Except people rent movies and buy music. (Yes, people buy movies, too, but the rental business is still doing quite well). Don't compare this to a purchase, compare it to a rental.
I have no objections to DRM on a rental. I have not purchased the material; I am only borrowing it for a couple days. I have no need or right to make a backup under these conditions.
You can't be serious. That's why no one ever rents movies, and the movie rental business was a complete failure.
If you are comparing a download to a purchase of DVD, then you are right. If somebody wants to buy something (a movie or music), then they want a tangible object. However, comparing this to a rental I don't think people care if it's bits are on harddisk or a physical object. Either way, the bits will be gone in a couple days anyway.
Programs like this and Irate are getting closer to what I would like to see, but they are not there yet. I really would like to see a product that also did this...
Intelligently decides what to download, not based on preferences, but based on what you have in your current playlist (presumably all the commercial music you have when you start). Once they get enough users they can compare lists to predict what you would like based on your playlists and songs you've voted on.
The other thing that should happen is you should be able to download songs off the radio. This would also allow voting to be done automatically. If I hear a song I like, click a button and it gets saved permanently. If I don't like it, I click a button and I never listen to it again. If I do nothing it stays in radio rotation for sometime and eventually gets replaced.
Last, the software should use a P2P network for downloads to avoid the main server needing astronomical amounts of bandwidth.
So, what do you think? (Do any of the current programs do this, and I am not aware of it)?
(On a different note, one thing interesting about these virtual radio stations is they don't need an always on internet connection. You could conceivably make a portable device that you hook up periodically to download and update the radio cache. Once a portable device exists, mainstream acceptance is possible).
If you fail to abide by the GPL or "ignore" it, the copyright owner can force you to stop distributing, AND to stop using, that piece of GPLd software.
I'm no expert on GPL and copyright, but I'd be very surprised if the GPL forbids you from using the software if you don't abide by their rules. Is there a reason you beleive what you wrote, such as a phrase in the GPL?
Well, I don't know about you personally, but a lot of people in the last election voted for Nader who otherwise would of voted for Gore. These people were effectively giving half a vote to Bush. (Same could be said in reverse for those who would of voted for Bush, but I don't think Nader stole too many people from the Bush camp).
In your case, maybe you wouldn't have voted for either of the two main candidates? If this was the case, then it doesn't really matter what you do as far as the election is concerned. Go ahead and make a statement with your vote - it doesn't really count anyway.
As far as blaming the party, that's a great idea, but the fact of the matter is that the party wants to win. To win, the party needs to go after the majority of the people, who on average have views close to center. If the party tries to do anything too radical, or even just too different from the status quo, they'll loose a huge chunk of the center. There's no way they'll win doing this.
A third candidate like Perot, Buchanan, or Nader essentially traps the party in a catch-22. If they go too off center to recapture the votes taken away by by these candidates, they loose huge numbers of moderate voters. If they don't go off center, they don't appear to be differentiating themselves enough from the other party. They then loose just enough of their extreme elements to loose the election.
I agree, I haven't been too impressed by any of the large partys' canditates recently. However, I don't see anyway for a change with the current system. So, I vote pragmatically for the one I prefer out of the two who can actually win. This election it's all about damage control.
Yes, 13.4 nm (~100 eV) is far from hard x rays (> 30 KeV), but who said anything about hard x rays? X-ray lithography was generally done with wavelengths near 1 nm, so it's hard to say if 13.4 nm is closer to 1 nm or 193 nm. All three techniques are very different.
In any case, look some of the first work done on the technique by Bell Labs and others in the late 80's, early 90's. Those papers refer to the technique as soft x-ray projection lithography.
(I will admit that my second paragraph about cultural differences is merely my observation).
That's actually a funny story, with more point than you realize. A while ago, a number of groups spent a lot of money on x-ray lithography, without any commercial success. Because of this x-ray lithography has a bad reputation. So, to distance the technique from x-ray lithography, and to more closely align it with the very successful optical lithography, they changed the name to EUV lithography from projection x-ray lithography.
This also points out an interesting cultural difference between Americans and Japanese. In America the proper think to do is distance yourself from an unsucessful technique. The Japanese, however, still call it x-ray lithography, because after sinking boatloads of money into x-ray lithography they don't want to feel they were wrong.
I think you wrote the most insightful thing I've read, and yet nobody modded you up. (Too bad I don't have mod points today - although this way I can reply).
As you said, no 30 something with kids is going to be regularly shelling out huge amounts of $$ for games (especially ones that takes 40 hours a piece to finish). Yet, 30 somethings are happy to spend $$ to buy or rent DVD's, and many 30 somethings enjoy playing games. So there probably is a market out there that is not properly being tapped, (but it isn't as large as the traditional market).
