I for one would probably buy x10 the music I do now if I could download it (sans DRM) for 25 cents a song.
If I could download it sans DRM, I'd pay the prices they're asking now. As it stands, I very rarely buy anything other than used CDs. The music industry isn't seeing a lot of profit from me.
I am not really disturbed at how far the US is willing to go to pressure other countries to change their laws to protect US interests, that's what sovereign states do. What disturbs me is that our current government thinks that *this* interest is worth so much diplomatic capital.
Wow, the first reasonable sentiment I've seen in this thread. Nice insight.:)
This has nothing to do with websites. It's all about cameras. They want their format to be adopted by digital camera makers. If that happens, they get fat off the licensing fees while solidifying their Windows user base even further.
With a 30% speed increase during my normal daily use, I could probably afford a little downtime for spyware or viruses now and then.
Huh? Everything I've seen says you only get that kind of an increase for things like games, due to OS X apparently underclocking the GPU due to heat concerns -- that's not what most people call "normal daily use." If spending however long it takes to back up data, reformat, reinstall Windows, drivers, and software is worth a few extra FPS to you, be my guest. Viruses were made for people like you.
Anybody who can point me to some hate campaigns by major companies that seem(ed) to be effective?
Pepsi.
In the early 80s, Pepsi created a series of ads inviting people to "take the Pepsi challenge." In these ads, people took blind taste tests of Pepsi and Coca-Cola, without knowing which was which. Invariably it would be revealed that they had chosen Pepsi over Coke.
These ads were so effective in increasing Pepsi's marketshare that Coca-Cola made the decision to reformulate their flagship product in an attempt to beat Pepsi at their own game.
The EFF's tactics are bullsh*t in this case. They're trying to get political bloggers to amplify this case by pretending that bloggers won't be able to write about ANY secrets or newsworthy but confidential information.
More than that, the EFF is employing the exact same FUD they accuse everyone else of using.
The EFF wants you to believe that Apple is trying to distinguish between "bloggers" and "journalists," when in reality Apple is doing exactly the opposite -- requesting that both bloggers and journalists be held to the same standards.
The EFF wants you to believe that Apple is trying to destroy freedom of the press, when in reality, Apple isn't trying to deny anyone their right to print information -- they're arguing that source confidentiality does not apply when the act of supplying journalists with information is itself a crime.
The EFF wants you to believe that if Apple wins, then they can just claim anything is a "trade secret" and force journalists to comply with their wishes, which is emphatically untrue -- the California law, not to mention the judge's ruling, is very specific as to what does and does not constitute a trade secret.
The EFF wants you to believe that they're protecting your digital rights, but in reality they're just as pushy, if not moreso, than any corporation. And even when their hearts are in the right place they lose. Usually because they muck up the issue. Like they're doing now.
This isn't about bloggers vs. journalists, but the EFF continues to intentionally mislead people into thinking that it is. When the EFF proves they're more honest than the corporations they're fighting, and that they can maybe win a case or two, then I'll start supporting them.
At first I had the same reaction, until I realized that the man would have had to agree to an interview with the Wall Street Journal. If he's really interested in keeping his privacy, why is he fielding questions about his work?
It's not just sad, it's dangerous from a legal standpoint. It's practically an admission of guilt. Expect a settlement, because there's not a chance in hell they plan to fight this in court now.
I seem to recall an election in 1992, less than 15 years ago, in which a third party very nearly took the election... until its leading candidate dropped out of the race prematurely.
You can bitch and moan about not having choices, but I think the evidence is pretty clear that we're not being forced into a one-or-the-other decision by anyone, no matter how much the two major parties would like it that way.
If you want another choice so badly, vote libertarian, or green, or write someone in. Sitting around and complaining about the lack of choices in front of you doesn't exactly get us anywhere.
Just because Christian's don't use violence today doesn't mean it isn't acceptable within the teachings and constructs of the Bible.
Sure, so long as I accept an interpretation of the Bible by someone who considers all modern religion to be "mindless belief." Which Bible, by the way? The Catholic one, the protestant one, or the Mormon one? You seem to think that judging a person's beliefs by a written text alone is valid, and yet how many different sects of Christianity are there? If they can't agree on what that text means (or even what it includes), what makes you so sure your own interpretation is right?
That you are so pompous about knowing more about someone else's beliefs suggests that you are as self-righteous as they are.
All that means is that the PS3 needs to do at least one of those things very well. Ostensibly, that would be "play games." As long as it is marketed for the function it performs best, the extra functionality is a driver for additional sales. It's not directly competing with mp3 players just because it happens to play mp3s. The goal isn't to take marketshare from Apple, it's to take marketshare from Microsoft and Nintendo by offering more bang for the buck. Competition isn't always linear, you know.
