All this talk of FCC rules and regulations ignores the root of the problem.
If these rouge access points are interfering with the campus network, what is the university supposed to do to ensure it can provide reliable network access? What about all the people who are paying to use the university's network, but can't, because their neighbour set up an access point that overpowers the building's signal?
That is the problem many universities face. The "no student-owned access point" policy was created to address this problem. Speculating about FCC rules will not make the original problem go away, so alternative solutions are necessary.
I'm also wondering if any of you would try using this FCC argument against an employer who bans wireless access points for security reasons?
Intellectual Property for Auctions...now available to the highest bidder.
There's a bit of truth to that statement that nobody seems to have noticed yet. Take note of the following statement from the story:
MercExchange is ultimately looking to sell its entire portfolio of auction-related patents. Names being bandied about as possible acquirers include Amazon, Yahoo and eBay itself.
Doesn't it seem like MercExchange is using the threat of litigation in order to coerce eBay into purchasing these patents? A week from now, I expect to read the following story: "MercExchange has settled its lawsuit against eBay. eBay will acquire the intellectual property from MercExchange for an undisclosed amount of cash." eBay can then go after Yahoo and Amazon, if they so choose.
Alternatively, Yahoo or Amazon could purchase the patents, and then go after eBay. We know from past experience that Amazon isn't beyond suing its competitors over trivial patents.
MercExchange doesn't seem to have a competitive position. Personally, I've never heard of them -- eBay, Yahoo, and Amazon are the big players in the online auction market. Any of these players might be interested in acquiring the MercExchange intellectual property in order to use against the other two.
As for MercExchange, since they're aiming to sell their patents anyway, they can probably fetch a higher price by using a lawsuit as a bargaining chip.
They're actually a bit bigger than a quarter... more like a Canadian Twonie.
I bought a MiniDisc player for $160 not too long ago. I fail to see any significant advantages of Dataplay.
MiniDisc: - Players cost half what DataPlay players will. - Blank discs cost less. ($2-$3 vs. $5-$10) - Discs and individual tracks can be erased. (Think CD-RW vs CD-R -- you don't need to buy a new disc whenever the old one fills up.) - No significant copy protection. - Mature technology. - Incredible battery life. (DataPlay was estimated at only 10 hours for the "engine" alone.)
DataPlay: - slightly smaller discs (but the players don't look to be any smaller) - can probably record faster (note: my MD player is one of the older models that only records in real-time, so I can't speak for the newer NetMD models.) - sets a bad precedent
So the only real disadvantage is that I can currently only record in real-time. (Again, I can't speak for NetMD.) But since MD discs are so cheap, I don't spend much time recording, anyway. I just made 3 or 4 mix discs (each with 5 hours of music), delete tracks as I get tired of them, and add new tracks in their place.
The future of web comics is not PayPal, it's not micropayments, it's product placement. In today's Megatokyo comic, one of the characters has apparently purchased takeout from Wendy's. Think of how much money they could have made if they had offered that placement to the highest bidder!
They do have a pretty cool poster, though. (A limited edition -- which has sold out.) They should sell more stuff like that. A whole lot of places sell shirts and stuff, but I'm not a huge fan of clothes.
The US Embassy [in Ottawa] happens to have a ton of spying equipment on the roof, including laser devices capable of picking up subtle vibrations of windows...
Can't the Canadian dimplomats say, "hey, since we gave you this huge plot of prime real estate in our downtown core, we'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't cover it with spy equipment." Also hint that next time they want to build a new embassy in Ottawa, they'll have them build it in, say, Stittsville.
I've heard that the intelligence office, which is also pretty close to the U.S. embassy, is similarly outfitted with spy-deterrent glass and blinds -- and high tech spy gear of their own that is cooler than anything you've seen in a sci-fi movie.
Once upon a time, TV signals were only available over the air -- cable companies didn't yet exist. It difficult to get distant signals without spending a lot of money on a big antenna. One day, a guy who owned just such an antenna decided to offer service to his neighbours by running a cable to their homes. Thus the cable company was born.
Sounds similar, doesn't it?
While this isn't a perfect ananlogy (you have to pay for digital cable), recall the case of iCraveTV -- one person put up an television antenna and broadcast the signals over the internet. It's pretty much the same thing, but today, you immediately get sued for trying something like that.
I guess back in those days, "rights management" wasn't such a big issue. ("Rights", of course, always refers to the rights of corporations to protect their business model.)
If Microsoft is smart, they'll ignore this. Why? Well, they're losing around $150 USD per console, and they make the money from the games.
