Microsoft has never been a cool brand to the "unwashed masses"
Microsoft also is too dependent on their monopoly of the desktop. And the reason why this came to be is that the same "unwashed masses" didn't really differentiate between the OS and the computer. I would propose that many non-technical people (the majority who use PCs) don't understand that you can install a different OS.
Microsoft also has a problem with branding. Look at MSN Passport, Windows Live,.NET. This is because Microsoft has been too comfortable being the guy behind the curtain, merely being responsible for providing the "software" platform (and wanting to be powerful enough to be able to dictate the minimum requirements of that platform), and letting the hardware manufacturers be the customer facing front lines. Microsoft's real customers for the longest time have been the OEMs. This worked great for the PC industry since no one really owns the platform, but the mobile network carriers, who exerted a lot of control over all mobile platforms until the iPhone, didn't really put up with it to the extent Microsoft would have preferred.
Microsoft doesn't know what to do now and really doesn't know how to act any other way. They are very used to dictating terms to OEMs. Hard to say this will be their downfall since they have so much money.
Actually, he does. Of course, he may get sued, or jailed. But he can choose to disobey the law. That's the reason why "willfully" appears in the text of many laws.
I won't believe that support for sample rates that can record frequency ranges above 20KHz are for any other reason than to embed watermarking data streams in the inaudible ranges - think something like Cinava. Same thing with any color depth over 24 bit.
Disclaimer: The above is a joke.
But maybe I really want to record a song with parts listenable only by my dog or pet bats.
Copying a song is not theft. Theft means a person is deprived of the object that is stolen. Copying does not deprive the original person, or original creator of the song anything.
Copying a song does not equal a lost sale. You do not know if a person would have bought a song until you have the money in your hand. An artist is arrogant and wishfully thinking when saying a each download equals a lost sale.
Refusing to give someone money because they did something they consider work is not punishment, is not harsh, is not harming them, and is not wrong. There are millions of people each day, many much more insanely productive than I, that I don't give money to. There are several concerts going on in my city each weekend. Am I stealing from these artists because I won't give them money, just because they did work? Performance of a work itself in and of itself is not an automatic right to receive payment.
Now, if I agree specifically beforehand that the artist is to do work FOR me, and then I don't pay him, then I see the wrong. Just like if I go to work today, do the work I'm expected and have agreed to beforehand, and don't receive payment, then that's wrong.
I don't hate artists, but they don't deserve special entitlement, especially where laws are made causing my Internet connection to be spied upon and an inability to use fully devices I own.
The proper way an artist should make money is through comissioning work for specific people who want a specific thing from that artist. Only then will I accept that a person "owns" a work of art - he/she paid the artist to do it for him or her and no one else. The notion that artists should "produce" as much as possible a la assembly line style for faceless public consumption is bad, impersonal, and the reason why music sucks, movies suck and everything entertainment pretty much tends to suck.
Hollywood pisses me off. The maintenance worker who keeps the bathrooms clean at a Wal-Mart, a place where I buy things necessary to live,m in my opinion is more important to society as whole than the entirety of everything Hollywood has ever produced. And who gets paid more?
So for artists, movie producers, etc. to wail and whine about lost profits, as if what they do is so important that I can't survive without it, to me it's like, if you don't like it, take your snobby privileged ass and find a real job involving real work or producing real things.
I'm not saying artists are worthless, but if I have to choose between freedom and Hollywood, I'm not choosing Hollywood.
No, but copying things that aren't really "ownable" except when a massive effort to create artificial scarcity by crippling technology, surveiling internet users, and ruining lives with disproportionate damages isn't the same as "taking" them.
If an artist does not want his work copied then he/she should not release it in a copyable form. Period. Don't want other people to hear your work? Don't record it.
No, but maybe my basic human right to speak and assemble (including by proxy using electronic means such as the Internet) should not be trumped by
- artists thinking that they deserve a royalty check every time someone in public experiences someone playing their work
- artists trying to tell me what I can do with personal property I own after I've bought it
- artists trying to turn one-time transactions into eternal sources of rent (you can work like the rest of us)
- such a system necessary to make any of that happen to any degree, including the use of corporations, industry associations, laws, and government agencies.
