I never said that regular High School kids couldn't attend college. I said High School doesn't advertise the fact. The difference is that regular High School does very little to help people move on and out fast, and get ahead, and the whole focus is on where they can get extra funding.
When Schools are focused on $$$, they can't be as focused on $$$. And schools aren't underfunded, they are over regulated. With the amount of money available to schools, they could pay teachers very well, and actually have good equipment/books/supplies. However, the regulations and requirements of schools due to a variety of factors requires schools spend more money on making sure that they don't violate a regulation or requirement, and those funds never reach the kids.
Which is why charters, and private schools end up doing more with less. It is the overhead of the system that drags it down.
And I do have a "chip" on my shoulder, and everyone else should too. The reason we have these problems is not enough people have chips on their shoulders. Just because I have a chip, doesn't mean I'm not rational. We all tend to frame things that make our case, don't we?
I wonder if every high school started the semester telling the students that they could be attending college and getting HS credit, what the result would be. I dare say that they would lose ADA, and that is why they don't. THAT is MY opinion. And it has nothing to do with education of children, or else why isn't that being done???
"From your ignorance of what is done at "public schools" (as opposed to "my local public schools") I presume you do not travel much. Everywhere I've paid any attention to the schools, there is a program that will give college credits prior to the graduation from high school."
I'm sure there is in my district as well. But then again, you'd be hard pressed trying to locate any information about it. My kids aren't merely getting college credits, they are actually attending "college", and getting High School Credit while doing it.
I've mentioned this to several of my friends, who are teachers in the school, and they wonder how that is even possible. Schools don't mention it, because they lose ADA ($$$). All the programs for "special" kids bring money into the district, advertised. All the programs designed to get kids college and out of school sooner aren't advertised. Coincidence?
My style of writing and my choice of vocabulary were chosen as part of a conversational style of writing for slashdot. I can assure you that should my writing require a more "professional" style, I'm fully capable of writing in a style that would fit.
Oh, I work in IT. I can assure you that many of the educational and supervisory positions in my district have even less skills than I.
I work for public education, and get to visit many a classroom and the thought of putting my kid in a public school scares the crap out of me so much, that my kids don't go to public school, they attend a homestudy charter school. Both will graduate High School with upto two years of college credits, something not even offered in public schools.
I've seen good and bad teachers in the schools I work in, and quite frankly, there aren't enough good teachers. Period. Like the teacher who was teaching life lessons from the master "Rikki Lake" (No kidding). Or the Social Science Teacher teaching made up crap and opinions as "fact". Or the Math teacher who didn't know the formula for the area of a circle (No kidding), Or the teacher that has four computers on his desk and that is all he does all day, instead of teaching the special education kids in his charge, or.....
It is pretty scary stuff, if you ask me. The scariest part is that NONE of the teachers I mentioned could be fired, because the Union says so. It is clear that the Union doesn't really care about their profession, or it would be EMBARRASSED of many of its members.
I feel really sorry about those teachers that are actually good. However, they cannot overcome the crap coming from the worst of them. Sad, but true.
Okay, I qualified my answer by giving an example, extreme for sure, but none the less..... an example. My example was designed to be more or less obvious, even to people who don't know a config file from a complier. However, I've had people comment when I quickly click through 8 screens of mostly meaningless questions and such just to get something installed, who were intimidated by that same process. Some of us actually still work with people who barely can use computers (Hi Mom).
I don't think of myself as some sort of uber guru, just a guy who's first job was programming visicalc on an Apple II+. But I also know I've forgotten more than most of the newbies know. I also know the newbies minds aren't filled with archaic DOS commands and whose skill sets seem to surpass my own until they find a problem they've never seen before. Its funny when they can't troubleshoot their way out of a paper bag, but they sure can run circles around me in Windows Vista (when it actually works).
I do understand your sentiment. I also think you over reacted a bit without knowing who I am.
"We make things look easy because we're good at what we do."
Indeed. Sometimes what is "easy" for me is nearly impossible for someone else, because I just happen to have the knowledge and skills necessary to quickly and deftly solve problems, and/or wade through screens of useless babel to get to the meat of whatever I'm trying to do. Next, next, next, I agree, yes, next, finish; I make that look easy because I've done it eight hundred times, but the poor soul who's never seen it before is baffled by the questions (don't mention actually reading the EULA).
As I tell customers, my job is easy, if you know what you're doing. Otherwise, don't attempt this at home.
