Because Germany is less than 400 miles across, so connecting any 2 cities is a fraction of the 520 miles from LA to SF. High speed rail makes more sense in the Eastern US, where cities are closer and each leg can subsidize the next.
I'm sure if Geohot hadn't been so diligent about his methods and avoiding the various license traps, they'd have gladly pushed this through to the bitter end and made an example out of him.
Clearly Sony is happy to use the legal system to intimidate modders, but isn't interested it taking this case far enough to establish a legal precedent that runs contrary their own interests. Must be nice to have deep enough pockets that you can throw lawyers at a problem until it goes away, or you lose interest and "settle".
"There is a tendency to react to an off-color joke or complaint that appears online more harshly than to the same comment made in a cafeteria or company picnic"
Of course, because such as comment isn't a one-off thing in close company, but posted for everyone to see until it is removed -- rather like a sign hung from the break-room bulletin board.
First, I think people pigeonhole too much as just "security theatre", such as the liquids ban. In this instance, if there were no such ban, the guy may have brought on a gallon of explosives instead of what he could fit in his tightie-whities. Yes, there are hundreds of other ways to take down a plane than box-cutters or binary explosives, but it's naive to think that since we can't stop *everything* that we should just shrug and roll back *all* air-travel restrictions.
The same goes for the photo ID canard... sure, it's possible fake a photo ID, but such trivial checks make it more difficult for someone off the street to just walk out with unattended equipment or penetrate the local network. Is it going to stop a determined thief or terrorist... no, but it's not necessarily the intent. Even Bruce would have to concede that opportunistic-theft is statistically much more likely than movie-style heists.
Basic security is necessary in our society, not just for terror attacks, but for random acts of violence and theft. There's nothing wrong with checking up on people or reporting suspicious activity. We're not talking Patriot Act and black boot tactics, just "suspicious lump sums" and "neighorhood watch" type common sense. It's like security at Best Buy or Wal-Mart... sure, they may fail to prevent some merchandise from walking out the door, but without them, it would be open-season.
Now, on the other hand, I think he's got a solid point about the dangers of over-reacting and the resilience of an open-democracy. Our law enforcement and investigative branches are capable of pursuing the enemy, much better than our armed forces are. And finally, we need to spend more time and money supporting the first responders, so that they are well-prepared for the next major catastrophe -- be it man-made or natural.
That is more or less why non-commercial copyright infringement was not a crime up until the 70's
How can that be 5-Insightful -- there weren't even personal computers until the late 70's. Who was pirating software back then to run it on mainframes?
The same rationalization is floated at all the warez and P2P sites, and it just doesn't hold water. The network effect may be real (up-front loss in sales yields free advertising and subsequent monetary transaction), but it is neither as large or as desirable as they make it out to be. First, if you can download game ABC from the network, play through it in 2 weeks for free, what incentive do you ever have to buy it down the road? What is the point of letting 100,000 people get your game for free only to convert 1,000 of them -- when it's more likely that 5,000 would have forked over the cash had it not been so easy to Google or torrent? Productivity and utility software is a little harder, because its long life usually means that there are several upgrades/updates that invalidate a pirated code, and give someone another chance to "go straight", but there are no hard statistics either way. No, the "lost sales" never quite jive with the numbers the BSA always publishes, but you have to be naive to think that warezed software is anywhere close to effective in getting users to fork over money.
Next, the software industry does not rely on piracy to sell product -- the argument is crap. There are plenty of ways to leverage the network effect without shooting themselves in the foot: time or feature limited demos, shareware, light versions, free framework/pay-for plugins, competitive upgrades, bundling, educational discounts, site licenses, support contracts, etc. etc. These companies desperately want to put their software in front of you, they want you to learn it, love it, advocate it, but they aren't dumb enough to give you the keys to the store without something in return. Adobe Photoshop will still be king even if it wasn't splashed over all the P2P networks, because it's a professional tool and businesses will still fork over the big money to buy it -- regardless of whether Jimmy warezed it or got the $50 version at the campus bookstore. Jimmy isn't the market, and he's deluding himself if he thinks he's doing Adobe a favor.
No, Apple isn't going to rely on warezed versions of the MacOS to build marketshare -- they already have iPods, iTunes, pretty iMacs, and plenty of rabid press to remind people how user-friendly the Mac is. They will produce consumer-friendly x86 iMacs, they will continue to make great laptops, and they will continue to push the MacOS against Longhorn. They will probably license the MacOS to bundle with other x86 computers (HP, Sony) to get even more people on board (but not for free).
