Maybe now those pesky Nigerians will finally have to learn how to spell "guarantee" correctly, hehe. Hell, even I could have written the software that figures that one out.
Most MS users I know don't know much about computers and have to trust somebody like MS to let them know what's safe and what's not. From that perspective, this sounds exactly like what MS should have done in this situation -- they're letting their users know it could be an issue. What's the big deal? It's like the automobile industry saying "don't run your car without oil" or something similar, which is pretty generally understood for cars in John Q's world, but much less understood for computers due to the "new-ness". Give it a hundred more years and John Q. will be saying "Yeah, don't put extra stuff on your computer that you don't need, it causes problems", and they'll probably be right, even that far out from now, lol =)
I was always told by my music composition teachers to never "give away" my i.p. -- the general sentiment being that it is harmful to not only myself, but to all the other composers trying to make a living, too. They also stressed that it has caused long-term damage to the quality of the art form in the past, as well. They're adamant about this because they know their history, and they know that when copyright and i.p. have been non-existent or disregarded in the past, it has resulted in the suffering of artists and art alike...so when I hear "down with DRM" and "down with copyright", I associate it with "down with art" and "down with artists". Is that really what you're intending, because that's for sure how it's coming across to the "evil industry" that's so easy to hide behind. IMO, there's a baby in that bathwater...and it's being thrown out a little more everytime copyright is infringed. How can you blame its parents for being disgusted and trying to stop you after knowing they feel like you're killing the art? All money and greed aside, it's the driven artists that create the best and most influential works of our time, and we all suffer if making a living dedicating themselves to it becomes so difficult as to be impossible.
I'm glad the FCC chair put all that in the speech, but how will this be enforced? Who decides what is "legal" and "illegal" when filtering content. That's a huge hole...and who can enforce those kinds of laws effectively enough to make it worth it? Seriously, "payola" in the music biz has been illegal for some time, but it's still rampant, and nobody on the enforcement side seems to care enough to be able to do anything about it.
My response to that speech... "nice sentiment, but does it really matter what you say?"
If you really want something to be private you don't put in your emails anyway. This is pretty well known by now isn't it, that privacy on the 'net is a myth? Can we stop with the "omg, I thought it was private" b.s. now?
When I communicate on the 'net (or on my mobile phone, now, too) I always treat it like I'm using a p.a. system, no matter how many people the communication is addressed to.
There's no need to be rich to work on what you enjoy.
My preference is a sit-down security job that lets me code w/e I want to all night and day for a whopping $8/hr. I'm currently in the process of marrying Open-Inventor and Csound into a uber-cool FOSS 3d music sequencer. Check out "AudioCarver" on SourceForge.net some time (it's far from any kind of beta release --still working out the design--, but it may be use-able for some as-is).
a political party bearing the name "pirate" indicates that it's members aren't interested in being taken seriously, imo, and calls into question their true love of art, which is ripe with symbolism and associations. financial considerations aside, why would artists that have a deep love for things good and nice associate themselves with a political party harkening back to murderous thieves and darkness?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe now those pesky Nigerians will finally have to learn how to spell "guarantee" correctly, hehe. Hell, even I could have written the software that figures that one out.
Most MS users I know don't know much about computers and have to trust somebody like MS to let them know what's safe and what's not. From that perspective, this sounds exactly like what MS should have done in this situation -- they're letting their users know it could be an issue. What's the big deal? It's like the automobile industry saying "don't run your car without oil" or something similar, which is pretty generally understood for cars in John Q's world, but much less understood for computers due to the "new-ness". Give it a hundred more years and John Q. will be saying "Yeah, don't put extra stuff on your computer that you don't need, it causes problems", and they'll probably be right, even that far out from now, lol =)
I was always told by my music composition teachers to never "give away" my i.p. -- the general sentiment being that it is harmful to not only myself, but to all the other composers trying to make a living, too. They also stressed that it has caused long-term damage to the quality of the art form in the past, as well. They're adamant about this because they know their history, and they know that when copyright and i.p. have been non-existent or disregarded in the past, it has resulted in the suffering of artists and art alike...so when I hear "down with DRM" and "down with copyright", I associate it with "down with art" and "down with artists". Is that really what you're intending, because that's for sure how it's coming across to the "evil industry" that's so easy to hide behind. IMO, there's a baby in that bathwater ...and it's being thrown out a little more everytime copyright is infringed. How can you blame its parents for being disgusted and trying to stop you after knowing they feel like you're killing the art? All money and greed aside, it's the driven artists that create the best and most influential works of our time, and we all suffer if making a living dedicating themselves to it becomes so difficult as to be impossible.
It doesn't matter how many "doomsday" devices are built. James Bond will always get there before the counter reaches zero.
I'm glad the FCC chair put all that in the speech, but how will this be enforced? Who decides what is "legal" and "illegal" when filtering content. That's a huge hole ...and who can enforce those kinds of laws effectively enough to make it worth it? Seriously, "payola" in the music biz has been illegal for some time, but it's still rampant, and nobody on the enforcement side seems to care enough to be able to do anything about it.
My response to that speech... "nice sentiment, but does it really matter what you say?"
If you really want something to be private you don't put in your emails anyway. This is pretty well known by now isn't it, that privacy on the 'net is a myth? Can we stop with the "omg, I thought it was private" b.s. now? When I communicate on the 'net (or on my mobile phone, now, too) I always treat it like I'm using a p.a. system, no matter how many people the communication is addressed to.
There's no need to be rich to work on what you enjoy. My preference is a sit-down security job that lets me code w/e I want to all night and day for a whopping $8/hr. I'm currently in the process of marrying Open-Inventor and Csound into a uber-cool FOSS 3d music sequencer. Check out "AudioCarver" on SourceForge.net some time (it's far from any kind of beta release --still working out the design--, but it may be use-able for some as-is).
...and what then? When the memex is ubiquitous, will it be illegal to play it back?
a political party bearing the name "pirate" indicates that it's members aren't interested in being taken seriously, imo, and calls into question their true love of art, which is ripe with symbolism and associations. financial considerations aside, why would artists that have a deep love for things good and nice associate themselves with a political party harkening back to murderous thieves and darkness?