How about... because DRM has nothing to do with file encryption? DRM is about trusted hardware and the movie and music industries wanting to ensure that their content will not play on a system which could be used to pirate it. There's only one level of protection, play or don't play.
Security and encryption of sensitive files has completely different goals and totally different technology.
I disagree. I think the iPod was initially a superior product. The functionality and style were better than the other options. Whether or not it is now is debatable.
You're right though, that if all the other manufacturers could decide on an industry standard interface they'd have a shot at breaking the iPods dominance.
Were you repeatedly dropped on your head as a child? Where in my post did I mention the Zune? I replied to a post stating that other players (not just the Zune) were catching up to the iPod. I pointed out that it doesn't matter how good those players are, the iPod has critical mass due to add-ons and will be the player of choice regardless of how good other players get in the near future.
Please, for the sake of all mankind, stop posting.
Trees as an energy source are renewable? Growing a tree requires a large amount of nutrients. When trees (or corn/sugar cane/switch grass) are stripped and shipped off for fuel instead of being allowed to fall where it grew and release those nutrients back into the soil, there is a loss of potential energy where the tree is grown.
No form of energy transfer is without cost to it's source.
The popularity of the iPod is beyond Apple now. Their situation is much like that of Windows. There's nothing particularly great about Windows itself that keeps people using it. What keeps people there is familiarity and the near endless amount software that only runs on Windows. How much money has been spent on accessories that only work with the iPod? Those people are locked in and like Windows, just the fact that something better exists (OSX, Linux) isn't enough to switch.
And if people were allowed to buy an iPod without the Apple software, they couldn't do much until they installed an OS, be it Apple's iPod OS or Rockbox.
You're making an arbitrary distinction about what a device is able or not able to do. You say a PC does many things while an iPod does one. iPods with Apple format don't play all the format I might want them to. Alternative software does. Does this mean Apple is instantly limiting what I'm allowing their box to do?
Besides, nobody is locked into Windows. You can wipe the hard drive and install any OS you want. Just like I can buy an iPod and install any firmware I want. But I still had to pay for the iPod software because that was what Apple chose to sell.
But Apple doesn't make the only product which can run iPod hardware. There are other options, and should consumers not have the choice between Apple's software and the competition? Why should I be forced to pay for the Apple iPod software when the superior Rockbox software is what I actually want?
If the argument is that one should be able to buy a computer and install another OS without having to purchase Windows, how far should take it? I understand Rockbox works on several models of iPod. If I don't want the Apple firmware for the iPod but wish to use Rockbox instead, can I demand that Apple sell the two products separately?
How many other consumer electronics products does this apply to? There are many options for alternative firmware out there, have those manufacturers all been forced to break their products into hardware and software?
Which is odd, because Texas is a hotbed of game development. I'd imagine either New York or California are far more likely to ban violent games before Texas. Perhaps conservatism isn't to blame in this case?
For every Robin Hood who steals from the rich to give to the poor, there are dozens of petty thugs who steal because it's easier than working for a living. The same is true of attorneys.
Isn't that what life insurance is for? When most people die or stop working for any other reason their paychecks stop coming. Why should artists expect to live a charmed life where one popular creation will take care of them for life?
It's a bit of a stretch, but I can see where the GP takes issue with U2 bemoaning the plight of the poor while at the same time trying to wring every last dollar out their fans. If U2 does indeed plan to give any additional profits to the poor it would at least be a worthwhile cause. If they're just trying to ensure that their grandchildren are able to snort coke off of hookers in the back of gold plated limos, they are being somewhat hypocritical.
Not to mention the complete loss of huge bodies of creative works. Society has lost large amounts of early films because the reels simply deteriorated in the basement of some studio. Why was it locked up in a damp basement closet? Because even a century later those studios are protecting their precious "intellectual property".
Even works created today will likely be lost in mass quantities due to the desire to keep everything locked up under copyright. At the end of this century, how many DVD players do you think will be around? My guess is close to none. Under absurd copyright terms such as Life+70 (potentially 150 years) the only viable copies in existence when those works do fall into the public domain will belong to the copyright holders. So unless the copyright holder is still actively promoting those works, they'll just disappear. Yeah, I'm sure they'll still be selling Star Wars and Titanic in 100 years, but lesser works will simply be forgotten because the only place they exist is on a DVD that hasn't been watched since great grandma's DVD player broke in 2015 and the master copy that's on a hard drive in a server in the studio that hasn't worked in just as long.
If copyright expired in a reasonable amount of time, say 25 years, there would be lots of people who would archive their favorite works and make sure they survived the transitions to new media.
Screw news outlets. If this woman offered to go on Oprah, millions of angry women would tear the US music industry to shreds. The Oprah demographic seems to have the ability to make or break products.
Avoid overtime is a great policy, but it relies on the ability of management to schedule properly and avoid unrealistic deadlines. Expecting management to do either of those things requires as much faith as it does to expect your employees to get things done given a flexible schedule.
Slashdot Mirror
How about... because DRM has nothing to do with file encryption? DRM is about trusted hardware and the movie and music industries wanting to ensure that their content will not play on a system which could be used to pirate it. There's only one level of protection, play or don't play.
Security and encryption of sensitive files has completely different goals and totally different technology.
Nice reading comprehension you've got there.
Protected content is DRMed movies and music. We're not talking about encrypted financial documents.
