Just to add to the anecdotal evidence: I work for an Apple Store. I get questions about this sort of thing every day. Setting up a true equivalent recording studio can still cost an enormous amount of money. You can replace a lot of the typical studio equipment with a single computer and a couple major pieces of software (like Digidesign's Pro Tools and Propellerhead's Reason). However, high-end plugins can cost thousands more. And you still need a proper physical studio to insure a high-quality recording. Not to mention an old truism: "garbage in, garbage out." Most of us aren't really talented enough to make music other people would bother to listen to.:-) And these programs are not particularly easy to use. You need the same set of skills as before. The only advantage of all this technology is that once you've done any live recording you require, you're done paying studio fees and you can work on your project whenever and however it's convenient.
Don't get me wrong -- this is revolutionary for small-time operators and independent artists. But it's a lot like innovations in self-publishing in the book industry. Lowering the barriers to entry for the most part means a lot more mediocre material will get into ciruclation.
When yesterday's story about the initial judge's decision was posted, Slashdot got hundreds of posts from people pissed off about it. Has it occurred to anyone that the judge did us all a favor? One of the telemarketing industry's possible open doors for a legal challenge is getting slammed shut with a very loud bang. This would not have happened if the judge hadn't provided a spur for our lazy do-nothing Congress. And without this action, the industry may have been able to tie up the do-not-call list for years while the FCC, FTC, and courts argue over jurisdiction and authority, etc etc ad nauseum.
The judge did us all a big favor, whether he intended to or not. (I suspect he did.)
I'm an American, and I know my government does all kinds of rotten things, mostly without widespread public knowledge. But why do we regularly hear about the latest insane plan in the UK to clamp down on people's independence/privacy? In most advanced democracies, governments can't get away with making proposals that piss off the general populace. I know the words are in our constitution, not yours, but it doesn't sound like "government by the people." Seriously, this isn't a troll. I'd just like to hear a local perspective on this. Do parties/officials that make these proposals actually survive the next election? For example, recently here a spook from the Reagan era was finally sacked after having one too many lapses of insanity (search news.google.com for Poindexter).
People are simply afraid that Microsoft is going to assimilate USENET. Typically, Microsoft looks at a technology, decides it could be improved upon, and does so. Then, by bundling their proprietary version with the most popular software on earth (Windows), it takes over. For example, Microsoft takes this NetScan-thingie and makes its results publically accessible through its MSN client or website. Instead of loading up any ol' nntp client, the Windoze zombies of the world now are presented with USENET filtered through the MS system. They're automatically shown Microsoft's interpretation of how useful your post is. And if you don't have a "reputation" -- like the guy in the article said -- perhaps your post doesn't even show up.
If Microsoft wants to use this technology to make its internal support forums more useful, power to 'em. If it becomes bundled into Outlook Express, it fundamentally changes USENET. And no one likes when Microsoft does that.
The highly-modded comments so far mostly discuss viability of hydrogen as an energy source. The more interesting line of thought this article provokes is simply that if people were largely responsible for generating their own power, or power was generated on a smaller scale, many of the issues we see now could be alleviated. Localized power sources avoid long-run power lines, high-voltage transmission systems (expensive!), market manipulation like Enron's, and more. Such a system is more flexible and upgradeable, and can be built up gradually. It's also impossible to "crash" it, because essentially there is no system. We're talking separate power sources for square miles of city, or housing developments, or even individual properties.
Obviously, there needs to be a revolution in power generation before something like this can happen. Nuke plants don't scale down so well.:-) But whether or not hydrogen fuel cells are the answer, this is what we should be reaching for.
As usual for a/. poster, IANAL, but I thought the US had laws stating the federal government is the sole issuer of legal tender within its borders. Naturally, people can barter whatever they want (which is really all currency is a proxy for), but whoever is running the exchange could run into some legal issues. For example, would the company running the MMORPG be considered a bank under US law and have to follow all the accompanying restrictions? Basically, by insisting that nothing in the game has any equivalent to real property, game operators avoid a massive list of potential legal issues. This proposal would seem to wade -- hell, belly-flop -- into those issues headfirst.
