Even though this sounds like scare tactics, lets assume for a second that the RIAA could download a list of every media file on my computer. After the "OMG, that is a lot of porn!" reaction, they sort out all of my MP3s. They decide that I am a pirate because I downloaded *one* infected file from P2P. So I get some feds busting down my door and they haul me into court. They ask why I downloaded all these pirated MP3s, and I simply say "I own all of these CDs. Downloading them was faster than ripping them." "Can you produce all of these CDs?" "No sir, I am sorry to say that someone broke into my car and stole a large portion of my CD collection. Good thing I had these backup copies in MP3 format."
How do they prove that I didn't ever own these CDs? If they accuse me of something, it is up to them to prove that I am guilty. Sound like BS on my part? I honestly haven't downloaded many songs from P2P, not that much out there interests me right now. I have downloaded (or gotten from friends) MP3s of CDs/tapes/records that I used to own. If the *media* wears out or breaks, do I still have fair use rights to that music? Am I buying the music, or the media when I purchase it? Ozzy Osbourne's Tribute album to Randy Rhodes is awesome, but my tape wore out back in '88. So do I still technically own that music? Previously, there was no other way for me to get it unless I bought another copy (or if I had made a copy of the tape myself). With digital media, this is easy to do.
This is a point that I haven't seen discussed much, but a very valid point for file sharing. Of course, there is no way for me to prove that I once owned that tape. So what do we do, start saving all of our receipts? I want some of the music I used to have, and I am not about to go shell out $19 for something that I technically already own.
you may recall this earlier story about the settlement.
You may also recall that I submitted this story on Dec 17th, and it was rejected. Hey, I understand you reject a lot of submissions, but to have something like this happen burns me just a little.
I know, I am not supposed to bitch about having a submission rejected, but I am just curious how the process works. I thought I knew, but I guess I don't.
Mucking around with your engine may seem cool, but it is something that should be left to the professionals, IMO. Sure, you have the ability to do it, but do you have the know-how? Literally, one mistake and your engine can be f'd up.
On the BMW mailing lists a few years ago, there was a guy who posted often about such issues. His name is Jim Conforti, and he makes one of (if not the) top aftermarket engine chips for BMWs. We are talking uber-geek here. He is one of the most knowledgable on the subject, and had to "defend" himself several times on the list to know-nothings who were spouting off. He was a nice guy, but if you riled him he could absolutely bury you with his depth of technical knowledge. Just seeing the information that he posted to the list, and knowing that he had 1000x more in his head, I realized that engine management isn't something you should just play around with. Maybe this is just from the BMW perspective, but I'll bet it applies to any engine.
One last thing - all the high-tech tuning won't do you much good unless you have a well engineered engine to start with. I have a 1988 BMW M3. 2.3 litre 4cyl naturally aspirated, with 198 BHP. (chipped to 210) This was made in 1987 folks, and there are few cars out there today that are engineered this well. In competition the engine put out well over 300 HP, and that was without any type of forced induction. But engineering something like this isn't cheap. But I have never driven a more fun car. On the track it is simply amazing.
Sigh. Look, I mostly understand what you're trying to say here and all, but try to think like a corporation, OK? Have you ever been involved in the development of a commercial software product or service? Everything costs money. They're not restricting it to Windows and OS X. They're just not catering to Linux and BSD. There's a huge difference between the two.
No, I think you missed my point. I understand that they require parts of the product to run on Windows or whatever OS they want. That is part of the PRODUCT. Their SERVICE is web based, where you go in and set up your account. There is absolutely no reason to require Windows for this. The web is platform independent - that is the whole point of it.
I find it extremely ignorant when websites don't allow me to access their sites because I use Opera. It happens. If they say "optimized for IE/Netscape" but let me to continue anyway, I sigh with annoyance and hope they haven't deviated too far from standard code. However, if they say "I am sorry, you don't have a compatible browser" and don't let me enter the site, that pisses me off. It happens. Luckily, I can just change my ID in Opera and it will let me in. But I shouldn't have to do that. Now they check your OS and allow you in only if you are running Windows? There is NO reason for this, other than ignorance.