Now, the technical hurdles involved in tying the hardware to the OS and vice versa are pretty large. In the end, Apple will be unable to stop people from running Windows on their Mac-branded hardware (Apple still gets their hardware cut) or from running the MacOS on their commodity hardware (Apple still gets a software cut) -- Darwin and Windows hackers will see to it. It doesn't mean they will embrace it, let alone turn a blind eye to piracy as a way to build marketshare, but they will pick their battles and make sure to grab a little revenue where they can. Ideally, when Longhorn ships, people will go to CompUSA or Fry's, and see it sitting next to Tiger on the shelf -- they will think back over all the virus/trojan/worm hassles they've had with Windows, and then decide how to spend their $129. Now thatis the network effect in action.
Think about iTunes -- it's a pretty good solution that makes it easy to find, try, and buy cheap music. Apple has put up reasonable barriers so that they can still get the music industry on board without alienating users. You can certainly buy an album on the cheap, burn it, and give it to your friends or post it to P2P -- but how many people actually do that? It's not worth the hassle for moderate quality music. Sure, the freedom is there to reassure users, but Apple sticks to the corporate line that piracy is bad and easy/cheap is good. Now, the MP3 market may have been forged by P2P, but Apple has done a pretty good job making it profitable without giving away the keys to the store.
Since everyone else is throwing in their 2 cents...
If Apple has contracted Intel to produce chips for a new system down the line, who's to say it has to be x86-based? Remember the alliance responsible for creating those chips... Apple is the first letter in AIM. Is there any reason they couldn't license the architecture to Intel?
You are absolutely right... about your one system. This guy is running a company's worth of computers, with people sharing email, file sharing, and more all behind their firewall. If I had to manage 1 system, I bet I could do it reasonably well, but if I had to manage systems for 100 other users, then I'd sure be looking for a way to avoid the idiot factor.
Clearly you are smart enough to have a layered approach to security:
[i]We see that once again the need for ratings overwhelms the need for completeness and accuracy.[/i]
Seriously? What do you think people would rather watch, someone working through complex equations on paper or a chalkboard for hours on end, or generating a few models and then explaining how they apply to the real world? Is your need for accuracy so important that you are double-checking their work instead of paying attention to the plot of the show? Have you stop watching SciFi since you realized there are no such things as transporters and aliens, and that hacking into a Gibson isn't nearly as fun as they make it look?
Sure, it's not 100% accurate, but neither are the forensics dramas, murder mysteries, or hospital shows. People don't want to watch the all boring bits of someone else's life where they catalog swabs, fill out paperwork, or treat someone's rash. It's a drama, it's supposed to be about the story and the science or math is mostly there to give it some context. If it shows people that there are practical applications for otherwise cerebral stuff, then it also encourages education and research, which is a win for everyone.
I understand you, as a math major, had higher expectations for the show, but what's the point of making a show that only 0.1% of the population can even follow, let alone want to watch? Maybe you work on equations all day and want to come home and see it mixed in with your police dramas, but I doubt many people do. Still, I find their characterizations and science to be reasonable, maybe a little sophomoric but much better than most of the fluff out there.
There are 2 things involved in 4-dimensional translocation:
-- Reaching the exact coordinates at the right instant, considering rotation and revolution of the planet, solar system, and galaxy.
-- Matching the velocity of that location (and timeframe) exactly.
It's not only useless to appear at the right instant in the right room if your body doesn't exactly match the inertial frame -- it would be fatal. Forgetting to account for just the earth's revolution around the sun would slam the traveller against the wall at 30km/sec.
I stopped by the convention last week, but there weren't enough attractive girls and the beer was flat. I left after about 30 minutes for a party that was really flying.
They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs.
Could they pick any worse time slots, or another network with lower penetration? If it appeared on cable at all, not the rare UPN low power stations, then perhaps it would have gotten *some* ratings. However, when it's new Trek on a station I don't get vs. old Trek on SciFi, then I know what I'm going to choose.
I wonder how the P2P and "fight the copyright" crowd feel about this? Obviously it's just information, bits and bytes, so it's not like it's really stealing or anything -- nothing has been lost or stolen, only copied.
Oh wait, you mean data is only valuable if its *your* data. I see now.
Campaigns are still free to say whatever they want through any venue they want, but they must disclose that they've spent money on these sites so you should take their gushing praise of the candidate with a grain of salt.
I think a better approach would be for "honest" sites to state their funding up front in a disclaimer... "this site is exclusively supported by commercial advertising", "this site is paid for by the author's personal funds", "this site is a corporate shill for MegaEvilCorp." It won't get rid of the phonies, but it will make it easier to pick them out. Now get some public-minded watchdog to maintain a list of known shills and hacks, and you start approaching a better solution without legislation.
