People are still willing to pay money for information as long as its printed on a bit of paper. The only way the internet is competing is by being free. This means that newspapers still get a lot more money, and can afford to pay the best writers even with a much lower circulation.
Of course the demand for newspapers will fall, but there will still be a demand until someone works out a way to make some real money from a news site.
What do people here use these things for? Is anyone running a web server on one? And how good is the handwriting recognition? (And what is the point in a full colour version of Backgammon?)
I think Troll was probably a bit harsh. Even if you were, it is an opinion held by a lot of people, but Moderators will moderate.
Lynx does not even display the banner ads
I see your point. And that is a reasonably sound business reason to ignore Lynx. What I find irritating is that a lot of companies selling products have sites that need Shockwave. How much effort do they think I'm willing to go to for a company that doesn't think it should cater to me? A lot of people have to download the latest version of shockwave, and this means they need to stop and resstart their browser (Or is this just under Unix?) Which is also a problem.
All that matters is that 99.7% of our target demographic has access to the de-facto standard - IE4
Including me when I'm at work. It requires me to search through a list of menus for a program that does essentially the same as Netscape just to view a page in which it benefits YOU for me to look at it. If you aren't interested in my custom then I'm not interested in your product.
those that do not are not worth spending my client's money on. Its basic business logic.
But it doesn't cost more to develop a site that works on more browsers. You don't need to create one site per browser. Most of the time all you need to do is load it onto a browser and fix a handful of minor bugs. Anyone who doesn't do this is cutting down the number of visitors for a trivial saving in costs.
I've never actually seen the point of having the name of the image in the alt tags. Why do some web design tools do this? [nav_shadow_left_mid.gif] isn't really any more descriptive than [IMAGE]
When people use sensible HTML, Lynx is a very impressive web browser.
I've seen a rapid increase in sites that assume that shockwave plugins are available for Lynx. Or that everyone is using Netscape or IE under Windows. It can be very irritating having to load X then load Netscape just to find out a single piece of information.
The other 25% are fiddles to make the numbers look bigger.
2560 just seems a suspicious number unless there's a 256 bit pipeline with 10 stages and they're adding the stages together. They would after all be moving 2560 bits at the same time. This is of course speculation.
Well, I quite liked the fact that Heresy was thrown in there.
This is essentially the same thing as me explaining the average non-techy person how computers have pressure sensors in the keyboard that increase the processor speed when you hit the keys impatiently. It's amazing how many people believe me.
Yes, but judging by the technology profile, they need to match the brightness of the panels. This would push the price up even higher. Still, considering the small demand for 57 inch flat screens I suppose this isn't too much of a problem.
The easy way to prevent this would be to have a lot of monitors with the same frequency and resolution and slightly different information on each of them. Just Keep the signal to noise ratio low enough and you should be okay.
I'll admit that I have next to no idea about how fuel cells work, but if they could be produced to use alkanes, they would have various advantages. The longer ones are less flammable, liquid at room temperature, and can be produced from crude oil.
Okay, none of the above were really slaves in the most literal sense, but it shows that sometimes fighting back does work. Especially if you can make it look like the oppressors ARE oppressors.
DeCSS has the sole purpose of decrypting a DVD. A knife has uses other than cutting the sellotape that was used to prevent acces of a book. Sellotaping a book shut could not possibly be considered access control. CSS can be considered access control. It therefore doesn't follow that if you are allowed to open a book thats been sellotaped shut, you should be allowed to decrypt the data on a DVD.
Now then, on the other hand: If I steal a book, I am preventing someone from reading that book. If I pirate a DVD, then I am not preventing other people from watching that DVD. It therefore doesn't follow that if theft is illegal, piracy is illegal.
I personally feel that there is no reason that I shouldn't be allowed to decrypt a DVD. The reason for this is that I feel I should only have to pay for the work put into the content of the disc. Not for the work put in to making sure that I can't do something that the studios don't want me to do (Which I would pay in the form of an increase in the price of DVD players caused by licencing costs.)
I also feel that piracy should be prevented. Not for reasons of "Its a bit like this situation which is kind of similar", but because it is unfair on the people who produced the origional work.
Time and time again, analogies are being used in an attempt to clarify the situation. Each time the analogy ends up just obfuscating the real issue which is "Should we be entitled to decrypt the data that we have paid for?" (or from an MPAA viewpoint - "Should we allow software that can be used as a means of piracy?")
There's absolutely no reason that movie companies can't stop themes that are based on movies. They could also ban fan fiction. Normally they don't though, since this would be expensive and pointless, and would alienate some of their fans.
Money most certainly does talk. Remember though that the amount of money owned by all a company'ss customers is substantially more than that owned by that company.
Breaking CSS to play a legally owned DVD on my PC is not the same as stealing a DVD from the store!
