The simple problem with DRM and all the related topics is "Who's rights are more important?" Obviously, someone's has to be slightly decreased in order for anothers to be allowed to roam free. Consumers can't have free riegn of fair-use without copyright holders dealing with some losses. Likewise, copyright holders can't protect all their rights without causing the consumers to throw away or severely limit many of their own rights.
Can we and should we find a balence, or simple a winner? Where are we headed right now?
Unfortunately, your opinion seems to be prevalent in those who have little experience with the satellite radio companies.
That is part of my point on the matter. Most people don't know that they would enjoy XM enough to pay for it, and most of those people won't get a chance to find out.
Additionally, by the time the "XM expirience" spreads to a sufficient portion of the population, a more open alternitive will be available that will be adopted first. What will consumers choose? XM Radio or DirectTV with internet access giving them millions of choices in internet radio along with internet access and 300+ channels? And people realize the need/want for TV and Internet on the go.
So, which do you think they will be more likely to choose?
XM has had most of its nails in from the beginning. Many companies have been succesful in monopolizing on something they could easily be the only to give away. But, XM fails to realize two things.
1) The majority of customers don't see enough worth in the difference between their product and regular AM/FM radio to be a good option.
2) Building off a public network like radio doesn't work all that well when the current model has been carved into our brains.
Once internet access is more common in vehicals, its only a matter of time before internet transmitted radio with location specific spliced advertisements is the norm. I welcome the change.
i mentioned decentralization for two reasons: 1) because a decentralized distributed number crunching system would be useful for several things 2) the central server wont back out like The Neo Project did.
And as a encryption keys get exponentially larger, dont they get exponentially less effective in relation to their size?
As the key gets larger, it does get more and more difficult to crack, but there are also less possibilities added, yes? because as numbers rise, the occurance of primes falls.
still, who would like to continue this little project? reply such or email me and lets start up the project. im quite serious.
I'm sure plenty of people would still like to crack this key. I propose modifying the Neo Client into a decentralized system so anyone still interested can still donate those CPU cycles.
Does anyone, perhaps close to the Neo Project, have any idea why the stopped trying to crack the XBox key? They state legal reasons, but I don't see any specifics. As far as I knew, this was legal. After all, isn't this what The Neo Project does all the time? Why is the key being on the XBox any different?
The issue at stake here is not about Apple, "iApps", mac users, or OS X. The issue at stake is the assumptions made by users and the corporations following those assumptions or trampling those in the mud.
I know a lot of you get pissed when people claim, in this example, that Apple should not charge for this software. It is a perfectly valid argument to claim that Apple has every right to do this, it is their software.
The phone company has every right to charge you ten cents a minute for even local calls. How many of your are on dial-up to a local provider? Sure, they have the right to do that, but the customer expects a certain ammount of respect from the companies we support.
A level of trust is missing in the customer-company relationship that needs to be found again, or perhaps for the first time in many situations, companies, and peoples.
X predates Microsoft Windows, correct? Well, then, couldn't it be used as a proof that the use of "window" and "windows" wasn't even MS's idea? It was nothing original, thats like me trademarking "Text Editor" as an original application.
those plastic snowmen with the fiber optics lighting would meet the requirements for this patent. sorry apple. additionally, its not even a new idea. sci-fi electronic camoflage suits do this as well. including, how about this, hotwheels color-changing toys.
This simply supports my theory that the best way to produce an operating is not to hide the lower-levels but to openly build on them. hopefully this is what they are planning on doing. not even the *nix's do this correctly. what im talking about is that everything should be able to be controlled via a command line at any time, including GUI's, which should be a simple abstraction of the lower level interfaces.
On one hand, there is the fact that yeah it might not work so good. But, on the other hand, we all know it would be damn cool to own a gun like that. I don't think they should be required, yet, however, until the technology is stable enough to assure that it will work correctly.
This just reaffirms my growing theory that software development is moving away from a science and becoming more of an art, as it becomes easier and the skills less brain-dependant.
I believe the Internet will soon find itself on a path to "electron borders" for countries. Systems will be protected by protocols forcing legal agreements before proceeeding, such as "I agree that I speak Dutch and therefor can understand the legal agreements I am forced to comply with simply by loading a page." Of course, the Internet is a river that always finds a mountain to go around in its path and never goes where it is intended. So, it will be interesting to see how things progress.
As for the bit at the end of the article...
on
Decentralization
·
· Score: 1
I've now decided which cell phone I will be getting after christmas. Well, not that particular model, but I will be using a J2ME phone, and not another platform. Makes more sense since I know Java already, yes?
I wasn't. Spielburg has really lost something in alot of his recent projects. Just look at the low quality (comparitively) of AI (especially compared to if Kubrick had finished it), Minority Report, JP 3, and the horrible defacing of E.T.
Although, I am quite interested in seeing how his new "Catch Me If You Can" will be. It looks good.
A very good point. Adding to this, it should be noted that a standard is really only a standard in this way. How is something a standard because a small fraction of people determine it to be?
Slashdot Mirror
Speak for yourself. What I am worried about is DRM getting in the way of my legal activities, and that's a fact.
The simple problem with DRM and all the related topics is "Who's rights are more important?" Obviously, someone's has to be slightly decreased in order for anothers to be allowed to roam free. Consumers can't have free riegn of fair-use without copyright holders dealing with some losses. Likewise, copyright holders can't protect all their rights without causing the consumers to throw away or severely limit many of their own rights.