"So if I'm never going to buy the crap this bastard of an author churns out and will never agree to his conditions, does it matter if I'm downloading said crap?"
Yes. It matters because it isn't for you to decide, it is his(hers).
What I find amusing is that you would download, and consume the same "crap" you don't find any value to. It appears that it has more value to you than you are willing to admit, since you are so willing to waste your time doing so. Not too bright, are you.
"You really dont think much. "more rights".. DRM and preventative technology only hurt the honest user. To shape it up, do you think there's more value in a DRMed copy or an un-DRMed copy? Why or why not?"
Excuse me? I think a great deal about stuff. Here is a little know fact... you have no "rights" to decide how much / how little DRM is involved in copyrighted works. You don't like DRM, I got it. I don't like DRM either, and probably as much as you don't like it. DRM isn't the issue, and is something the "Pirates" of the world don't get. If you don't like DRM, then don't play their game.
"Why then can I play those files anywhere, and on any OS? For some reason, XviD avi's seem to play anywhere, unlike those HD-DVD's which you need to have an "authorized player", an "authorized disc" , and an "authorized tv" to play.."
Play those DVD's in a VCR. Oh wait, you can't without format shifting. This isn't really about DRM, the movies or whatever. This is about easily (key word) format shifting. Again, all DRM does is make it more difficult. Don't like the game, don't play. I think DRM is as stupid as the next guy, but I don't "pirate" anything because I vote with my $$ and my skillset.
"Morals are for religion. Politics and what is best for a country is not related to a religion, and in fact can be very detrimental to the people. Still, that is not the topic."
Really? So you are really into Mob rule then? Best for a country by who's standards? I didn't bring up "religion", you did. The problem with your definition, is that there is no foundation for any "morality" whatsoever. Even the "golden rule" becomes negotiable. Ever hear of Eugenics? Let's kill off all the weak and deformed people because that would be "better" for society.
"Yes. Very ethical indeed. And this promotes what again?"
Actually, our founding fathers were much smarter than we often give them credit for. However, they were also very religious (something you seem opposed to), and now that we have become more "political" you don't like the results, except this is exactly the result that Politics without a moral background is really... amoral. The very thing you say is a problem and the very solution you seek is really causing the problem that you are facing. Can't see the forrest because of the trees, can you?
"I love how you can take Fair Use statutes and just shove them under a rug when called upon. "
I didn't shove Fair Use under the rug. Fair Use is something that is apart from Copyright law, yet plays into what you can to with copyrighted material. Copyright law is about protecting authors, Fair Use says what someone is allowed to do after they've aquired LEGAL rights to the work under copyright. Since acquiring copyrighted works without legal authorization is what pirating is all about, fair use doesn't come into play, as legal rights were never secured. Don't throw "Fair Use" into the argument on pirating, because the two don't belong together.
"wonder... I buy 1 dvd. I now have a copyright for 1 copy."
You have the right to view the copyrighted material. Fair Use dictates that you can watch it, when ever, where ever. Fair Use doesn't dictate that you can download a movie off Pirate Bay because it is "free" and "better quality".
The problem you are having is that you are failing to distinguish between "copyright", "Fair Use", "Format Shifting", "Legal", "Moral" and "quality", often shifting the argument between these various things. Your whole point of "But I can download better quality, free (Freedom) movies for Gratis (no cost) " is all a bad argument against DRM. Argue against DRM on the merits of DRM (or lack their of), not on availability/quality of pirate versions.
"Why should I pay for a "rental" or a "own" when there are plenty of websites that provide it for free, along with more rights than I would gain with "bittorrent.com"?"
Your argument here is that because you can find them elsewhere for "free" (gratis/no cost), along with "more rights" (whatever that means).
"Wrong. When I download from 'those' websites, I get more than I would have purchased (at any price): my freedom."
I hate to break this to you, but you don't gain any freedom by downloading illegally procured copyright protected works. In fact, in your "search" for "freedom" you have created a situation whereby you deny the RIGHTS of others (copyright) to the spoils of their hard work. I highly doubt you sent the author/publisher of the works you've downloaded their rightful renumeration for the works you have illegally procured for yourself.
You think that your "rights" to freedoms enables you to do whatever you want. Well your freedoms do not go as far as you think they do.
"And whose morals are we talking about here? Mine, or your morals you'd like to force everybody to follow?"