Right on. I think it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I have said before that audio formats like DVD-Audio and Super Audio CD are niche market products because the difference in quality is intangible -- even if I believed that the increased resolution was detectable by the human ear (I don't), it isn't enough to drive a successor to the compact disc. What drove the CD wasn't quality, but convenience -- not having to rewind tapes, or lug around big, fragile discs, was a major factor. The CD offered instant gratification in a portable package. Now we're seeing that the next big leap in audio formats, mp3, is again driven by convenience rather than quality -- in fact, people are willing to take a quality hit by converting to mp3, just to have the convenience of holding all their music on an iPod.
DVD was driven by the same convenience factors as the CD. The only question is whether the quality improvements of the next-gen format will be enough to drive another revolution. I think it has a better chance than snake-oil next-gen audio discs, since it offers a visible and tangible improvement in quality, and because video, due to its immersive nature, requires less portability than audio.
"...they genuinely beleive the entire world should be forcibly conquered by their religion..."
And Christianity lacks this particular trait how?
I'd say it's the "forcibly" qualifier. Modern Christianity (and I mean modern; let's not start a flame-war about the crusades, eh?) doesn't resort to violence nearly as often. The far-right Christians who want the world to conform to their religious views are at least going about their business politically. They'll talk a lot of trash about "liberals" or what-have-you, and they'll lobby to pass laws that force you to play their game. Pat Robertson will subtly hint that God doesn't like you, and Fred Phelps will be less subtle. But outside of the occasional abortion clinic bombing (the last one was when, the early 90's?), they very rarely kill people. I'd say that's a pretty big difference.
Maybe it's the fault of the media in certain countries that the moderate Muslim reaction isn't being sought or heard?
As much as it is the fault of that same media for ignoring the moderate Christian reaction to anything Pat Robertson says. The fact of the matter is that when a large enough group gets together and makes trouble, we sit up and take notice. I don't see how the moderate Muslim reaction is relevant; they're not really part of the story.
It should be clear by now that there is a pretty gaping divide in Islam and that the conflict is only with a subset of its practitioners. The only thing the "moderate Muslim reaction" will get you is a tingly happy feeling for knowing you're being politically correct about the word "Muslim." I just don't think it's all that necessary -- the average joe isn't so stupid that he assumes just because one Muslim is chanting "death to America," that all Muslims must be the same way. I would argue that anyone who thinks that is well below average, and well within the minority.
Honestly, whether or not they're in the minority is a moot point. Islam is as varied a religion as Christianity (as any Christian who disagrees with the president can tell you), so religion alone will never be an accurate identifier. Ultimately, you can generally split Muslims down to two types:
1. Those who preach death and violence against Westerners, particularly the United States. 2. Those who don't.
Both types call themselves Muslims, and it is perfectly accurate to call them that. But it should be obvious and implicit that the hawks are against the first group, not the second. There's no need to apologize by qualifying your statements with things like "I realize these people are a minority, but..." because it's obvious you're talking not about all Muslims, but about a culture that violently, physically attacks those who do not conform to their ideals. If you feel the need to be more specific, you can always give them a more descriptive label, like "violent Islamists." The grandparent poster has already identified a divide in different sects of Islam; it really doesn't matter which one is bigger.
It's nice to see the grandparent poster looking at the other side of the argument, because I think he makes a valid point. The conflict exists because a fundamental cultural incompatibility -- they think our freedoms should be stunted to the point that we cannot violate their taboos. Barring that, the only other option is death. The argument that there isn't enough room in this town for the both of us seems a lot more valid in that regard.
Right on! I think it's fair to say that with GPL3, the open source crowd is stooping to the same tactics that closed-source entities sometimes use to force their will upon end users. Some may see this as fighting fire with fire, but it's the community who gets caught in the crossfire. Restrictions on how the software is used would mean fewer hardware vendors supporting Linux, and as far as end users are concerned, this is no different than Microsoft telling you what you can and can't do with their software. Torvalds is right to resist GPL3 -- it could very well destroy the momentum that the open source movement has built up.
I'm with you on this. A felony charge is indeed harsh in context. Technically the kid committed a felony, but that just demonstrates the need for more granular computer crime laws. This sort of thing is more deserving of a misdemeanor. But your analogy is a good one, and you'd think there would be a less officious way for the school to deal with this.
On the other hand, we're not exactly given the full extent of the damage, and we don't know how the kid responded to the initial accusations. If he was as defiant as the grandparent poster is about whether what he did was wrong, then yeah, I can see how the school officials' only response would be to charge him under the law.
Slashdot Mirror
So it seems the number of nominations matters a lot in case of this award, which doesn't necessarily promote quality over popularity.
50,000,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong.
I'm supposed to believe that ANY game could be more harmful to society than the simulation of rape?
Maybe a rape simulator?
I for one would probably buy x10 the music I do now if I could download it (sans DRM) for 25 cents a song.
