You have the power to grant yourself that wish:) I'm happy to live in a world where people hold different senses of humor - I just prefer the more creative ones over the shock/humiliate ones. If the latter is more up your alley, I believe MTV has you covered.
Remember when there were good prank shows? When you'd have a desk clerk do a quick change act between tending to a customer and seeing them slowly wonder "wasn't she wearing a red shirt just a moment ago? Hold on, I swear she was a brunette!". Or perhaps one of the greatest pranks, switching a regular car for its UK equivalent in mere minutes, moving the person's every possession, then watch as they come back, get into 'their' car, try to start, and suddenly realize the ignition they tried to put the key in is actually thin air and wonder just wtf happened.
Now it seems it's a 'better' prank if you take the same car and bash its windows in in front of the person, then quickly run up to them with a camera in their face telling them how they were had because the celebrity victim is about to call the cops in on the situation - and being a celebrity, they have little choice but to react 'like a good sport' because who wants to be deemed the sourpuss?
What's next? "Text your mother 'Mama, just killed a man' and post their replies"? You know, 'cos that's hilarious - and if found otherwise just claim it's a sociological experiment to see how many pranksters' moms know Bohemian Rhapsody. 'cos the text in this story clearly doesn't refer to drugs either (I'm sure he ran that by legal).
I've heard of quirky, I follow it quite closely as part of following all sorts of CrowdFunding platforms. Quirky is similar enough to one to merit that. At the same time, it's different enough that there's just really not all that much interest in it. The idea behind the site is cool, but you can probably imagine how many completely dumb, previously patented, etc. ideas are thrown out there, get voted up because it seems cool, and then shot down for reasons people just do not understand.
I'm finding the steps RocketHub is taking a lot more interesting, while the major public appeal is going to remain with KickStarter and Indiegogo, with niche markets filled by niche platforms (be that e.g. Causes, or Tindie).
And that right - which I agree is a perfectly valid right - is exactly why the effect these directives/laws have had are not in line with what was desired.
Basically you've now got a bunch of websites that do one of three things: A. Show a landing page to any 'new' visitor asking them to agree to placing any and all tracking bits. If the visitor disagrees, they simply will not get to see the site. Period. Fair enough, right? But most people will just shrug it off and accept the tracking because otherwise they'd have to go without the site - and no, 'the free market' doesn't jump in here offering an alternative site of equal desirability but which doesn't use tracking.
B. Show a banner/bar/overlay somewhere on the page telling users the site uses tracking and if they don't like it, they can go away, or just deal with it and the presence of that banner/bar until it is dismissed. Note that at this point, you've already been tracked anyway (which in some countries runs afoul of the implementation, thus seeing variant A more in those countries more often).
C. The site gives the user the option of tracking or no trackings, leaving all other cookies be. Choosing not to get tracked means some content, such as particular ads, won't be shown. On the other hand, other content may be injected that doesn't use tracking but can be annoying in other ways (have to compensate somehow). This option isn't very popular because it means a very deep overhaul of the website, figuring out what is, or potentially could be, using tracking. That also includes user content and any third party services that may be in use, and figuring out how to do the compensating bit, while accepting that you may still run afoul of the law by some unforeseen vector and if somebody gets smart they could actually hold you liable for it.
So the net effect is that, yes, internet users in the EU are now more aware of tracking features... but only because landing pages and banners piss them off to no end about it, to the point where the vast majority would much rather not have known and just be able to use the sites they've come to know and love, tracking and all. ( conspiracy theorists, have at it. )
GP poster should indeed have started by reading the actual complaints.
That said, it's still not 'stealing' as the summary alleges, and Matthew partially asserted. That and other claims are usually railed against when it's the RIAA, MPAA, etc. based purely on the technical facts. It should be no different when it's 'the little guy' - be it Matthew Inman or Katie Woodger.
What we've seen is an application focused solely on making the Facebook experience the hub for all of your social correspondence, but that can be extremely limiting for those who use a number of other social networks.
Of course, in facebook's eyes, there's a simple solution for that: don't use the other social networks.
IF they decide to do away with the regular facebook app, imagine how many people would basically be turning their phone into a 'facebook phone' (because they've 'got to' have facebook, and the mobile site is laughable even without the "but it's not an app:("-factor), at the expense of other social networks.. such as Google+.. and that on what is largely considered to be Google's platform.
facebook chat is already chewing away at WhatsApp... now all facebook needs is forced short messages in a(n optionally) separate stream and who even needs twitter anymore?
Yep, if the software relies on a single AP to tell you that you're in Nowheresville because that's the only AP it has on file for it, and you're in Someotherhamlet that has no APs on file, and you set up there with your AP spoofing the Nowheresville one, people visiting Someotherhamlet will be utterly confused about why their devices are telling them they're in Nowheresville. Pretty trivial.
Good luck trying that in a more data-rich environment, though. You'd have to spoof the multiple APs of place A, attenuate them appropriately AND somehow gain precedence (by way of a confidence metric) over the existing ones that lead the software to conclude it's in place B.
