The pointless is that fundamental to the idea of free speech and expression, is that no entity should be in charge of deciding what's worthwhile speech and what isn't. Ever. Some ideas ARE useless, and some DO have no value, but just you try and get 100 people in a room and have them agree over which ones are which.
In a truly free society, bad speech is answered with good speech, and those who hear both are empowered to pick for themselves. I can't argue against, for instance, neo-nazism, without first hearing what the neo-nazis have to say; and if we stifle them, their vile speech gets pushed underground, where it goes unrefuted.
And this is why, even as an honest consumer, DRM is a major pain in the ass. I have no assurance, when I buy a song from iTunes, that I'll be able to use it on anything but an iPod and iTunes itself. What if I prefer another jukebox program? What if Apple stops selling iPods, or I want to buy another player that, in terms of technological ability, should be able to play AACs without a problem.
What if, god forbid, I want to shop at multiple online stores, each with a different DRM technology? I need multiple devices to play my music? That's crap.
So if I'm at Starbucks (or anywhere else on a network that's not using WPA or WEP or whatever), and I type in my credit card info to an online store that's using HTTPS, I'm reasonably safe?
My understanding is that Starbucks and other places use unsecured, unenrypted wireless networks - so that anyone can get on without much hassle. Is there really any way to have reasonable security over one of these networks? Is there really a way to ensure (or at least be pretty sure) the guy with the laptop on the other end of the shop isn't picking up my passwords and info when I connect to such a network?
So now that OSX for x86 is out in a legit way, how long until something like MacOnLinux is working for OSX86? The pirates have already done some pretty impressive things with leaked builds, but very soon the real thing with real drivers will be out there to play with. Would it be possible to set up VMWare to run this well? Could PearPC be reworked to emulate only the parts of the hardware that distinguish it from a beige-box PC?
There are a lot of posts already up complaining about the DRM, but most fail to address what I've always considered DRM's biggest pain-in-the-ass - interoperability. This thing is useless to me if I can only buy content from Sony's content providers. Let's envision a market where e-books take off, but there are three or four different formats - each DRMed up the wazoo. Hitchhiker's guide is available in the Sony format, but Slaughterhouse Five is only available in the (for instance) Microsoft format, and I can only get the latest Dave Barry in (let's say) some Phillips format. Am I going to need three seperate, expensive readers, even though any one of them has the hardware necessary to do the job?
If the market doesn't build itself around open-spec, non-DRMed formats, it's going to create one hell of a barrier to entry. It's a good thing this device can read PDFs or other formats - but that doesn't help very much if the publishers don't put out content in those formats.
Of course, the same issue exists with music files and other media content already, and it sadly doesn't seem to have slowed the market. I just hope all those people with iTunes libraries and iPods never decide they want to buy an exclusive track from a WMA-only merchant, or switch to another brand of player.
Not necessarily. Darwinian evolution doesn't necessarily dictate that the best mutation wins out. It generally suggests that the mutation best adapted to the species' circumstances will survive, but really, anything that works well enough to allow further breeding will still continue to exist. That's why we have all sorts of absurd animals in nature right alongside the magnificent ones, and why in our own species various forms of genetic disease and handicap continue (although for the latter, our own social evolution and co-dependency has something to do with it too).
Stopping the small spyware vendor does quite a lot. A vendor like Sony, which is -generally- above-board (meaning it doesn't spend most of its time torturing puppies and whatnot) and accountable to millions of customers, shareholders and legal parters has a lot to lose when it does something nasty. Witness the massive backlash against the root kit, and Sony's eventual decision to pull it once it became a PR nightmare. An aware consumer market can fight back when someone like Sony pulls this nonsense.
It's a lot harder to fight back against the fly-by-night spyware vendor who is looking to collect some quick info - maybe even dangerous info like credit card numbers and banking site passwords - then disapear. You can't hold those people accountable. You can't threaten to stop using their services. You can't even sue them, if you can't find them.
Ideally, we'd be able to find a tool that's entirely trustworthy for routing at malware, but as you said, that's simply not going to happen. That's why I'm generally careful with what I download, but still run a few competing anti-malware apps, just in case I get something borderline one of those products choses not to flag for whatever reason - questionable dealings or simple ignorance of the malware's existence.