Society's Morals. We have copyright to protect the creative works of authors. You seem to think that this is not applicable to you, because of some other "freedom" you think you have. You are in error.
"Where can I BUY media that is the same quality and same freedom in that which I download freely?"
Probably nowhere. But that is besides the point. It isn't your right to decide which format is available to you, is it?
"Is geographic lockout good for copyright? Is preventing time and format shifting good for copyright? Is treating the honest, paying user like a criminal good for copyright? Is including disablers and other forms of obnoxious software on what is supposed to be a media disc good for copyright?"
Probably not. Probably not. Probably not. Probably not. But all of those are BESIDES THE POINT. It isn't your right to decide this, and if you don't get it the way you want, take it anyway. Copyright is about protecting AUTHORS, not consumers.
"Unfortunately, I cant buy media on terms dictated by fair-use laws and precedent. Hence, I either buy the DVD or download them. I maintain my freedom, unlike those who bought HD-DVD and BluRay and other forms of anti-user control."
I'm not opposed to "fair use". Buy the DVD and rip it all you want. If you watch a movie, pay the price the author wants. if you don't want to pay that price, don't watch the movie.
Really? How about alphabet letters? How about numerals? How about words? Do you really believe that there should be no "copyrights" at all? Or you just grand standing and using hyperbole?
Mine, and the society's that I live in. We (society) has made an agreement that authors and publishers deserve protection of their works, and have created this thing called "copyright" to do exactly this.
"I know Im not a big fan of the "Do as I say not as I do" technique the US is trying to force others to adhere to the US copyright laws."
I don't know, nor do I care about all the other country's laws, I happend to agree on the principle this country is using, namely that authors and producers of copyrightable works deserve protection.
I suggest that if you don't like this, you work to change it, or your venue (where you live).
"If you have a problem with my morals then I wont come over to dinner but dont come over to my house and tell me to live like this because YOU think I should."
What a crock of shit. I suppose that if I feel I should be allowed to beat my wife and kids, then you would feel "morally" wrong interfering in "my business", right? Or are there "morals" to which there is no debate, and who says? Please give me a list of "morals" that are not negotiable, and "morals" which are. M'Kay?
"Why should I pay for a "rental" or a "own" when there are plenty of websites that provide it for free, "
Copyright infringement is both morally and legally wrong. Obviously you think Piracy is okay, because you think everything should be free.
"Answer that, and you solve the majority of piracy."
I did, except you insist on piracy because it is "free" (without cost). When presented an alternative (technical merits aside) that doesn't involve "free" you then complain you can get it for "free", even if it is illegal (in most jurisdictions).
People like make me sick and ruin it for those of us who want technically sound, legitimate formats that are convenient and are willing to pay for them so that we aren't infringing copyrights.
"And, because it is controlled, DRM can absolutely work. 100% of the time, just like CSS works on a DVD player today."
Yes, indeed. So why not just buy/rent DVDs ??? Oh because you want to watch them on your PC flying from NY to Paris, or on your PSP on the commute into NYC from the Hamptons, letting the rugrats watch in the car on the way to grandma's house, or on your cell phone during halftime at the game or......
The problem is that people want to not only time shift but also format shift what they want to watch, without having to pay for it over and over.
Are you willing to pay for the movie for each of the mediums you wish to view it on? I didn't think so.
My point about OS/X running on PPC and Intel was more about breaking free from the processor (HW) issues. Should Intel/AMD processors start to suck, with Windows, you're stuck. Apple, is free to move to yet another processor (they've done it twice now), while Microsoft sill only runs on X86.
Also, when MS sucks (they do), who can you turn to to get another viable OS? Windows ME anyone? Windows 98 (1 ed.)???? XP (before SP2) ???? Track record in totality is much more in the favor of Apple vs any Microsoft/PC combo, period. Did Apple make a few systems that sucked? Yeah.
Okay, so now that Gateway, Dell, HP..... all are starting to suck quality wise, who you gonna turn to? I hear people starting to say Apple HW running Windows, because Apple HW is better design and quality. Odd isn't it? They don't actually have to compete on "price, price, price" like the others. When you compete primarily on price, quality always suffers as they put in cheaper, less robust components.
I always laugh at the "Macs are more expensive" excuse used by many cheap IT people. They always seem to be cracking open cases to fix broken components.