I agree with your general sentiment that those who have replaced RSS with twitter/facebook are deluded in thinking that this is the answer for everyone.
On the other hand, RSS is not the be all/end all either.
I think the realization to be made is that a twitter account's stream and an RSS feed are really not that different.
You mention having to sift through people's personal tweets to find the ones that you actually find interesting. That's a good point - but mostly one that should be answered by "follow a different person" - somebody who has separate accounts for their professional work vs their personal affairs, for example. After all, if I 'subscribe' to Slashdot's frontpage RSS, the bulk of the articles that get thrown my way are still not really of interest - so perhaps I should subscribe to the RSS of a tech news site that is more focused on what I want to read about.
The (marginal) advantage to RSS (aside from technical*) is that RSS usually have at least a title and a summary with a link to content, whereas tweets are almost effectively title and summary in one.. and then no link to content if the tweet doesn't happen to link to whatever they're talking about.
* RSS's real power is that it is ubquitous, easy to write and to parse, and almost universally understood. If I wanted to make an RSS feed with all the latest products from my company, I could easily do so. If I then wanted to check out that RSS feed, there's dozens of programs, websites, mobile apps, etc. that will happily accept a link to the feed and display it in any number of forms.
Twitter, on the other hand, you can technically only read through twitter.com, embeds at other sites, and a scarce few officially sanctioned applications (the developer of which needs an API key and authentication to even be allowed to fetch the results, etc.)
But there are twitter-to-RSS solutions that largely break down this difference. I don't see them as opposites or mutually exclusive.. they can be complementary.
That's all as an aside to Google Reader, though - which was as much an aggregator as a client, to many. Yes, there's plenty of alternatives and no, developers probably shouldn't have relied on their users using Google Reader and not support other solutions - but just as with the 'weather API' on Android, it's a highly unpopular move for something that only costs them a pittance to (keep) supported.
Just to be on-topic for the story itself... I would guess that the 'google project' that didn't deserve to die would be open CalDAV API access, forcing developers to use the Google Calendar API instead (after telling those using MS EAS to use CalDAV instead) - unless you manage to get whitelisted.
That doesn't mean you didn't just combine them - just that one setting makes the smart portion exclusive.
Specifically, the use case...
Wake up and want to piss at night, fumble for your phone or hit a switch?
...would be readily solved, and wouldn't be too different from when the light isn't 'smart'; okay, you might have to hit the switch twice if you turned the light 'off' via a 'smart' control (since hitting the switch would then actually turn it off, and you'd have to hit it again to turn it back on (and that's making the assumption the light has a default on mode when it gets power after not having power).
Personally, I'd prefer the regular ol' switch and know that when I switch the light off with the switch.. it's actually off - and for when I want to use it, tap the phone on the nightstand and immediately have light (instead of navigating through the minefield of potential kids' toys on my way to a light switch).
While getting into 'smart lightbulbs' is probably going to be a highly personal choice...
Do you want it hacked?
It's fairly unlikely that the light (I say light because some are bulbs, some are sockets) itself would be hacked, but rather your router - and although pranksters making your house look haunted would probably get old real quick, and e.g. flicker-induced epilepsy would be pretty bad, you'd probably have other issues at that point.
Do you need another wifi signal degrading signal in your home?
That makes very little sense.
Taking up bandwidth?
As does this. Are you suspecting these lightbulbs of serving up Linux torrents 24/7?
Wake up and want to piss at night, fumble for your phone or hit a switch?
I'd have to ask at what point you removed the switch. There's nothing preventing you from having a switch, and even a dimmer (depending on bulb being okay with it), in addition to the 'smart' application.
It boggles my mind why they think people want this.
Maybe they want their smartphone to slowly increasing lighting levels based on the time of day. Perhaps they want the light to come on automatically when they enter a room (having the smartphone on them). They may want mood lighting control outside of the expensive brand names and better than the $15 ebay solution. You could probably waste a few minutes searching the web for what people do with these and find dozens of applications.
Just because you and I don't find them all that appealing (hey, I have the $15 ebay solutions.. they work well enough for what I want out of RGB lights), doesn't mean your mind need boggle.
My main complaints with these are that they're almost exclusively bulbs which are going to be expensive to replace. I'd prefer them to be sockets. Unfortunately this would require a new standard in order to deal with RGB (and beyond) bulbs - and more likely than not, this would be proprietary solutions at first; why make a simple set of connector rings when you can use a serial interface with a proprietary encoding so that only your bulbs work with your sockets, right? Similarly, they all disagree on what wireless standard to use - even if they use the same wireless standard, the actual protocols or specifics of implementation may differ.
I'll wait for some level of standardization, let the early adopters deal with the growing pains, and enjoy the cheapo ebay things for now. If I really wanted them to be 'smart' right now, I'd throw an Arduino or something at the problem.