CBS and others are pissed because now their job, getting the story RIGHT, has suddenly become that much more difficult with people who are both knowledgable in such matters AND able to make that knowledge widely known.
Despite all the conspiracy theories about the "liberal media", for the most part they report stories factually -- there have only been a handful of cases where the facts don't pan out in public. Count all of the cases (Rathergate, NYTimes, etc) and you're talking well over 99% accuracy.
Compare that to bloggers like Drudge, who repost rumors and hypothesize stories by the handful only hoping to hit an occasional truth. On the Internet, even a 50% success rate is great, and political pandering and bias ensure a steady stream of advertising.
Now, I'm not saying all Internet bloggers and fact-checkers are bogus, but I am saying that they aren't held to the same standards as the professionals in the "traditional media". Instead, I prefer to think that blogging works rather like open source software -- thousands of eyes (or voices) make many problems shallow. I support the critical review of politics, media, etc as an important part of democracy, as well as anything that makes it easier for the masses.
What makes someone a journalist? Is it circulation in the millions? Is it a press pass? Is it a crumpled fedora? These days any hack with a blog can wrap something in HTML, slap a google ad on it, and call it journalism. Does that make it so?
Does everything written to a wiki or a blog get full first amendment protection - not just your own free speech, but the ability to quote or reference facts from anonymous sources with impunity? That would be a great loophole, the Internet equivalent of "touching base" -- you caaan't get me.
As for these sites, IMO they were established news organizations, and likely deserve such protection given their reputation and audience. However, I consider it a matter of fact to be decided by the courts whether a given individual is afforded these protections, as they should never be automatic.
WRT point [1], it doesn't matter whether the liberals are pandering and fear mongering -- if there is even 1 instance of voter fraud or intimidation anywhere, it should still be a felony. If you disagree with that, then drop the ad hominem attacks and address the proposal on its merits.
Slashdot Mirror
Because Germany is less than 400 miles across, so connecting any 2 cities is a fraction of the 520 miles from LA to SF. High speed rail makes more sense in the Eastern US, where cities are closer and each leg can subsidize the next.
I'm sure if Geohot hadn't been so diligent about his methods and avoiding the various license traps, they'd have gladly pushed this through to the bitter end and made an example out of him.
Clearly Sony is happy to use the legal system to intimidate modders, but isn't interested it taking this case far enough to establish a legal precedent that runs contrary their own interests. Must be nice to have deep enough pockets that you can throw lawyers at a problem until it goes away, or you lose interest and "settle".
"There is a tendency to react to an off-color joke or complaint that appears online more harshly than to the same comment made in a cafeteria or company picnic"
Of course, because such as comment isn't a one-off thing in close company, but posted for everyone to see until it is removed -- rather like a sign hung from the break-room bulletin board.
First, I think people pigeonhole too much as just "security theatre", such as the liquids ban. In this instance, if there were no such ban, the guy may have brought on a gallon of explosives instead of what he could fit in his tightie-whities. Yes, there are hundreds of other ways to take down a plane than box-cutters or binary explosives, but it's naive to think that since we can't stop *everything* that we should just shrug and roll back *all* air-travel restrictions.
The same goes for the photo ID canard... sure, it's possible fake a photo ID, but such trivial checks make it more difficult for someone off the street to just walk out with unattended equipment or penetrate the local network. Is it going to stop a determined thief or terrorist... no, but it's not necessarily the intent. Even Bruce would have to concede that opportunistic-theft is statistically much more likely than movie-style heists.
Basic security is necessary in our society, not just for terror attacks, but for random acts of violence and theft. There's nothing wrong with checking up on people or reporting suspicious activity. We're not talking Patriot Act and black boot tactics, just "suspicious lump sums" and "neighorhood watch" type common sense. It's like security at Best Buy or Wal-Mart... sure, they may fail to prevent some merchandise from walking out the door, but without them, it would be open-season.
Now, on the other hand, I think he's got a solid point about the dangers of over-reacting and the resilience of an open-democracy. Our law enforcement and investigative branches are capable of pursuing the enemy, much better than our armed forces are. And finally, we need to spend more time and money supporting the first responders, so that they are well-prepared for the next major catastrophe -- be it man-made or natural.
You jump him, then I'll get his gun.
The government doesn't want you to know, but wearing a tinfoil hat can cause brain cancer. Shhhh!
That is more or less why non-commercial copyright infringement was not a crime up until the 70's
How can that be 5-Insightful -- there weren't even personal computers until the late 70's. Who was pirating software back then to run it on mainframes?