If I could download it sans DRM, I'd pay the prices they're asking now. As it stands, I very rarely buy anything other than used CDs. The music industry isn't seeing a lot of profit from me.
I am not really disturbed at how far the US is willing to go to pressure other countries to change their laws to protect US interests, that's what sovereign states do. What disturbs me is that our current government thinks that *this* interest is worth so much diplomatic capital.
:)
Wow, the first reasonable sentiment I've seen in this thread. Nice insight.
This has nothing to do with websites. It's all about cameras. They want their format to be adopted by digital camera makers. If that happens, they get fat off the licensing fees while solidifying their Windows user base even further.
With a 30% speed increase during my normal daily use, I could probably afford a little downtime for spyware or viruses now and then.
Huh? Everything I've seen says you only get that kind of an increase for things like games, due to OS X apparently underclocking the GPU due to heat concerns -- that's not what most people call "normal daily use." If spending however long it takes to back up data, reformat, reinstall Windows, drivers, and software is worth a few extra FPS to you, be my guest. Viruses were made for people like you.
Anybody who can point me to some hate campaigns by major companies that seem(ed) to be effective?
Pepsi.
In the early 80s, Pepsi created a series of ads inviting people to "take the Pepsi challenge." In these ads, people took blind taste tests of Pepsi and Coca-Cola, without knowing which was which. Invariably it would be revealed that they had chosen Pepsi over Coke.
These ads were so effective in increasing Pepsi's marketshare that Coca-Cola made the decision to reformulate their flagship product in an attempt to beat Pepsi at their own game.
The EFF's tactics are bullsh*t in this case. They're trying to get political bloggers to amplify this case by pretending that bloggers won't be able to write about ANY secrets or newsworthy but confidential information.
More than that, the EFF is employing the exact same FUD they accuse everyone else of using.
The EFF wants you to believe that Apple is trying to distinguish between "bloggers" and "journalists," when in reality Apple is doing exactly the opposite -- requesting that both bloggers and journalists be held to the same standards.
The EFF wants you to believe that Apple is trying to destroy freedom of the press, when in reality, Apple isn't trying to deny anyone their right to print information -- they're arguing that source confidentiality does not apply when the act of supplying journalists with information is itself a crime.
The EFF wants you to believe that if Apple wins, then they can just claim anything is a "trade secret" and force journalists to comply with their wishes, which is emphatically untrue -- the California law, not to mention the judge's ruling, is very specific as to what does and does not constitute a trade secret.
The EFF wants you to believe that they're protecting your digital rights, but in reality they're just as pushy, if not moreso, than any corporation. And even when their hearts are in the right place they lose. Usually because they muck up the issue. Like they're doing now.
This isn't about bloggers vs. journalists, but the EFF continues to intentionally mislead people into thinking that it is. When the EFF proves they're more honest than the corporations they're fighting, and that they can maybe win a case or two, then I'll start supporting them.
At first I had the same reaction, until I realized that the man would have had to agree to an interview with the Wall Street Journal. If he's really interested in keeping his privacy, why is he fielding questions about his work?
It's not just sad, it's dangerous from a legal standpoint. It's practically an admission of guilt. Expect a settlement, because there's not a chance in hell they plan to fight this in court now.
I seem to recall an election in 1992, less than 15 years ago, in which a third party very nearly took the election... until its leading candidate dropped out of the race prematurely.
You can bitch and moan about not having choices, but I think the evidence is pretty clear that we're not being forced into a one-or-the-other decision by anyone, no matter how much the two major parties would like it that way.
If you want another choice so badly, vote libertarian, or green, or write someone in. Sitting around and complaining about the lack of choices in front of you doesn't exactly get us anywhere.
Agreed!
That would be an issue if his meaning weren't so obvious to anyone who isn't socially retarded.
Semantics. "doing something wrong" is a perfectly viable metaphor for "breaking the law."
Wrong, according to whom?
Pretty sure he meant according to the law.
So... us 7-year undergraduates are more at risk, or less?
I realize this is offtopic, but can Slashdot get any worse at writing headlines? I'm willing to bet this is an intentional ploy to drive readership.
Just because Christian's don't use violence today doesn't mean it isn't acceptable within the teachings and constructs of the Bible.
Sure, so long as I accept an interpretation of the Bible by someone who considers all modern religion to be "mindless belief." Which Bible, by the way? The Catholic one, the protestant one, or the Mormon one? You seem to think that judging a person's beliefs by a written text alone is valid, and yet how many different sects of Christianity are there? If they can't agree on what that text means (or even what it includes), what makes you so sure your own interpretation is right?
That you are so pompous about knowing more about someone else's beliefs suggests that you are as self-righteous as they are.