Regardless of the online vs offline debate - which is interesting to Slashdot readers for a variety of reasons (DRM, cloud, corporations lying to the users (do they ever not?), etc.), is it even a fun game?
I think there is quite a bit of a difference between the idea of protecting copyright on one hand, and some manner of 'guaranteed right to profit' in the way that you seem to phrase it; i.e. that the copyright holder of a work has a guarantee to see a profit on that work. That would require something like a tax, so that creators of works that see no sale at all will still be recompensed for the creation of that work, at the expense of the taxpayer. ( In fact, such constructions do exist, to an extent; all sorts of tax breaks, subsidies, etc. in various countries on cultural works, which can be as simple as a crappy movie but done in that country's own language )
Copyright infringement could be seen as an aspect in potential failure to turn a profit, but I don't think it and a 'right to try to turn a profit' are ideologically entangled so much as that they potentially conflict.
While there shouldn't be a guarantee that a creator of a work turns a profit on that work, I think exonerating 'pirates' entirely is another absolute.
Your gas comparison doesn't work, due to the whole physical vs virtual thing, but I understand the point you were trying to make. Perhaps a better example is this.. assume a bakery throws out the leftover bread at the end of the day because they can't sell it the next day, they can no longer give it to the homeless/etc. due to regulations, and feeding it to the ducks is bad for the ducks. It is, essentially, waste. Assume you know, for a fact, that every single day there's at least 1 loaf of bread that gets tossed (you'd think the baker would bake 1 less loaf after a while, but that as an aside). If you take it during business hours, is that still theft, considering they were just going to toss it anyway? If you wait for closing hours and for them to toss it, and then immediately move in and take it from the trash, is that still theft? ( the latter question depends on jurisdiction - I wouldn't even know the situation where I live, though I seem to recall that trash is essentially not the person/business's property anymore.. but going through trash can still be considered an invasion of privacy )
I do think that producing someTHING gives you all natural rights to its existence. Note that I explicitly say someTHING because creating 'someone' ends up with the eventual person having their own set of rights which, even further down the road, cause a rift with your rights to that person). However, you give up some of those rights when you release that something well outside of the private sphere. That's when copyrights with their limited span (even though it's ridiculously long right now, not that that matters in practice - see other old, old comments on why) kicks in and whether or not your children would see any benefit from this would depend on the applicable laws. Personally I'd suggest that such benefit should come from inheritance of actual wealth, rather than IP - but I can understand there being some objection to this for practical reasons.
In terms of corporations, it's not really that difficult - it depends on your contract. You can sign away your rights to works you produce, and very often in today's corporate contracts, you do. There's been a few "Ask Slashdot" stories about this which can explain a lot better.
I do believe the concept is broken (I make a distinction between downloaders vs uploaders and, equivalently, believe copyright should be abolished, while distribution rights be bolstered and, yes, more strongly enforced). That's not a complete redesign, though. I don't think a complete redesign that would appease both sides of the aisle (insofar as there being only 2 extreme sides) can really be made either. I think it more likely that things will come to an uneasy understanding; kind of like the current trend, really. I.e. there will be more services like iTunes, Netflix, etc. with better and broader offerings, potentially at higher prices, that a majority of consumers are fine with because of, say, ease of use.. while studios/record labels/etc. tacitly accept that piracy is still going to happen but fighting it would prove to be a net loss operation.
Actually, there are cases where there is no way to obtain the information even if one was willing to pay.. have a look at movie release schedules, or out of print books, or how tv programs can be delayed for months before being released in another country. It's not nearly as black and white as you'd like to put it.
I think you'll find that in the majority of those cases, it's not your willingness to pay and the rights holder/distributor being unwilling to accept your payment - but rather your unwillingness, or incapability, to pay the amount that they desire.
Movie releases, for example, may be related to having the celebrities be present during opening showings. Your willingness to pay the $10 to go see it at your local movie theater isn't going to sway the distributor to send those celebrities over there when they could instead send them to a swanky theater in an uptown location known for such events. But if you wanted to pay $1,000,000 for the privilege, I'm sure they'd be willing to negotiate this.
The same applies to TV programs. Your local broadcaster has no intent of paying the sum asked. Perhaps a cable channel where you pay extra might.
Out of print books can also be brought back into print. If nothing else, buy the rights from the publisher and just print it yourself. It won't be the $4.95 you'd pay for the paperback in a random bookstore, though.
I'm sure are exceptions - the rights holder may withhold the work out of principle, for example.. but I don't know of any.
Whether it is reasonable that they delay releases, take books out of print, etc. rather than just accepting your $4.95 or $10 or whatever is another matter. I like to think that it is not, especially since we're talking things that can be moved to digital format (if it's not already) quite easily.
Where is the proof that it is necessary to protect copyright, or is this just something we all assume is true?
Asia.
I think you may have misinterpreted the question, or at least your answer appears to be incomplete.