I agree. Which is why the use of metaphors is so ridiculous. Breaking CSS isn't really the same as cutting the sellotape off a book either. You don't need any knowledge greater than the ability to use a knife to cut off the sellotape.
think an exemption should be granted then for any non-broadcast works.
For some reason I never actually thought about the DMCA when applied to broadcast media. In that respect it actually makes sense.
Isn't it just ludicrous that the same law should be applied to broadcast media as physical media considering these are always licenced, sold, distributed and priced differently.
The DMCA doesn't necessarily prevent the bank from analysing the software. The number of customers for the software will be very small, so supplying the source code under an NDA would be totally reasonable. Considering the security issues in a bank, this would normally be considered reasonable
Vednors who refuse to supply source should not be considered by the bank. The situation is not the same as the consumer market. There are very few people who actually want to know about the encryption on their DVD's. As long as their player plays it, why worry?
To put it in less technical terms, a fair use defense might allow a user to quote a passage from a book but it does not follow that the user is allowed to break into a bookstore and steal a book.
Thats totally true. It also shouldn't be legal to break into a video shop and steal a disc.
Or we shouldn't be allowed to hack a cable box to get all the channels for free
While we're at it, it shouldn't be legal to open the shrink wrap without an approved pair of scissors
The point is that all these seem to be lumped together into the same category, but decrypting a disc is different from all of them.
It does (arguably) allow unauthorised copying.
It also allows legal copying (For example, Whatever Warner says, I can't produce a video review programme with clips from DVD's and distribute on video without circumventing the technological access controls).
Rather than trying to draw up a parallel with a non technological solution, we should be asking whether it is justifiable to ban free universal access in order to prevent an increase in piracy.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that if censorship happens in Michigan, it culd happen elsewhere.
If it happens in your town, they'll say "Well, they've censored the Library in Holland, Michigan, and nobody complained"
People are still willing to pay money for information as long as its printed on a bit of paper. The only way the internet is competing is by being free. This means that newspapers still get a lot more money, and can afford to pay the best writers even with a much lower circulation.
Of course the demand for newspapers will fall, but there will still be a demand until someone works out a way to make some real money from a news site.
I can't find a decent excuse to buy one.
What do people here use these things for? Is anyone running a web server on one? And how good is the handwriting recognition? (And what is the point in a full colour version of Backgammon?)
I am often accused of joking, or "trolling"
I think Troll was probably a bit harsh. Even if you were, it is an opinion held by a lot of people, but Moderators will moderate.
Lynx does not even display the banner ads
I see your point. And that is a reasonably sound business reason to ignore Lynx. What I find irritating is that a lot of companies selling products have sites that need Shockwave. How much effort do they think I'm willing to go to for a company that doesn't think it should cater to me? A lot of people have to download the latest version of shockwave, and this means they need to stop and resstart their browser (Or is this just under Unix?) Which is also a problem.
All that matters is that 99.7% of our target demographic has access to the de-facto standard - IE4
Including me when I'm at work. It requires me to search through a list of menus for a program that does essentially the same as Netscape just to view a page in which it benefits YOU for me to look at it. If you aren't interested in my custom then I'm not interested in your product.
those that do not are not worth spending my client's money on. Its basic business logic.
But it doesn't cost more to develop a site that works on more browsers. You don't need to create one site per browser. Most of the time all you need to do is load it onto a browser and fix a handful of minor bugs. Anyone who doesn't do this is cutting down the number of visitors for a trivial saving in costs.
The Queen of England? Who's that then?
The same person who's Queen of Scotland and Queen of Wales and Queen of Australia by right of succesion. Elizabeth II.
Admittedly that SHOULD make her Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland, Australia, and various other countries, but that would just confuse the issue.
I've never actually seen the point of having the name of the image in the alt tags. Why do some web design tools do this? [nav_shadow_left_mid.gif] isn't really any more descriptive than [IMAGE]
When people use sensible HTML, Lynx is a very impressive web browser.
I've seen a rapid increase in sites that assume that shockwave plugins are available for Lynx. Or that everyone is using Netscape or IE under Windows. It can be very irritating having to load X then load Netscape just to find out a single piece of information.
It seems cheap anyway. But can someone explain why they have prices in pounds? I thought Christmas Island used Australian Dollars.
which is equal to the Willamet
Which is damn impressive for a whole machine that costs less then the Willamet
The other 25% are fiddles to make the numbers look bigger.
2560 just seems a suspicious number unless there's a 256 bit pipeline with 10 stages and they're adding the stages together. They would after all be moving 2560 bits at the same time. This is of course speculation.
Well, I quite liked the fact that Heresy was thrown in there.
