that, I have never purchased anything from Amazon, and I never will.
when faced with the choice of going legit and overpaying for music, or grabbing it for free, they're gonna grab it for free.
But this does nothing to address the stupidity of it all. They get their 'free' music, thinking that they've gotten away with something. Meanwhile, the people who have a clue are the ones who aren't downloading songs for free, and aren't buying the music at stores. In other words, they're the people who have decided to pick up their marbles and go play somewhere else until such time as the RIAA decides to play a fair game. It's the same that you'd do with any other product. The only difference is that the ability to transform music into a digital medium makes stealing it a nearly effortless proposition, so instead of playing by the rules, people opt to do this instead.
I'm thinking about a picture of Joe Average Computer User in shackles and menacles, with the caption, "Palladium Inside".
I've said it many times, and I completely support this effort (I practice what I preach, too). Because it's all about money, money is the only thing that will affect any real change. The absence of money (in the form of revenue) will be the only real influence that will change the current situation. I wouldn't worry about supporting your favorite artist, because all you're really doing when you buy RIAA-backed music is supporting their crack dependency (the reference to crack is a reference to the RIAA itself). Stop the cycle. Stop buying, and stop pirating. Support local shows and local distribution.
Patents should be treated like trademarks. If you fail to vigorously defend your trademark, you lose it. If patents were treated the same way, this might put an end to patent mills, and it would also prevent someone from patenting an idea, sitting on it while someone else unknowingly develops an infringing product, and then extorts money from them in the form of royalties after the product is proven successul.
Now that's what I call patriotism.
But in the U.S. of the post 9/11 and pre-Gulf War II era, helping the "security forces" is considered a supreme act of patriotism.
I see patriotism as the willingness to protect our rights and freedoms, while this smacks of blind nationalism. They're promoting the same spin on this that Microsoft uses with respect to 'secure computing.'- it means what you think it means, but only if you're on the other side of the fence.
VirtualPC was a good idea, and it really did provide value for the people that needed to use it. I see this as a sign that Microsoft is attempting to tighten its grip on the marketplace, and most likely by limiting the options people have over the longer term. Fine. Piss customers off even more. Give them even more reasons to consider an alternative. I'm all for it!
Exactly. Another thing is that movie producers know very well about the effects that sound can have on their audience. They will sometimes introduce inaudible, low-frequency noise ( 20 Hz), because it has that very effect. Lower frequencies tend to raise anxiety, and so they're used in situations when they audience is supposed to be gripped with fear or suspense.
Go into another room. You'd be amazed at the effect that a little bit of stray bass can have on someone. For people that live in close quarters (condos, townhomes, and apartments), this effect is all too common - neighbors might think they're being very kind by keeping the volume low (which they are), but they don't realize that lower frequencies travel further, and are not absorbed by surrounding surfaces at the same rate as higher frequencies. Because of this, even bass at seemingly low levels can be heard clearly enough by people in close proximity to affect concentration, sleep, etc.
If you have ever paid for a bottle of water, then you know that your statement is totally bogus.
I was presuming an element of common sense. I've never purchased bottled water, and never will. What's bogus is that people pay for it in the first place, and only because of some perceived benefit that may or may not exist.
With repect to cell phones, what the user pays for is becoming largely irrelevant, since most modern call plans include more time than the average person can use.
If I look through all the junk mail that I get on a regular basis, it's very clear that having to pay in order to send it does nothing to curb its use. Out of 30 pieces of mail, I'll be lucky if three of them are of any value. All payment does it make it more expensive to use it legitimately.
Finally, though I can see why you've taken issue with my initial statement, it doesn't change the very real possibility that there will be a contingent of e-mail users who think the payment scheme is junk, and will devise a way to circumvent it.
Do you think for a minute that most people will even pay for something if they can get it for free? Isn't that one of the driving forces behind P2P file sharing (illegal as some of it is)? If this "pay to send" mentality takes hold, I imagine that there is an easy way to route mail around it - one that skips a traditional mail server and relies instead on a box that you have on your local PC. It might might even be an interesting extension to the existing P2P file sharing protocol.
I hired good technicians as subcontractors, and paid them the lion's share of their billable time (85/15 split - they get the 85 percent, after all, they are doing the work). I'm not getting rich by so doing, but I sleep well at night.
Awesome...I guess there still are some respectable people in the world. I hope your success continues.
I guess now we know what happens when you exceed Moore's law - you wrap around to the opposite side of the continuum.
One thing we've seen, is that terrorists are not stupid. Does Lt. Cmdr. Sewell really think that terrorists will communicate important details through e-mail? I suppose that if the threat of being discovered is there, it's less likely to be used, but there are varied ways of communicating that are not easy to track.
What worries me is that U.S. 'intelligence,' is taking the view that technology (and the invasiveness that comes with it) will offer a panacea to the current terrorist threat. I'm probably not the first to remind anyone that even WITH all the technology currently utilized by the US military, it has still been unable to bring down a man who lives in caves.