According to today's earlier interview answers from the DOJ lawyers, this seems to totally violate the Fair Use doctrine. Quote from their answers:
The doctrine of fair use was originally adopted by judges ruling in early copyright cases. Ultimately, Congress incorporated the doctrine into the Copyright Act of 1976, where fair use is now codified at Section 107 of Title 17 of the U.S. Code. In creating section 107, Congress listed four factors to be considered in determining whether a use is fair or not:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
It seems pretty obvious that this proposal would have a massive effect on items 3 and 4. The point of this use is to get around copyright law on a massive scale just to get people almost-free access to protected material.
Fair Use is law of spirit more than of letter -- there is no bright line distinguishing what exactly it is. I don't think you'd find a judge that would let this proposal weasel through.
Perhaps people who entered computer fields are finding out that most of the time programming or web design is fundamentally just another skilled trade like being a mechanic, electrician, carpenter, etc. Most people who "love" activities related to those fields -- tinkering with their cars, building furniture in their garage workshops -- would never consider trying to make a living off them. They know that being under pressure of a full-time work schedule, performance reviews, job stability worries, and other business considerations takes all the fun out of it!
For years people have asked me why I didn't get a computer science degree or somesuch (the questions have mostly stopped now that I work for Apple, but they don't know I'm not in a technical job). I always tell them that computers are fun, but I couldn't sit in front of one all day long.
I don't think anyone reading Slashdot needs enlightenment on the dangers of a completely electronic voting system. Limited use of electronics could do wonders for stopping problems in the recording of choices by voters and the counting of the results. Instead of using pencil and paper, or especially punch cards, electronic machines should be used to create a ballot that is then printed out for the voter to inspect and drop in a ballot box. These perfectly formatted ballots can then be quickly and accurately counted by a machine that doesn't have to account for double votes, incorrect votes, smudges, hanging chads, etc.
Anyone who says a purely electronic system is the best idea is either totally ignorant of its inherent problems or has money to gain from such a system's adoption.
Apple's success hurts fair use
on
The Law and P2P
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I'm very much enjoying the iTunes Music Service. However, for pure fair use ideology it presents an extremely unpleasant development. The existence of a "balanced" solution that succeeds in the market means the general public will not feel compelled to challenge awful laws like the DMCA. A lot of people have to get very unhappy about something for, say, Congress to take notice and take action. If the cries of disgust are isolated to the geek sector, nothing is going to change.
Folks like the recording industry are mostly out for short-term profits (if a given executive can make his millions and get out, what does he care about the future?). However, they have probably finally realized that slowly pulling the rug out from under an unengaged public will make their long term goals easier to achieve than trying an all-at-once lockdown.
One thing I've never understood about Microsoft is its constant creation of new "architectures" for computing. WinCE, PocketPC, the myriad XP deviations,.NET, Longhorn, Shorthorn, Dairy (sorry)... honestly, could someone explain why every computing application requires a rewrite of the OS and specialized hardware? Is it because of the separation between hardware and OS developers? Is it some limitation of Wintel-compatible architecture (there's that word again!) that requires new specs every time you want to do something as simple as integrate devices? Is Windows really so crufty that you can't extend it without redoing it? I see GNU/Linux being quickly reconfigured to run on widely-differing devices all the time, and as a MacOS X-head, I can appreciate how a well-rounded base allows you to put just about anything you need on top. So why can't Microsoft develop an "architecture" with the same capabilities after all these years? Is it something in their corporate culture? In the Redmond water supply? What?!
Define "lucky". You mean, not only having to find Mac software, but now having to find software for your particular Mac platform? appleppc.slashdot.org along with appleamd.slashdot.org? Developers throwing up their hands in disgust and walking away when confronted with a platform redesign two years after the last one? Sounds lucky to me.
Seriously, give whatever Jobs has up his sleeve a chance. If he wants a decent PowerPC chip, he'll get one.
I think this a great example of MS using its monopoly leverage to extend its brand (sorry for the buzzwords). They've implemented technology which probably has no real relation to what people do on their home computers -- i.e. it uses special software and hardware -- but are including it under the Windows Media brand to further entrech it in the tech-ignorant public's minds. Unless the theaters are able to go out and buy an off-the-shelf Dell, hook it up to their projection systems and use this content, MS has no business pretending this is just another great use for the same software people already have at home.
