People have what they need right now, and trying to shove a new version at them is disrespectful of their customers.
But consider the large majority of FF2 users who simply don't know FF3 exists; they don't follow tech news, they just need to check their email, check their bank statements, and occasionally look at pictures of kittens. Mozilla's cutting off support in December, making FF2 users vulnerable to new, unpatched exploits and attacks. Sure, the 3% of FF2 users who are power-users and dislike FF3 for technology concerns might feel disrespected, but for our beloved kitten-viewers, Mozilla would be negligent if it didn't make them aware. And the disrespected crowd are knowledgeable enough to turn off the reminder; the regular folks might not ever hear about the December support cutoff through other channels.
So what would you have them do: piss off a few arrogant technophiles, or leave all the kitten-lovers out in the rain to get hacked?
Do we really want to support an "emotional distress" charge?
Why on earth wouldn't we want to support Ms. Andersen's countersuit? After all, the RIAA has structured its campaign to extort the populace while inflicting maximum emotional distress.
And anyway, Tanya Andersen's not claiming emotional distress; she's claiming civil conspiracy, wrongful initiation of civil proceedings, abuse of process, negligence, and seeking an injunction.
If she can get that injunction, that's a bigger victory than anything we've ever dreamed of.
If you want encryption guaranteed against major governments you have to go with a one time pad. Even then you've got to worry about Van Eck Phreaking or FPGA eavesdropping.
In general it's a bad idea to be confident in your encryption - if the Germans hadn't been so confident in Engima they might have done much better militarily.
Wait wait wait...Somebody on slashdot's read Cryptonomicon? I'm shocked.
The industry's business model (make music, sell it) is fine. Except that the people it wants to sell its product to are breaking the law to get their product by other means.
The industry's business model ISN'T fine, that's the entire reason they're waging the anti-piracy war.
Step 1: Locate artists
Step 2: Control the artists' music.
Step 3 Distribute the music.
Step 3 *should* mean selling the music. It traditionally always has, whether that meant selling play licenses to radio stations or selling vinyl to consumers, the recording industry used to make money by selling music, encoded as bits on various media. Just like any encryption scheme, the RIAA's model depended on the fact that consumers couldn't (easily) decode the bits to get back the song; they could only hear the music by running the medium (vinyl, CD) through an appropriate player.
Computers can decode the bits, giving consumers control over their own music. The RIAA has historically not needed to worry about controlling the bits after they left the factory, because Joe Schmoe didn't have the technology to recover the original data. Now that he can, he can distribute those bits however he wants.
So step 3 in the RIAA's model doesn't work any more. The internet's made distribution easy for consumers, which takes away the RIAA's control.
Yes, they can try to punish people who distribute without authorization, but that'll work for a couple of years until technology outpaces them again. But they can't regain control of distribution no matter what they do. Distributing information these days is easy, and it's only getting easier.
The only solution I like is the one that they're not interested in: adapt the business model. Either make their distribution competitive (low prices, special bonuses, respecting consumers' rights) or change the business model entirely, so they don't rely on distribution for income.
That's exactly right, and why everything the **AA's do is so dangerous. The RIAA is an example of an industry group that knows its business model doesn't cut it, and rather than adapting to face advancing technology, it's instead desperately flailing to stymie progress and preserve itself for just a couple more years. But the rest of America will be grappling with the DMCA for decades. God help us all if ACTA gets enforced.
I'm currently studying engineering at a highly regarded liberal arts school, while my brother got his engineering degree from a highly regarded technical school. He certainly came out with stronger technical skills than I'll have, but suffered finding a job because even at his highly regarded school, the degree program was overly theoretical and not geared toward modern needs (he's now an analog electrical engineer working in a digital industry).
I won't have his depth of knowledge, but in the meantime I'm performing music, taking history classes, and really getting a broad scope of things. I'm intending to go on to grad school, where I can extend my technical skills, but I'm getting a fine education in my field with a much richer experience overall. Don't give credence to a second to people who tell you the tech school kids are maladjusted deviants. You get misfits everywhere, even at big-name liberal arts institutions. As long as you keep on top of your work without neglecting social interaction, you won't be magically transformed into a stunted misanthrope.
In short, you'll do fine at either. As long as your department is decent, you'll get the tech skills you need (and you can always build on your bachelor's later). But the fact that you're considering the question at all makes me think the liberal arts school might suit you better.