Am I just stupid? How come I don't really see the benefit of this? Sure, the BIOS checks to see that the OS and hardware are "trusted", but what does this really buy you? So it says: OK, we have an official copy of Windows XP installed. Does this mean that the system is now secure? Hardly. What would something like this, even if it worked flawlessly, protect the user from?
I honestly don't understand the value (or perceived value) in having this.
I really have no simpathy to rants like these because they are completely illogical.
One, it didn't sound like rant. It was a complaint, and a legitimate one. He said it was very inconvenient. However, the following statement is just unacceptable, IMO:
"This is obviously very inconvenient for a non-Windows user and what I find to be even more annoying than that, is that in addition to their browser requirements on myPhilips.com, there is an OS requirement. You can only access myPhilips.com if you are running Windows or MacOS"
There is NO reason why a website should restrict access to a certain OS. That is just ignorance on the part of the webmaster. If you are selling a service that requires you to access your website, it doesn't make any sense to place this restriction on your users. None. You can talk all you want about market share of the OS desktop. Cater to the major OS? Sure. Restrict it to one OS or even browser? Stupid stupid stupid.
> There is always the balancing game > between elegance and price though.
And you replied with:
Not neccessarily, it's just that many (most?) hackers simply don't value or care about aesthetics.
I would agree to some point, but there is always the cool factor. The very small PCs are elegant, but some would argue not worth the price. I consider elegance to include the slickness/cool factor. It does have some value to it, if not for the hacker market, then definitely for the general population. Trying to increase the elegance of products is what helps to improve them. A CRT is not as cool as flat panels, but they both do essentially the same thing. I still don't have a flat panel, but I will someday because the price will come down. Some people are willing to pay for that now.
Slashdotters, before you slam this thing, please consider the following facts:
No slamming here. Even if you could get something commercially, it is always fun to hack your own solution. That *IS* what hacking is all about. Fun first, to satisfy a need a very close second.
not everyone has a spare PC or two lying around the house
True. But I bought a PII-233 Dell Optiplex for $85 at a computer show. I am sure you can get one much cheaper now, I got mine a few years ago. I wanted one of these because they are fairly slim and quiet.
I run Knoppix off of a CD (quiet), so the PC has no hard drive. It displays through the TV via a cheap video card with TV-OUT. Sound card plays through the stereo. It accesses my MP3 collection on my GNUMP3D server on my LAN. (Mozilla/XMMS) Quiet, relatively unobtrusive solution for me. Was pretty cheap too, probably $100 total.
some people DON'T have their PC sitting in the middle of their family room, right next to the stereo.
Yeah, this does kind of suck, and the keyboard/mouse control on mine could be more elegant. I could go wireless I guess. Mine sits on the floor under the stereo rack, so it doesn't stick out too badly.
people value elegance
This is where a lot of hacks fail, and this one seems pretty good. There is always the balancing game between elegance and price though.
Oh my God! 'Our media is willing to whore themselves like this just to entertain the masses' Is the world coming to its end or what?
You know, sometimes it kind of seems like it, doesn't it? I know your comment was meant to be funny (I think), but the new media has a great power, and they abuse it more often than not. They spread information, and sometimes disinformation. They present fiction as fact, and entertainment as news. Now you might say that people should be intelligent enough to tell the difference, but I disagree. Journalistic integrity went out the window years ago.
Yeah, let's not educate ourselves, lets let the corporate news whores shovel down our throats whatever they want, and we should just let them. You may not think it is a big deal, but that might be because you are a feeble-minded sheep who likes being told what is news.
One of the more honest portrayals of what the "news" media is like is in the movie "Bowling for Columbine". The media plays a very big part in the message of the movie. If you watch the news and believe everything you hear, you live in a make believe world that could end if you would just open your eyes.
They've always been honest about their release date, and posted it openly since day 1. It's not their fault if the public can't read properly:
Duke Nukem Forever
Think about this: if they had released DNF, and it was just OK, would people still be talking about it (and 3D Realms)? But what if they are still in the news, year after year, because of this game? At least now, the company is legendary for something instead of being just another game company.
Poor Elvis, he is going to have to stop collecting European royalties from his music.
You mean Lisa Marie, right? Guess she'll have to go out and marry another celebrity, or bump up the price of admission at Graceland. The poor girl has such a hard life, she is just trying to reap the benefits of all her hard work.