"Why the DRM failed to work on 50% of our purchases is not clear, but whatever the cause, it's simply unacceptable.'""
Why? If failed because it is defective by design. It failed because they (whomever "they" are) don't have control over all the various bits and pieces. It failed because DRM deliberately breaks things, on purpose. DRM fails, unless you have complete and utter control over all aspects of distribution/playback, and simply put, they don't have control over people's PCs. Nor will they ever.
And, it is simply unacceptable. But rather than look at the real problem (DRM), they are blaming the distribution protocol (BT).
One last point: The whole "whatever the cause" is turning a blind eye to the real issue, which is DRM cannot work on systems (not just computers) that they don't control. PERIOD.
I just wish the industry technocrats would just look at the obvious. DRM doesn't increase (or maintain) control, it decreases satisfaction in the customer, which makes it.... "simply unacceptable"
"At least with Microsoft Windows if what ever PC brand they are using begins to loose it competitive edge they can switch quite easily."
Ummm, WINDOWS???? Switch from windows, go on, I dare ya. PCs are just as monolithic as Macs are, when you're not just looking at hardware. And I dare say, that over the life of all the PCs (all the various brands) I've had, and all of the Macs I've had, I can tell you, that MACS have had a much higher over all satisfaction rating (single data point) in HW quality. Yes, I've had Macs that sucked quality, but I've had PCs that sucked, and more often and often worse than the worst of the Macs.
Windows is Monolithic, it only runs on x86s. Macs run on 68K, PPC, and x86s, and probably run on other stuff (iPhone, reportedly) as well.
No, this isn't vista. Vista won't run properly on a 6 billion node super computer, with each node capable of processing multiple input sources and having its own discreet memory units. Knowing the creator (see nick), I can only assume its running some form of protein/electro/chemical based OS.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said that regular High School kids couldn't attend college. I said High School doesn't advertise the fact. The difference is that regular High School does very little to help people move on and out fast, and get ahead, and the whole focus is on where they can get extra funding.
When Schools are focused on $$$, they can't be as focused on $$$. And schools aren't underfunded, they are over regulated. With the amount of money available to schools, they could pay teachers very well, and actually have good equipment/books/supplies. However, the regulations and requirements of schools due to a variety of factors requires schools spend more money on making sure that they don't violate a regulation or requirement, and those funds never reach the kids.
Which is why charters, and private schools end up doing more with less. It is the overhead of the system that drags it down.
And I do have a "chip" on my shoulder, and everyone else should too. The reason we have these problems is not enough people have chips on their shoulders. Just because I have a chip, doesn't mean I'm not rational. We all tend to frame things that make our case, don't we?
I wonder if every high school started the semester telling the students that they could be attending college and getting HS credit, what the result would be. I dare say that they would lose ADA, and that is why they don't. THAT is MY opinion. And it has nothing to do with education of children, or else why isn't that being done???
"The Milky Way's central object Sagittarius A* [CC], widely believed to be a supermassive black hole, is now suspected to be the source."
Would that make it an "A-Hole" ?????
"From your ignorance of what is done at "public schools" (as opposed to "my local public schools") I presume you do not travel much. Everywhere I've paid any attention to the schools, there is a program that will give college credits prior to the graduation from high school."
I'm sure there is in my district as well. But then again, you'd be hard pressed trying to locate any information about it. My kids aren't merely getting college credits, they are actually attending "college", and getting High School Credit while doing it.
I've mentioned this to several of my friends, who are teachers in the school, and they wonder how that is even possible. Schools don't mention it, because they lose ADA ($$$). All the programs for "special" kids bring money into the district, advertised. All the programs designed to get kids college and out of school sooner aren't advertised. Coincidence?
I don't think so.
My style of writing and my choice of vocabulary were chosen as part of a conversational style of writing for slashdot. I can assure you that should my writing require a more "professional" style, I'm fully capable of writing in a style that would fit.
Oh, I work in IT. I can assure you that many of the educational and supervisory positions in my district have even less skills than I.
I work for public education, and get to visit many a classroom and the thought of putting my kid in a public school scares the crap out of me so much, that my kids don't go to public school, they attend a homestudy charter school. Both will graduate High School with upto two years of college credits, something not even offered in public schools.
.....