The key to tapping into a such a market might be to tap into both markets simulataneously (as DVD's have no trouble doing). I think the article summarizes some generally good game design ideas that would be mostly appreciated by casual gamers, but would not put-off serious gamers. In addition, games should be sold in smaller pieces. Instead of selling a 40 hour game for $50, some games could be broken into smaller pieces, and sold for $20.
And yes, we are all participating in large scale mental masturbation. But just as there's no way I am going to get to date that model whose picture I was looking at yesterday, it is unlikely that any game publisher (small or large) is going to care about what I have to say.
Ok, 1000-hour RPG's clearly require shit loads of time. But how about creating an RPG that only takes 40 hours? Yes, such a game would necessarily be different from 1000-hour RPG's, but that doesn't mean it'll suck. (But it will appeal to a different audience).
Maybe we're just argueing semantics, but we are offended by the idea that we should be excluded from certain game types because we don't have lots of time. Your point is that these games take lots of time, so what do you expect? I guess our point is simply that the existing games in those genres take a lot of time. It doesn't necessarily have to be that way.
Sorry, my first response was a little more nasty than I meant it to be. (Plus, you didn't say anything about the internet in your first message).
The internet is possibly an effective medium for distribution, removing the conglomerates from that part of the top to bottom integration equation. However, distribution is only one part of the equation. The hardest part is marketting. How is anyone going to know that your movie is out there to search for it on the p2p network? Are they going to learn through the TV, radio, newspaper, or a large part of the internet? Nope, they're all owned by the media conglomerates. That leaves only the independent internet sites for marketting. Thankfully, there are still some around, so, maybe there is still a chance. However, it is still very hard to compete when so much of the media can be used against you.
Michael Moorse established himself some time ago, and it's his exposure through traditional outlets that has created the buzz about his film. The Blair Witch film might be a better example of film successfully marketted using primarily independent internet sites.
This is a perfect example of RTFA. In fact, the entire article was pretty much devoted to answering that question. The rules have changed, and the (now permitted) consolodation of media makes it impossible for a new player to break in. The current media conglomerates own everything from top to bottom. Any new player would have to rely on one of these conglomerates for something (programming, distribution, etc.). The conglomerates would swat or buy out their new competitor as soon as it showed any potential of being successful (if it ever got a chance to get that far).
Radio Radio
on
TMBG on DRM
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
OK, that was a well written and thought out comment, but I disagree with it.
Bypassing DRM should not be illegal. Copyright law gives certain rights to both the copyright holder, and the purchaser of the product. Slapping DRM on something does not automatically give the purchaser less rights, although it can make make it harder to exercise those rights. (At this point, both sides are using technology to go beyond what rights they are legitamately granted).
As far as the rest of your comment goes, making and distributing music cheaply means next to nothing. The power is in RADIO! I can write and record the greatest song in the world, and put it up on my website for free. No one would care. If I were to go through some expense to promote it, (maybe tour, etc.), I might get a few people to care, but nothing even come close to the power of radio. As long as there's a tight grip on radio the battle is next to hopeless. And with consolidation of over-the-air radio, and the death of internet radio, it's only getting worse lately.
Yes, but you obviously have DirecTV. If you don't have DirecTV, and have no interest in DirecTV, then your comparison isn't valid. You'll loose the ability to directly record a stream, you'll become limited to one tuner, and the cost goes up to (I think) $13 a month. So, yes, for those who have DirecTV, or are interested in DirectTV, it's a no-brainer. For others, Tivo, is a less attractive (although still a very good) option.
I've looked into building a PVR from an old computer recently. The combination of a PVR-350 (from Hauppauge) and SageTV looks pretty polished and easy to set up. (Take a look at some reviews for SageTV linked from their webpage). I'm not sure your arguement about having too much time applies anymore, but I'll let you know after I try it myself. (Setting up a MythTV or Freevo box would be cheaper, but probably more difficult).
As far as cost, it will set me back ~$300, if I use the old computer. (There are cheaper options if you have a faster computer and/or are willing to use Linux). This is less than the $150+$300 (life subscription), I would have to pay if I got a Tivo. If I had to build a computer from scratch, than that would add another $300, (although I might be able to get by with a PVR-250 and save a little money there). This is more than a Tivo, but not outrageous. The added functionality of computer and the freedom to do whatever you want with what you record may be worth it to some people.
It's all a matter of semantics - how narrow is very narrow band? Temperal coherence and bandwidth are two different ways of describing the same thing. Usually though, for very narrow sources, such as lasers, we use the term coherence. That's because a simple way to measure (and think about) the spectral width of the laser line is by how long different path lengths can be before they loose their coherence. For broader spectral sources, such as Superfluorecent LEDs, people usual think in terms of spectral width. You could still measure the coherence, but it may only be a few wavelengths (or less) in length.