All that means is that the PS3 needs to do at least one of those things very well. Ostensibly, that would be "play games." As long as it is marketed for the function it performs best, the extra functionality is a driver for additional sales. It's not directly competing with mp3 players just because it happens to play mp3s. The goal isn't to take marketshare from Apple, it's to take marketshare from Microsoft and Nintendo by offering more bang for the buck. Competition isn't always linear, you know.
Right on. I think it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I have said before that audio formats like DVD-Audio and Super Audio CD are niche market products because the difference in quality is intangible -- even if I believed that the increased resolution was detectable by the human ear (I don't), it isn't enough to drive a successor to the compact disc. What drove the CD wasn't quality, but convenience -- not having to rewind tapes, or lug around big, fragile discs, was a major factor. The CD offered instant gratification in a portable package. Now we're seeing that the next big leap in audio formats, mp3, is again driven by convenience rather than quality -- in fact, people are willing to take a quality hit by converting to mp3, just to have the convenience of holding all their music on an iPod.
DVD was driven by the same convenience factors as the CD. The only question is whether the quality improvements of the next-gen format will be enough to drive another revolution. I think it has a better chance than snake-oil next-gen audio discs, since it offers a visible and tangible improvement in quality, and because video, due to its immersive nature, requires less portability than audio.
Regardless, it'll be interesting to watch.
"...they genuinely beleive the entire world should be forcibly conquered by their religion..."
And Christianity lacks this particular trait how?
I'd say it's the "forcibly" qualifier. Modern Christianity (and I mean modern; let's not start a flame-war about the crusades, eh?) doesn't resort to violence nearly as often. The far-right Christians who want the world to conform to their religious views are at least going about their business politically. They'll talk a lot of trash about "liberals" or what-have-you, and they'll lobby to pass laws that force you to play their game. Pat Robertson will subtly hint that God doesn't like you, and Fred Phelps will be less subtle. But outside of the occasional abortion clinic bombing (the last one was when, the early 90's?), they very rarely kill people. I'd say that's a pretty big difference.
Maybe it's the fault of the media in certain countries that the moderate Muslim reaction isn't being sought or heard?
As much as it is the fault of that same media for ignoring the moderate Christian reaction to anything Pat Robertson says. The fact of the matter is that when a large enough group gets together and makes trouble, we sit up and take notice. I don't see how the moderate Muslim reaction is relevant; they're not really part of the story.
It should be clear by now that there is a pretty gaping divide in Islam and that the conflict is only with a subset of its practitioners. The only thing the "moderate Muslim reaction" will get you is a tingly happy feeling for knowing you're being politically correct about the word "Muslim." I just don't think it's all that necessary -- the average joe isn't so stupid that he assumes just because one Muslim is chanting "death to America," that all Muslims must be the same way. I would argue that anyone who thinks that is well below average, and well within the minority.
Honestly, whether or not they're in the minority is a moot point. Islam is as varied a religion as Christianity (as any Christian who disagrees with the president can tell you), so religion alone will never be an accurate identifier. Ultimately, you can generally split Muslims down to two types:
1. Those who preach death and violence against Westerners, particularly the United States.
2. Those who don't.
Both types call themselves Muslims, and it is perfectly accurate to call them that. But it should be obvious and implicit that the hawks are against the first group, not the second. There's no need to apologize by qualifying your statements with things like "I realize these people are a minority, but..." because it's obvious you're talking not about all Muslims, but about a culture that violently, physically attacks those who do not conform to their ideals. If you feel the need to be more specific, you can always give them a more descriptive label, like "violent Islamists." The grandparent poster has already identified a divide in different sects of Islam; it really doesn't matter which one is bigger.
It's nice to see the grandparent poster looking at the other side of the argument, because I think he makes a valid point. The conflict exists because a fundamental cultural incompatibility -- they think our freedoms should be stunted to the point that we cannot violate their taboos. Barring that, the only other option is death. The argument that there isn't enough room in this town for the both of us seems a lot more valid in that regard.
Right on! I think it's fair to say that with GPL3, the open source crowd is stooping to the same tactics that closed-source entities sometimes use to force their will upon end users. Some may see this as fighting fire with fire, but it's the community who gets caught in the crossfire. Restrictions on how the software is used would mean fewer hardware vendors supporting Linux, and as far as end users are concerned, this is no different than Microsoft telling you what you can and can't do with their software. Torvalds is right to resist GPL3 -- it could very well destroy the momentum that the open source movement has built up.
I'm with you on this. A felony charge is indeed harsh in context. Technically the kid committed a felony, but that just demonstrates the need for more granular computer crime laws. This sort of thing is more deserving of a misdemeanor. But your analogy is a good one, and you'd think there would be a less officious way for the school to deal with this.
On the other hand, we're not exactly given the full extent of the damage, and we don't know how the kid responded to the initial accusations. If he was as defiant as the grandparent poster is about whether what he did was wrong, then yeah, I can see how the school officials' only response would be to charge him under the law.