The question is whether it is necessary to protect copyright. The fact that there are quite a few copyright violations in Asia - and we're not talking torrents here, but truckloads of DVDs complete with cases, liners and everything.. not to mention physical goods that aren't easily converted to a digital medium - does not in itself prove that it is necessary to protect copyright.
You'd have to go into copyright holders' investments and whether or not they have recouped those investments and made enough of a profit on it to create further works - and if they haven't, whether or not copyright infringement can be seen as a largely contributing cause of that being the case. ( In fact, if they did recoup their investment, some might say they would do well to check whether copyright infringement helped through spreading the word, etc. I don't hold that belief, but there's no reliable numbers either way. )
I.e. if you make a movie at a total cost of $1,000,000 (this includes everything, right down to expenses expected until a next production) and the return on it is $4,000,000, but it is calculated that without copyright infringement the returns may have been $5,000,000 then I'm sure you would much prefer to have that $1,000,000 over not having that $1,000,000. However, would the protection of copyright (let's, for the sake of argument, assume that this is infallible and costs you $0) actually be necessary, given that you still made $3,000,000 profit?
This lies at the basis of the often simplistic argument that studios/actors/whatever make 'enough' money anyway so 'pirates' doing what they do best doesn't hurt them at all.
From that point of view, it could well be argued that it is indeed not necessary.
Of course that won't necessarily apply to every single copyrighted work.
But don't be so naive to suggest that all TPB is doing is linking (especially at the time; keep in mind that this is all about a very old court case where TPB then was different from TPB now, at least in several technical areas) - let alone that Google and TPB are to be deemed essentially equivalent in these matters.
The "we even" makes it sound like you think it's a bad thing, when in reality this is a good thing.
Most of the opponents of speed cameras cite as reasons:
They are just a momentary snapshot. There could be a perfectly good reason that you were speeding at that particular point, like trying to quickly take over somebody going 118km/h on a 120km/h road where you're going 120km/h, but don't want to spend a long time passing them at a relative 2km/h.
They are placed at a point where speeding is common due to the road and speed limits in question; e.g. a multi-lane road that goes from 120km/h to 100km/h, with the speed camera positioned a mere 100 meters after the 100km/h speed limit sign.
Speed cameras make people brake abruptly, after which they speed up again. Not only does this defeat the purpose of the speed cameras, but it can create dangerous situations (even if only because people keep tailgating).
'Trajectcontroles' - speed checks based on average speed over distance - do away with all of these concerns.
However, they do nothing about the quintessential "I was only going 5km/h over!" complaint, which disregards standard margins, overly cautious error corrections, etc. that eventually lead up to actually having gone more than 10km/h over - nor anything about the "but that road should really be 160km/h anyway!" excuse - nor the "$#@&*(@! they caught me!" frustration, which tend to be the underlying reasons for not wanting speed cameras in the first place.
I already posted in this thread, but consider this a "it's the idea that counts" upmod.
It was the same with levies on certain electronic goods in NL. They put a levy on it, but at 0%, while industry would figure out how to change their business models, make better alternatives, etc. before downloading would be ruled illegal - or the levy system would continue.
Having that 0% levy in place makes it a lot easier to increase that to n%, than having to negotiate the levy in the current climate in the first place.
Enforce their rights by actually putting the content out there in a controlled fashion
That's not enforcing rights - that's changing a business model. I guess in a way you could argue that one leads to the other, but only if you accept that simply placing every bit of new content that copyright holder creates in the public domain leads to enforcing the copyrights - by simply having done away with them.
Hypothetically speaking, let's assume you do NOT pirate movies with a far more streamlined setup (a mediaplayer box running e.g couchpotato and XBMC that's hooked up straight to your TV, perhaps even with a streaming-supported client if you have the bandwidth) than the mess you described, and it would be there.
Instead, let's assume you pay the $8/month for Netflix and let's also assume that the movie were actually there. Now how many other movies are you going to watch in that same month that is covered by the same $8? How about TV shows? That $8 times a bunch of subscribers is going to get divided up according to how much of the content watched in total was actually that movie (assuming that's the deal that was made - Netflix's licensing from content companies is a nightmare).
Now what if instead you had bought the $15 (and I'm being generous with the price here - new releases are typically more than that) Blu-Ray? And not only you, but N people?
I'm sure you can figure out the spreadsheet, but it comes down to the fact that right now, there's simply more money in selling those blu-rays (and DVDs) than they would gain from (additionally) making it available on NetFlix the same day. The tipping point will come - it's just not here yet.
Welcome to Obama's vision of the future. Six Strikes is just a glimpse.
Oh don't worry, he'll be gone in a few years and then we can see what $FutureGuy's vision of the future is. The reactions are predictable regardless of who gets elected.. either they're just continuing the policy, or they have to deal with $PastGuy's policy and are finding it difficult to clean up. ( That swings both ways. ) The only constant is having $PresentGuy to blame for all the problems.
Who the FUCK delegated law enforcement to private corporations?