I'd wonder if it's that simple. There may be other indirect relationships at work. For example, might it be possible that ownership of the X-Box drives game sales? If you've got an X-Box in your living room, you might be more likely to purchase games for it. Or, you might be less likely to buy a competitor's product and start spending half of your gaming budget on its games. Relationships like this are almost impossible to predict, but they have to be considered.
Eventually, they'll also want to start selling online services -- the more people who own an X-Box, the more potential subscribers they'll have. And there's also the bragging rights that go along with having the best-selling console.
In addition, they have to be concerned about the long-term effects -- some number of months from now, they'll be breaking even on the X-Box sales, at which point they won't want to have an emulator around. It's only in the beginning that they lose money. Similarly, while DVD burners aren't an issue now, they may become a problem by the end of the product's life cycle.
What it may do is prompt them to stop including that logo -- and it's not like it matters anyways.
It would be better if Philips made them stop selling those shiny silver discs as "CDs," period. Philips doesn't want their precious CD brand to get a bad reputation because of those evil corporations and their copy-restricted incompatible CD knockoffs. What they should do is force the record stores to remove them from their "CD" section, and put them in their own "shiny silver discs" section. Or (even better) get them out of the CD stores entirely, forcing them into the underground, to be sold only by shady back-alley characters along with the Rolex and Gucci knockoffs.
CD burners can be used to avoid purchasing albums -- but they can also be used in ways which actually increase album sales. For example, buying an album with only a few good songs with the intent of making a compilation CD. Or making a compilation CD from MP3s and then purchasing the full albums from artists you like. (I personally have done the latter on numerous occasions.)
The net effect still depends on who you listen to. Of all the opinions out there, I believe that the RIAA and friends has the most incentive to spead false information. Their multi-billion dollar industry depends on keeping Napsters and CD burners down, whereas the average citizen fighting for their freedoms is influenced only by their sense of right and wrong.
One thing I've seen a few times on some local channels is the placement of ad banners on top of the video during the program. This one really annoys me (and I'd imagine it must annoy the show's writers as well), because a big part of storytelling involves the suspension of disbelief by the viewers. Banner overlay ads ruin that experience by reminding the viewer that they are watching a TV program.
[eerie music] Stop, Mulder! You'll get killed for sure! [dum-dum-DUMMM] Aaaahhh! *** ATTENTION! YOU COULD WIN INSTANTLY!!! BUY MARIO'S PIZZA TODAY!!! LOOK AT MEEEEE!!! ***
... Then you remember, it's just a TV show, nobody's life is in danger, and you're just watching a bunch of actors. Congratualtions, your attention has just been bought.
I find the same problem exists with product placement on TV shows (and movies), but to a slightly lesser extent. Well-disguised product placement works fine, because it blends into the background. But when I see a company logo shoved in my face in the most blatant manner possible, it serves to remind me that everything I'm watching is made up, based on a script whose ending is already decided. Unfortunately, advertisers are willing to pay more for this type of advertising. I believe that overly aggressive product placement harms the quality of the artistic work that is being presented.
I tend to try to be exceedingly friendly with them. When they say, "Hi, may I please speak to ___", I say, "Oh, you're a telemarketer, aren't you?" That will sometimes catch them off-guard, and you can have a little chat -- sometimes more or less related to whatever they're selling, although I recently had a conversation with a university student about midterms and how bad the workload at at this time of year. Often it's obvious that the person on the other end is happy to talk about anything other than the product they're selling. (Cusomter service reps are even better for this.)
It doesn't hurt anyone to be friendly -- after all, these people are just trying to make a bit of money, and probably get abused quite a bit.
I wouldn't be blaming Microsoft here. They're not forcing their technology on anoyone. It's the music industry who went out looking for ways to deal with their "napster problem," and decided the best solution would be to 1) make the CDs uncopyable, 2) include "pre-ripped" music on the CD to satisfy those who have a legitimate need for ripping music. Obviously they're not going to use MP3 or OGG. They'll want to use something that is full of locks and keys, but will work on as much existing MP3 hardware and software as possible, so people don't have as much of an incentive to break the protection. That's WMA. Every software MP3 player I can think of supports it (except RealPlayer, I assume.) And it's the second-most popular format on portable devices. There is no other choice.
No, it doesn't satisfy Linux users, but the RIAA couldn't care less about that. Do you expect them to come up with their own secure cross-platform restriction scheme, wait for it to be implemented on hardware devices, wait for those devices to become popular, and then start restricting their music? They tried that. It was called SDMI. It failed miserably. So now they're trying the next best thing.