It really would not be a big deal if copyright infringement penalties were reasonable and copyright terms were also reasonable.
It assumes that everyone who downloaded the files without paying the original artist would have paid the original artist if they did not download *a copy* of the performance. Without knowing that for certain you cannot make the argument that the original artist has been deprived of anything. Only if you got downloaders to admit their intent, or otherwise discover it, that they would have paid money to the original artist if they could not download it, would terming it theft be appropriate. Downloading in and of itself is not an indication of such intent. Many may have decided to spend their limited income on other things and forgo attempting to acquire that recording entirely, OR possibly have bought it cheaper from a second hand source.
Seriously, these days there's a plethora of keyboards and mice available in any department store, or online, and they are all USB. I'm a full proponent of BYODID (bring your own damn input devices) and UBI-URI-ALMTHA (you break it, you replace it, and leave me the hell alone).
Didn't Sony have an "ATRAC3" player or some other bullshit that required it's own software to work with around that time too? I also remember my ancient (1998?) Creative Nomad II (32MB internal memory, also took a SmartMedia card) requiring a proprietary app to upload to the internal memory.
You must not only refuse to buy the product you are boycotting, but also communicate to public or important people why you are not buying the product.
The next $1,000+ purchase electronics item I make, I want to do this. Hopefully I remember when the time comes around:
- Take out cash for said item - When paying for item, see if I can get a picture of me handing the cash over to the cashier, with the brand name (which won't be Sony), visible in the picture. - Write a *handwritten* letter to Sony's CEO, saying "Because of your past antics, this is exactly how much money you lost from me. I hope it was worth it to you. I will continue to update you with real-life examples of how your anti-consumer policies are directly costing you, your company and your employees." - Possibly make a big self-centered deal about it on social networks and such
I wasn't clear if, when your account is flagged for a notice, if Comcast's DNS hijacks you or if they do indeed do what bzipitidoo does. I haven't used Comcast's DNS servers in years.
Well, if DNS resolutions still work through this captive portal (even if you can't get to the destination IP), there's always iodine (http://code.kryo.se/iodine/) - assuming you have a remote system to tunnel through.
While it may take many years, seeing how emulator developers figured just about everything regarding obscure, nonstandard, and often undocumented hardware that's in arcade machines and video game systems (even going so far as to dump the NES's lockout chip with an electron microscope and reverse engineer the custom CPU in it) does not convince me that hardware anything, especially if it becomes widespread, is unhackable.
I think I have a better chance of knowing things are secure with Truecrypt than some hardware implementation that I can never see.
You are correct, to really trust your own compiler you do have to compile your compiler from source.
Well, it'd be better if they could integrate quantum randomness into all encryption devices (http://qrbg.irb.hr/) but my understanding was that the least significant bits of most cheap ADCs are really noisy and effectively random.
- A lot of the older Sprint feature phones by LG are pure shit. The Rumor, the LX160, and others. The Rumor, Sprint's first feature phone with a slide-out keyboard, had numerous firmware updates to correct issues, including one where if you hit the wrong combination of keys the phone's memory would be zapped to the point where it would not know it's ESN and could not make a phone call. I hated LG for a long time after seeing that phone.
- I have an LG Intuition (massive screen) and I like it a lot. Hasn't given me problems that I haven't caused - i.e. I've rooted it, and seems to crash when I run X natively with too many processes... I use it pretty heavily.
Slashdot Mirror
This.
Microsoft has never been a cool brand to the "unwashed masses"
Microsoft also is too dependent on their monopoly of the desktop. And the reason why this came to be is that the same "unwashed masses" didn't really differentiate between the OS and the computer. I would propose that many non-technical people (the majority who use PCs) don't understand that you can install a different OS.