You are probably right about dephasing/diffusing techniques, but I don't know enough to know which ones might be helpful.
Actually the article is correct. Over-the-air SDTV (or anything else that comes in your RF or composite cable, such as VHS or cable) is limited in its resolution, particularly when it comes to colors. This is because color TV was a hack on the previous B&W TV technology in order to keep the technologies compatible. While it was a brilliant way to keep compatibility, it means that the color information is very bandwidth limited. I think the color information has about half the resolution as the B&W information. In addition separating the color information from the B&W information is non-trivial, hence the need for such things as 3-line comb filters.
This why S-video and component connections provide a better signal than a composite connection from a DVD player.
Uhm, I just made another long comment in this thread, but this made me think of something else. Invariably any copy protection scheme is going to limit ones ability to transfer the media to another device. Doing so limits ones ability in unforseen ways. If we couldn't rip CD's easily, would MP3 players be possible? A portable DVD player that works on a more compact (smaller disk) or more energy efficient (hard drive, solid state memory) media could be popular. (The PSP is trying this, but it's going to fail unless they allow you to burn your own movies. No one wants to buy a movie they already own, again). We've got digital TV coming down the pipe, and who knows what the possibilities and restrictions will be for those. I, myself, am thinking about building a PVR out of an old computer. Who knows if that will possible in a few years.
Tying down our media with restrictions means less inovation, and makes the media less useful. I can't see how anyone can be in favor of this. Yes, your point of view probably does parallel that of the common person better than your average slashdot reader, but I think that view is very short sighted.
You make a very good point about DRM: As long as people can use a product as they commonly expect to, most people aren't going to get upset about it. (As far as the examples you gave, other people already attacked those, so I let them argue those points).
Let me turn the above statement around: Most people aren't going to get upset about DRM, as long as it doesn't prevent them from doing something they commonly expect to do. So, why bother? Why go through all this effort of passing new laws (such as the DMCA) and spending all this money on technology that is only going to affect the behaviour of a small number of people?
The best answer I can come up with is the fear of widespread pirating if consumers are given the power to do so. Ok, that's reasonable, but if this is the goal, then why are most DRM schemes overeaching? Here are some examples: Macrovision (analog copying doesn't lead to widespread pirating), regional coding, inaccesable user options (such as being able to skip the FBI warning). None of these do anything to prevent widespread copying.
So why do the companies add restrictions that are clearly not there to prevent widespread pirating? As we discussed, these restrictions don't impact many people, so it doesn't change their bottom line a whole lot. I'll leave you to try answer this one. My best answer is because they can. (And if that doesn't have you worried, then I don't know what will).
This is my problem with DRM and the DMCA. I can understand a desire to protect your products from virtual theft. However, once someone comes up with a way to protect their products, the content producers are like kids in a candy store. Oooh, how about adding regional coding to that, how about pay per view, how about you can only watch the recording once, etc.? None of these restrictions are provided by copyright law. I suppose if they want to sell a product with technology that creates these restrictions, well, it's a free country and I can't prevent them. However, they should not expect to use my tax money to enforce their restrictions (in the form of laws such as the DMCA). If they want to use the law, then they should limit their technology to only what is necessary to prevent actual theft.
Actually, my SO (who has a PhD) found her current job through Monster. I can think of only two ways through which people will usually find a job: networking (word of mouth), or through an ad. Monster.com is as good a place to put an ad as any. (Although admittedly, University positions tend to be posted in scientific journals)
I wonder what the real break-even point is, and how far off we are from that. In other words, it's one thing for the plasma to be generating Y watts of energy for X watts of energy put in (and break-even is when Y=X), but what is the efficiency of turning Y into electricity. I doubt they take this efficiency into account when they calculate the break-even point. If the efficiency is less than 10-20% than 5-10x the break-point may not be enough.
Although I'm sure the cost to produce an Xbox has dropped somewhat, using commodity parts hurts them more then helps them.
Look at Sony's case. The chips are mostly made in-house. As Moore's law progresses, the chips get smaller and easier to make. Or better yet, multiple chips can be integrated into one chip. All of the savings are enjoyed by Sony.
Using commodity parts means the savings is split between the supplier and the Microsoft. How this split is done depends on negotiations between the parties. For some of the parts, there are no alternative suppliers, so Microsoft is in a weak negotiating position to decrease parts prices, unless terms were made up-front (see NVidia). (Of course, given Microsoft's other assets, it's hard to ever argue they are in a weak negotiating position). In addition, combining multiple chips into one is problematic when multiple company's IPs are involved. In addition, the cost of the hard drive doesn't decrease with Moore's law, only the capacity.
