The article reads like something from The Onion, not The Washington Post!
Lines like "$200-million-per-copy stealth fighter", "the F/A-22 is the absolute most-awesome killing machine I have ever, ever flown", "any other free world fighter", "14 minutes per flight rebooting mission critical computer systems", "the 'let's go kill people' software", and "kill somebody and stay alive and execute your mission" were cracking me up.
Are you sure this article isn't really from The Onion? They have some pretty imaginative writers.
The U.S. is one of the very few countries that has not adopted the metric system. Hell, even England finally switched to metric.
The argument is that the economy would take a hit because of the conversion costs.
The question is: how much economic damage will the U.S. suffer by not adopting metric, IPv6, or other standards, along with the rest of the world? Of course, the damage caused by not converting (or deferring conversion) is long-term, and U.S. CEO's only think three months ahead.
The words "Digital Rights Management" impose the wrong feeling on people in the first place. It sounds more like it's empowering the user, when instead it's empowering the media corporations.
DRM is correctly expanded as Digital Restrictions Management. It is how the rights holder restricts your access to and usage of media.
As the poster you quote, I will tell you that I live in California.
I have a GSM-only phone on AT&T's mMode. I tried T-Mobile first, but it had no signal at my home, which is in the midst of a dense urban area, and only a short distance from the T-Mobile store. There is no signal for my entire block!
Needless to say, T-Mobile's coverage is extremely poor. AT&T, in my area, is better, but still spotty. And if you travel away from major cities or Interstate highways, there is nothing! If I drive to Mammoth to ski, there is no signal for the last 150 miles of highway, and none in town. (But TDMA phones work.)
On the other hand, I used this GSM phone in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. It got a signal in all but the most remote spots, and it even got a signal in some of those places. Why? Because they use one standard. (China Unicom is using CDMA, but many people told me that Unicom's coverage is as bad as GSM is in the States.)
My friends have taken GSM phones to Europe, and had total coverage.
So yeah, we have GSM/GPRS in the U.S., but the coverage sucks! I just hope that AT&T, T-Mobile, and whoever else will eventually roll out enough coverage to rival Europe and Asia. It is pretty embarrassing to be technologically inferior to third-world countries like Cambodia!
It might be due similar reasons why the Mobile Phone systems in Europe and Japan are so much better than in North America.
In Europe, everyone decided to standardize on GSM for mobile phones. Then, they could focus on providing excellent service and services, instead of fighting over the "basics". They can move their infrastructure forward, instead of reinventing the wheel.
In North America, the mobile providers picked different, incompatible technologies (even within the same company/network!). The idea was to foster competition and innovation. Instead, the whole thing has resulted in an annoying mess, and the customers have suffered.
Europe still has a lot of competition in the mobile phone space, but it is based on open standards.
The same situation happens with the "landline" phone companies. There is a lot of different technology out there, and a lot of "bridges" to glue networks together. Probably the only reason the networks interoperate at all is that they are built on top of a national infrastructure that was laid out before deregulation caused so much fragmentation.
With a more uniform technology base, it would be possible to roll out new services cheaply and efficiently.
You just have to be careful that the whole system doesn't stagnate because the standards are not flexible enough to move into the future, or that one company controls the whole thing, and it is too fat and happy to make progress.
NTT, in Japan, probably has a nice infrastructure that allowed this network to be built. They probably learned their lessons from the Japanese TV and electricity fiascos (they have both PAL and NTSC TV systems, and both 110 and 220 volt power)!
Let's see, TicketBastard (TM) is already adding their 100% service charge (sorry, "convenience fee") onto ticket prices. Mebbe the record companies can double the ticket prices once more!
Consumer Electronics devices are becoming more powerful. It will be nice to use Open Standards to make them interoperate with each other.
Using Linux make these devices more "hackable" (like TiVo).
Unfortunately, the demands of content providers (including Sony) for Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) might make openness and iteroperability disappear. If there is a common platform for DRM, the devices are more likely to play well together than if everyone chooses a different OS and DRM.
So did many other companies. M$ was not first. Plus, there was not much "company" to bet, at that time. Microsoft's only innovation, at this time, was in getting PC manufacturers to agree to an illegal licensing scheme.
BG: We bet on graphical user interface.
After Apple showed the way, and proved the market.
BG: We bet on the NT technology base.
Just adding features long present in Unix and other operating systems.
BG: Now we're in the process of betting on a combination of technologies called.Net
Following Java's lead.
Microsoft: we innovate by marketing technologies invented by others.
The EFF site states in bold that: "copyright law currently is broken". But in the area of file sharing and Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), the real problem is that there is no good system in place that matches copyright law. Copyright Law provides a nice mixture of benefits to both the copyright holder, and the purchaser of copyrighted material (ie. Fair Use Rights).
File sharing permits too much freedom to copy and distribute material - far beyond Fair Usage.