An AC posted the same comment and got modded down as redundant. You then posted 9 minutes later and got modded up as insightful.
Well, that isn't my fault now, is it?
Sometimes it takes me a while to read through all the comments, and a story may be up on my screen for 10 minutes or more. I do have work to do.:-)
I didn't know this was a race. I have good karma, and my comments go in at a rating of 2. Therefore, they are more likely to get modded up, because moderators will look at a 2 rated comment before a 0. That's just the way it is. When I moderate, I don't look at all the 0 rated posts. I don't care what vendettas the ACs have, or about hot grits, or soviet russia, or any of that other chaff that gets posted. But that is just me. Anonymous Cowards are people too... sometimes.:-)
Twain, O Henry, GBS, Thoreau, Kipling, Swift, Sir Richard Burton, Melville, Hume, London, Conrad. .. Jesus, the list goes on for miles, all free for the taking, distributing, printing, even selling if you want.
Heh - could Jesus write a book so long that nobody could read it?:-)
But, he discovered insulin. If we could go back and stop his unethical research, perhaps millions would still be dying of what is now a managable disease because of his work. Do the ends justify the means?
Do the ends justify the means? No.
Did the ends justify the means in this case? Yes.
I don't think the ends always justify the means, but you cannot deny that it was worth the sacrifice of these few animals in order to discover insulin. However, if his research had gone for naught, then it would have been a waste. The problem is, you just never have the luxury of knowing 100% what will happen. But this is a great example of why research should be allowed to happen. Of course, things should be monitored, and recorded, and regulated - but I think it has to happen. What you don't see right away is all of the research that happened because of the discovery of insulin. That could eventually lead to a cure for diabetes.
Fascinating story by the way, I had never heard about the discovery of insulin.
I am going off the assumption that this story is true, but the fact remains that things like this have happened in other areas of science as well. RESEARCH allows scientists to innovate and come up with new techniques/treatments/solutions. Imagine that stem cell research had been stopped in the beginning because of "ethical" objections.
I think the same scenario can be applied to the tech world - if you stifle research, you stifle innovation. You stop someone from investigating digital security (DMCA) and you prevent security from progressing.
Last, I have trouble understanding how so many of these bugs come from a company with many of the brightest programmers. Is it a largely problem of scale and bureaucracy?
1. Programmers are human (barely.;-))
2. Programmers build on the architecture. If the architecture is flawed by design, there isn't much a programmer can do.
Slashdot Mirror
They ask why I downloaded all these pirated MP3s, and I simply say "I own all of these CDs. Downloading them was faster than ripping them."
"Can you produce all of these CDs?"
"No sir, I am sorry to say that someone broke into my car and stole a large portion of my CD collection. Good thing I had these backup copies in MP3 format."
How do they prove that I didn't ever own these CDs? If they accuse me of something, it is up to them to prove that I am guilty. Sound like BS on my part? I honestly haven't downloaded many songs from P2P, not that much out there interests me right now. I have downloaded (or gotten from friends) MP3s of CDs/tapes/records that I used to own. If the *media* wears out or breaks, do I still have fair use rights to that music? Am I buying the music, or the media when I purchase it? Ozzy Osbourne's Tribute album to Randy Rhodes is awesome, but my tape wore out back in '88. So do I still technically own that music? Previously, there was no other way for me to get it unless I bought another copy (or if I had made a copy of the tape myself). With digital media, this is easy to do.
This is a point that I haven't seen discussed much, but a very valid point for file sharing. Of course, there is no way for me to prove that I once owned that tape. So what do we do, start saving all of our receipts? I want some of the music I used to have, and I am not about to go shell out $19 for something that I technically already own.
Wait a minute...
THAT'S NO STRAP-ON !
You may also recall that I submitted this story on Dec 17th, and it was rejected. Hey, I understand you reject a lot of submissions, but to have something like this happen burns me just a little.
I know, I am not supposed to bitch about having a submission rejected, but I am just curious how the process works. I thought I knew, but I guess I don't.
Yep, nothing like a good ol' Perl necklace.