Re:Internet is not slow TV...
on
World of Ends
·
· Score: 1
Um... the quote explains itself. "Big Money" thinks that way. The idea behind that line is that big media companies want the public to view the Internet in terms of a handful of channels and limited resources coming from corporations, not blogs and search engines and open source software collaboration and whatnot.
Really, duh. Do the other moderators have a crush on this user or what? I've never seen a story without a modded-up comment from this person. They're not always inane, but sometimes...
Everyone please remember that the House passes stuff all the time that never even gets brought up in Senate committee meetings. It's become the most convenient way for the national parties to claim, "hey, we're working here!" while not actually following through. However, there is a short window of opportunity where true momentum can be created. If you want to see this actually made into a law, now is the time to CALL or FAX your senator. Simply explain that you are a constituent, you were thrilled to hear that the do-not-call list bill passed in the House, and you expect the Senate to take up the matter.
Not sure of how to contact your senator (or who he/she is)? United States Senate
Most retailers charge an "open box" fee because all they can do is try to resell the item at a discount. My store (I work directly for a computer mfr) has a 10% open box fee. We make sure before we accept the return that the item is in working condition and has everything that was included, and then we put it back up for sale at... wait for it... 10% off! Basically, it puts the cost of the return onto the original purchaser who bought the wrong item (assuming the opened item actually sells at that price - sometimes you have to reduce further). I don't see what's unfair about that.
Broken items are different, of course. We happily do an even exchange for a new one, and the broken one goes back to the warehouse.
Peace - countries with close business ties almost never go to war.
Damn right. A couple of years ago someone made an interesting observation: no two countries with McDonalds restaurants have ever gone to war against each other. It illustrates your point very well.:-)
The market at work, or, "duh"
on
Giant Sucking Noise
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Note: definitely a rant, but definitely not a troll
Anyone with even the most basic understanding of economics should dismiss this article as totally unsurprising and move on. The idea I'm already reading in comments that "jobs should stay in America" is idiotic. I want stuff to cost less, and if producing it elsewhere can do that then that's what globalization is all about! It's the same argument when it comes to trying to get rid of ridiculous farm subsidies. I don't want to pay more for corn just so people can continue to be farmers. Familiar Slashdot argument: if the business model of __________ (like being a programmer or a farmer) is untenable, then get out of it! The Constitution doesn't recognize a right to make money doing the activity of your choice.
Maybe someday, when smart use of technology has finally allowed us a balance between needs/wants and resource scarcity, large numbers of people will be able to say, "I feel like being a farmer" or "I feel like managing servers" and do it. But for now, that's just not how it works. Suck it up!
And by the way, this argument goes both ways. People living in the US just happened to have been born (or have been lucky enough to move to) one of the most resource-rich nations on the planet. How dare we even consider enacting policies that would deny these benefits to the rest of humanity? It's that kind of thinking -- or, at least, the perception by other that that's what we're thinking -- that has all these misguided, ignorant, and extremely poor Muslims trying to blow up our civilization
Though the straight reuse of car parts is an excellent way of extending the useful life of something manufactured, to satisfy the folks at MBDC Ford would have had to go much further (which it appears they did). "Cradle to Cradle" explicitely addressed the issue of cars, and what it said was that even when the materials are melted down and "separated" the separation is limited and the materials are always of far lower quality than when they went into the car. True recycling means no loss of quality between cycles, and it means a reasonable amount of energy is required. As a general rule, neither of those conditions is satisfied when metals are "recycled".
Recycling is only part of the whole point anyway. What's also at issue here is the process used to create the car, in how it effects the natural environment, the workers, and the end users of the product. Regardless of how recyclable a material is, MBDC doesn't like it if it exacts too high a cost to produce. Hence the car roof made out of simple biomaterials. They also don't like materials that off-gas potentially toxic chemicals -- for example, "new car smell", an enticing mix of plastics, glues, solvents, etc.