DRM schemes tend to eliminate all Fair Use Rights.
(The solution that seems closest to achieving fairness for both parties is Apple's iTunes store.)
Does this mean that we should amend Copyright Law to match the current state of things? If so, which way do we bend: eliminate Fair Use; or make the Copyright Holder's rights minimal?
(There are other aspects of Copyright Law which are bending the wrong way. The life span of copyright is being extended due to lobbying by Disney and others. But that's another matter.)
If a parasite feeds on its host too fiercely, both will die. You decide who is the parasite.
The problem is that, right now, the Digital Restrictions Management schemes are stacked in favor of the media "owners". Most schemes restrict your rights, as the "consumer", far more than Copyright Law stipulates.
No DRM scheme specifies any "fair use" guarantees to the consumer.
There is no law that guarantees the consumer's fair use rights.
If I feel that some media or player has the potential to "rip me off" by restricting my fair use rights, I will avoid it. I don't want to pay for a song or movie, and then be restricted from using it in a reasonable fashion.
Since all current Digital Restrictions Management schemes do not guarantee my fair use rights, I will not subscribe to any of them. I would rather "go without" the media than put up with this crap.
It is true that, by the end of OS9, Apple had refined the user interface very well. It "drove" like a sports car, giving excellent feedback about what was happening. To an experienced user, it was fast, efficient, and transparent.
A lot of that was lost in the transition to Aqua. Some of it is slowly being reincorporated. Aqua also has some new ideas (like "sheets") that are better than OS9 (modal dialogues).
I have heard that "brushed metal" is Jobs' obsession. To me, it is a step backward in usability, and I don't even think it looks good, either.
Slashdot Mirror
Trustworthy Computing has nothing to do with you trusting your computer or operating system!
Trustworthy Computing is about whether the operating system, vendor, media companies, etc. can trust YOU!
Is this related to "Bent Bishop puts Episcopalian Church at Risk?"
Are networks prejudiced to "straight" fibers? Will there be protests?
Well, in order to claim they are "objective", the Microsoft lab will occasionally concede that Linux (or other OS) is better in some trivial way.
The article reads like something from The Onion, not The Washington Post!
Lines like "$200-million-per-copy stealth fighter", "the F/A-22 is the absolute most-awesome killing machine I have ever, ever flown", "any other free world fighter", "14 minutes per flight rebooting mission critical computer systems", "the 'let's go kill people' software", and "kill somebody and stay alive and execute your mission" were cracking me up.
Are you sure this article isn't really from The Onion? They have some pretty imaginative writers.
The U.S. is one of the very few countries that has not adopted the metric system. Hell, even England finally switched to metric.
The argument is that the economy would take a hit because of the conversion costs.
The question is: how much economic damage will the U.S. suffer by not adopting metric, IPv6, or other standards, along with the rest of the world? Of course, the damage caused by not converting (or deferring conversion) is long-term, and U.S. CEO's only think three months ahead.
Is the U.S. economy really that fragile?
Yeah, I guess you could say he was the George W. Bush of the 19th century...
Except that Abe was a successful president, and Dubya's presidency is shaping up as another failure to add to his long list.
The words "Digital Rights Management" impose the wrong feeling on people in the first place. It sounds more like it's empowering the user, when instead it's empowering the media corporations.
DRM is correctly expanded as Digital Restrictions Management. It is how the rights holder restricts your access to and usage of media.
So, how many security holes have you opened up?
People will trade convenience for quality. Up to a point, anyway.
After all, MP3 (or other lossy, high-compression music format) is lower quality than CD, but its small file size makes it more convenient.
Same is true for DivX.
How hard is it to spoof the Movielink requirements? Just have your browser identify itself as IE running on Windoze.
Chances are that the RealMedia format will run on other platforms that support RealPlayer. Does RealPlayer identify your platform?
Of course, if the pricing model stinks, then you won't want to use this service anyhow, in which case the tech requirements don't matter.
And in the time it takes Billy to IM you, how much money has he made?
Isn't this what the cops/lawyers call "entrapment"?
As the poster you quote, I will tell you that I live in California.
I have a GSM-only phone on AT&T's mMode. I tried T-Mobile first, but it had no signal at my home, which is in the midst of a dense urban area, and only a short distance from the T-Mobile store. There is no signal for my entire block!
Needless to say, T-Mobile's coverage is extremely poor. AT&T, in my area, is better, but still spotty. And if you travel away from major cities or Interstate highways, there is nothing! If I drive to Mammoth to ski, there is no signal for the last 150 miles of highway, and none in town. (But TDMA phones work.)
On the other hand, I used this GSM phone in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. It got a signal in all but the most remote spots, and it even got a signal in some of those places. Why? Because they use one standard. (China Unicom is using CDMA, but many people told me that Unicom's coverage is as bad as GSM is in the States.)
