While this wouldn't happen for a while due to deals with others, like Google, to distribute AP content for free, even considering this is a massive step in the wrong direction.
Better:
While this wouldn't happen for a while, due to deals with others like Google to distribute AP content for free, to even consider this is a massive step in the wrong direction.
While I'm nitpicking, "Associate Press Considers Charging for Content" or would have been a better headline than "AP Considers Making Content Require Payment." The "content" is not requiring payment, the Associated Press is. Even "Associated Press Considers Requiring Payment for Content" would have been better, but a bit long.
I get your point, but I really think you have things backwards. Sure, you don't want to spend your life tilting at windmills, unless that's what turns your crank of course. But if you are not willing to take a stand against the encroachment on your liberties - even under threat of incarceration - you may find yourself no longer able to enjoy your finite time on this planet regardless.
As for your statement "there's not the remotest indication that anybody spending any time in jail over this would make any difference to lawmakers," it could have the effect of shining a light on the injustice you are suffering, resulting in pressure on the "lawmakers" to change. Nelson Mandela managed to make a huge impact on the state of liberty in his country during the 27 years he spent in jail. That's perhaps not the best analogy, but the point is speaking out while you still can is the only way you can directly influence whether or not you are permitted to speak out in the future.
I know our local phone carrier offers a service where you can block calls from callers who block caller ID. This makes the most sense, because it the caller a simple choice. If you want to call me, unblock your number. If you are not willing to do that, I'm not willing to take your call.
I suppose this service would be useful to people who's phone carriers do not offer that service, but I'd be surprised to find this is the case.
Yeah, but you don't need to spend $500.00 to do that, a bittorrent client and newsgroup reader will suffice.
I was still in the process of waking up when I posted that comment, and didn't think about OTA content available to residences of most large US cities. That's why I didn't understand how what sounds basically like a fancy PVR (or whatever you want to call it) would help people ditch cable. I suppose if it integrates with Hulu and Netflix and whatever else, it's more convenient, but again I can simply stream media from my file server if I'm just interested in watching content I downloaded from the Internet.
Right. I keep forgetting many people in the US get programming OTA. Most people get their basic programming as well as "premium" services via "cable" where I'm from. I shouldn't post before coffee;)
I can't read the article, so I'll ask you. How does this free you from cable? Maybe if all you do is watch movies, but if you want to watch TV you would still need to connect something to the tuner on this thing.
No! You are, in fact, wrong. Circumvention is not illegal, but distributing circumvention tools is.
Are you sure about that? Because I have followed issues with the DMCA for years, and my understanding has always been that circumvention is prohibited. In fact, the very first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry for the DMCA state this explicitly:
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as Digital Rights Management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works and it also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself.
On what are you basing your belief that the act of circumvention itself is not prohibited?
Yes, we all hate the DMCA, but I don't think a court has ruled on whether it is illegal to take DRM off of a legally purchased file. Remember, the law is what the courts say it is, not what the legislatures say it is.
Well the courts have certainly ruled that it is illegal to even link to a program that is capable of taking the DRM off a legally purchased file, so I wouldn't press the point unless you can afford a legal battle and the fines that result.
I don't disagree with a lot of what you said, and I don't think I said anything in the numerous posts I've made on this subject about it being a "crime" that Google's update utility runs on it's own schedule, or updates programs that you didn't explicitly choose to update, or that if you uninstall it, it will reinstall itself the next time you run the application. If any of that were a crime, I'm sure it would be a crime to install a piece of software without the user's consent or knowledge when they think they're just playing a CD.
I also don't think I said that I should be compensated by Google if I find Google Earth in some way lacking, as you window example suggests. The fact that I didn't pay for Google Earth isn't relevant; if I gave you a "free" doughnut laced with arsenic would that be okay?
The only thing I've taken issue with is this attitude that "if you don't like it, just don't use it."
Yeah, that's great, nobody put a gun to my head and forced me to install Google Earth. But does that really mean anything goes on their part? When Microsoft successfully killed off the browser competition, then let IE stagnate until it was so insecure that any machine running it was likely ridden with viruses and malware, was society served? You didn't "pay" for Internet Explorer, but does that make my life better because you machine is scanning mine for open ports?
But sure, don't use Google Earth if you don't agree with the them being coy about the behavior of their update tool.
Why are people agreeing to a message they don't understand? Would you sign a contract you are having difficulty reading?
An "uninformative message that does not really explain what is about to happen" is not the same thing as "a message they don't understand."
The point was that the message did not convey the fact that the software would be doing the things described in the article. Your argument is either a straw man, or you didn't think that through very well.
There are several ways of refuting an argument without falling into the fallacy trap
Including - apparently - simply pronouncing the other person's comment as "illogical" without offering anything to support your opinion, or countering that person's comment in any meaningful way.