It's kind of funny that way. On the one hand people are saying that copyright infringement is a private affair and the government should butt out - and certainly not devote a bunch of police work to it. On the other hand, people start complaining when private businesses do start taking action to enforce their copyrights. ( Mind you, since some say the government is bought by corporations anyway, the distinction might be moot. )
Since you seem to be railing against the latter, are you saying that e.g. the police should be actively looking for copyright infringement and bring down to bear all of the privileges granted unto them in this endeavor?
Slashdot Mirror
Some assholes are more equal than others.
Cheers,
Goatse
You have the power to grant yourself that wish :) I'm happy to live in a world where people hold different senses of humor - I just prefer the more creative ones over the shock/humiliate ones. If the latter is more up your alley, I believe MTV has you covered.
...makes me think of punk'd, to be honest.
Remember when there were good prank shows?
When you'd have a desk clerk do a quick change act between tending to a customer and seeing them slowly wonder "wasn't she wearing a red shirt just a moment ago? Hold on, I swear she was a brunette!". Or perhaps one of the greatest pranks, switching a regular car for its UK equivalent in mere minutes, moving the person's every possession, then watch as they come back, get into 'their' car, try to start, and suddenly realize the ignition they tried to put the key in is actually thin air and wonder just wtf happened.
Now it seems it's a 'better' prank if you take the same car and bash its windows in in front of the person, then quickly run up to them with a camera in their face telling them how they were had because the celebrity victim is about to call the cops in on the situation - and being a celebrity, they have little choice but to react 'like a good sport' because who wants to be deemed the sourpuss?
No, I don't see what's funny about this. Nor newsworthy; Jimmy Kimmel has put up prank challenges and asks viewer to YouTube them for some time now. I'm sure he wasn't the first either.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jimmy+kimmel+challenge
What's next? "Text your mother 'Mama, just killed a man' and post their replies"? You know, 'cos that's hilarious - and if found otherwise just claim it's a sociological experiment to see how many pranksters' moms know Bohemian Rhapsody. 'cos the text in this story clearly doesn't refer to drugs either (I'm sure he ran that by legal).
I think you were looking for this story, Fuddy:
http://ask.slashdot.org/story/13/04/26/2115256/ask-slashdot-how-do-you-assess-the-status-of-an-open-source-project
I've heard of quirky, I follow it quite closely as part of following all sorts of CrowdFunding platforms. Quirky is similar enough to one to merit that. At the same time, it's different enough that there's just really not all that much interest in it. The idea behind the site is cool, but you can probably imagine how many completely dumb, previously patented, etc. ideas are thrown out there, get voted up because it seems cool, and then shot down for reasons people just do not understand.
I'm finding the steps RocketHub is taking a lot more interesting, while the major public appeal is going to remain with KickStarter and Indiegogo, with niche markets filled by niche platforms (be that e.g. Causes, or Tindie).
Odd thing is, the RPi guys are on that same side of the pond.. unless you were talking about the Mediterranean Sea.
And that right - which I agree is a perfectly valid right - is exactly why the effect these directives/laws have had are not in line with what was desired.
Basically you've now got a bunch of websites that do one of three things:
A. Show a landing page to any 'new' visitor asking them to agree to placing any and all tracking bits. If the visitor disagrees, they simply will not get to see the site. Period. Fair enough, right? But most people will just shrug it off and accept the tracking because otherwise they'd have to go without the site - and no, 'the free market' doesn't jump in here offering an alternative site of equal desirability but which doesn't use tracking.
B. Show a banner/bar/overlay somewhere on the page telling users the site uses tracking and if they don't like it, they can go away, or just deal with it and the presence of that banner/bar until it is dismissed. Note that at this point, you've already been tracked anyway (which in some countries runs afoul of the implementation, thus seeing variant A more in those countries more often).
C. The site gives the user the option of tracking or no trackings, leaving all other cookies be. Choosing not to get tracked means some content, such as particular ads, won't be shown. On the other hand, other content may be injected that doesn't use tracking but can be annoying in other ways (have to compensate somehow).
This option isn't very popular because it means a very deep overhaul of the website, figuring out what is, or potentially could be, using tracking. That also includes user content and any third party services that may be in use, and figuring out how to do the compensating bit, while accepting that you may still run afoul of the law by some unforeseen vector and if somebody gets smart they could actually hold you liable for it.
So the net effect is that, yes, internet users in the EU are now more aware of tracking features... but only because landing pages and banners piss them off to no end about it, to the point where the vast majority would much rather not have known and just be able to use the sites they've come to know and love, tracking and all.
( conspiracy theorists, have at it. )
GP poster should indeed have started by reading the actual complaints.
That said, it's still not 'stealing' as the summary alleges, and Matthew partially asserted. That and other claims are usually railed against when it's the RIAA, MPAA, etc. based purely on the technical facts. It should be no different when it's 'the little guy' - be it Matthew Inman or Katie Woodger.
Of course, in facebook's eyes, there's a simple solution for that: don't use the other social networks.