Slashdot Mirror
People have what they need right now, and trying to shove a new version at them is disrespectful of their customers.
But consider the large majority of FF2 users who simply don't know FF3 exists; they don't follow tech news, they just need to check their email, check their bank statements, and occasionally look at pictures of kittens. Mozilla's cutting off support in December, making FF2 users vulnerable to new, unpatched exploits and attacks. Sure, the 3% of FF2 users who are power-users and dislike FF3 for technology concerns might feel disrespected, but for our beloved kitten-viewers, Mozilla would be negligent if it didn't make them aware. And the disrespected crowd are knowledgeable enough to turn off the reminder; the regular folks might not ever hear about the December support cutoff through other channels.
So what would you have them do: piss off a few arrogant technophiles, or leave all the kitten-lovers out in the rain to get hacked?
Do we really want to support an "emotional distress" charge?
Why on earth wouldn't we want to support Ms. Andersen's countersuit? After all, the RIAA has structured its campaign to extort the populace while inflicting maximum emotional distress.
And anyway, Tanya Andersen's not claiming emotional distress; she's claiming civil conspiracy, wrongful initiation of civil proceedings, abuse of process, negligence, and seeking an injunction.
If she can get that injunction, that's a bigger victory than anything we've ever dreamed of.
If you want encryption guaranteed against major governments you have to go with a one time pad. Even then you've got to worry about Van Eck Phreaking or FPGA eavesdropping.
In general it's a bad idea to be confident in your encryption - if the Germans hadn't been so confident in Engima they might have done much better militarily.
Wait wait wait...Somebody on slashdot's read Cryptonomicon? I'm shocked.
The industry's business model (make music, sell it) is fine. Except that the people it wants to sell its product to are breaking the law to get their product by other means.
The industry's business model ISN'T fine, that's the entire reason they're waging the anti-piracy war.
Step 1: Locate artists
Step 2: Control the artists' music.
Step 3 Distribute the music.
Step 3 *should* mean selling the music. It traditionally always has, whether that meant selling play licenses to radio stations or selling vinyl to consumers, the recording industry used to make money by selling music, encoded as bits on various media. Just like any encryption scheme, the RIAA's model depended on the fact that consumers couldn't (easily) decode the bits to get back the song; they could only hear the music by running the medium (vinyl, CD) through an appropriate player.
Computers can decode the bits, giving consumers control over their own music. The RIAA has historically not needed to worry about controlling the bits after they left the factory, because Joe Schmoe didn't have the technology to recover the original data. Now that he can, he can distribute those bits however he wants.
So step 3 in the RIAA's model doesn't work any more. The internet's made distribution easy for consumers, which takes away the RIAA's control.
Yes, they can try to punish people who distribute without authorization, but that'll work for a couple of years until technology outpaces them again. But they can't regain control of distribution no matter what they do. Distributing information these days is easy, and it's only getting easier.
The only solution I like is the one that they're not interested in: adapt the business model. Either make their distribution competitive (low prices, special bonuses, respecting consumers' rights) or change the business model entirely, so they don't rely on distribution for income.
That's exactly right, and why everything the **AA's do is so dangerous. The RIAA is an example of an industry group that knows its business model doesn't cut it, and rather than adapting to face advancing technology, it's instead desperately flailing to stymie progress and preserve itself for just a couple more years. But the rest of America will be grappling with the DMCA for decades. God help us all if ACTA gets enforced.
I'm currently studying engineering at a highly regarded liberal arts school, while my brother got his engineering degree from a highly regarded technical school. He certainly came out with stronger technical skills than I'll have, but suffered finding a job because even at his highly regarded school, the degree program was overly theoretical and not geared toward modern needs (he's now an analog electrical engineer working in a digital industry).
I won't have his depth of knowledge, but in the meantime I'm performing music, taking history classes, and really getting a broad scope of things. I'm intending to go on to grad school, where I can extend my technical skills, but I'm getting a fine education in my field with a much richer experience overall. Don't give credence to a second to people who tell you the tech school kids are maladjusted deviants. You get misfits everywhere, even at big-name liberal arts institutions. As long as you keep on top of your work without neglecting social interaction, you won't be magically transformed into a stunted misanthrope.
In short, you'll do fine at either. As long as your department is decent, you'll get the tech skills you need (and you can always build on your bachelor's later). But the fact that you're considering the question at all makes me think the liberal arts school might suit you better.
Considering we've got the lawyer's phone number, who votes for slashdotting his office line?