On occasion, social change in the US has been spearheaded by federal courts. Most of the time, it's just not supposed to be that way. If you don't like decisions like this, don't blame the court (which probably took the most appropriate judicial action). Blame the legislators who enacted the law. Wait, you voted for the other guy, along with 45% of the other voters in your district? Does that happen a lot? Ok, blame the fact that your state elects its representatives according to geographic districts, and every 10 years redraws those lines to make most incumbents "safe" in subsequent elections. Laws like this will continue to be passed by a legislature that does not reflect the will of the people until our election mechanisms change. The zillions of posts we'll be seeing here about corporate money in government are making an important gripe, but no "campaign finance reform" law is going to fix this problem. See The Center for Voting and Democracy for more info.
Not that they're irrelevant to hacking by any means, but "security events" probably includes every time a ping attempt passes into the network. Saying they detect 15,000 "security events" per day is pretty good propaganda from a company looking to attract clients.
Plastic books are endlessly recycleable
on
Waterproof Books
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Sadly, the Wired article totally misses the real point of plastic polymer-based books: the material can endlessly be turned into new books without any loss of material quality. Typically, "recycled" paper is "downcycled"; each time it gets remade it becomes more off-color, less usefully absorbent of ink, etc. With these plastic books, using either a chemical catalyst (which means the chemical is not wasted but recovered and useable again) or an extremely hot water bath (hotter than the tub at home), the plastic can be reliquidized, the ink separated, and a brand-new book created without harvesting new materials. This is extremely eco-efficient. Not to mention that the finished product, as Wired notes (sigh), is far more durable than the traditional paper format.
About 7 months ago I did a book review for Slashdot of Cradle to Cradle by McDonough and Braungart. I believe it was the first commercially released book in this format by Melcher. (First sentence of the book: "This book is not a tree.")
Virtual Coaster in Vegas
on
Robocoaster
·
· Score: 2
At the Luxor hotel in Las Vegas (it's the huge black pyramid with that 20-kazillion candle-power light on top) they have a "virtual roller coaster" in the arcade. It looks like your typical enclosed VR ride, but it rotates on all 3 axes. I didn't think it was particularly revolutionary, just a fun ride. And it takes a much smaller space than 11x12 meters.
Regarding the comparison of free code to the law, I think Stallman (and Timothy) might be disappointed to read this at LawMeme. For those who don't want to follow the link:
New York based securities litigation firm Milberg Weiss known for representing stockholders of Enron, last September started copyrighting some complaints it files on behalf of its clients by registering with the U.S. Copyright Office. Milberg's attorneys recently sent out ten letters to other attorneys who represent other plaintiffs in same cases with Milberg asking them to stop copying their work after discovering that documents it filed with courts were being copied, in some instances virtually unchanged. Aside from sending out the letters Milberg has not taken any action as of now, but that may change since the firm starting to feel that its expertise is being used without compensation. Milberg also feels that because of copying it has suffered monetary losses.
In the edition I own of the original trilogy, even Asimov (in the foreword) says that when he went back decades later to write the bulk of the trilogy -- what amounts to the first book was the original portion -- he was amazed at the total lack of action in what he'd written before. After he got into it, he appreciated its merits as zillions of others had;-), but when even the writer says a story is mostly a collection of conversations I think we can all agree that it's lousy movie material. (Though it's just a personal observation, Asimov seems to have kept up the style through the entire arc of stories.)
Why translate something into a visual medium when there's nothing to watch?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't get me wrong -- this is revolutionary for small-time operators and independent artists. But it's a lot like innovations in self-publishing in the book industry. Lowering the barriers to entry for the most part means a lot more mediocre material will get into ciruclation.
When yesterday's story about the initial judge's decision was posted, Slashdot got hundreds of posts from people pissed off about it. Has it occurred to anyone that the judge did us all a favor? One of the telemarketing industry's possible open doors for a legal challenge is getting slammed shut with a very loud bang. This would not have happened if the judge hadn't provided a spur for our lazy do-nothing Congress. And without this action, the industry may have been able to tie up the do-not-call list for years while the FCC, FTC, and courts argue over jurisdiction and authority, etc etc ad nauseum.
The judge did us all a big favor, whether he intended to or not. (I suspect he did.)