This is essentially the same thing as me explaining the average non-techy person how computers have pressure sensors in the keyboard that increase the processor speed when you hit the keys impatiently. It's amazing how many people believe me.
The best part is that it scales beyond 2x2
Yes, but judging by the technology profile, they need to match the brightness of the panels. This would push the price up even higher. Still, considering the small demand for 57 inch flat screens I suppose this isn't too much of a problem.
The easy way to prevent this would be to have a lot of monitors with the same frequency and resolution and slightly different information on each of them. Just Keep the signal to noise ratio low enough and you should be okay.
HDCP uses a 56-bit key, with individual keys distributed to the various vendors. A violated key could be tracked down and revoked
I'm sure this was what was claimed for DVD's. One was found, and the rest were crackable.
I'll admit that I have next to no idea about how fuel cells work, but if they could be produced to use alkanes, they would have various advantages. The longer ones are less flammable, liquid at room temperature, and can be produced from crude oil.
If you look at this link you'll find that you're not the first person to make this comparison.
Okay, none of the above were really slaves in the most literal sense, but it shows that sometimes fighting back does work. Especially if you can make it look like the oppressors ARE oppressors.
DeCSS has the sole purpose of decrypting a DVD.
A knife has uses other than cutting the sellotape that was used to prevent acces of a book.
Sellotaping a book shut could not possibly be considered access control.
CSS can be considered access control.
It therefore doesn't follow that if you are allowed to open a book thats been sellotaped shut, you should be allowed to decrypt the data on a DVD.
Now then, on the other hand:
If I steal a book, I am preventing someone from reading that book.
If I pirate a DVD, then I am not preventing other people from watching that DVD.
It therefore doesn't follow that if theft is illegal, piracy is illegal.
I personally feel that there is no reason that I shouldn't be allowed to decrypt a DVD. The reason for this is that I feel I should only have to pay for the work put into the content of the disc. Not for the work put in to making sure that I can't do something that the studios don't want me to do (Which I would pay in the form of an increase in the price of DVD players caused by licencing costs.)
I also feel that piracy should be prevented. Not for reasons of "Its a bit like this situation which is kind of similar", but because it is unfair on the people who produced the origional work.
Time and time again, analogies are being used in an attempt to clarify the situation. Each time the analogy ends up just obfuscating the real issue which is "Should we be entitled to decrypt the data that we have paid for?" (or from an MPAA viewpoint - "Should we allow software that can be used as a means of piracy?")
There's absolutely no reason that movie companies can't stop themes that are based on movies. They could also ban fan fiction. Normally they don't though, since this would be expensive and pointless, and would alienate some of their fans.
Money most certainly does talk. Remember though that the amount of money owned by all a company'ss customers is substantially more than that owned by that company.
Its just a matter of making a united stand.
just because you can stab someone with the knife doesnt mean I can't use it legally to cut my sellotape!
Ouch. This metaphor game is starting to make my head hurt. I'll have to demand that all copies of DeCSS are banned as assault weapons.
Breaking CSS to play a legally owned DVD on my PC is not the same as stealing a DVD from the store!
I agree. Which is why the use of metaphors is so ridiculous. Breaking CSS isn't really the same as cutting the sellotape off a book either. You don't need any knowledge greater than the ability to use a knife to cut off the sellotape.
think an exemption should be granted then for any non-broadcast works.
For some reason I never actually thought about the DMCA when applied to broadcast media. In that respect it actually makes sense.
Isn't it just ludicrous that the same law should be applied to broadcast media as physical media considering these are always licenced, sold, distributed and priced differently.
The DMCA doesn't necessarily prevent the bank from analysing the software. The number of customers for the software will be very small, so supplying the source code under an NDA would be totally reasonable. Considering the security issues in a bank, this would normally be considered reasonable
Vednors who refuse to supply source should not be considered by the bank. The situation is not the same as the consumer market. There are very few people who actually want to know about the encryption on their DVD's. As long as their player plays it, why worry?
According to the MPAA,
To put it in less technical terms, a fair use defense might allow a user to quote a passage from a book but it does not follow that the user is allowed to break into a bookstore and steal a book.
Thats totally true. It also shouldn't be legal to break into a video shop and steal a disc.
Or we shouldn't be allowed to hack a cable box to get all the channels for free
While we're at it, it shouldn't be legal to open the shrink wrap without an approved pair of scissors
The point is that all these seem to be lumped together into the same category, but decrypting a disc is different from all of them.
It does (arguably) allow unauthorised copying.
It also allows legal copying (For example, Whatever Warner says, I can't produce a video review programme with clips from DVD's and distribute on video without circumventing the technological access controls).
Rather than trying to draw up a parallel with a non technological solution, we should be asking whether it is justifiable to ban free universal access in order to prevent an increase in piracy.