Microsoft thought ahead and created a product they knew there would be a demand for. How they got it supported on everything from Winamp to the Rio on up, I have no idea, but I might assume that everyone else saw a potential for a restricted music format as well, and wanted to make sure it would work on their equipment. You cannot fault them for creating a product they knew there would be a demand for. Unless Microsoft was holding a gun to someone's head saying, "you'll implement WMA in your MP3 player or we won't sign your driver," it's simply smart business.
There is a monopoly issue in this story, but I would look in the other direction. The music industry is trying to force restricted digital music on the market in order to preserve their stranglehold on music distrubution. If you want digital music, you're going to get it in a format that is provided by the RIAA, with the permissions set in whatever manner the RIAA sees fit. If any company other than Microsoft had a restricted music technology that was available on the vast majority of heardware devices, I'm sure the RIAA would have gone with it.
Yes, there are times when having a single unified entity is a good thing. That's a big part of how Microsoft got to where they are today. Windows is Windows and Office is Office -- there's only one version, and everybody is comfortable with it. The masses don't care so much about choice -- they'd rather use something they are familar with -- so it becomes a de facto standard.
Now, on Linux, you have lots of choices, but run the risk of coming across looking like a collection of disparate and disorganized parts rather than one unified entity. Choice can be intimidating for people. Do I choose Debian? Do I choose Mandrake? How do I know? On the other hand, you've got Apache, which is pretty much the Microsoft Office of the web server world (on the Unix platform) -- almost everyone uses it -- they don't have to think about the choice, because a generally-accepted "standard" exists.
Choice -- the very thing that attracts many people to the Linux platform -- may be a big part of what keeps everyone else away.
Well, I'm sure nobody is surprised at this boneheaded attempt at stopping MP3, but I might have thought they'd be a little more sensitive than to use the recent terrorist attacks to push their own copy-restricting agenda into law:
Senator Hollings' SSSCA legislation - which makes copy-controlled hardware mandatory (and circumventing it illegal) - has received remarkably little attention since it was revealed ten days ago. No petitions, no EFF Alert (as yet), and very little public uproar.
But according to Andre Hedrick, who publicly fought attempts to put CPRM copy controls into the storage format, the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act provides a perfect platform for the anti-encryption lobby.
He rates the legislation's chance of success as "very high", and even higher after the terrorist atrocities last week.
Hedrick is outraged that the PC industry will foot the bill for protecting Hollywood's assets. [Read More]
I don't seem to remember this one being mentioned on Slashdot at all (and the search function seems to be broken, so I can't go back more than a few days). Maybe everyone has forgotten about it because of recent events.
It sounds more like "this software could be used for a mission-critical operation, and if our software breaks, someone might sue us." They have the standard "no warranties" disclaimer, but they're saying that such a warning doesn't seem to carry much weight in today's lawyer-happy society.
Why deny myself additional functionality on every site just because a minority of them choose to abuse JavaScript with things like popups, scrolling status bar messages, and right-click disabling?
There are many effective uses of popups. One common example is popup help messages that don't force the user to navigate away from the page they were using. (I hate it when I've spent five minutes filling out a form, click on a "help" link, and have all of that information lost.) Getting rid of popups by boycotting JavaScript is like cancelling your phone service because you don't like telemarketers.
That's exactly what the article said -- they're not planning to take everyone to court. Improving the product is good. However, when you start using someone else's trademarks in your product name (LEGOS), other issues come into play. Might there be consumer confusion over the name of the software? Does it dilute the LEGO brand name? What if other people decide to take it a step further and create products with names like "LEGO OS?"
Back in the modem days, I remember my ISP used to maintain an 11 to 1 modem to user ratio, which was the level required to provide "no-busy" service. Further, they only needed enough bandwidth to support a fraction of that, since most of the "active" connections would be sitting idle. Assuming 9% of those 200 people are active at peak times, and further assuming that half of those connections are idle (on average), that gives you a download rate of 172k, which is pretty decent. I'm not sure how much those ratios have changed with today's always-on connections, but you're unlikely to have all 200 of those users dowloading at full throttle at the same time.
The issue is simply one of perception. The debit card, while card-like in appearance, is really the modern-day equivalent of cash, with all the same advantages and disadvantages. You don't have to worry about getting into debt trouble, but in return, you lose out on the extended warranties, air miles, and whatnot -- those bonuses, naturally, are paid for by the interest.