I'm an American, and I know my government does all kinds of rotten things, mostly without widespread public knowledge. But why do we regularly hear about the latest insane plan in the UK to clamp down on people's independence/privacy? In most advanced democracies, governments can't get away with making proposals that piss off the general populace. I know the words are in our constitution, not yours, but it doesn't sound like "government by the people." Seriously, this isn't a troll. I'd just like to hear a local perspective on this. Do parties/officials that make these proposals actually survive the next election? For example, recently here a spook from the Reagan era was finally sacked after having one too many lapses of insanity (search news.google.com for Poindexter).
If Microsoft wants to use this technology to make its internal support forums more useful, power to 'em. If it becomes bundled into Outlook Express, it fundamentally changes USENET. And no one likes when Microsoft does that.
The highly-modded comments so far mostly discuss viability of hydrogen as an energy source. The more interesting line of thought this article provokes is simply that if people were largely responsible for generating their own power, or power was generated on a smaller scale, many of the issues we see now could be alleviated. Localized power sources avoid long-run power lines, high-voltage transmission systems (expensive!), market manipulation like Enron's, and more. Such a system is more flexible and upgradeable, and can be built up gradually. It's also impossible to "crash" it, because essentially there is no system. We're talking separate power sources for square miles of city, or housing developments, or even individual properties.
Obviously, there needs to be a revolution in power generation before something like this can happen. Nuke plants don't scale down so well. :-) But whether or not hydrogen fuel cells are the answer, this is what we should be reaching for.
As usual for a /. poster, IANAL, but I thought the US had laws stating the federal government is the sole issuer of legal tender within its borders. Naturally, people can barter whatever they want (which is really all currency is a proxy for), but whoever is running the exchange could run into some legal issues. For example, would the company running the MMORPG be considered a bank under US law and have to follow all the accompanying restrictions? Basically, by insisting that nothing in the game has any equivalent to real property, game operators avoid a massive list of potential legal issues. This proposal would seem to wade -- hell, belly-flop -- into those issues headfirst.
Fair Use is law of spirit more than of letter -- there is no bright line distinguishing what exactly it is. I don't think you'd find a judge that would let this proposal weasel through.
For years people have asked me why I didn't get a computer science degree or somesuch (the questions have mostly stopped now that I work for Apple, but they don't know I'm not in a technical job). I always tell them that computers are fun, but I couldn't sit in front of one all day long.
Anyone who says a purely electronic system is the best idea is either totally ignorant of its inherent problems or has money to gain from such a system's adoption.
Folks like the recording industry are mostly out for short-term profits (if a given executive can make his millions and get out, what does he care about the future?). However, they have probably finally realized that slowly pulling the rug out from under an unengaged public will make their long term goals easier to achieve than trying an all-at-once lockdown.
One thing I've never understood about Microsoft is its constant creation of new "architectures" for computing. WinCE, PocketPC, the myriad XP deviations, .NET, Longhorn, Shorthorn, Dairy (sorry)... honestly, could someone explain why every computing application requires a rewrite of the OS and specialized hardware? Is it because of the separation between hardware and OS developers? Is it some limitation of Wintel-compatible architecture (there's that word again!) that requires new specs every time you want to do something as simple as integrate devices? Is Windows really so crufty that you can't extend it without redoing it? I see GNU/Linux being quickly reconfigured to run on widely-differing devices all the time, and as a MacOS X-head, I can appreciate how a well-rounded base allows you to put just about anything you need on top. So why can't Microsoft develop an "architecture" with the same capabilities after all these years? Is it something in their corporate culture? In the Redmond water supply? What?!
Define "lucky". You mean, not only having to find Mac software, but now having to find software for your particular Mac platform? appleppc.slashdot.org along with appleamd.slashdot.org? Developers throwing up their hands in disgust and walking away when confronted with a platform redesign two years after the last one? Sounds lucky to me.
Seriously, give whatever Jobs has up his sleeve a chance. If he wants a decent PowerPC chip, he'll get one.
I think this a great example of MS using its monopoly leverage to extend its brand (sorry for the buzzwords). They've implemented technology which probably has no real relation to what people do on their home computers -- i.e. it uses special software and hardware -- but are including it under the Windows Media brand to further entrech it in the tech-ignorant public's minds. Unless the theaters are able to go out and buy an off-the-shelf Dell, hook it up to their projection systems and use this content, MS has no business pretending this is just another great use for the same software people already have at home.