The same rationalization is floated at all the warez and P2P sites, and it just doesn't hold water. The network effect may be real (up-front loss in sales yields free advertising and subsequent monetary transaction), but it is neither as large or as desirable as they make it out to be. First, if you can download game ABC from the network, play through it in 2 weeks for free, what incentive do you ever have to buy it down the road? What is the point of letting 100,000 people get your game for free only to convert 1,000 of them -- when it's more likely that 5,000 would have forked over the cash had it not been so easy to Google or torrent? Productivity and utility software is a little harder, because its long life usually means that there are several upgrades/updates that invalidate a pirated code, and give someone another chance to "go straight", but there are no hard statistics either way. No, the "lost sales" never quite jive with the numbers the BSA always publishes, but you have to be naive to think that warezed software is anywhere close to effective in getting users to fork over money.
Next, the software industry does not rely on piracy to sell product -- the argument is crap. There are plenty of ways to leverage the network effect without shooting themselves in the foot: time or feature limited demos, shareware, light versions, free framework/pay-for plugins, competitive upgrades, bundling, educational discounts, site licenses, support contracts, etc. etc. These companies desperately want to put their software in front of you, they want you to learn it, love it, advocate it, but they aren't dumb enough to give you the keys to the store without something in return. Adobe Photoshop will still be king even if it wasn't splashed over all the P2P networks, because it's a professional tool and businesses will still fork over the big money to buy it -- regardless of whether Jimmy warezed it or got the $50 version at the campus bookstore. Jimmy isn't the market, and he's deluding himself if he thinks he's doing Adobe a favor.
No, Apple isn't going to rely on warezed versions of the MacOS to build marketshare -- they already have iPods, iTunes, pretty iMacs, and plenty of rabid press to remind people how user-friendly the Mac is. They will produce consumer-friendly x86 iMacs, they will continue to make great laptops, and they will continue to push the MacOS against Longhorn. They will probably license the MacOS to bundle with other x86 computers (HP, Sony) to get even more people on board (but not for free).
Now, the technical hurdles involved in tying the hardware to the OS and vice versa are pretty large. In the end, Apple will be unable to stop people from running Windows on their Mac-branded hardware (Apple still gets their hardware cut) or from running the MacOS on their commodity hardware (Apple still gets a software cut) -- Darwin and Windows hackers will see to it. It doesn't mean they will embrace it, let alone turn a blind eye to piracy as a way to build marketshare, but they will pick their battles and make sure to grab a little revenue where they can. Ideally, when Longhorn ships, people will go to CompUSA or Fry's, and see it sitting next to Tiger on the shelf -- they will think back over all the virus/trojan/worm hassles they've had with Windows, and then decide how to spend their $129. Now thatis the network effect in action.
Think about iTunes -- it's a pretty good solution that makes it easy to find, try, and buy cheap music. Apple has put up reasonable barriers so that they can still get the music industry on board without alienating users. You can certainly buy an album on the cheap, burn it, and give it to your friends or post it to P2P -- but how many people actually do that? It's not worth the hassle for moderate quality music. Sure, the freedom is there to reassure users, but Apple sticks to the corporate line that piracy is bad and easy/cheap is good. Now, the MP3 market may have been forged by P2P, but Apple has done a pretty good job making it profitable without giving away the keys to the store.
Since everyone else is throwing in their 2 cents...
If Apple has contracted Intel to produce chips for a new system down the line, who's to say it has to be x86-based? Remember the alliance responsible for creating those chips... Apple is the first letter in AIM. Is there any reason they couldn't license the architecture to Intel?
AsSeenOnTV, please tell us it's not true!
You are absolutely right... about your one system. This guy is running a company's worth of computers, with people sharing email, file sharing, and more all behind their firewall. If I had to manage 1 system, I bet I could do it reasonably well, but if I had to manage systems for 100 other users, then I'd sure be looking for a way to avoid the idiot factor.
Clearly you are smart enough to have a layered approach to security:
Network firewall... check.
Spyware checker... check.
Virus checker... check.
Latest patches... check.
Strict permissions... check.
He's just adding another layer of protection:
Non-Microsoft OS... check.
Information wants to be free.
Then please post the "information" printed on the front of your credit card... set it free!
[i]We see that once again the need for ratings overwhelms the need for completeness and accuracy.[/i]
Seriously? What do you think people would rather watch, someone working through complex equations on paper or a chalkboard for hours on end, or generating a few models and then explaining how they apply to the real world? Is your need for accuracy so important that you are double-checking their work instead of paying attention to the plot of the show? Have you stop watching SciFi since you realized there are no such things as transporters and aliens, and that hacking into a Gibson isn't nearly as fun as they make it look?