Microsoft also has a problem with branding. Look at MSN Passport, Windows Live, .NET. This is because Microsoft has been too comfortable being the guy behind the curtain, merely being responsible for providing the "software" platform (and wanting to be powerful enough to be able to dictate the minimum requirements of that platform), and letting the hardware manufacturers be the customer facing front lines. Microsoft's real customers for the longest time have been the OEMs. This worked great for the PC industry since no one really owns the platform, but the mobile network carriers, who exerted a lot of control over all mobile platforms until the iPhone, didn't really put up with it to the extent Microsoft would have preferred.
Microsoft doesn't know what to do now and really doesn't know how to act any other way. They are very used to dictating terms to OEMs. Hard to say this will be their downfall since they have so much money.
What about
- HPA
- DCO
- possible remnants of data in the drive's cache RAM
Actually, he does. Of course, he may get sued, or jailed. But he can choose to disobey the law. That's the reason why "willfully" appears in the text of many laws.
I won't believe that support for sample rates that can record frequency ranges above 20KHz are for any other reason than to embed watermarking data streams in the inaudible ranges - think something like Cinava. Same thing with any color depth over 24 bit.
Disclaimer: The above is a joke.
But maybe I really want to record a song with parts listenable only by my dog or pet bats.
Copying a song is not theft. Theft means a person is deprived of the object that is stolen. Copying does not deprive the original person, or original creator of the song anything.
Copying a song does not equal a lost sale. You do not know if a person would have bought a song until you have the money in your hand. An artist is arrogant and wishfully thinking when saying a each download equals a lost sale.
Refusing to give someone money because they did something they consider work is not punishment, is not harsh, is not harming them, and is not wrong. There are millions of people each day, many much more insanely productive than I, that I don't give money to. There are several concerts going on in my city each weekend. Am I stealing from these artists because I won't give them money, just because they did work? Performance of a work itself in and of itself is not an automatic right to receive payment.
Now, if I agree specifically beforehand that the artist is to do work FOR me, and then I don't pay him, then I see the wrong. Just like if I go to work today, do the work I'm expected and have agreed to beforehand, and don't receive payment, then that's wrong.
WinFS?
I don't hate artists, but they don't deserve special entitlement, especially where laws are made causing my Internet connection to be spied upon and an inability to use fully devices I own.
The proper way an artist should make money is through comissioning work for specific people who want a specific thing from that artist. Only then will I accept that a person "owns" a work of art - he/she paid the artist to do it for him or her and no one else. The notion that artists should "produce" as much as possible a la assembly line style for faceless public consumption is bad, impersonal, and the reason why music sucks, movies suck and everything entertainment pretty much tends to suck.
Hollywood pisses me off. The maintenance worker who keeps the bathrooms clean at a Wal-Mart, a place where I buy things necessary to live,m in my opinion is more important to society as whole than the entirety of everything Hollywood has ever produced. And who gets paid more?
So for artists, movie producers, etc. to wail and whine about lost profits, as if what they do is so important that I can't survive without it, to me it's like, if you don't like it, take your snobby privileged ass and find a real job involving real work or producing real things.
I'm not saying artists are worthless, but if I have to choose between freedom and Hollywood, I'm not choosing Hollywood.
Meth is a green leafy vegetable so that is definitely a healthy plan.
Oh wait ...
No, but copying things that aren't really "ownable" except when a massive effort to create artificial scarcity by crippling technology, surveiling internet users, and ruining lives with disproportionate damages isn't the same as "taking" them.
If an artist does not want his work copied then he/she should not release it in a copyable form. Period. Don't want other people to hear your work? Don't record it.
No, but maybe my basic human right to speak and assemble (including by proxy using electronic means such as the Internet) should not be trumped by
- artists thinking that they deserve a royalty check every time someone in public experiences someone playing their work
- artists trying to tell me what I can do with personal property I own after I've bought it
- artists trying to turn one-time transactions into eternal sources of rent (you can work like the rest of us)
- such a system necessary to make any of that happen to any degree, including the use of corporations, industry associations, laws, and government agencies.
It really would not be a big deal if copyright infringement penalties were reasonable and copyright terms were also reasonable.