Having one more tool at my disposal for IDing spyware, even an imperfect tool, seems like a good thing. How useful it is will depend on what reputation Yahoo/AOL can build for being forthright.
Re:How does this kill PalmOS?
on
The End of PalmOS?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
What kind of a company would spend millions on BeOs, and then stop selling the technology?
The SCOTUS has always been a tool for political control. We've just lucked out that at least as often as not, judges picked for their apparent political leanings proved to be (or at least matured into) responsible jurists, more concerned with justice and the principles of law than forwarding their own pet agendas.
I'm nervous about the appointment, but I'm crossing my fingers that it'll work out in the end.
While in your example, it is certainly still the rapists who should be held criminally accountable, there's no questioning its unwise to put yourself in a dangerous situation. If she's walking at home late at night in an area where there have been 10 rapes in the last month, she's not at fault, but she certainly could have done more to avoid the problem. If I leave my door unlocked every night and I get robbed, the robber is certainly still at fault, but I'm still kind of a dumbass.
The argument that Microsoft is a monopoly, and that the customer therefore suffers, is somewhat dubious to me. MS doesn't control any natural resources. It's not like they have an oil monopoly and noone else can get to the oil. It's not like they exclusively control utility lines. There's nothing to stop Joe Shmoe consumer from buying a Mac, or a PC with linux, or a PC with BSD, or a big-UNIX-vendor workstatation, or a QNX device, or whatever.
It may be more convienient for the average consumer to stick with Windows, but you can't blame the company for doing a better job at cross-promotional deals, enticing developers and wooing vendors. Yes, they're heavy-handed about it, but it's not like it's impossible to be in the computer industry while snubbing MS.
Slashdot Mirror
The pointless is that fundamental to the idea of free speech and expression, is that no entity should be in charge of deciding what's worthwhile speech and what isn't. Ever. Some ideas ARE useless, and some DO have no value, but just you try and get 100 people in a room and have them agree over which ones are which.
In a truly free society, bad speech is answered with good speech, and those who hear both are empowered to pick for themselves. I can't argue against, for instance, neo-nazism, without first hearing what the neo-nazis have to say; and if we stifle them, their vile speech gets pushed underground, where it goes unrefuted.
And this is why, even as an honest consumer, DRM is a major pain in the ass. I have no assurance, when I buy a song from iTunes, that I'll be able to use it on anything but an iPod and iTunes itself. What if I prefer another jukebox program? What if Apple stops selling iPods, or I want to buy another player that, in terms of technological ability, should be able to play AACs without a problem.
What if, god forbid, I want to shop at multiple online stores, each with a different DRM technology? I need multiple devices to play my music? That's crap.
Ok, more newbieish questions ...
So if I'm at Starbucks (or anywhere else on a network that's not using WPA or WEP or whatever), and I type in my credit card info to an online store that's using HTTPS, I'm reasonably safe?
My understanding is that Starbucks and other places use unsecured, unenrypted wireless networks - so that anyone can get on without much hassle. Is there really any way to have reasonable security over one of these networks? Is there really a way to ensure (or at least be pretty sure) the guy with the laptop on the other end of the shop isn't picking up my passwords and info when I connect to such a network?
I just noticed your handle. Funny.
The above post uses similies as loosely, um, a really loose thing.
I think the amazing thing is that this now-ancient device could still be useful as a wireless web server, or anything else.
The Newton was WAY ahead of its time. It was bulky and ugly and difficult to use by today's standards - but god damn, that thing could do a lot.
Because, Geico commercials not withstanding, they're not around to defend themselves?
Media Player Classic plays Quicktime files just fine, if you have the codecs installed.
So now that OSX for x86 is out in a legit way, how long until something like MacOnLinux is working for OSX86? The pirates have already done some pretty impressive things with leaked builds, but very soon the real thing with real drivers will be out there to play with. Would it be possible to set up VMWare to run this well? Could PearPC be reworked to emulate only the parts of the hardware that distinguish it from a beige-box PC?
I saw that movie. Hi Steve!