My friends have taken GSM phones to Europe, and had total coverage.
So yeah, we have GSM/GPRS in the U.S., but the coverage sucks! I just hope that AT&T, T-Mobile, and whoever else will eventually roll out enough coverage to rival Europe and Asia. It is pretty embarrassing to be technologically inferior to third-world countries like Cambodia!
It might be due similar reasons why the Mobile Phone systems in Europe and Japan are so much better than in North America.
In Europe, everyone decided to standardize on GSM for mobile phones. Then, they could focus on providing excellent service and services, instead of fighting over the "basics". They can move their infrastructure forward, instead of reinventing the wheel.
In North America, the mobile providers picked different, incompatible technologies (even within the same company/network!). The idea was to foster competition and innovation. Instead, the whole thing has resulted in an annoying mess, and the customers have suffered.
Europe still has a lot of competition in the mobile phone space, but it is based on open standards.
The same situation happens with the "landline" phone companies. There is a lot of different technology out there, and a lot of "bridges" to glue networks together. Probably the only reason the networks interoperate at all is that they are built on top of a national infrastructure that was laid out before deregulation caused so much fragmentation.
With a more uniform technology base, it would be possible to roll out new services cheaply and efficiently.
You just have to be careful that the whole system doesn't stagnate because the standards are not flexible enough to move into the future, or that one company controls the whole thing, and it is too fat and happy to make progress.
NTT, in Japan, probably has a nice infrastructure that allowed this network to be built. They probably learned their lessons from the Japanese TV and electricity fiascos (they have both PAL and NTSC TV systems, and both 110 and 220 volt power)!
Let's see, TicketBastard (TM) is already adding their 100% service charge (sorry, "convenience fee") onto ticket prices. Mebbe the record companies can double the ticket prices once more!
Unfortunately, the demands of content providers (including Sony) for Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) might make openness and iteroperability disappear. If there is a common platform for DRM, the devices are more likely to play well together than if everyone chooses a different OS and DRM.
BG: We bet on the 16-bit PC.
.Net
So did many other companies. M$ was not first. Plus, there was not much "company" to bet, at that time. Microsoft's only innovation, at this time, was in getting PC manufacturers to agree to an illegal licensing scheme.
BG: We bet on graphical user interface.
After Apple showed the way, and proved the market.
BG: We bet on the NT technology base.
Just adding features long present in Unix and other operating systems.
BG: Now we're in the process of betting on a combination of technologies called
Following Java's lead.
Microsoft: we innovate by marketing technologies invented by others.
The EFF site states in bold that: "copyright law currently is broken". But in the area of file sharing and Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), the real problem is that there is no good system in place that matches copyright law. Copyright Law provides a nice mixture of benefits to both the copyright holder, and the purchaser of copyrighted material (ie. Fair Use Rights).
File sharing permits too much freedom to copy and distribute material - far beyond Fair Usage.
DRM schemes tend to eliminate all Fair Use Rights.
(The solution that seems closest to achieving fairness for both parties is Apple's iTunes store.)
Does this mean that we should amend Copyright Law to match the current state of things? If so, which way do we bend: eliminate Fair Use; or make the Copyright Holder's rights minimal?
(There are other aspects of Copyright Law which are bending the wrong way. The life span of copyright is being extended due to lobbying by Disney and others. But that's another matter.)
If a parasite feeds on its host too fiercely, both will die. You decide who is the parasite.
So yer saying that voting for Bush was wrong? I have to agree there!
Apple is asking $3700 to add 8 GB of RAM, in the form of 8 x 1 GB sticks of PC3200.
Aftermarket RAM will probably be 1/3 of this price, or less.
No DRM scheme specifies any "fair use" guarantees to the consumer.
There is no law that guarantees the consumer's fair use rights.
Trustworthy computing is Microsoft's attempt to embed Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) into the Longhorn OS.
If I feel that some media or player has the potential to "rip me off" by restricting my fair use rights, I will avoid it. I don't want to pay for a song or movie, and then be restricted from using it in a reasonable fashion.
Since all current Digital Restrictions Management schemes do not guarantee my fair use rights, I will not subscribe to any of them. I would rather "go without" the media than put up with this crap.
It is true that, by the end of OS9, Apple had refined the user interface very well. It "drove" like a sports car, giving excellent feedback about what was happening. To an experienced user, it was fast, efficient, and transparent.
A lot of that was lost in the transition to Aqua. Some of it is slowly being reincorporated. Aqua also has some new ideas (like "sheets") that are better than OS9 (modal dialogues).
I have heard that "brushed metal" is Jobs' obsession. To me, it is a step backward in usability, and I don't even think it looks good, either.
Yes, in Cambodia and Laos, the average annual income is under $300. Buying a Lindows machine at WalMart is only a dream.