I've seen good and bad teachers in the schools I work in, and quite frankly, there aren't enough good teachers. Period. Like the teacher who was teaching life lessons from the master "Rikki Lake" (No kidding). Or the Social Science Teacher teaching made up crap and opinions as "fact". Or the Math teacher who didn't know the formula for the area of a circle (No kidding), Or the teacher that has four computers on his desk and that is all he does all day, instead of teaching the special education kids in his charge, or
It is pretty scary stuff, if you ask me. The scariest part is that NONE of the teachers I mentioned could be fired, because the Union says so. It is clear that the Union doesn't really care about their profession, or it would be EMBARRASSED of many of its members.
I feel really sorry about those teachers that are actually good. However, they cannot overcome the crap coming from the worst of them. Sad, but true.
"most people here could get along with a 1GHZ/512MRAM/16GHD/Onboard video system."
... have you.
Haven't tried to run Vista yet
Okay, I qualified my answer by giving an example, extreme for sure, but none the less ..... an example. My example was designed to be more or less obvious, even to people who don't know a config file from a complier. However, I've had people comment when I quickly click through 8 screens of mostly meaningless questions and such just to get something installed, who were intimidated by that same process. Some of us actually still work with people who barely can use computers (Hi Mom).
I don't think of myself as some sort of uber guru, just a guy who's first job was programming visicalc on an Apple II+. But I also know I've forgotten more than most of the newbies know. I also know the newbies minds aren't filled with archaic DOS commands and whose skill sets seem to surpass my own until they find a problem they've never seen before. Its funny when they can't troubleshoot their way out of a paper bag, but they sure can run circles around me in Windows Vista (when it actually works).
I do understand your sentiment. I also think you over reacted a bit without knowing who I am.
Would this constitute "Transparent Aluminum?
typed on "Keyboard, how quaint"
"We make things look easy because we're good at what we do."
Indeed. Sometimes what is "easy" for me is nearly impossible for someone else, because I just happen to have the knowledge and skills necessary to quickly and deftly solve problems, and/or wade through screens of useless babel to get to the meat of whatever I'm trying to do. Next, next, next, I agree, yes, next, finish; I make that look easy because I've done it eight hundred times, but the poor soul who's never seen it before is baffled by the questions (don't mention actually reading the EULA).
As I tell customers, my job is easy, if you know what you're doing. Otherwise, don't attempt this at home.
"So if I'm never going to buy the crap this bastard of an author churns out and will never agree to his conditions, does it matter if I'm downloading said crap?"
Yes. It matters because it isn't for you to decide, it is his(hers).
What I find amusing is that you would download, and consume the same "crap" you don't find any value to. It appears that it has more value to you than you are willing to admit, since you are so willing to waste your time doing so. Not too bright, are you.
Kinda voids the whole "Thou shalt not bear false witness" thing though, doesn't it?
"You really dont think much. "more rights".. DRM and preventative technology only hurt the honest user. To shape it up, do you think there's more value in a DRMed copy or an un-DRMed copy? Why or why not?"
... you have no "rights" to decide how much / how little DRM is involved in copyrighted works. You don't like DRM, I got it. I don't like DRM either, and probably as much as you don't like it. DRM isn't the issue, and is something the "Pirates" of the world don't get. If you don't like DRM, then don't play their game.
... amoral. The very thing you say is a problem and the very solution you seek is really causing the problem that you are facing. Can't see the forrest because of the trees, can you?
Excuse me? I think a great deal about stuff. Here is a little know fact
"Why then can I play those files anywhere, and on any OS? For some reason, XviD avi's seem to play anywhere, unlike those HD-DVD's which you need to have an "authorized player", an "authorized disc" , and an "authorized tv" to play.."
Play those DVD's in a VCR. Oh wait, you can't without format shifting. This isn't really about DRM, the movies or whatever. This is about easily (key word) format shifting. Again, all DRM does is make it more difficult. Don't like the game, don't play. I think DRM is as stupid as the next guy, but I don't "pirate" anything because I vote with my $$ and my skillset.
"Morals are for religion. Politics and what is best for a country is not related to a religion, and in fact can be very detrimental to the people. Still, that is not the topic."
Really? So you are really into Mob rule then? Best for a country by who's standards? I didn't bring up "religion", you did. The problem with your definition, is that there is no foundation for any "morality" whatsoever. Even the "golden rule" becomes negotiable. Ever hear of Eugenics? Let's kill off all the weak and deformed people because that would be "better" for society.
"Yes. Very ethical indeed. And this promotes what again?"