Microsoft may be trying to fix these issues. It looks like they've hired ATI to design rather than produce the next GPU, and they are no longer going to include a hard drive.
Thanks for a great discussion. I don't know if you are going to bother to continue responding, but I'll make one farewell comment...
I am supposing that the consequence of this realisation you seemed to muse on the possibility of there being a God, but expressed the belief that which view of Him is accurate cannot be known, so it is better that we do not worry and apply our own rationale.
That pretty much sums it up, at least when it comes to making laws that we all must live by. When it comes to how we actually lives our lives, I wouldn't say, "it is better that we do not worry", it's more that I would say, "One's beliefs are deeply personal."
By the way, I am not an atheist. (Perhaps that's why I was so poor at arguing the point of view of one). However, for reasons that may be apparent, I do not strongly believe in any particular religion. I agree that trying to understand God is worthwhile struggle, but ultimately it is a struggle that every individual must do for himself. I thank you for your thoughts, as they've proven valuable in helping me continue to form my beliefs.
Generally I wouldn't keep responding to such an old topic, but you've made an excellent point, and we seem to be on opposite schedules.
"If there is no God, why is it wrong to hurt someone else?"
This is my reasoning...
I don't need a God to recognize that I am not that different from anyone else. Other people feel pain and joy, just like I do. Once I've established this equality of all people, I must treat people the way I want to be treated. If my pain and joy is equal to everyone else's, there is no justification for sacrificing some else's joy for mine.
To point you make, with I do have a tough time arguing with is that this is still derived from some arbitrary sense of fairness. You believe that God is necessary for the concept of fairness to have meaning. (And if fairness does have meaning to me, it is really because God put that meaning in me).
You know what - you're absolutely right. Perhaps there is no inherent right or wrong in the world, and all of our emotions exist only because God made them that way? I don't want to discuss the origin of emotions but I will concede that to measure right and wrong ultimately you will need some metric to measure it against.
So what is your metric? Your metric is obviously that which is dictated by God, but which God is that? Is it the one described by (in no particular order and probably misspelled) Islam, Christianity, Judism, Huindi, Paganism, etc? All the religions have different ideas about right and wrong, and even within one religion these ideas will change over time. You couldn't be so arrogant to think that the religon you prescribe is the one that is correct, and all the others are wrong?
And this is my problem with determining laws from religion - it's not universal. Not everyone believes in that same religion, nor should they. You may believe that you and your religion have the answers, but this other guy and his religion (or lack of religion) don't agree. Who is right, and who's code do we live by?
I do have a suggestion. We can use our (perhaps God given) sense of fairness to determine what's right and wrong. Let's try to leave religious doctrine out of it...
This is why God's word is invaluable for distinguishing when our conclusions disagree.
If the religious doctrine has merits in own rights, then perhaps it is useful in a discussion. However, I am unlikely to give extra weight to something just because "your" God says so.
Thank you for a good debate. You've really made me think about ethics and the origins of right and wrong.
It's pretty easy to come up with a moral code, without any divine intervention. All you need is a little empathy and one simple rule: "Do onto others others as you would have done onto you". (Now perhaps you could argue that the only way to arrive at even this rule is through religon. Personally, I can arrive at it by simply recognizing that all people are equal in that we all have a soul. I cannot, therefore, justify causing pain to others, even if it results in my own gain).
The common rules which civilized societies live by can be derived from this one rule. - Don't murder, and don't steal. There are also other rules which aren't universally written into law, but you'll still find pretty univeral - be honest, and generally be nice to other people.
Ethical rules that are less universal, such as sexuallity or traditions, cannot be easily derived from the "Do onto others" rule. My derivation from the "Do onto others" rule for these types of rules is that I believe I should be free to do whatever I want, as long as I don't negatively impact others. And, I believe others should be able to do the same. Of course, this whole "negatively impact" question is not as clear cut as in the case of murder and stealing. (If I have access to porn, does that negatively impact you or not? Perhaps the negative effect porn has on the participants makes it unethical)? Individuals will have their own opinions on these subjects. For a society as whole, I feel the best solution is to try and let the individuals decide for themselves, although clearly there's going to be some tension between those who make opposite decisions.
The only area where this one rule to derive them all breaks down is the area of punishment. Few people want to be punished, so punishing others would seem unethical by this standard. However, I'll note that for children it's obvious we punish to alter behavior, not to cause pain. In the long run the child will recognize the value of the punishment so it's OK. Similarly, I can believe that punishment for adults is ethical, if its purpose is to alter damaging behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
Except people rent movies and buy music. (Yes, people buy movies, too, but the rental business is still doing quite well). Don't compare this to a purchase, compare it to a rental.