Even people who don't have formal logic skills can see the inherent flaw in your argument
Setting aside for the moment your lack of formal logic skills, I wasn't comparing "a serious health hazard with an automatic software updater," I was simply pointing out that taking the attitude that "if you don't like it, don't install it" doesn't actually solve the problem, which is software vendors taking liberties with our machines simply because we chose to install their product. It's sidestepping it. Maybe you can live without Google Earth, but some day a software vendor is going to pull something like this with a program you have to run, and you will not have that choice.
It's like saying "if you don't like the traffic shaping your ISP is doing, don't use them." Well, if every ISP is doing it, that amounts to no choice at all. If you're happy to roll over and take that, fine for you.
"Gee dear, should we just never buy any toys for our baby?"
"I don't know honey bun, perhaps we should just not buy a ChinaCo brand toy."
"Well, farty pants, it appears that - in addition to ChinaCo brand toys - we also have to worry about toys sold with the Fisher Price and Mattel brands, as well as toys not even made in China. Maybe you should just let me make the purchasing decisions from now on.
Wow, I guess you don't know how to read: "So don't install Google Earth."
i.e. don't install it to begin with
So are you just not ever going to install anything on your computer? Or did you not bother to read the part that said:
The user is greeted with an uninformative message that does not really explain what is about to happen
Would you tell someone finds out the toys his kid has been playing with were painted with lead-based paints "just don't buy your kid any toys and you'll be okay?" Or do you think that when we find out someone is doing something that is just plain unacceptable, we should shine a light on that behavior and motivate them to smarten up?
It might come as a surprise, but the Rest of the World builds houses and bakes cakes in metric, too
It might come as a surprise, but there are places in Other Parts of the World who share a trading relationship with the United States, and so are affected by the fact that the United States hasn't adopted the metric system. Lumber is sold as "2X4s", for example, and drywall is sold in 4X8 foot sheets, despite the fact that the country I live in adopted the metric system in the 1970s. That's why I said in my initial comment "The switch to metric worked just fine for the countries that did it," and that "any confusion that exists is a result of the fact that some countries have chosen to hold out." If you live in a country that isn't so affected, good for you.
As for your "It might come as a surprise, but there are places in Other Parts of the World..." remark, get the fuck over yourself. Nothing I said implied that the situation in my country is typical of the rest of the world. Try reading first, before you make condescending remarks, and try looking beyond your own borders. There's more out there than your own little corner of the globe.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux has been ready for the desktop for years. It's just that certain users are not yet ready for Linux.
I was going to suggest they invest $18.95 in an Associated Press Stylebook, but thought better of it.
Confusing:
Better:
While I'm nitpicking, "Associate Press Considers Charging for Content" or would have been a better headline than "AP Considers Making Content Require Payment." The "content" is not requiring payment, the Associated Press is. Even "Associated Press Considers Requiring Payment for Content" would have been better, but a bit long.
I get your point, but I really think you have things backwards. Sure, you don't want to spend your life tilting at windmills, unless that's what turns your crank of course. But if you are not willing to take a stand against the encroachment on your liberties - even under threat of incarceration - you may find yourself no longer able to enjoy your finite time on this planet regardless.
As for your statement "there's not the remotest indication that anybody spending any time in jail over this would make any difference to lawmakers," it could have the effect of shining a light on the injustice you are suffering, resulting in pressure on the "lawmakers" to change. Nelson Mandela managed to make a huge impact on the state of liberty in his country during the 27 years he spent in jail. That's perhaps not the best analogy, but the point is speaking out while you still can is the only way you can directly influence whether or not you are permitted to speak out in the future.
Without liberty, you may not have a life or a future, dude.
I know our local phone carrier offers a service where you can block calls from callers who block caller ID. This makes the most sense, because it the caller a simple choice. If you want to call me, unblock your number. If you are not willing to do that, I'm not willing to take your call.
I suppose this service would be useful to people who's phone carriers do not offer that service, but I'd be surprised to find this is the case.
But you gotta love that mic stand H.R. Giger created for Jonathan Davis.
Yeah, but you don't need to spend $500.00 to do that, a bittorrent client and newsgroup reader will suffice.
I was still in the process of waking up when I posted that comment, and didn't think about OTA content available to residences of most large US cities. That's why I didn't understand how what sounds basically like a fancy PVR (or whatever you want to call it) would help people ditch cable. I suppose if it integrates with Hulu and Netflix and whatever else, it's more convenient, but again I can simply stream media from my file server if I'm just interested in watching content I downloaded from the Internet.