I believe that some banks are even starting to roll out incentive plans for debit cards. If I remember correctly, Bank of Montreal has a program where you collect Air Miles each time you use a debit card at certain retailers.
The banks make their money from the merchants in the form of transaction fees. With the volume of purchases that are made via Interac, the banks make a significant amount of profit (without driving their customers into debt.) Banks also typically charge the consumer a small transaction fee, or a flat monthly service charge for unlimited transactions. (I'm not sure if banks in the U.S. nickel and dime you to death like they do here in Canada, but here there's a service fee for absolutely everything.)
They're not really trying to replace credit cards, but they'd rather you use a debit card than cash. After all, banks can't charge a transaction fee when you pay by cash.
Oh, we have smart cards. I have a smart card for the bus, a smart card for making cash purchases, a cashcard for the payphone (and another for my calling card), a smart card for my student ID, one for the library, driver's licence, medicare card, credit cards, frequent-flyer cards, security badge, travel card, video rental cards. So that's 17 cards that I have to carry with me all the time. Hmm, I guess that's really not smart at all.
In Canada, the most popular form of payment these days is Interac (aka. the ATM card.)* It's accepted almost everywhere. Interac is the name of the network that connects all of the bank machines (ATMs) in this country -- the banks just extended the existing network by putting terminals in retail outlets. The card takes funds directly from your bank account, meaning you don't have to worry about bills or high interest rates -- as long as you've got the cash. Like the cards in France, you need to enter your PIN number before completing a purchase. It's just like withdrawing money from a bank machine, except instead of giving you cash, the funds are transferred directly to the merchant's account.
The bank, naturally, takes a service charge from each transaction. As a result, some retailers don't allow Interac purchases below a certain limit (usually $5.) But it's pretty rare these days to go to a place that doesn't take the card. A few years ago, I was passing through the U.S., and almost ran into trouble when I tried paying for lunch at McDonald's with my bank card. The cashier just gave me a funny look. (Fortunately, I had a bit of cash on me at the time.) That shows how much we take it for granted.
(*) According to a study that was conducted about a year ago, 21% use credit cards as their primary method of payment, 35% use cash, and 42% use Interac. People aged 18-24 were at 61% in favour of Interac.
(Ignoring the fact that the author doesn't seem to realize we're talking about on-screen keyboards...)
I have a theory that our brains memorize the querty keyboard layout only in connection with our fingers. Even though I can type pretty fast on a regular keyboard, when faced with an on-screen keyboard, I'm back to hunt-and-peck (at least to some extent.) My ingrained knowledge of querty isn't a very big help.
On top of that, a physical keyboard is used with ten styluses scattered across the length of the device (ie. your fingers), whereas a Palm keyboard uses only one. It is therefore a great advantage to have all of the buttons in a small square instead of a long thin rectangle. Imagine you wanted to enter lots of numeric data using one finger. Would you use the number keys at the top of your keyboard, or would you use the numeric keypad? The situation is the same when inputting characters with a stylus -- it's much better to have the keys arranged in a square (especially when you know the most common ones can be found near the centre of that square.)
If their business model is in jeopardy -- they have billions of dollars -- they'll just create new laws to protect their business model. This CD-R tax idea is an example. The DMCA was another.
What was that quote again, by the judge who said the government's mandate wasn't to protect rich companies' business models?
Re:How Dumb Do They Think We Are?
on
RIAA To Target CD-R
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Naspter thrives, CD sales soar. Napster dies, CD shipments drop. The media's response? "I don't understand! How could this be?" Their response is no suprise given that the only person interviewed for the story was the RIAA's Hilary Rosen. Why isn't the other half of the story covered? Because the media doesn't know who to talk to in order to get a balanced view. I've seen a few stories on this on the CBC in Canada. They'll talk to a recording industry executive who spouts off some pretty legitimate-sounding "poor us" drivel, then they'll talk to some teenager in sitting in front of a computer in a darkened basement. Who do you think comes across better?
Similarly, the MPAA's Jack Valenti says that demand for broadband services is low because of all the "hackers" distributing pirated movies.
One you've made your billions, can't you just be happy with that and let someone else try something new? I'm tired of billion-dollar corporations whining like little babies whenever some twentysomething university student comes a long with a bold new idea that could threaten their business model. Aww, are you afraid? That's right, run to your mommy^H^H^H^H^Hgovernment.
Earlier this year, the RIAA announced plans to mount an anti-Napster "education" effort targeted at national political and media figures. Translation: it plans to use its vast financial resources to buy new legislation and even public opinion. Facing that kind of marketing goliath, what can we do to keep up?