I agree with you...it's not a question of if, but when the current data surveillance/collection efforts will be repurposed to suit some other, unrelated interest.
It may be that it becomes more difficult to locate items of "value," as the choices become more numerous,
:)
This is what I was trying to communicate, though I probably didn't do a very good job.
But were any of them as great as, say, Jimi Hendrix, who came along when the art form was older and a lot more musicians participated?
A fair question. I'll answer by saying that being first is in no way commensurate with being the best. Further, it would seem that as the popularity of something like blogging grows and the power law takes hold, not only does the signal-to-noise ratio plummet, it becomes increasingly difficult to rise above the din.
As long as the IEEE's request is accompanied by a check (preferably in the $100K range), they shouldn't have any problem at all getting someone to listen.
This is way human behavior manifests itself, like it or not. We see it everywhere, not just the net.
I had a friend ask me if I had set up a blog yet, and I told him, "well, I've considered it, but it just seems too much like the 'trend-du-jour'." He jokingly scoffed at me, drawing a comparison between my comment and someone who may have thought that the internet was nothing more than a temporary distraction.
Well, what happens when the economies of scale start to set in, as the article points out? I'd argue that the more prevalent this becomes, the less value it has. One is less likely to encounter 'differently-thinking' participants, or to be confronted with legitimate ideas that challenge the status quo. We can see these dynamics at work in one aspect of our culture that gets discussed regularly here on Slashdot: the music industry: a small number of artists produce a relatively small amount of music that is making a very small number of people very rich. And of course, when I see this happening, I have to start wondering about both motives and the integrity of the artist...popularity has a certain allure to many people, but how willing is an artist (or blogger) willing to sell their soul/integrity in order to reach that objective?
Either the RIAA's layers did a good job of fooling Reuters, or they just didn't understand the implications of this... and the implications are exactly what they deny-- that songs bought on the internet could be tracked to the buyer if they ever end up being shared.
I really don't see this as anything too different than Microsoft's Trusted Computing initiative. The marketspeak would have the consumer believe that it was their security that was being protected, while in reality, it was to protect the security of those who hold the copyright to the software on the computer. Now that the media has exposed this sleight-of-hand, Microsoft has refactored the market spin, and is now pushing it under a new name. I wonder how long it will take the RIAA.
I walked into CompUSA to purchase a copy of Visual C++.net, and as I was reading the box cover, it said:
You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use this product. If you do not accept the terms of the License Agreement, you should promptly retrun the product for a refund.
Seeing, this, I thought, "cool, any stupid tricks like the last SP on XP, and I can rid myself of this scourge with no problem." Then, as I finished paying for it in the checkout line, I glanced down at the bottom of the receipt, where it basically said that they do not accept returns on opened software.
Dilemma, dilemma. I then proceeded to ask the checkout clerk what I should do if I didn't agree with the enclosed license. She didn't know, so she fetched someone else. After waiting for a bit, a gentleman showed up, to whom I reiterated my concern. He took me over behind a counter, where he attempted to have me read the license online (on Microsoft's web site), and agree to it in the store before I left with the software. As he was rifling through the various links on the site (unable to find what he was looking for), I told him I really didn't understand what the issue was- the box says I can return it if I do not agree with the license, and that as a Microsoft retailer, I'd think they were bound to this policy. He said they wouldn't honor it because too many people buy software, install it, and then return it. Just then, a third gentleman walked up, at which point he too was apprised of the situation. He suggested that if I wanted to return it, I should return it to Microsoft. At that point, I was pissed, and I told him that perhaps it would just be best if I let them keep it and get my money back.
Later on that day, I attempted to locate another copy locally, but was unable to do so. I then called a CompUSA store at a different location, and after explaining my situation to the Manager on Duty, he gave me an entirely different story: he said that I could return the software if I didn't agree with the license, so long as the seal on the CD wasn't broken. This is what I expected to hear in the first place. I then went back to CompUSA to purchase the software a second time. Funny thing is, as soon as I returned home and opened the box, I discovered that this software wasn't packaged in sealed CD cases like I'd seen before. After reading the license, I decided that it was ok - but I do wonder what would have happened had I decided that I wanted to return it.
All I have to say is this: this little catch-22 makes it very difficult for consumers who want to make sure they're acquiring and using software legally. I hope this class-action lawsuit will put a stop to this mess.
My only reason for bringing this up is that Bush, being a politician, does what sells. These days, religion sells, even though most people who profess to 'believe' are rarely willing to put the tenets of their religion into practice. It's no less plastic than many other aspects of American popular culture.
personally i find it amazing that with all the high-falutin' talk about the us gov't being secular and non-discriminatory that the bible is still used in the court house and religious organizations continue to receive preferential tax treatments and other "special rights".
In very recent history (a few days ago), it was very evident from the number of times Bush used the word "god" in his little speech shortly after the Challenger disaster. Anyone with a few synapses knows good and well what he's referring to, and it's not allah.
Maybe her kid was ticked at her.