Actually, our founding fathers were much smarter than we often give them credit for. However, they were also very religious (something you seem opposed to), and now that we have become more "political" you don't like the results, except this is exactly the result that Politics without a moral background is really
"I love how you can take Fair Use statutes and just shove them under a rug when called upon. "
I didn't shove Fair Use under the rug. Fair Use is something that is apart from Copyright law, yet plays into what you can to with copyrighted material. Copyright law is about protecting authors, Fair Use says what someone is allowed to do after they've aquired LEGAL rights to the work under copyright. Since acquiring copyrighted works without legal authorization is what pirating is all about, fair use doesn't come into play, as legal rights were never secured. Don't throw "Fair Use" into the argument on pirating, because the two don't belong together.
"wonder... I buy 1 dvd. I now have a copyright for 1 copy."
You have the right to view the copyrighted material. Fair Use dictates that you can watch it, when ever, where ever. Fair Use doesn't dictate that you can download a movie off Pirate Bay because it is "free" and "better quality".
The problem you are having is that you are failing to distinguish between "copyright", "Fair Use", "Format Shifting", "Legal", "Moral" and "quality", often shifting the argument between these various things. Your whole point of "But I can download better quality, free (Freedom) movies for Gratis (no cost) " is all a bad argument against DRM. Argue against DRM on the merits of DRM (or lack their of), not on availability/quality of pirate versions.
"Why should I pay for a "rental" or a "own" when there are plenty of websites that provide it for free, along with more rights than I would gain with "bittorrent.com"?"
Your argument here is that because you can find them elsewhere for "free" (gratis/no cost), along with "more rights" (whatever that means).
"Wrong. When I download from 'those' websites, I get more than I would have purchased (at any price): my freedom."
I hate to break this to you, but you don't gain any freedom by downloading illegally procured copyright protected works. In fact, in your "search" for "freedom" you have created a situation whereby you deny the RIGHTS of others (copyright) to the spoils of their hard work. I highly doubt you sent the author/publisher of the works you've downloaded their rightful renumeration for the works you have illegally procured for yourself.
You think that your "rights" to freedoms enables you to do whatever you want. Well your freedoms do not go as far as you think they do.
"And whose morals are we talking about here? Mine, or your morals you'd like to force everybody to follow?"
Society's Morals. We have copyright to protect the creative works of authors. You seem to think that this is not applicable to you, because of some other "freedom" you think you have. You are in error.
"Where can I BUY media that is the same quality and same freedom in that which I download freely?"
Probably nowhere. But that is besides the point. It isn't your right to decide which format is available to you, is it?
"Is geographic lockout good for copyright? Is preventing time and format shifting good for copyright? Is treating the honest, paying user like a criminal good for copyright? Is including disablers and other forms of obnoxious software on what is supposed to be a media disc good for copyright?"
Probably not. Probably not. Probably not. Probably not. But all of those are BESIDES THE POINT. It isn't your right to decide this, and if you don't get it the way you want, take it anyway. Copyright is about protecting AUTHORS, not consumers.
"Unfortunately, I cant buy media on terms dictated by fair-use laws and precedent. Hence, I either buy the DVD or download them. I maintain my freedom, unlike those who bought HD-DVD and BluRay and other forms of anti-user control."
I'm not opposed to "fair use". Buy the DVD and rip it all you want. If you watch a movie, pay the price the author wants. if you don't want to pay that price, don't watch the movie.
Anything less is wrong.
"There's nothing immoral about copying bits."
Really? How about alphabet letters? How about numerals? How about words? Do you really believe that there should be no "copyrights" at all? Or you just grand standing and using hyperbole?
"Who's morals are you using?"
Mine, and the society's that I live in. We (society) has made an agreement that authors and publishers deserve protection of their works, and have created this thing called "copyright" to do exactly this.
"I know Im not a big fan of the "Do as I say not as I do" technique the US is trying to force others to adhere to the US copyright laws."
I don't know, nor do I care about all the other country's laws, I happend to agree on the principle this country is using, namely that authors and producers of copyrightable works deserve protection.
I suggest that if you don't like this, you work to change it, or your venue (where you live).
"If you have a problem with my morals then I wont come over to dinner but dont come over to my house and tell me to live like this because YOU think I should."
What a crock of shit. I suppose that if I feel I should be allowed to beat my wife and kids, then you would feel "morally" wrong interfering in "my business", right? Or are there "morals" to which there is no debate, and who says? Please give me a list of "morals" that are not negotiable, and "morals" which are. M'Kay?