Sure, it's not 100% accurate, but neither are the forensics dramas, murder mysteries, or hospital shows. People don't want to watch the all boring bits of someone else's life where they catalog swabs, fill out paperwork, or treat someone's rash. It's a drama, it's supposed to be about the story and the science or math is mostly there to give it some context. If it shows people that there are practical applications for otherwise cerebral stuff, then it also encourages education and research, which is a win for everyone.
I understand you, as a math major, had higher expectations for the show, but what's the point of making a show that only 0.1% of the population can even follow, let alone want to watch? Maybe you work on equations all day and want to come home and see it mixed in with your police dramas, but I doubt many people do. Still, I find their characterizations and science to be reasonable, maybe a little sophomoric but much better than most of the fluff out there.
There are 2 things involved in 4-dimensional translocation:
-- Reaching the exact coordinates at the right instant, considering rotation and revolution of the planet, solar system, and galaxy.
-- Matching the velocity of that location (and timeframe) exactly.
It's not only useless to appear at the right instant in the right room if your body doesn't exactly match the inertial frame -- it would be fatal. Forgetting to account for just the earth's revolution around the sun would slam the traveller against the wall at 30km/sec.
I stopped by the convention last week, but there weren't enough attractive girls and the beer was flat. I left after about 30 minutes for a party that was really flying.
They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs.
Could they pick any worse time slots, or another network with lower penetration? If it appeared on cable at all, not the rare UPN low power stations, then perhaps it would have gotten *some* ratings. However, when it's new Trek on a station I don't get vs. old Trek on SciFi, then I know what I'm going to choose.
I wonder how the P2P and "fight the copyright" crowd feel about this? Obviously it's just information, bits and bytes, so it's not like it's really stealing or anything -- nothing has been lost or stolen, only copied.
Oh wait, you mean data is only valuable if its *your* data. I see now.
Campaigns are still free to say whatever they want through any venue they want, but they must disclose that they've spent money on these sites so you should take their gushing praise of the candidate with a grain of salt.
I think a better approach would be for "honest" sites to state their funding up front in a disclaimer... "this site is exclusively supported by commercial advertising", "this site is paid for by the author's personal funds", "this site is a corporate shill for MegaEvilCorp." It won't get rid of the phonies, but it will make it easier to pick them out. Now get some public-minded watchdog to maintain a list of known shills and hacks, and you start approaching a better solution without legislation.
CBS and others are pissed because now their job, getting the story RIGHT, has suddenly become that much more difficult with people who are both knowledgable in such matters AND able to make that knowledge widely known.
Despite all the conspiracy theories about the "liberal media", for the most part they report stories factually -- there have only been a handful of cases where the facts don't pan out in public.
Count all of the cases (Rathergate, NYTimes, etc) and you're talking well over 99% accuracy.
Compare that to bloggers like Drudge, who repost rumors and hypothesize stories by the handful only hoping to hit an occasional truth. On the Internet, even a 50% success rate is great, and political pandering and bias ensure a steady stream of advertising.
Now, I'm not saying all Internet bloggers and fact-checkers are bogus, but I am saying that they aren't held to the same standards as the professionals in the "traditional media". Instead, I prefer to think that blogging works rather like open source software -- thousands of eyes (or voices) make many problems shallow. I support the critical review of politics, media, etc as an important part of democracy, as well as anything that makes it easier for the masses.
It's easier to fight and get rid of the spammers than it is to get rid of stupid people.
At least this guy hasn't bemoaned the very institution to which he's been assigned.
What makes someone a journalist? Is it circulation in the millions? Is it a press pass? Is it a crumpled fedora? These days any hack with a blog can wrap something in HTML, slap a google ad on it, and call it journalism. Does that make it so?
Does everything written to a wiki or a blog get full first amendment protection - not just your own free speech, but the ability to quote or reference facts from anonymous sources with impunity? That would be a great loophole, the Internet equivalent of "touching base" -- you caaan't get me.
As for these sites, IMO they were established news organizations, and likely deserve such protection given their reputation and audience. However, I consider it a matter of fact to be decided by the courts whether a given individual is afforded these protections, as they should never be automatic.
WRT point [1], it doesn't matter whether the liberals are pandering and fear mongering -- if there is even 1 instance of voter fraud or intimidation anywhere, it should still be a felony. If you disagree with that, then drop the ad hominem attacks and address the proposal on its merits.
Nice theory, but CD prices haven't budged in years.
Are you saying you did feel for them at one time, when they were the victims? Two wrongs don't make a right, but surely one wrong is still just wrong.