I have no objections to DRM on a rental. I have not purchased the material; I am only borrowing it for a couple days. I have no need or right to make a backup under these conditions.
You can't be serious. That's why no one ever rents movies, and the movie rental business was a complete failure.
If you are comparing a download to a purchase of DVD, then you are right. If somebody wants to buy something (a movie or music), then they want a tangible object. However, comparing this to a rental I don't think people care if it's bits are on harddisk or a physical object. Either way, the bits will be gone in a couple days anyway.
Programs like this and Irate are getting closer to what I would like to see, but they are not there yet. I really would like to see a product that also did this...
Intelligently decides what to download, not based on preferences, but based on what you have in your current playlist (presumably all the commercial music you have when you start). Once they get enough users they can compare lists to predict what you would like based on your playlists and songs you've voted on.
The other thing that should happen is you should be able to download songs off the radio. This would also allow voting to be done automatically. If I hear a song I like, click a button and it gets saved permanently. If I don't like it, I click a button and I never listen to it again. If I do nothing it stays in radio rotation for sometime and eventually gets replaced.
Last, the software should use a P2P network for downloads to avoid the main server needing astronomical amounts of bandwidth.
So, what do you think? (Do any of the current programs do this, and I am not aware of it)?
(On a different note, one thing interesting about these virtual radio stations is they don't need an always on internet connection. You could conceivably make a portable device that you hook up periodically to download and update the radio cache. Once a portable device exists, mainstream acceptance is possible).
If you fail to abide by the GPL or "ignore" it, the copyright owner can force you to stop distributing, AND to stop using, that piece of GPLd software.
I'm no expert on GPL and copyright, but I'd be very surprised if the GPL forbids you from using the software if you don't abide by their rules. Is there a reason you beleive what you wrote, such as a phrase in the GPL?
Well, I don't know about you personally, but a lot of people in the last election voted for Nader who otherwise would of voted for Gore. These people were effectively giving half a vote to Bush. (Same could be said in reverse for those who would of voted for Bush, but I don't think Nader stole too many people from the Bush camp).
In your case, maybe you wouldn't have voted for either of the two main candidates? If this was the case, then it doesn't really matter what you do as far as the election is concerned. Go ahead and make a statement with your vote - it doesn't really count anyway.
As far as blaming the party, that's a great idea, but the fact of the matter is that the party wants to win. To win, the party needs to go after the majority of the people, who on average have views close to center. If the party tries to do anything too radical, or even just too different from the status quo, they'll loose a huge chunk of the center. There's no way they'll win doing this.
A third candidate like Perot, Buchanan, or Nader essentially traps the party in a catch-22. If they go too off center to recapture the votes taken away by by these candidates, they loose huge numbers of moderate voters. If they don't go off center, they don't appear to be differentiating themselves enough from the other party. They then loose just enough of their extreme elements to loose the election.
I agree, I haven't been too impressed by any of the large partys' canditates recently. However, I don't see anyway for a change with the current system. So, I vote pragmatically for the one I prefer out of the two who can actually win. This election it's all about damage control.
Yes, 13.4 nm (~100 eV) is far from hard x rays (> 30 KeV), but who said anything about hard x rays? X-ray lithography was generally done with wavelengths near 1 nm, so it's hard to say if 13.4 nm is closer to 1 nm or 193 nm. All three techniques are very different.
In any case, look some of the first work done on the technique by Bell Labs and others in the late 80's, early 90's. Those papers refer to the technique as soft x-ray projection lithography.
(I will admit that my second paragraph about cultural differences is merely my observation).
That's actually a funny story, with more point than you realize. A while ago, a number of groups spent a lot of money on x-ray lithography, without any commercial success. Because of this x-ray lithography has a bad reputation. So, to distance the technique from x-ray lithography, and to more closely align it with the very successful optical lithography, they changed the name to EUV lithography from projection x-ray lithography.
This also points out an interesting cultural difference between Americans and Japanese. In America the proper think to do is distance yourself from an unsucessful technique. The Japanese, however, still call it x-ray lithography, because after sinking boatloads of money into x-ray lithography they don't want to feel they were wrong.
I think you wrote the most insightful thing I've read, and yet nobody modded you up. (Too bad I don't have mod points today - although this way I can reply).
As you said, no 30 something with kids is going to be regularly shelling out huge amounts of $$ for games (especially ones that takes 40 hours a piece to finish). Yet, 30 somethings are happy to spend $$ to buy or rent DVD's, and many 30 somethings enjoy playing games. So there probably is a market out there that is not properly being tapped, (but it isn't as large as the traditional market).