Really, duh. Do the other moderators have a crush on this user or what? I've never seen a story without a modded-up comment from this person. They're not always inane, but sometimes...
Not sure of how to contact your senator (or who he/she is)? United States Senate
Broken items are different, of course. We happily do an even exchange for a new one, and the broken one goes back to the warehouse.
Damn right. A couple of years ago someone made an interesting observation: no two countries with McDonalds restaurants have ever gone to war against each other. It illustrates your point very well. :-)
Anyone with even the most basic understanding of economics should dismiss this article as totally unsurprising and move on. The idea I'm already reading in comments that "jobs should stay in America" is idiotic. I want stuff to cost less, and if producing it elsewhere can do that then that's what globalization is all about! It's the same argument when it comes to trying to get rid of ridiculous farm subsidies. I don't want to pay more for corn just so people can continue to be farmers. Familiar Slashdot argument: if the business model of __________ (like being a programmer or a farmer) is untenable, then get out of it! The Constitution doesn't recognize a right to make money doing the activity of your choice.
Maybe someday, when smart use of technology has finally allowed us a balance between needs/wants and resource scarcity, large numbers of people will be able to say, "I feel like being a farmer" or "I feel like managing servers" and do it. But for now, that's just not how it works. Suck it up!
And by the way, this argument goes both ways. People living in the US just happened to have been born (or have been lucky enough to move to) one of the most resource-rich nations on the planet. How dare we even consider enacting policies that would deny these benefits to the rest of humanity? It's that kind of thinking -- or, at least, the perception by other that that's what we're thinking -- that has all these misguided, ignorant, and extremely poor Muslims trying to blow up our civilization
Recycling is only part of the whole point anyway. What's also at issue here is the process used to create the car, in how it effects the natural environment, the workers, and the end users of the product. Regardless of how recyclable a material is, MBDC doesn't like it if it exacts too high a cost to produce. Hence the car roof made out of simple biomaterials. They also don't like materials that off-gas potentially toxic chemicals -- for example, "new car smell", an enticing mix of plastics, glues, solvents, etc.
On occasion, social change in the US has been spearheaded by federal courts. Most of the time, it's just not supposed to be that way. If you don't like decisions like this, don't blame the court (which probably took the most appropriate judicial action). Blame the legislators who enacted the law. Wait, you voted for the other guy, along with 45% of the other voters in your district? Does that happen a lot? Ok, blame the fact that your state elects its representatives according to geographic districts, and every 10 years redraws those lines to make most incumbents "safe" in subsequent elections. Laws like this will continue to be passed by a legislature that does not reflect the will of the people until our election mechanisms change. The zillions of posts we'll be seeing here about corporate money in government are making an important gripe, but no "campaign finance reform" law is going to fix this problem. See The Center for Voting and Democracy for more info.
Not that they're irrelevant to hacking by any means, but "security events" probably includes every time a ping attempt passes into the network. Saying they detect 15,000 "security events" per day is pretty good propaganda from a company looking to attract clients.
About 7 months ago I did a book review for Slashdot of Cradle to Cradle by McDonough and Braungart. I believe it was the first commercially released book in this format by Melcher. (First sentence of the book: "This book is not a tree.")
At the Luxor hotel in Las Vegas (it's the huge black pyramid with that 20-kazillion candle-power light on top) they have a "virtual roller coaster" in the arcade. It looks like your typical enclosed VR ride, but it rotates on all 3 axes. I didn't think it was particularly revolutionary, just a fun ride. And it takes a much smaller space than 11x12 meters.
Regarding the comparison of free code to the law, I think Stallman (and Timothy) might be disappointed to read this at LawMeme. For those who don't want to follow the link:
Apparently, nothing is sacred. :-)
In the edition I own of the original trilogy, even Asimov (in the foreword) says that when he went back decades later to write the bulk of the trilogy -- what amounts to the first book was the original portion -- he was amazed at the total lack of action in what he'd written before. After he got into it, he appreciated its merits as zillions of others had ;-), but when even the writer says a story is mostly a collection of conversations I think we can all agree that it's lousy movie material. (Though it's just a personal observation, Asimov seems to have kept up the style through the entire arc of stories.)
Why translate something into a visual medium when there's nothing to watch?