DataPlay wants to be the next one in this chain. On CNNfn, the CMO of the company promotes their product as being a great tool for record companies that want to re-sell their old music in a new format. Universal wants to release everything in secure format, for $2 per song. Just one of the many reasons to stay away from that format. It may sound cool in theory, but it's the RIAA's dream. They go out of their way to make trading files impossible. (Remember CPRM?)
Slashdot Mirror
All this talk of FCC rules and regulations ignores the root of the problem.
If these rouge access points are interfering with the campus network, what is the university supposed to do to ensure it can provide reliable network access? What about all the people who are paying to use the university's network, but can't, because their neighbour set up an access point that overpowers the building's signal?
That is the problem many universities face. The "no student-owned access point" policy was created to address this problem. Speculating about FCC rules will not make the original problem go away, so alternative solutions are necessary.
I'm also wondering if any of you would try using this FCC argument against an employer who bans wireless access points for security reasons?
Intellectual Property for Auctions ...now available to the highest bidder.
There's a bit of truth to that statement that nobody seems to have noticed yet. Take note of the following statement from the story:
MercExchange is ultimately looking to sell its entire portfolio of auction-related patents. Names being bandied about as possible acquirers include Amazon, Yahoo and eBay itself.
Doesn't it seem like MercExchange is using the threat of litigation in order to coerce eBay into purchasing these patents? A week from now, I expect to read the following story: "MercExchange has settled its lawsuit against eBay. eBay will acquire the intellectual property from MercExchange for an undisclosed amount of cash." eBay can then go after Yahoo and Amazon, if they so choose.
Alternatively, Yahoo or Amazon could purchase the patents, and then go after eBay. We know from past experience that Amazon isn't beyond suing its competitors over trivial patents.
MercExchange doesn't seem to have a competitive position. Personally, I've never heard of them -- eBay, Yahoo, and Amazon are the big players in the online auction market. Any of these players might be interested in acquiring the MercExchange intellectual property in order to use against the other two.
As for MercExchange, since they're aiming to sell their patents anyway, they can probably fetch a higher price by using a lawsuit as a bargaining chip.
They're actually a bit bigger than a quarter... more like a Canadian Twonie.
I bought a MiniDisc player for $160 not too long ago. I fail to see any significant advantages of Dataplay.
MiniDisc:
- Players cost half what DataPlay players will.
- Blank discs cost less. ($2-$3 vs. $5-$10)
- Discs and individual tracks can be erased. (Think CD-RW vs CD-R -- you don't need to buy a new disc whenever the old one fills up.)
- No significant copy protection.
- Mature technology.
- Incredible battery life. (DataPlay was estimated at only 10 hours for the "engine" alone.)
DataPlay:
- slightly smaller discs (but the players don't look to be any smaller)
- can probably record faster (note: my MD player is one of the older models that only records in real-time, so I can't speak for the newer NetMD models.)
- sets a bad precedent
So the only real disadvantage is that I can currently only record in real-time. (Again, I can't speak for NetMD.) But since MD discs are so cheap, I don't spend much time recording, anyway. I just made 3 or 4 mix discs (each with 5 hours of music), delete tracks as I get tired of them, and add new tracks in their place.
The future of web comics is not PayPal, it's not micropayments, it's product placement. In today's Megatokyo comic, one of the characters has apparently purchased takeout from Wendy's. Think of how much money they could have made if they had offered that placement to the highest bidder!
They do have a pretty cool poster, though. (A limited edition -- which has sold out.) They should sell more stuff like that. A whole lot of places sell shirts and stuff, but I'm not a huge fan of clothes.
The US Embassy [in Ottawa] happens to have a ton of spying equipment on the roof, including laser devices capable of picking up subtle vibrations of windows...
Can't the Canadian dimplomats say, "hey, since we gave you this huge plot of prime real estate in our downtown core, we'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't cover it with spy equipment." Also hint that next time they want to build a new embassy in Ottawa, they'll have them build it in, say, Stittsville.
I've heard that the intelligence office, which is also pretty close to the U.S. embassy, is similarly outfitted with spy-deterrent glass and blinds -- and high tech spy gear of their own that is cooler than anything you've seen in a sci-fi movie.
Here's the story I've heard.
Once upon a time, TV signals were only available over the air -- cable companies didn't yet exist. It difficult to get distant signals without spending a lot of money on a big antenna. One day, a guy who owned just such an antenna decided to offer service to his neighbours by running a cable to their homes. Thus the cable company was born.
Sounds similar, doesn't it?