On the BMW mailing lists a few years ago, there was a guy who posted often about such issues. His name is Jim Conforti, and he makes one of (if not the) top aftermarket engine chips for BMWs. We are talking uber-geek here. He is one of the most knowledgable on the subject, and had to "defend" himself several times on the list to know-nothings who were spouting off. He was a nice guy, but if you riled him he could absolutely bury you with his depth of technical knowledge. Just seeing the information that he posted to the list, and knowing that he had 1000x more in his head, I realized that engine management isn't something you should just play around with. Maybe this is just from the BMW perspective, but I'll bet it applies to any engine.
One last thing - all the high-tech tuning won't do you much good unless you have a well engineered engine to start with. I have a 1988 BMW M3. 2.3 litre 4cyl naturally aspirated, with 198 BHP. (chipped to 210) This was made in 1987 folks, and there are few cars out there today that are engineered this well. In competition the engine put out well over 300 HP, and that was without any type of forced induction. But engineering something like this isn't cheap. But I have never driven a more fun car. On the track it is simply amazing.
No, I think you missed my point. I understand that they require parts of the product to run on Windows or whatever OS they want. That is part of the PRODUCT. Their SERVICE is web based, where you go in and set up your account. There is absolutely no reason to require Windows for this. The web is platform independent - that is the whole point of it.
I find it extremely ignorant when websites don't allow me to access their sites because I use Opera. It happens. If they say "optimized for IE/Netscape" but let me to continue anyway, I sigh with annoyance and hope they haven't deviated too far from standard code. However, if they say "I am sorry, you don't have a compatible browser" and don't let me enter the site, that pisses me off. It happens. Luckily, I can just change my ID in Opera and it will let me in. But I shouldn't have to do that. Now they check your OS and allow you in only if you are running Windows? There is NO reason for this, other than ignorance.
I honestly don't understand the value (or perceived value) in having this.
One, it didn't sound like rant. It was a complaint, and a legitimate one. He said it was very inconvenient. However, the following statement is just unacceptable, IMO:
"This is obviously very inconvenient for a non-Windows user and what I find to be even more annoying than that, is that in addition to their browser requirements on myPhilips.com, there is an OS requirement. You can only access myPhilips.com if you are running Windows or MacOS"
There is NO reason why a website should restrict access to a certain OS. That is just ignorance on the part of the webmaster. If you are selling a service that requires you to access your website, it doesn't make any sense to place this restriction on your users. None. You can talk all you want about market share of the OS desktop. Cater to the major OS? Sure. Restrict it to one OS or even browser? Stupid stupid stupid.
Many people don't. In fact, I think that most smart people don't, truly in their hearts.
> There is always the balancing game
> between elegance and price though.
And you replied with:
Not neccessarily, it's just that many (most?) hackers simply don't value or care about aesthetics.
I would agree to some point, but there is always the cool factor. The very small PCs are elegant, but some would argue not worth the price. I consider elegance to include the slickness/cool factor. It does have some value to it, if not for the hacker market, then definitely for the general population. Trying to increase the elegance of products is what helps to improve them. A CRT is not as cool as flat panels, but they both do essentially the same thing. I still don't have a flat panel, but I will someday because the price will come down. Some people are willing to pay for that now.
No slamming here. Even if you could get something commercially, it is always fun to hack your own solution. That *IS* what hacking is all about. Fun first, to satisfy a need a very close second.
not everyone has a spare PC or two lying around the house
True. But I bought a PII-233 Dell Optiplex for $85 at a computer show. I am sure you can get one much cheaper now, I got mine a few years ago. I wanted one of these because they are fairly slim and quiet.
I run Knoppix off of a CD (quiet), so the PC has no hard drive. It displays through the TV via a cheap video card with TV-OUT. Sound card plays through the stereo. It accesses my MP3 collection on my GNUMP3D server on my LAN. (Mozilla/XMMS) Quiet, relatively unobtrusive solution for me. Was pretty cheap too, probably $100 total.
some people DON'T have their PC sitting in the middle of their family room, right next to the stereo.
Yeah, this does kind of suck, and the keyboard/mouse control on mine could be more elegant. I could go wireless I guess. Mine sits on the floor under the stereo rack, so it doesn't stick out too badly.
people value elegance
This is where a lot of hacks fail, and this one seems pretty good. There is always the balancing game between elegance and price though.