The key to tapping into a such a market might be to tap into both markets simulataneously (as DVD's have no trouble doing). I think the article summarizes some generally good game design ideas that would be mostly appreciated by casual gamers, but would not put-off serious gamers. In addition, games should be sold in smaller pieces. Instead of selling a 40 hour game for $50, some games could be broken into smaller pieces, and sold for $20.
And yes, we are all participating in large scale mental masturbation. But just as there's no way I am going to get to date that model whose picture I was looking at yesterday, it is unlikely that any game publisher (small or large) is going to care about what I have to say.
Ok, 1000-hour RPG's clearly require shit loads of time. But how about creating an RPG that only takes 40 hours? Yes, such a game would necessarily be different from 1000-hour RPG's, but that doesn't mean it'll suck. (But it will appeal to a different audience).
Maybe we're just argueing semantics, but we are offended by the idea that we should be excluded from certain game types because we don't have lots of time. Your point is that these games take lots of time, so what do you expect? I guess our point is simply that the existing games in those genres take a lot of time. It doesn't necessarily have to be that way.
Sorry, my first response was a little more nasty than I meant it to be. (Plus, you didn't say anything about the internet in your first message).
The internet is possibly an effective medium for distribution, removing the conglomerates from that part of the top to bottom integration equation. However, distribution is only one part of the equation. The hardest part is marketting. How is anyone going to know that your movie is out there to search for it on the p2p network? Are they going to learn through the TV, radio, newspaper, or a large part of the internet? Nope, they're all owned by the media conglomerates. That leaves only the independent internet sites for marketting. Thankfully, there are still some around, so, maybe there is still a chance. However, it is still very hard to compete when so much of the media can be used against you.
Michael Moorse established himself some time ago, and it's his exposure through traditional outlets that has created the buzz about his film. The Blair Witch film might be a better example of film successfully marketted using primarily independent internet sites.
This is a perfect example of RTFA. In fact, the entire article was pretty much devoted to answering that question. The rules have changed, and the (now permitted) consolodation of media makes it impossible for a new player to break in. The current media conglomerates own everything from top to bottom. Any new player would have to rely on one of these conglomerates for something (programming, distribution, etc.). The conglomerates would swat or buy out their new competitor as soon as it showed any potential of being successful (if it ever got a chance to get that far).
OK, that was a well written and thought out comment, but I disagree with it.
Bypassing DRM should not be illegal. Copyright law gives certain rights to both the copyright holder, and the purchaser of the product. Slapping DRM on something does not automatically give the purchaser less rights, although it can make make it harder to exercise those rights. (At this point, both sides are using technology to go beyond what rights they are legitamately granted).
As far as the rest of your comment goes, making and distributing music cheaply means next to nothing. The power is in RADIO! I can write and record the greatest song in the world, and put it up on my website for free. No one would care. If I were to go through some expense to promote it, (maybe tour, etc.), I might get a few people to care, but nothing even come close to the power of radio. As long as there's a tight grip on radio the battle is next to hopeless. And with consolidation of over-the-air radio, and the death of internet radio, it's only getting worse lately.
Yes, but you obviously have DirecTV. If you don't have DirecTV, and have no interest in DirecTV, then your comparison isn't valid. You'll loose the ability to directly record a stream, you'll become limited to one tuner, and the cost goes up to (I think) $13 a month. So, yes, for those who have DirecTV, or are interested in DirectTV, it's a no-brainer. For others, Tivo, is a less attractive (although still a very good) option.
I've looked into building a PVR from an old computer recently. The combination of a PVR-350 (from Hauppauge) and SageTV looks pretty polished and easy to set up. (Take a look at some reviews for SageTV linked from their webpage). I'm not sure your arguement about having too much time applies anymore, but I'll let you know after I try it myself. (Setting up a MythTV or Freevo box would be cheaper, but probably more difficult).
As far as cost, it will set me back ~$300, if I use the old computer. (There are cheaper options if you have a faster computer and/or are willing to use Linux). This is less than the $150+$300 (life subscription), I would have to pay if I got a Tivo. If I had to build a computer from scratch, than that would add another $300, (although I might be able to get by with a PVR-250 and save a little money there). This is more than a Tivo, but not outrageous. The added functionality of computer and the freedom to do whatever you want with what you record may be worth it to some people.
Thanks. I did not know that. You really do learn something every day.
It's all a matter of semantics - how narrow is very narrow band? Temperal coherence and bandwidth are two different ways of describing the same thing. Usually though, for very narrow sources, such as lasers, we use the term coherence. That's because a simple way to measure (and think about) the spectral width of the laser line is by how long different path lengths can be before they loose their coherence. For broader spectral sources, such as Superfluorecent LEDs, people usual think in terms of spectral width. You could still measure the coherence, but it may only be a few wavelengths (or less) in length.