Right. I keep forgetting many people in the US get programming OTA. Most people get their basic programming as well as "premium" services via "cable" where I'm from. I shouldn't post before coffee ;)
That's nothing. Think about how long some people have been mispronouncing "Linux."
I can't read the article, so I'll ask you. How does this free you from cable? Maybe if all you do is watch movies, but if you want to watch TV you would still need to connect something to the tuner on this thing.
Are you sure about that? Because I have followed issues with the DMCA for years, and my understanding has always been that circumvention is prohibited. In fact, the very first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry for the DMCA state this explicitly:
On what are you basing your belief that the act of circumvention itself is not prohibited?
Well the courts have certainly ruled that it is illegal to even link to a program that is capable of taking the DRM off a legally purchased file, so I wouldn't press the point unless you can afford a legal battle and the fines that result.
No problem. Thanks for the civil discourse.
I guess I'm not a fart smeller ;)
I don't disagree with a lot of what you said, and I don't think I said anything in the numerous posts I've made on this subject about it being a "crime" that Google's update utility runs on it's own schedule, or updates programs that you didn't explicitly choose to update, or that if you uninstall it, it will reinstall itself the next time you run the application. If any of that were a crime, I'm sure it would be a crime to install a piece of software without the user's consent or knowledge when they think they're just playing a CD.
I also don't think I said that I should be compensated by Google if I find Google Earth in some way lacking, as you window example suggests. The fact that I didn't pay for Google Earth isn't relevant; if I gave you a "free" doughnut laced with arsenic would that be okay?
The only thing I've taken issue with is this attitude that "if you don't like it, just don't use it."
Yeah, that's great, nobody put a gun to my head and forced me to install Google Earth. But does that really mean anything goes on their part? When Microsoft successfully killed off the browser competition, then let IE stagnate until it was so insecure that any machine running it was likely ridden with viruses and malware, was society served? You didn't "pay" for Internet Explorer, but does that make my life better because you machine is scanning mine for open ports?
But sure, don't use Google Earth if you don't agree with the them being coy about the behavior of their update tool.
An "uninformative message that does not really explain what is about to happen" is not the same thing as "a message they don't understand."
The point was that the message did not convey the fact that the software would be doing the things described in the article. Your argument is either a straw man, or you didn't think that through very well.
Including - apparently - simply pronouncing the other person's comment as "illogical" without offering anything to support your opinion, or countering that person's comment in any meaningful way.
Setting aside for the moment your lack of formal logic skills, I wasn't comparing "a serious health hazard with an automatic software updater," I was simply pointing out that taking the attitude that "if you don't like it, don't install it" doesn't actually solve the problem, which is software vendors taking liberties with our machines simply because we chose to install their product. It's sidestepping it. Maybe you can live without Google Earth, but some day a software vendor is going to pull something like this with a program you have to run, and you will not have that choice.
It's like saying "if you don't like the traffic shaping your ISP is doing, don't use them." Well, if every ISP is doing it, that amounts to no choice at all. If you're happy to roll over and take that, fine for you.
"Well, farty pants, it appears that - in addition to ChinaCo brand toys - we also have to worry about toys sold with the Fisher Price and Mattel brands, as well as toys not even made in China. Maybe you should just let me make the purchasing decisions from now on.
So are you just not ever going to install anything on your computer? Or did you not bother to read the part that said:
Would you tell someone finds out the toys his kid has been playing with were painted with lead-based paints "just don't buy your kid any toys and you'll be okay?" Or do you think that when we find out someone is doing something that is just plain unacceptable, we should shine a light on that behavior and motivate them to smarten up?
Don't forget On the Buses, Benny Hill, The Two Ronnies and Are You Being Served.
Okay, I was kidding about The Two Ronnies.
Oh look, this isn't an argument. It's just contradiction.
Me too. Wanna go halfers on 1000 CAPTCHAs?
Yes, thank you IBM for using off-the-shelf parts to save money. It made it possible for a lot of us to do the same thing and assemble our own systems.
It might come as a surprise, but there are places in Other Parts of the World who share a trading relationship with the United States, and so are affected by the fact that the United States hasn't adopted the metric system. Lumber is sold as "2X4s", for example, and drywall is sold in 4X8 foot sheets, despite the fact that the country I live in adopted the metric system in the 1970s. That's why I said in my initial comment "The switch to metric worked just fine for the countries that did it," and that "any confusion that exists is a result of the fact that some countries have chosen to hold out." If you live in a country that isn't so affected, good for you.
As for your "It might come as a surprise, but there are places in Other Parts of the World ..." remark, get the fuck over yourself. Nothing I said implied that the situation in my country is typical of the rest of the world. Try reading first, before you make condescending remarks, and try looking beyond your own borders. There's more out there than your own little corner of the globe.