There are a lot of posts already up complaining about the DRM, but most fail to address what I've always considered DRM's biggest pain-in-the-ass - interoperability. This thing is useless to me if I can only buy content from Sony's content providers. Let's envision a market where e-books take off, but there are three or four different formats - each DRMed up the wazoo. Hitchhiker's guide is available in the Sony format, but Slaughterhouse Five is only available in the (for instance) Microsoft format, and I can only get the latest Dave Barry in (let's say) some Phillips format. Am I going to need three seperate, expensive readers, even though any one of them has the hardware necessary to do the job?
If the market doesn't build itself around open-spec, non-DRMed formats, it's going to create one hell of a barrier to entry. It's a good thing this device can read PDFs or other formats - but that doesn't help very much if the publishers don't put out content in those formats.
Of course, the same issue exists with music files and other media content already, and it sadly doesn't seem to have slowed the market. I just hope all those people with iTunes libraries and iPods never decide they want to buy an exclusive track from a WMA-only merchant, or switch to another brand of player.
Clippy has an ass?
I'm glad somebody finally released some of this "personal appeal" stuff. I've been needing to get that for ages. I wonder how much it costs?
Yeah, but she -is- hot.
Thanks for the tip!
Not necessarily. Darwinian evolution doesn't necessarily dictate that the best mutation wins out. It generally suggests that the mutation best adapted to the species' circumstances will survive, but really, anything that works well enough to allow further breeding will still continue to exist. That's why we have all sorts of absurd animals in nature right alongside the magnificent ones, and why in our own species various forms of genetic disease and handicap continue (although for the latter, our own social evolution and co-dependency has something to do with it too).
Stopping the small spyware vendor does quite a lot. A vendor like Sony, which is -generally- above-board (meaning it doesn't spend most of its time torturing puppies and whatnot) and accountable to millions of customers, shareholders and legal parters has a lot to lose when it does something nasty. Witness the massive backlash against the root kit, and Sony's eventual decision to pull it once it became a PR nightmare. An aware consumer market can fight back when someone like Sony pulls this nonsense.
It's a lot harder to fight back against the fly-by-night spyware vendor who is looking to collect some quick info - maybe even dangerous info like credit card numbers and banking site passwords - then disapear. You can't hold those people accountable. You can't threaten to stop using their services. You can't even sue them, if you can't find them.
Ideally, we'd be able to find a tool that's entirely trustworthy for routing at malware, but as you said, that's simply not going to happen. That's why I'm generally careful with what I download, but still run a few competing anti-malware apps, just in case I get something borderline one of those products choses not to flag for whatever reason - questionable dealings or simple ignorance of the malware's existence.
Having one more tool at my disposal for IDing spyware, even an imperfect tool, seems like a good thing. How useful it is will depend on what reputation Yahoo/AOL can build for being forthright.
What kind of a company would spend millions on BeOs, and then stop selling the technology?
The SCOTUS has always been a tool for political control. We've just lucked out that at least as often as not, judges picked for their apparent political leanings proved to be (or at least matured into) responsible jurists, more concerned with justice and the principles of law than forwarding their own pet agendas.
I'm nervous about the appointment, but I'm crossing my fingers that it'll work out in the end.
Shya. And some dude screaming "developers" might fly out of my butt.
That's the only group that actively tries to censor mentions of its own name.
And then there's BD Huang (sp?) of Oz and Law & Order fame.
Here's the thing -
While in your example, it is certainly still the rapists who should be held criminally accountable, there's no questioning its unwise to put yourself in a dangerous situation. If she's walking at home late at night in an area where there have been 10 rapes in the last month, she's not at fault, but she certainly could have done more to avoid the problem. If I leave my door unlocked every night and I get robbed, the robber is certainly still at fault, but I'm still kind of a dumbass.
It's not that hard. Go to Wal-Mart online.
The argument that Microsoft is a monopoly, and that the customer therefore suffers, is somewhat dubious to me. MS doesn't control any natural resources. It's not like they have an oil monopoly and noone else can get to the oil. It's not like they exclusively control utility lines. There's nothing to stop Joe Shmoe consumer from buying a Mac, or a PC with linux, or a PC with BSD, or a big-UNIX-vendor workstatation, or a QNX device, or whatever.
It may be more convienient for the average consumer to stick with Windows, but you can't blame the company for doing a better job at cross-promotional deals, enticing developers and wooing vendors. Yes, they're heavy-handed about it, but it's not like it's impossible to be in the computer industry while snubbing MS.