Your argument is invalid.
It assumes that everyone who downloaded the files without paying the original artist would have paid the original artist if they did not download *a copy* of the performance. Without knowing that for certain you cannot make the argument that the original artist has been deprived of anything. Only if you got downloaders to admit their intent, or otherwise discover it, that they would have paid money to the original artist if they could not download it, would terming it theft be appropriate. Downloading in and of itself is not an indication of such intent. Many may have decided to spend their limited income on other things and forgo attempting to acquire that recording entirely, OR possibly have bought it cheaper from a second hand source.
Seriously, these days there's a plethora of keyboards and mice available in any department store, or online, and they are all USB. I'm a full proponent of BYODID (bring your own damn input devices) and UBI-URI-ALMTHA (you break it, you replace it, and leave me the hell alone).
Beating a dead horse 640 times should be enough for everyone.
I run ledd on my Linux box and have it blink whenever I need to compile something, you insensitive clod!
Didn't Sony have an "ATRAC3" player or some other bullshit that required it's own software to work with around that time too? I also remember my ancient (1998?) Creative Nomad II (32MB internal memory, also took a SmartMedia card) requiring a proprietary app to upload to the internal memory.
I thought some if not most flash chips had to be written in "pages", i.e. 2kb pages per 128kb eraseblock.
Look into kexec. I think it can be used to reboot your system even if your current kernel is hung.
You calling ext3/ext4 shitty? I can put the journal on a separate device for performance enhancement, can NTFS do that?
In all serious though NTFS is well engineered.
Neglected to mention that I would include the picture with the letter, if it wasn't obvious.
You must not only refuse to buy the product you are boycotting, but also communicate to public or important people why you are not buying the product.
The next $1,000+ purchase electronics item I make, I want to do this. Hopefully I remember when the time comes around:
- Take out cash for said item
- When paying for item, see if I can get a picture of me handing the cash over to the cashier, with the brand name (which won't be Sony), visible in the picture.
- Write a *handwritten* letter to Sony's CEO, saying "Because of your past antics, this is exactly how much money you lost from me. I hope it was worth it to you. I will continue to update you with real-life examples of how your anti-consumer policies are directly costing you, your company and your employees."
- Possibly make a big self-centered deal about it on social networks and such
I wasn't clear if, when your account is flagged for a notice, if Comcast's DNS hijacks you or if they do indeed do what bzipitidoo does. I haven't used Comcast's DNS servers in years.
Well, if DNS resolutions still work through this captive portal (even if you can't get to the destination IP), there's always iodine (http://code.kryo.se/iodine/) - assuming you have a remote system to tunnel through.
Again, DNS over Tor.
OpenDNS takes queries on 5353, tcp and udp. Also you could do all your DNS queries over Tor.
While it may take many years, seeing how emulator developers figured just about everything regarding obscure, nonstandard, and often undocumented hardware that's in arcade machines and video game systems (even going so far as to dump the NES's lockout chip with an electron microscope and reverse engineer the custom CPU in it) does not convince me that hardware anything, especially if it becomes widespread, is unhackable.
I think I have a better chance of knowing things are secure with Truecrypt than some hardware implementation that I can never see.
You are correct, to really trust your own compiler you do have to compile your compiler from source.
Well, it'd be better if they could integrate quantum randomness into all encryption devices (http://qrbg.irb.hr/) but my understanding was that the least significant bits of most cheap ADCs are really noisy and effectively random.
My experience with LG and phones has been:
- A lot of the older Sprint feature phones by LG are pure shit. The Rumor, the LX160, and others. The Rumor, Sprint's first feature phone with a slide-out keyboard, had numerous firmware updates to correct issues, including one where if you hit the wrong combination of keys the phone's memory would be zapped to the point where it would not know it's ESN and could not make a phone call. I hated LG for a long time after seeing that phone.
- I have an LG Intuition (massive screen) and I like it a lot. Hasn't given me problems that I haven't caused - i.e. I've rooted it, and seems to crash when I run X natively with too many processes ... I use it pretty heavily.