You know, sometimes it kind of seems like it, doesn't it? I know your comment was meant to be funny (I think), but the new media has a great power, and they abuse it more often than not. They spread information, and sometimes disinformation. They present fiction as fact, and entertainment as news. Now you might say that people should be intelligent enough to tell the difference, but I disagree. Journalistic integrity went out the window years ago.
Yeah, let's not educate ourselves, lets let the corporate news whores shovel down our throats whatever they want, and we should just let them. You may not think it is a big deal, but that might be because you are a feeble-minded sheep who likes being told what is news.
One of the more honest portrayals of what the "news" media is like is in the movie "Bowling for Columbine". The media plays a very big part in the message of the movie. If you watch the news and believe everything you hear, you live in a make believe world that could end if you would just open your eyes.
Think about this: if they had released DNF, and it was just OK, would people still be talking about it (and 3D Realms)? But what if they are still in the news, year after year, because of this game? At least now, the company is legendary for something instead of being just another game company.
You mean Lisa Marie, right? Guess she'll have to go out and marry another celebrity, or bump up the price of admission at Graceland. The poor girl has such a hard life, she is just trying to reap the benefits of all her hard work.
Well, that isn't my fault now, is it?
Sometimes it takes me a while to read through all the comments, and a story may be up on my screen for 10 minutes or more. I do have work to do. :-)
I didn't know this was a race. I have good karma, and my comments go in at a rating of 2. Therefore, they are more likely to get modded up, because moderators will look at a 2 rated comment before a 0. That's just the way it is. When I moderate, I don't look at all the 0 rated posts. I don't care what vendettas the ACs have, or about hot grits, or soviet russia, or any of that other chaff that gets posted. But that is just me. Anonymous Cowards are people too... sometimes. :-)
If only there were some sort of internet auction site where you could buy things like this....
(ok, I stole this exact comment from someone else on a previous discussion, but it cracked me up)
He laughed, and then said "LOL"?
Strange.
You're sig will fall on deaf ears with the /. crowd, and your a fool to think otherwise. Most people would of realized that by now.
Aww, crap. I posted a mirror. The official site is http://gutenberg.net/ . Damn Google. :-)
Heh - could Jesus write a book so long that nobody could read it? :-)
FYI, here is a link to Project Gutenberg.
Do the ends justify the means? No.
Did the ends justify the means in this case? Yes.
I don't think the ends always justify the means, but you cannot deny that it was worth the sacrifice of these few animals in order to discover insulin. However, if his research had gone for naught, then it would have been a waste. The problem is, you just never have the luxury of knowing 100% what will happen. But this is a great example of why research should be allowed to happen. Of course, things should be monitored, and recorded, and regulated - but I think it has to happen. What you don't see right away is all of the research that happened because of the discovery of insulin. That could eventually lead to a cure for diabetes.
Fascinating story by the way, I had never heard about the discovery of insulin.
I think the same scenario can be applied to the tech world - if you stifle research, you stifle innovation. You stop someone from investigating digital security (DMCA) and you prevent security from progressing.
Operator: Perhaps you'd be interested in our new line of digital cameras?
Jon: What? No, god no...
(Here comes the threatening part..)
Operator: But my camera now bitch or you'll get a call like this every hour for the new 15 years.
Jon: What? What do you mean "but your camera"?
Operator: Huh?
Jon: You said "but my camera".
Operator: No I didn't. Oh, right. Sorry. I meant "buy".
Jon: And you'll call me for the "new" what?
Operator: Sorry?
Jon: You said you would call me for the "new 15 years". What does that mean?
Operator: I did?
Jon: Yes, you did. Are you mad?
Operator: No, sorry, my fault again. I meant to say the "next" 15 years.
Jon: Do you really think digital cameras will be selling in 15 years?
Operator: Well, I don't know. I suppose so.
Jon: And would you really call me every 15 minutes?
Operator: Would that be an inconvenience?
Jon: Yes, quite.
Operator: So sorry. I won't call then.
Jon: Thanks, I appreciate that.
Operator: So, are you happy with your penis size?
Jon: Pardon?
1. Programmers are human (barely. ;-))
2. Programmers build on the architecture. If the architecture is flawed by design, there isn't much a programmer can do.