Can we and should we find a balence, or simple a winner? Where are we headed right now?
Unfortunately, your opinion seems to be prevalent in those who have little experience with the satellite radio companies.
That is part of my point on the matter. Most people don't know that they would enjoy XM enough to pay for it, and most of those people won't get a chance to find out.
Additionally, by the time the "XM expirience" spreads to a sufficient portion of the population, a more open alternitive will be available that will be adopted first. What will consumers choose? XM Radio or DirectTV with internet access giving them millions of choices in internet radio along with internet access and 300+ channels? And people realize the need/want for TV and Internet on the go.
So, which do you think they will be more likely to choose?
XM has had most of its nails in from the beginning. Many companies have been succesful in monopolizing on something they could easily be the only to give away. But, XM fails to realize two things.
1) The majority of customers don't see enough worth in the difference between their product and regular AM/FM radio to be a good option.
2) Building off a public network like radio doesn't work all that well when the current model has been carved into our brains.
Once internet access is more common in vehicals, its only a matter of time before internet transmitted radio with location specific spliced advertisements is the norm. I welcome the change.
i mentioned decentralization for two reasons:
1) because a decentralized distributed number crunching system would be useful for several things
2) the central server wont back out like The Neo Project did.
And as a encryption keys get exponentially larger, dont they get exponentially less effective in relation to their size?
As the key gets larger, it does get more and more difficult to crack, but there are also less possibilities added, yes? because as numbers rise, the occurance of primes falls.
still, who would like to continue this little project? reply such or email me and lets start up the project. im quite serious.
I'm sure plenty of people would still like to crack this key. I propose modifying the Neo Client into a decentralized system so anyone still interested can still donate those CPU cycles.
Does anyone, perhaps close to the Neo Project, have any idea why the stopped trying to crack the XBox key? They state legal reasons, but I don't see any specifics. As far as I knew, this was legal. After all, isn't this what The Neo Project does all the time? Why is the key being on the XBox any different?
In an entire forum talking about code jokes and humorous comments you pick this one poor soul to insult? fiend.
The issue at stake here is not about Apple, "iApps", mac users, or OS X. The issue at stake is the assumptions made by users and the corporations following those assumptions or trampling those in the mud.
I know a lot of you get pissed when people claim, in this example, that Apple should not charge for this software. It is a perfectly valid argument to claim that Apple has every right to do this, it is their software.
The phone company has every right to charge you ten cents a minute for even local calls. How many of your are on dial-up to a local provider? Sure, they have the right to do that, but the customer expects a certain ammount of respect from the companies we support.
A level of trust is missing in the customer-company relationship that needs to be found again, or perhaps for the first time in many situations, companies, and peoples.
ive been working on a very similar, almost identical system for a while. still mind-ware, but im glad someone got a round to it. good job.
is that this is illegal. not to mention complete bullshit.
ive been wanting this for years!
X predates Microsoft Windows, correct? Well, then, couldn't it be used as a proof that the use of "window" and "windows" wasn't even MS's idea? It was nothing original, thats like me trademarking "Text Editor" as an original application.
those plastic snowmen with the fiber optics lighting would meet the requirements for this patent. sorry apple. additionally, its not even a new idea. sci-fi electronic camoflage suits do this as well. including, how about this, hotwheels color-changing toys.
This simply supports my theory that the best way to produce an operating is not to hide the lower-levels but to openly build on them. hopefully this is what they are planning on doing. not even the *nix's do this correctly. what im talking about is that everything should be able to be controlled via a command line at any time, including GUI's, which should be a simple abstraction of the lower level interfaces.
i think the point the poster was making is that they may have been a little false in their patent submission.
Now we get to reverse engineer documentation as well as software! yay!
On one hand, there is the fact that yeah it might not work so good. But, on the other hand, we all know it would be damn cool to own a gun like that. I don't think they should be required, yet, however, until the technology is stable enough to assure that it will work correctly.
reminds me of the "Lost in Space" movie.
This just reaffirms my growing theory that software development is moving away from a science and becoming more of an art, as it becomes easier and the skills less brain-dependant.
I believe the Internet will soon find itself on a path to "electron borders" for countries. Systems will be protected by protocols forcing legal agreements before proceeeding, such as "I agree that I speak Dutch and therefor can understand the legal agreements I am forced to comply with simply by loading a page." Of course, the Internet is a river that always finds a mountain to go around in its path and never goes where it is intended. So, it will be interesting to see how things progress.
How much tax money are our rights worth?
I've now decided which cell phone I will be getting after christmas. Well, not that particular model, but I will be using a J2ME phone, and not another platform. Makes more sense since I know Java already, yes?
What about just installing and booting a Linux Dist. for the PPC arch?
I wasn't. Spielburg has really lost something in alot of his recent projects. Just look at the low quality (comparitively) of AI (especially compared to if Kubrick had finished it), Minority Report, JP 3, and the horrible defacing of E.T.
Although, I am quite interested in seeing how his new "Catch Me If You Can" will be. It looks good.
A very good point. Adding to this, it should be noted that a standard is really only a standard in this way. How is something a standard because a small fraction of people determine it to be?