IF they decide to do away with the regular facebook app, imagine how many people would basically be turning their phone into a 'facebook phone' (because they've 'got to' have facebook, and the mobile site is laughable even without the "but it's not an app :("-factor), at the expense of other social networks.. such as Google+.. and that on what is largely considered to be Google's platform.
facebook chat is already chewing away at WhatsApp... now all facebook needs is forced short messages in a(n optionally) separate stream and who even needs twitter anymore?
Yep, if the software relies on a single AP to tell you that you're in Nowheresville because that's the only AP it has on file for it, and you're in Someotherhamlet that has no APs on file, and you set up there with your AP spoofing the Nowheresville one, people visiting Someotherhamlet will be utterly confused about why their devices are telling them they're in Nowheresville. Pretty trivial.
Good luck trying that in a more data-rich environment, though. You'd have to spoof the multiple APs of place A, attenuate them appropriately AND somehow gain precedence (by way of a confidence metric) over the existing ones that lead the software to conclude it's in place B.
I'd watch them ample blinkenlights.
I agree with your general sentiment that those who have replaced RSS with twitter/facebook are deluded in thinking that this is the answer for everyone.
On the other hand, RSS is not the be all/end all either.
I think the realization to be made is that a twitter account's stream and an RSS feed are really not that different.
You mention having to sift through people's personal tweets to find the ones that you actually find interesting. That's a good point - but mostly one that should be answered by "follow a different person" - somebody who has separate accounts for their professional work vs their personal affairs, for example. After all, if I 'subscribe' to Slashdot's frontpage RSS, the bulk of the articles that get thrown my way are still not really of interest - so perhaps I should subscribe to the RSS of a tech news site that is more focused on what I want to read about.
The (marginal) advantage to RSS (aside from technical*) is that RSS usually have at least a title and a summary with a link to content, whereas tweets are almost effectively title and summary in one.. and then no link to content if the tweet doesn't happen to link to whatever they're talking about.
* RSS's real power is that it is ubquitous, easy to write and to parse, and almost universally understood. If I wanted to make an RSS feed with all the latest products from my company, I could easily do so. If I then wanted to check out that RSS feed, there's dozens of programs, websites, mobile apps, etc. that will happily accept a link to the feed and display it in any number of forms.
Twitter, on the other hand, you can technically only read through twitter.com, embeds at other sites, and a scarce few officially sanctioned applications (the developer of which needs an API key and authentication to even be allowed to fetch the results, etc.)
But there are twitter-to-RSS solutions that largely break down this difference. I don't see them as opposites or mutually exclusive.. they can be complementary.
That's all as an aside to Google Reader, though - which was as much an aggregator as a client, to many. Yes, there's plenty of alternatives and no, developers probably shouldn't have relied on their users using Google Reader and not support other solutions - but just as with the 'weather API' on Android, it's a highly unpopular move for something that only costs them a pittance to (keep) supported.
Just to be on-topic for the story itself... I would guess that the 'google project' that didn't deserve to die would be open CalDAV API access, forcing developers to use the Google Calendar API instead (after telling those using MS EAS to use CalDAV instead) - unless you manage to get whitelisted.
That doesn't mean you didn't just combine them - just that one setting makes the smart portion exclusive.
Specifically, the use case...
Personally, I'd prefer the regular ol' switch and know that when I switch the light off with the switch.. it's actually off - and for when I want to use it, tap the phone on the nightstand and immediately have light (instead of navigating through the minefield of potential kids' toys on my way to a light switch).
While getting into 'smart lightbulbs' is probably going to be a highly personal choice...
It's fairly unlikely that the light (I say light because some are bulbs, some are sockets) itself would be hacked, but rather your router - and although pranksters making your house look haunted would probably get old real quick, and e.g. flicker-induced epilepsy would be pretty bad, you'd probably have other issues at that point.
That makes very little sense.
As does this. Are you suspecting these lightbulbs of serving up Linux torrents 24/7?
I'd have to ask at what point you removed the switch. There's nothing preventing you from having a switch, and even a dimmer (depending on bulb being okay with it), in addition to the 'smart' application.
Maybe they want their smartphone to slowly increasing lighting levels based on the time of day. Perhaps they want the light to come on automatically when they enter a room (having the smartphone on them). They may want mood lighting control outside of the expensive brand names and better than the $15 ebay solution.
You could probably waste a few minutes searching the web for what people do with these and find dozens of applications.
Just because you and I don't find them all that appealing (hey, I have the $15 ebay solutions.. they work well enough for what I want out of RGB lights), doesn't mean your mind need boggle.
My main complaints with these are that they're almost exclusively bulbs which are going to be expensive to replace. I'd prefer them to be sockets. Unfortunately this would require a new standard in order to deal with RGB (and beyond) bulbs - and more likely than not, this would be proprietary solutions at first; why make a simple set of connector rings when you can use a serial interface with a proprietary encoding so that only your bulbs work with your sockets, right?