While this isn't a perfect ananlogy (you have to pay for digital cable), recall the case of iCraveTV -- one person put up an television antenna and broadcast the signals over the internet. It's pretty much the same thing, but today, you immediately get sued for trying something like that.
I guess back in those days, "rights management" wasn't such a big issue. ("Rights", of course, always refers to the rights of corporations to protect their business model.)
If Microsoft is smart, they'll ignore this. Why? Well, they're losing around $150 USD per console, and they make the money from the games.
I'd wonder if it's that simple. There may be other indirect relationships at work. For example, might it be possible that ownership of the X-Box drives game sales? If you've got an X-Box in your living room, you might be more likely to purchase games for it. Or, you might be less likely to buy a competitor's product and start spending half of your gaming budget on its games. Relationships like this are almost impossible to predict, but they have to be considered.
Eventually, they'll also want to start selling online services -- the more people who own an X-Box, the more potential subscribers they'll have. And there's also the bragging rights that go along with having the best-selling console.
In addition, they have to be concerned about the long-term effects -- some number of months from now, they'll be breaking even on the X-Box sales, at which point they won't want to have an emulator around. It's only in the beginning that they lose money. Similarly, while DVD burners aren't an issue now, they may become a problem by the end of the product's life cycle.
What it may do is prompt them to stop including that logo -- and it's not like it matters anyways.
It would be better if Philips made them stop selling those shiny silver discs as "CDs," period. Philips doesn't want their precious CD brand to get a bad reputation because of those evil corporations and their copy-restricted incompatible CD knockoffs. What they should do is force the record stores to remove them from their "CD" section, and put them in their own "shiny silver discs" section. Or (even better) get them out of the CD stores entirely, forcing them into the underground, to be sold only by shady back-alley characters along with the Rolex and Gucci knockoffs.
CD burners can be used to avoid purchasing albums -- but they can also be used in ways which actually increase album sales. For example, buying an album with only a few good songs with the intent of making a compilation CD. Or making a compilation CD from MP3s and then purchasing the full albums from artists you like. (I personally have done the latter on numerous occasions.)
The net effect still depends on who you listen to. Of all the opinions out there, I believe that the RIAA and friends has the most incentive to spead false information. Their multi-billion dollar industry depends on keeping Napsters and CD burners down, whereas the average citizen fighting for their freedoms is influenced only by their sense of right and wrong.
One thing I've seen a few times on some local channels is the placement of ad banners on top of the video during the program. This one really annoys me (and I'd imagine it must annoy the show's writers as well), because a big part of storytelling involves the suspension of disbelief by the viewers. Banner overlay ads ruin that experience by reminding the viewer that they are watching a TV program.
[eerie music] Stop, Mulder! You'll get killed for sure! [dum-dum-DUMMM] Aaaahhh! *** ATTENTION! YOU COULD WIN INSTANTLY!!! BUY MARIO'S PIZZA TODAY!!! LOOK AT MEEEEE!!! ***
... Then you remember, it's just a TV show, nobody's life is in danger, and you're just watching a bunch of actors. Congratualtions, your attention has just been bought.
I find the same problem exists with product placement on TV shows (and movies), but to a slightly lesser extent. Well-disguised product placement works fine, because it blends into the background. But when I see a company logo shoved in my face in the most blatant manner possible, it serves to remind me that everything I'm watching is made up, based on a script whose ending is already decided. Unfortunately, advertisers are willing to pay more for this type of advertising. I believe that overly aggressive product placement harms the quality of the artistic work that is being presented.
I tend to try to be exceedingly friendly with them. When they say, "Hi, may I please speak to ___", I say, "Oh, you're a telemarketer, aren't you?" That will sometimes catch them off-guard, and you can have a little chat -- sometimes more or less related to whatever they're selling, although I recently had a conversation with a university student about midterms and how bad the workload at at this time of year. Often it's obvious that the person on the other end is happy to talk about anything other than the product they're selling. (Cusomter service reps are even better for this.)
It doesn't hurt anyone to be friendly -- after all, these people are just trying to make a bit of money, and probably get abused quite a bit.
I wouldn't be blaming Microsoft here. They're not forcing their technology on anoyone. It's the music industry who went out looking for ways to deal with their "napster problem," and decided the best solution would be to 1) make the CDs uncopyable, 2) include "pre-ripped" music on the CD to satisfy those who have a legitimate need for ripping music. Obviously they're not going to use MP3 or OGG. They'll want to use something that is full of locks and keys, but will work on as much existing MP3 hardware and software as possible, so people don't have as much of an incentive to break the protection. That's WMA. Every software MP3 player I can think of supports it (except RealPlayer, I assume.) And it's the second-most popular format on portable devices. There is no other choice.