Of course it's on the Beeb, it's major financial news. Harry Potter is the UK's only export. :P
I disagree. I think the iPod was initially a superior product. The functionality and style were better than the other options. Whether or not it is now is debatable.
You're right though, that if all the other manufacturers could decide on an industry standard interface they'd have a shot at breaking the iPods dominance.
Were you repeatedly dropped on your head as a child? Where in my post did I mention the Zune? I replied to a post stating that other players (not just the Zune) were catching up to the iPod. I pointed out that it doesn't matter how good those players are, the iPod has critical mass due to add-ons and will be the player of choice regardless of how good other players get in the near future.
Please, for the sake of all mankind, stop posting.
Trees as an energy source are renewable? Growing a tree requires a large amount of nutrients. When trees (or corn/sugar cane/switch grass) are stripped and shipped off for fuel instead of being allowed to fall where it grew and release those nutrients back into the soil, there is a loss of potential energy where the tree is grown.
No form of energy transfer is without cost to it's source.
The popularity of the iPod is beyond Apple now. Their situation is much like that of Windows. There's nothing particularly great about Windows itself that keeps people using it. What keeps people there is familiarity and the near endless amount software that only runs on Windows. How much money has been spent on accessories that only work with the iPod? Those people are locked in and like Windows, just the fact that something better exists (OSX, Linux) isn't enough to switch.
Maybe it should?
And if people were allowed to buy an iPod without the Apple software, they couldn't do much until they installed an OS, be it Apple's iPod OS or Rockbox.
You're making an arbitrary distinction about what a device is able or not able to do. You say a PC does many things while an iPod does one. iPods with Apple format don't play all the format I might want them to. Alternative software does. Does this mean Apple is instantly limiting what I'm allowing their box to do?
Besides, nobody is locked into Windows. You can wipe the hard drive and install any OS you want. Just like I can buy an iPod and install any firmware I want. But I still had to pay for the iPod software because that was what Apple chose to sell.
But Apple doesn't make the only product which can run iPod hardware. There are other options, and should consumers not have the choice between Apple's software and the competition? Why should I be forced to pay for the Apple iPod software when the superior Rockbox software is what I actually want?
The software that runs an iPod is a separate product. I can download it here: http://www.rockbox.org/
Apple is tying their software to their hardware and forcing me to pay for it.
If the argument is that one should be able to buy a computer and install another OS without having to purchase Windows, how far should take it? I understand Rockbox works on several models of iPod. If I don't want the Apple firmware for the iPod but wish to use Rockbox instead, can I demand that Apple sell the two products separately?
How many other consumer electronics products does this apply to? There are many options for alternative firmware out there, have those manufacturers all been forced to break their products into hardware and software?
Which is odd, because Texas is a hotbed of game development. I'd imagine either New York or California are far more likely to ban violent games before Texas. Perhaps conservatism isn't to blame in this case?
Laws are created by humans for humans. Or do you think lions have a trial every time one of them eats a wildebeest?
For every Robin Hood who steals from the rich to give to the poor, there are dozens of petty thugs who steal because it's easier than working for a living. The same is true of attorneys.
You should agree with the author because he's better than you. Why? Because he's sophisticated (wine) and cares about the planet (tofu).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Oops, this was meant to be in response to the GP.
Who modded this a troll? He's right. Regardless of one's stance on the 2nd Amendment, it does NOT belong on Slashdot.
I'm guessing it's the same kind of interpolation that scanners use to claim things like 9600DPI?
Awesome article, thanks for the link. That's everything that the internet should be about.
Isn't that what life insurance is for? When most people die or stop working for any other reason their paychecks stop coming. Why should artists expect to live a charmed life where one popular creation will take care of them for life?
It's a bit of a stretch, but I can see where the GP takes issue with U2 bemoaning the plight of the poor while at the same time trying to wring every last dollar out their fans. If U2 does indeed plan to give any additional profits to the poor it would at least be a worthwhile cause. If they're just trying to ensure that their grandchildren are able to snort coke off of hookers in the back of gold plated limos, they are being somewhat hypocritical.
Not to mention the complete loss of huge bodies of creative works. Society has lost large amounts of early films because the reels simply deteriorated in the basement of some studio. Why was it locked up in a damp basement closet? Because even a century later those studios are protecting their precious "intellectual property".
Even works created today will likely be lost in mass quantities due to the desire to keep everything locked up under copyright. At the end of this century, how many DVD players do you think will be around? My guess is close to none. Under absurd copyright terms such as Life+70 (potentially 150 years) the only viable copies in existence when those works do fall into the public domain will belong to the copyright holders. So unless the copyright holder is still actively promoting those works, they'll just disappear. Yeah, I'm sure they'll still be selling Star Wars and Titanic in 100 years, but lesser works will simply be forgotten because the only place they exist is on a DVD that hasn't been watched since great grandma's DVD player broke in 2015 and the master copy that's on a hard drive in a server in the studio that hasn't worked in just as long.
If copyright expired in a reasonable amount of time, say 25 years, there would be lots of people who would archive their favorite works and make sure they survived the transitions to new media.
Screw news outlets. If this woman offered to go on Oprah, millions of angry women would tear the US music industry to shreds. The Oprah demographic seems to have the ability to make or break products.
Avoid overtime is a great policy, but it relies on the ability of management to schedule properly and avoid unrealistic deadlines. Expecting management to do either of those things requires as much faith as it does to expect your employees to get things done given a flexible schedule.