Similarly, they all disagree on what wireless standard to use - even if they use the same wireless standard, the actual protocols or specifics of implementation may differ.
I'll wait for some level of standardization, let the early adopters deal with the growing pains, and enjoy the cheapo ebay things for now. If I really wanted them to be 'smart' right now, I'd throw an Arduino or something at the problem.
Regardless of the online vs offline debate - which is interesting to Slashdot readers for a variety of reasons (DRM, cloud, corporations lying to the users (do they ever not?), etc.), is it even a fun game?
After seeing videos and reports like these:
http://kotaku.com/5990362/with-simple-ai-like-this-why-does-simcity-need-cloud-computing
I'm inclined to think that the answer may well be 'no'. At which point it really doesn't matter much whether you play it online or offline, does it?
I think there is quite a bit of a difference between the idea of protecting copyright on one hand, and some manner of 'guaranteed right to profit' in the way that you seem to phrase it; i.e. that the copyright holder of a work has a guarantee to see a profit on that work. That would require something like a tax, so that creators of works that see no sale at all will still be recompensed for the creation of that work, at the expense of the taxpayer.
( In fact, such constructions do exist, to an extent; all sorts of tax breaks, subsidies, etc. in various countries on cultural works, which can be as simple as a crappy movie but done in that country's own language )
Copyright infringement could be seen as an aspect in potential failure to turn a profit, but I don't think it and a 'right to try to turn a profit' are ideologically entangled so much as that they potentially conflict.
While there shouldn't be a guarantee that a creator of a work turns a profit on that work, I think exonerating 'pirates' entirely is another absolute.
Your gas comparison doesn't work, due to the whole physical vs virtual thing, but I understand the point you were trying to make. Perhaps a better example is this.. assume a bakery throws out the leftover bread at the end of the day because they can't sell it the next day, they can no longer give it to the homeless/etc. due to regulations, and feeding it to the ducks is bad for the ducks. It is, essentially, waste. Assume you know, for a fact, that every single day there's at least 1 loaf of bread that gets tossed (you'd think the baker would bake 1 less loaf after a while, but that as an aside). If you take it during business hours, is that still theft, considering they were just going to toss it anyway? If you wait for closing hours and for them to toss it, and then immediately move in and take it from the trash, is that still theft? ( the latter question depends on jurisdiction - I wouldn't even know the situation where I live, though I seem to recall that trash is essentially not the person/business's property anymore.. but going through trash can still be considered an invasion of privacy )
I do think that producing someTHING gives you all natural rights to its existence. Note that I explicitly say someTHING because creating 'someone' ends up with the eventual person having their own set of rights which, even further down the road, cause a rift with your rights to that person). However, you give up some of those rights when you release that something well outside of the private sphere. That's when copyrights with their limited span (even though it's ridiculously long right now, not that that matters in practice - see other old, old comments on why) kicks in and whether or not your children would see any benefit from this would depend on the applicable laws. Personally I'd suggest that such benefit should come from inheritance of actual wealth, rather than IP - but I can understand there being some objection to this for practical reasons.
In terms of corporations, it's not really that difficult - it depends on your contract. You can sign away your rights to works you produce, and very often in today's corporate contracts, you do. There's been a few "Ask Slashdot" stories about this which can explain a lot better.
I do believe the concept is broken (I make a distinction between downloaders vs uploaders and, equivalently, believe copyright should be abolished, while distribution rights be bolstered and, yes, more strongly enforced). That's not a complete redesign, though. I don't think a complete redesign that would appease both sides of the aisle (insofar as there being only 2 extreme sides) can really be made either. I think it more likely that things will come to an uneasy understanding; kind of like the current trend, really. I.e. there will be more services like iTunes, Netflix, etc. with better and broader offerings, potentially at higher prices, that a majority of consumers are fine with because of, say, ease of use.. while studios/record labels/etc. tacitly accept that piracy is still going to happen but fighting it would prove to be a net loss operation.
I think you'll find that in the majority of those cases, it's not your willingness to pay and the rights holder/distributor being unwilling to accept your payment - but rather your unwillingness, or incapability, to pay the amount that they desire.
Movie releases, for example, may be related to having the celebrities be present during opening showings. Your willingness to pay the $10 to go see it at your local movie theater isn't going to sway the distributor to send those celebrities over there when they could instead send them to a swanky theater in an uptown location known for such events. But if you wanted to pay $1,000,000 for the privilege, I'm sure they'd be willing to negotiate this.
The same applies to TV programs. Your local broadcaster has no intent of paying the sum asked. Perhaps a cable channel where you pay extra might.
Out of print books can also be brought back into print. If nothing else, buy the rights from the publisher and just print it yourself. It won't be the $4.95 you'd pay for the paperback in a random bookstore, though.
I'm sure are exceptions - the rights holder may withhold the work out of principle, for example.. but I don't know of any.