No, it doesn't satisfy Linux users, but the RIAA couldn't care less about that. Do you expect them to come up with their own secure cross-platform restriction scheme, wait for it to be implemented on hardware devices, wait for those devices to become popular, and then start restricting their music? They tried that. It was called SDMI. It failed miserably. So now they're trying the next best thing.
Microsoft thought ahead and created a product they knew there would be a demand for. How they got it supported on everything from Winamp to the Rio on up, I have no idea, but I might assume that everyone else saw a potential for a restricted music format as well, and wanted to make sure it would work on their equipment. You cannot fault them for creating a product they knew there would be a demand for. Unless Microsoft was holding a gun to someone's head saying, "you'll implement WMA in your MP3 player or we won't sign your driver," it's simply smart business.
There is a monopoly issue in this story, but I would look in the other direction. The music industry is trying to force restricted digital music on the market in order to preserve their stranglehold on music distrubution. If you want digital music, you're going to get it in a format that is provided by the RIAA, with the permissions set in whatever manner the RIAA sees fit. If any company other than Microsoft had a restricted music technology that was available on the vast majority of heardware devices, I'm sure the RIAA would have gone with it.
How do you defeat the Borg? Build a better Borg!
Yes, there are times when having a single unified entity is a good thing. That's a big part of how Microsoft got to where they are today. Windows is Windows and Office is Office -- there's only one version, and everybody is comfortable with it. The masses don't care so much about choice -- they'd rather use something they are familar with -- so it becomes a de facto standard.
Now, on Linux, you have lots of choices, but run the risk of coming across looking like a collection of disparate and disorganized parts rather than one unified entity. Choice can be intimidating for people. Do I choose Debian? Do I choose Mandrake? How do I know? On the other hand, you've got Apache, which is pretty much the Microsoft Office of the web server world (on the Unix platform) -- almost everyone uses it -- they don't have to think about the choice, because a generally-accepted "standard" exists.
Choice -- the very thing that attracts many people to the Linux platform -- may be a big part of what keeps everyone else away.
I don't seem to remember this one being mentioned on Slashdot at all (and the search function seems to be broken, so I can't go back more than a few days). Maybe everyone has forgotten about it because of recent events.
It sounds more like "this software could be used for a mission-critical operation, and if our software breaks, someone might sue us." They have the standard "no warranties" disclaimer, but they're saying that such a warning doesn't seem to carry much weight in today's lawyer-happy society.
Why deny myself additional functionality on every site just because a minority of them choose to abuse JavaScript with things like popups, scrolling status bar messages, and right-click disabling?
There are many effective uses of popups. One common example is popup help messages that don't force the user to navigate away from the page they were using. (I hate it when I've spent five minutes filling out a form, click on a "help" link, and have all of that information lost.) Getting rid of popups by boycotting JavaScript is like cancelling your phone service because you don't like telemarketers.
That's exactly what the article said -- they're not planning to take everyone to court. Improving the product is good. However, when you start using someone else's trademarks in your product name (LEGOS), other issues come into play. Might there be consumer confusion over the name of the software? Does it dilute the LEGO brand name? What if other people decide to take it a step further and create products with names like "LEGO OS?"
Back in the modem days, I remember my ISP used to maintain an 11 to 1 modem to user ratio, which was the level required to provide "no-busy" service. Further, they only needed enough bandwidth to support a fraction of that, since most of the "active" connections would be sitting idle. Assuming 9% of those 200 people are active at peak times, and further assuming that half of those connections are idle (on average), that gives you a download rate of 172k, which is pretty decent. I'm not sure how much those ratios have changed with today's always-on connections, but you're unlikely to have all 200 of those users dowloading at full throttle at the same time.
The issue is simply one of perception. The debit card, while card-like in appearance, is really the modern-day equivalent of cash, with all the same advantages and disadvantages. You don't have to worry about getting into debt trouble, but in return, you lose out on the extended warranties, air miles, and whatnot -- those bonuses, naturally, are paid for by the interest.
I believe that some banks are even starting to roll out incentive plans for debit cards. If I remember correctly, Bank of Montreal has a program where you collect Air Miles each time you use a debit card at certain retailers.
