rsync has a major failure. If you delete a file on your laptop, that file is placed back on the FS at the next sync. Sometimes this is nice. Sometimes it drives you crazy.
synchronex does a nice job of seeing that a file was deleted on one FS and will delete it on the sync'ing file system as well.
Generally it has a terrific set of options and control parameters as well.
15 years ago I began studying politics intensely with the notion that there were real answers out there to public policy questions. Actually began my quest trying to figure out why my guy lost the election, I must obviously know something that 52% of the population didn't.
Now, as a PhD in political science I realize how true the following statement is: The fundamental nature of politics is the distribution of resources among people according to ones moral and ethical beliefs.
One can change the mechanisms for obtaining information. One can spend large amounts of money on campaigns, one can wire houses for some sort of electronic democracy. But these are only foolish dances around the core issues. Moral and ethical beliefs do not change significantly for an adult. Societal norms only change with new generations and advances in education and income (which allow individuals more liberty to contemplate instead of planting corn).
Technology will have an effect on politics, but only because it creates wealth and perhaps accelerates the underlying growth in access to education.
Sort of interesting to note that media exposure actually tends to result in more ephemerial political attitudes, not really a more serious contemplation.
You have (at least) two questions here. What should be the overall goals/philosophy of DRM and what is a possible to accomplish.
Regarding the first, it is conventional to suggest that DRM is either "for" or "against" somebody - people are frequently place into categories of RIAA supporters or consumer supporters. Arguments here frequently revolve around what users "should" be able to do/not do and the profit margin of RIAA members. I would suggest that none of this belongs in a discussion about DRM.
I would think that a fundamental goal of DRM would be to allow producers of material to do with it what they wish - to offer it to consumers in a manner that they wish. Consumers should be fully informed (ha) and make decisions concerning whether or not they wish to purchase the material as licensed.
In other words, lets allow producers to control their material and offer it to the marketplace in a controlled manner and allow consumers to decide what use of the material they wish to purchase. In a perfect world producers would probably like to offer up free CD's that cannot be copied and only played say three times, for a fee you could purchase a CD that could be played indefinately, but not copied, for a higher fee a cd that could be ripped, still higher a cd that could be copied. Consumers could decide on a CD by CD basis what they wish to purchase - not lawyers and politicians.
The sorts of rights conveyed would depend on the material, the producer objectives, and consumer desires. I write lots of articles - some are fore scientific publications that I would like as widely deciminated (without profit) as possible, others are commerical articles that I want tighter control over. New artists may offer up loosely licensed material for promotional purposes and hope that consumers will like their material enough to buy tighter licensed material later on. etc.
Now to the what is possible section - consumers are not fully informed at this point - but the issue is pretty new to those not reading slashdot regularly. The last thing that is needed is RIAA to be "covertly" selling restricted CDs - this information must be clearly conveyed for a market to work. Secondly, I am not sure that producers will ever fully gain the upper technological hand. Likely they will always be seeking to fix the latest security hole.
Slashdot Mirror
rsync has a major failure. If you delete a file on your laptop, that file is placed back on the FS at the next sync. Sometimes this is nice. Sometimes it drives you crazy.
synchronex does a nice job of seeing that a file was deleted on one FS and will delete it on the sync'ing file system as well.
Generally it has a terrific set of options and control parameters as well.
15 years ago I began studying politics intensely with the notion that there were real answers out there to public policy questions. Actually began my quest trying to figure out why my guy lost the election, I must obviously know something that 52% of the population didn't.
Now, as a PhD in political science I realize how true the following statement is: The fundamental nature of politics is the distribution of resources among people according to ones moral and ethical beliefs.
One can change the mechanisms for obtaining information. One can spend large amounts of money on campaigns, one can wire houses for some sort of electronic democracy. But these are only foolish dances around the core issues. Moral and ethical beliefs do not change significantly for an adult. Societal norms only change with new generations and advances in education and income (which allow individuals more liberty to contemplate instead of planting corn).
Technology will have an effect on politics, but only because it creates wealth and perhaps accelerates the underlying growth in access to education.
Sort of interesting to note that media exposure actually tends to result in more ephemerial political attitudes, not really a more serious contemplation.
You have (at least) two questions here. What should be the overall goals/philosophy of DRM and what is a possible to accomplish.
Regarding the first, it is conventional to suggest that DRM is either "for" or "against" somebody - people are frequently place into categories of RIAA supporters or consumer supporters. Arguments here frequently revolve around what users "should" be able to do/not do and the profit margin of RIAA members. I would suggest that none of this belongs in a discussion about DRM.
I would think that a fundamental goal of DRM would be to allow producers of material to do with it what they wish - to offer it to consumers in a manner that they wish. Consumers should be fully informed (ha) and make decisions concerning whether or not they wish to purchase the material as licensed.
In other words, lets allow producers to control their material and offer it to the marketplace in a controlled manner and allow consumers to decide what use of the material they wish to purchase. In a perfect world producers would probably like to offer up free CD's that cannot be copied and only played say three times, for a fee you could purchase a CD that could be played indefinately, but not copied, for a higher fee a cd that could be ripped, still higher a cd that could be copied. Consumers could decide on a CD by CD basis what they wish to purchase - not lawyers and politicians.
The sorts of rights conveyed would depend on the material, the producer objectives, and consumer desires. I write lots of articles - some are fore scientific publications that I would like as widely deciminated (without profit) as possible, others are commerical articles that I want tighter control over. New artists may offer up loosely licensed material for promotional purposes and hope that consumers will like their material enough to buy tighter licensed material later on. etc.
Now to the what is possible section - consumers are not fully informed at this point - but the issue is pretty new to those not reading slashdot regularly. The last thing that is needed is RIAA to be "covertly" selling restricted CDs - this information must be clearly conveyed for a market to work. Secondly, I am not sure that producers will ever fully gain the upper technological hand. Likely they will always be seeking to fix the latest security hole.