You are probably right about dephasing/diffusing techniques, but I don't know enough to know which ones might be helpful.
Actually that would be a bad idea. The speckle from very narrow band sources would be a problem.
Actually the article is correct. Over-the-air SDTV (or anything else that comes in your RF or composite cable, such as VHS or cable) is limited in its resolution, particularly when it comes to colors. This is because color TV was a hack on the previous B&W TV technology in order to keep the technologies compatible. While it was a brilliant way to keep compatibility, it means that the color information is very bandwidth limited. I think the color information has about half the resolution as the B&W information. In addition separating the color information from the B&W information is non-trivial, hence the need for such things as 3-line comb filters.
This why S-video and component connections provide a better signal than a composite connection from a DVD player.
Uhm, I just made another long comment in this thread, but this made me think of something else. Invariably any copy protection scheme is going to limit ones ability to transfer the media to another device. Doing so limits ones ability in unforseen ways. If we couldn't rip CD's easily, would MP3 players be possible? A portable DVD player that works on a more compact (smaller disk) or more energy efficient (hard drive, solid state memory) media could be popular. (The PSP is trying this, but it's going to fail unless they allow you to burn your own movies. No one wants to buy a movie they already own, again). We've got digital TV coming down the pipe, and who knows what the possibilities and restrictions will be for those. I, myself, am thinking about building a PVR out of an old computer. Who knows if that will possible in a few years.
Tying down our media with restrictions means less inovation, and makes the media less useful. I can't see how anyone can be in favor of this. Yes, your point of view probably does parallel that of the common person better than your average slashdot reader, but I think that view is very short sighted.
You make a very good point about DRM: As long as people can use a product as they commonly expect to, most people aren't going to get upset about it. (As far as the examples you gave, other people already attacked those, so I let them argue those points).
Let me turn the above statement around: Most people aren't going to get upset about DRM, as long as it doesn't prevent them from doing something they commonly expect to do. So, why bother? Why go through all this effort of passing new laws (such as the DMCA) and spending all this money on technology that is only going to affect the behaviour of a small number of people?
The best answer I can come up with is the fear of widespread pirating if consumers are given the power to do so. Ok, that's reasonable, but if this is the goal, then why are most DRM schemes overeaching? Here are some examples: Macrovision (analog copying doesn't lead to widespread pirating), regional coding, inaccesable user options (such as being able to skip the FBI warning). None of these do anything to prevent widespread copying.
So why do the companies add restrictions that are clearly not there to prevent widespread pirating? As we discussed, these restrictions don't impact many people, so it doesn't change their bottom line a whole lot. I'll leave you to try answer this one. My best answer is because they can. (And if that doesn't have you worried, then I don't know what will).
This is my problem with DRM and the DMCA. I can understand a desire to protect your products from virtual theft. However, once someone comes up with a way to protect their products, the content producers are like kids in a candy store. Oooh, how about adding regional coding to that, how about pay per view, how about you can only watch the recording once, etc.? None of these restrictions are provided by copyright law. I suppose if they want to sell a product with technology that creates these restrictions, well, it's a free country and I can't prevent them. However, they should not expect to use my tax money to enforce their restrictions (in the form of laws such as the DMCA). If they want to use the law, then they should limit their technology to only what is necessary to prevent actual theft.
Actually, my SO (who has a PhD) found her current job through Monster. I can think of only two ways through which people will usually find a job: networking (word of mouth), or through an ad. Monster.com is as good a place to put an ad as any. (Although admittedly, University positions tend to be posted in scientific journals)
I wonder what the real break-even point is, and how far off we are from that. In other words, it's one thing for the plasma to be generating Y watts of energy for X watts of energy put in (and break-even is when Y=X), but what is the efficiency of turning Y into electricity. I doubt they take this efficiency into account when they calculate the break-even point. If the efficiency is less than 10-20% than 5-10x the break-point may not be enough.
Although I'm sure the cost to produce an Xbox has dropped somewhat, using commodity parts hurts them more then helps them.
Look at Sony's case. The chips are mostly made in-house. As Moore's law progresses, the chips get smaller and easier to make. Or better yet, multiple chips can be integrated into one chip. All of the savings are enjoyed by Sony.
Using commodity parts means the savings is split between the supplier and the Microsoft. How this split is done depends on negotiations between the parties. For some of the parts, there are no alternative suppliers, so Microsoft is in a weak negotiating position to decrease parts prices, unless terms were made up-front (see NVidia). (Of course, given Microsoft's other assets, it's hard to ever argue they are in a weak negotiating position). In addition, combining multiple chips into one is problematic when multiple company's IPs are involved. In addition, the cost of the hard drive doesn't decrease with Moore's law, only the capacity.