The banks make their money from the merchants in the form of transaction fees. With the volume of purchases that are made via Interac, the banks make a significant amount of profit (without driving their customers into debt.) Banks also typically charge the consumer a small transaction fee, or a flat monthly service charge for unlimited transactions. (I'm not sure if banks in the U.S. nickel and dime you to death like they do here in Canada, but here there's a service fee for absolutely everything.)
They're not really trying to replace credit cards, but they'd rather you use a debit card than cash. After all, banks can't charge a transaction fee when you pay by cash.
Oh, we have smart cards. I have a smart card for the bus, a smart card for making cash purchases, a cashcard for the payphone (and another for my calling card), a smart card for my student ID, one for the library, driver's licence, medicare card, credit cards, frequent-flyer cards, security badge, travel card, video rental cards. So that's 17 cards that I have to carry with me all the time. Hmm, I guess that's really not smart at all.
In Canada, the most popular form of payment these days is Interac (aka. the ATM card.)* It's accepted almost everywhere. Interac is the name of the network that connects all of the bank machines (ATMs) in this country -- the banks just extended the existing network by putting terminals in retail outlets. The card takes funds directly from your bank account, meaning you don't have to worry about bills or high interest rates -- as long as you've got the cash. Like the cards in France, you need to enter your PIN number before completing a purchase. It's just like withdrawing money from a bank machine, except instead of giving you cash, the funds are transferred directly to the merchant's account.
The bank, naturally, takes a service charge from each transaction. As a result, some retailers don't allow Interac purchases below a certain limit (usually $5.) But it's pretty rare these days to go to a place that doesn't take the card. A few years ago, I was passing through the U.S., and almost ran into trouble when I tried paying for lunch at McDonald's with my bank card. The cashier just gave me a funny look. (Fortunately, I had a bit of cash on me at the time.) That shows how much we take it for granted.
(*) According to a study that was conducted about a year ago, 21% use credit cards as their primary method of payment, 35% use cash, and 42% use Interac. People aged 18-24 were at 61% in favour of Interac.
(Ignoring the fact that the author doesn't seem to realize we're talking about on-screen keyboards...)
I have a theory that our brains memorize the querty keyboard layout only in connection with our fingers. Even though I can type pretty fast on a regular keyboard, when faced with an on-screen keyboard, I'm back to hunt-and-peck (at least to some extent.) My ingrained knowledge of querty isn't a very big help.
On top of that, a physical keyboard is used with ten styluses scattered across the length of the device (ie. your fingers), whereas a Palm keyboard uses only one. It is therefore a great advantage to have all of the buttons in a small square instead of a long thin rectangle. Imagine you wanted to enter lots of numeric data using one finger. Would you use the number keys at the top of your keyboard, or would you use the numeric keypad? The situation is the same when inputting characters with a stylus -- it's much better to have the keys arranged in a square (especially when you know the most common ones can be found near the centre of that square.)
If their business model is in jeopardy -- they have billions of dollars -- they'll just create new laws to protect their business model. This CD-R tax idea is an example. The DMCA was another.
What was that quote again, by the judge who said the government's mandate wasn't to protect rich companies' business models?
Naspter thrives, CD sales soar. Napster dies, CD shipments drop. The media's response? "I don't understand! How could this be?" Their response is no suprise given that the only person interviewed for the story was the RIAA's Hilary Rosen. Why isn't the other half of the story covered? Because the media doesn't know who to talk to in order to get a balanced view. I've seen a few stories on this on the CBC in Canada. They'll talk to a recording industry executive who spouts off some pretty legitimate-sounding "poor us" drivel, then they'll talk to some teenager in sitting in front of a computer in a darkened basement. Who do you think comes across better?
Similarly, the MPAA's Jack Valenti says that demand for broadband services is low because of all the "hackers" distributing pirated movies.
One you've made your billions, can't you just be happy with that and let someone else try something new? I'm tired of billion-dollar corporations whining like little babies whenever some twentysomething university student comes a long with a bold new idea that could threaten their business model. Aww, are you afraid? That's right, run to your mommy^H^H^H^H^Hgovernment.
Earlier this year, the RIAA announced plans to mount an anti-Napster "education" effort targeted at national political and media figures. Translation: it plans to use its vast financial resources to buy new legislation and even public opinion. Facing that kind of marketing goliath, what can we do to keep up?
DataPlay wants to be the next one in this chain. On CNNfn, the CMO of the company promotes their product as being a great tool for record companies that want to re-sell their old music in a new format. Universal wants to release everything in secure format, for $2 per song. Just one of the many reasons to stay away from that format. It may sound cool in theory, but it's the RIAA's dream. They go out of their way to make trading files impossible. (Remember CPRM?)