Whether it is reasonable that they delay releases, take books out of print, etc. rather than just accepting your $4.95 or $10 or whatever is another matter. I like to think that it is not, especially since we're talking things that can be moved to digital format (if it's not already) quite easily.
I think you may have misinterpreted the question, or at least your answer appears to be incomplete.
The question is whether it is necessary to protect copyright. The fact that there are quite a few copyright violations in Asia - and we're not talking torrents here, but truckloads of DVDs complete with cases, liners and everything .. not to mention physical goods that aren't easily converted to a digital medium - does not in itself prove that it is necessary to protect copyright.
You'd have to go into copyright holders' investments and whether or not they have recouped those investments and made enough of a profit on it to create further works - and if they haven't, whether or not copyright infringement can be seen as a largely contributing cause of that being the case.
( In fact, if they did recoup their investment, some might say they would do well to check whether copyright infringement helped through spreading the word, etc. I don't hold that belief, but there's no reliable numbers either way. )
I.e. if you make a movie at a total cost of $1,000,000 (this includes everything, right down to expenses expected until a next production) and the return on it is $4,000,000, but it is calculated that without copyright infringement the returns may have been $5,000,000 then I'm sure you would much prefer to have that $1,000,000 over not having that $1,000,000. However, would the protection of copyright (let's, for the sake of argument, assume that this is infallible and costs you $0) actually be necessary, given that you still made $3,000,000 profit?
This lies at the basis of the often simplistic argument that studios/actors/whatever make 'enough' money anyway so 'pirates' doing what they do best doesn't hurt them at all.
From that point of view, it could well be argued that it is indeed not necessary.
Of course that won't necessarily apply to every single copyrighted work.
No, they were not counterfeiting.
But don't be so naive to suggest that all TPB is doing is linking (especially at the time; keep in mind that this is all about a very old court case where TPB then was different from TPB now, at least in several technical areas) - let alone that Google and TPB are to be deemed essentially equivalent in these matters.
[citation needed]
And by that I mean... pray tell, what were your search terms?
The "we even" makes it sound like you think it's a bad thing, when in reality this is a good thing.
Most of the opponents of speed cameras cite as reasons:
'Trajectcontroles' - speed checks based on average speed over distance - do away with all of these concerns.
However, they do nothing about the quintessential "I was only going 5km/h over!" complaint, which disregards standard margins, overly cautious error corrections, etc. that eventually lead up to actually having gone more than 10km/h over - nor anything about the "but that road should really be 160km/h anyway!" excuse - nor the "$#@&*(@! they caught me!" frustration, which tend to be the underlying reasons for not wanting speed cameras in the first place.
I already posted in this thread, but consider this a "it's the idea that counts" upmod.
It was the same with levies on certain electronic goods in NL. They put a levy on it, but at 0%, while industry would figure out how to change their business models, make better alternatives, etc. before downloading would be ruled illegal - or the levy system would continue.
Having that 0% levy in place makes it a lot easier to increase that to n%, than having to negotiate the levy in the current climate in the first place.
That's not enforcing rights - that's changing a business model. I guess in a way you could argue that one leads to the other, but only if you accept that simply placing every bit of new content that copyright holder creates in the public domain leads to enforcing the copyrights - by simply having done away with them.
Hypothetically speaking, let's assume you do NOT pirate movies with a far more streamlined setup (a mediaplayer box running e.g couchpotato and XBMC that's hooked up straight to your TV, perhaps even with a streaming-supported client if you have the bandwidth) than the mess you described, and it would be there.
Instead, let's assume you pay the $8/month for Netflix and let's also assume that the movie were actually there. Now how many other movies are you going to watch in that same month that is covered by the same $8? How about TV shows? That $8 times a bunch of subscribers is going to get divided up according to how much of the content watched in total was actually that movie (assuming that's the deal that was made - Netflix's licensing from content companies is a nightmare).
Now what if instead you had bought the $15 (and I'm being generous with the price here - new releases are typically more than that) Blu-Ray? And not only you, but N people?
I'm sure you can figure out the spreadsheet, but it comes down to the fact that right now, there's simply more money in selling those blu-rays (and DVDs) than they would gain from (additionally) making it available on NetFlix the same day. The tipping point will come - it's just not here yet.
Oh don't worry, he'll be gone in a few years and then we can see what $FutureGuy's vision of the future is. The reactions are predictable regardless of who gets elected.. either they're just continuing the policy, or they have to deal with $PastGuy's policy and are finding it difficult to clean up. ( That swings both ways. ) The only constant is having $PresentGuy to blame for all the problems.
It's kind of funny that way. On the one hand people are saying that copyright infringement is a private affair and the government should butt out - and certainly not devote a bunch of police work to it. On the other hand, people start complaining when private businesses do start taking action to enforce their copyrights.
( Mind you, since some say the government is bought by corporations anyway, the distinction might be moot. )
Since you seem to be railing against the latter, are you saying that e.g. the police should be actively looking for copyright infringement and bring down to bear all of the privileges granted unto them in this endeavor?