Microsoft may be trying to fix these issues. It looks like they've hired ATI to design rather than produce the next GPU, and they are no longer going to include a hard drive.
Thanks for a great discussion. I don't know if you are going to bother to continue responding, but I'll make one farewell comment...
I am supposing that the consequence of this realisation you seemed to muse on the possibility of there being a God, but expressed the belief that which view of Him is accurate cannot be known, so it is better that we do not worry and apply our own rationale.
That pretty much sums it up, at least when it comes to making laws that we all must live by. When it comes to how we actually lives our lives, I wouldn't say, "it is better that we do not worry", it's more that I would say, "One's beliefs are deeply personal."
By the way, I am not an atheist. (Perhaps that's why I was so poor at arguing the point of view of one). However, for reasons that may be apparent, I do not strongly believe in any particular religion. I agree that trying to understand God is worthwhile struggle, but ultimately it is a struggle that every individual must do for himself. I thank you for your thoughts, as they've proven valuable in helping me continue to form my beliefs.
I hope you had a happy and thoughtful Easter.
Generally I wouldn't keep responding to such an old topic, but you've made an excellent point, and we seem to be on opposite schedules.
"If there is no God, why is it wrong to hurt someone else?"
This is my reasoning...
I don't need a God to recognize that I am not that different from anyone else. Other people feel pain and joy, just like I do. Once I've established this equality of all people, I must treat people the way I want to be treated. If my pain and joy is equal to everyone else's, there is no justification for sacrificing some else's joy for mine.
To point you make, with I do have a tough time arguing with is that this is still derived from some arbitrary sense of fairness. You believe that God is necessary for the concept of fairness to have meaning. (And if fairness does have meaning to me, it is really because God put that meaning in me).
You know what - you're absolutely right. Perhaps there is no inherent right or wrong in the world, and all of our emotions exist only because God made them that way? I don't want to discuss the origin of emotions but I will concede that to measure right and wrong ultimately you will need some metric to measure it against.
So what is your metric? Your metric is obviously that which is dictated by God, but which God is that? Is it the one described by (in no particular order and probably misspelled) Islam, Christianity, Judism, Huindi, Paganism, etc? All the religions have different ideas about right and wrong, and even within one religion these ideas will change over time. You couldn't be so arrogant to think that the religon you prescribe is the one that is correct, and all the others are wrong?
And this is my problem with determining laws from religion - it's not universal. Not everyone believes in that same religion, nor should they. You may believe that you and your religion have the answers, but this other guy and his religion (or lack of religion) don't agree. Who is right, and who's code do we live by?
I do have a suggestion. We can use our (perhaps God given) sense of fairness to determine what's right and wrong. Let's try to leave religious doctrine out of it...
This is why God's word is invaluable for distinguishing when our conclusions disagree.
If the religious doctrine has merits in own rights, then perhaps it is useful in a discussion. However, I am unlikely to give extra weight to something just because "your" God says so.
Thank you for a good debate. You've really made me think about ethics and the origins of right and wrong.
I'm a little late to the party, but here goes...
It's pretty easy to come up with a moral code, without any divine intervention. All you need is a little empathy and one simple rule: "Do onto others others as you would have done onto you". (Now perhaps you could argue that the only way to arrive at even this rule is through religon. Personally, I can arrive at it by simply recognizing that all people are equal in that we all have a soul. I cannot, therefore, justify causing pain to others, even if it results in my own gain).
The common rules which civilized societies live by can be derived from this one rule. - Don't murder, and don't steal. There are also other rules which aren't universally written into law, but you'll still find pretty univeral - be honest, and generally be nice to other people.
Ethical rules that are less universal, such as sexuallity or traditions, cannot be easily derived from the "Do onto others" rule. My derivation from the "Do onto others" rule for these types of rules is that I believe I should be free to do whatever I want, as long as I don't negatively impact others. And, I believe others should be able to do the same. Of course, this whole "negatively impact" question is not as clear cut as in the case of murder and stealing. (If I have access to porn, does that negatively impact you or not? Perhaps the negative effect porn has on the participants makes it unethical)? Individuals will have their own opinions on these subjects. For a society as whole, I feel the best solution is to try and let the individuals decide for themselves, although clearly there's going to be some tension between those who make opposite decisions.
The only area where this one rule to derive them all breaks down is the area of punishment. Few people want to be punished, so punishing others would seem unethical by this standard. However, I'll note that for children it's obvious we punish to alter behavior, not to cause pain. In the long run the child will recognize the value of the punishment so it's OK. Similarly, I can believe that punishment for adults is ethical, if its purpose is to alter damaging behavior.