"Why should I pay for a "rental" or a "own" when there are plenty of websites that provide it for free, "
Copyright infringement is both morally and legally wrong. Obviously you think Piracy is okay, because you think everything should be free.
"Answer that, and you solve the majority of piracy."
I did, except you insist on piracy because it is "free" (without cost). When presented an alternative (technical merits aside) that doesn't involve "free" you then complain you can get it for "free", even if it is illegal (in most jurisdictions).
People like make me sick and ruin it for those of us who want technically sound, legitimate formats that are convenient and are willing to pay for them so that we aren't infringing copyrights.
Grow up.
"And, because it is controlled, DRM can absolutely work. 100% of the time, just like CSS works on a DVD player today."
......
Yes, indeed. So why not just buy/rent DVDs ??? Oh because you want to watch them on your PC flying from NY to Paris, or on your PSP on the commute into NYC from the Hamptons, letting the rugrats watch in the car on the way to grandma's house, or on your cell phone during halftime at the game or
The problem is that people want to not only time shift but also format shift what they want to watch, without having to pay for it over and over.
Are you willing to pay for the movie for each of the mediums you wish to view it on? I didn't think so.
My point about OS/X running on PPC and Intel was more about breaking free from the processor (HW) issues. Should Intel/AMD processors start to suck, with Windows, you're stuck. Apple, is free to move to yet another processor (they've done it twice now), while Microsoft sill only runs on X86.
..... all are starting to suck quality wise, who you gonna turn to? I hear people starting to say Apple HW running Windows, because Apple HW is better design and quality. Odd isn't it? They don't actually have to compete on "price, price, price" like the others. When you compete primarily on price, quality always suffers as they put in cheaper, less robust components.
Also, when MS sucks (they do), who can you turn to to get another viable OS? Windows ME anyone? Windows 98 (1 ed.)???? XP (before SP2) ???? Track record in totality is much more in the favor of Apple vs any Microsoft/PC combo, period. Did Apple make a few systems that sucked? Yeah.
Okay, so now that Gateway, Dell, HP
I always laugh at the "Macs are more expensive" excuse used by many cheap IT people. They always seem to be cracking open cases to fix broken components.
"Why the DRM failed to work on 50% of our purchases is not clear, but whatever the cause, it's simply unacceptable.'""
.... "simply unacceptable"
Why? If failed because it is defective by design. It failed because they (whomever "they" are) don't have control over all the various bits and pieces. It failed because DRM deliberately breaks things, on purpose. DRM fails, unless you have complete and utter control over all aspects of distribution/playback, and simply put, they don't have control over people's PCs. Nor will they ever.
And, it is simply unacceptable. But rather than look at the real problem (DRM), they are blaming the distribution protocol (BT).
One last point: The whole "whatever the cause" is turning a blind eye to the real issue, which is DRM cannot work on systems (not just computers) that they don't control. PERIOD.
I just wish the industry technocrats would just look at the obvious. DRM doesn't increase (or maintain) control, it decreases satisfaction in the customer, which makes it
"At least with Microsoft Windows if what ever PC brand they are using begins to loose it competitive edge they can switch quite easily."
Ummm, WINDOWS???? Switch from windows, go on, I dare ya. PCs are just as monolithic as Macs are, when you're not just looking at hardware. And I dare say, that over the life of all the PCs (all the various brands) I've had, and all of the Macs I've had, I can tell you, that MACS have had a much higher over all satisfaction rating (single data point) in HW quality. Yes, I've had Macs that sucked quality, but I've had PCs that sucked, and more often and often worse than the worst of the Macs.
Windows is Monolithic, it only runs on x86s. Macs run on 68K, PPC, and x86s, and probably run on other stuff (iPhone, reportedly) as well.
"We need a meeting to decide when the next meeting is going to take place"
Actual quote from a useless manager I once had.
No, this isn't vista. Vista won't run properly on a 6 billion node super computer, with each node capable of processing multiple input sources and having its own discreet memory units. Knowing the creator (see nick), I can only assume its running some form of protein/electro/chemical based OS.
Now back the the program coppertop.
"It seems more like an opinion that has no bases in fact."
...
You must be new here
The only seven I want from Canada is Seagrams ....
Because we all know that we can't do both at the same time ....