Probable mod if Bogtha's comment were in the Chrome TOS article: -1, Troll/Flamebait. Actual mod for the comment in this article: +5, Insightful/Informative.
You gotta love how people assume evil when Google screws up in a rather obvious way, and then realize the incompetence when they've had a few days to think it over.
1. The FCC, DoJ, and states' AG would have to let them do it, despite the fact that they're the biggest search engine on the planet. Even then, expect Microsoft to cry foul. 2. AT&T and a very small handful of smaller companies would need to let them use their fiber, unless Google wants to spend the billions needed to lay new fiber across the country. 3. They would need to contend with local construction laws and somehow get around the complex service arrangements that Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, et al. put in place to squeeze out true competitors (i.e. those that don't lease their services).
iTunes is most likely viewed by the record companies as a concession, because they want in on a major cash cow-- iPods-- and they don't want people copying CD or radio tracks to these devices.
The 1992 Audio Home Recording Act protects personal, noncommercial copies of audio recordings:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
This activity was further protected by RIAA v. Diamond when the Diamond Rio was challenged in court. Even so, the recording industry continues to insist that making high-fidelity or exact copies off of CDs is impermissible, if not illegal. But Apple was able to use both the AHRA, and the record companies' desire to keep anyone but them from making exact copies, to bring them to the negotiating table.
If it were about money, the labels would have banded together to form their own online store using Microsoft DRM and thus bankrupt any competitors like iTMS-- any forward-thinking businessman would jump on the internet and expand their profits a few orders of magnitude. If they really cared about expanding CD sales, they would have expanded their audience by making tracks freely available for download. Instead, they are getting jumped by Apple, Amazon, and a variety of other services publishing their media with or without DRM.
It is not about money. It is about maintaining an iron grip on the production and distribution of music. I suspect they really don't care whether you pay your fair share for the tracks you rip from your CD or buy from services like iTunes-- they're much more afraid of you or anyone else but them becoming a distributor through file sharing, because that means artists can use file sharing to distribute their works, cutting the labels completely out of the process. Notice that, for all the talk of getting back their money, they're primarily targeting people who "make available" CD tracks?
It's happening already, but only the most well-known or wealthiest of artists can do it, so far, and nearly all celebrity artists are indentured to the mainstream labels. If there were a Youtube-like service where artists can inexpensively distribute their works radio-style without any involvement of the mainstream record labels, and if that service supersedes radio in listenership, that will be the beginning of the end of the recording industry cartel, which is dependent on maintaining a monopoly on music listeners. This is why they are trying to kill both mainstream and independent internet radio through the Copyright Royalties Board, and why they are trying to legislate the protection of their production and distribution model.
The first thing we must do is find a way to stop SoundExchange from collecting royalties on non-affiliate music.
The counsel would have to be uncannily stupid and/or desperate to try this argument in court. It would be akin to a man convicted of fraud shifting the blame to his victims.
Not that this sort of blame-shifting hasn't happened before, mind you...
Don't they understand that it's the combination of collecting the information and presenting it in court that is the issue here?
They do-- at least, the record companies' counsel does. This is a delaying tactic so that the victims will be forced to pay their counsel for their time.
Second, assuming they do take the fifth, and the "evidence" upon which all of the cases are based is wiped out, won't SafeNet just hire some people with investigator's licenses to continue the farce?
They would have to get private eyes who treat their licenses as our Vice President treats the Constitution, and don't mind doing the same activities that the record companies are suing ordinary people for.
It has to do with the accumulation of a lot of wealth by Google, and the fact that Google's business is optimized by collecting data about the users using its free services. It also has to do with the fact that no security system is impregnable, especially if it's connected to the internet as closely as Google is.
Some conspiracy theorists think that this means Google cannot possibly collect user data in a responsible way that does not breach privacy, or that there is no guarantee that Google will not release the data to partner companies in return for more advertising dollars. I'm willing to hold off on judgment unless there was a verifiable pattern of abuse by Google, but most here don't want to wait until Google "shows its true evil colors". Any perceived intrusion into privacy, even if it is opt-in, is unacceptable to many a libertarian here.
Does the SEC have much power to investigate potential foul play? If they do, the DoJ movements can be political-- note that the Bush administration let Microsoft off with a fine and a big document saying "don't do it again, we'll be watching you with this kaleidoscope."
A hard-right conspiracy theorist and political activist with a dirty mouth and tactics (red flags for a 'false teacher' in Christian-speak), who is, ironically, a Ron Paul supporter-- which probably means he's a fiscal rather than social libertarian, as his demands on public figures and individuals smack of authoritarian values.
So, he's essentially Jack Thompson without the law degree/license, with different targets (pop culture in general, Christian hypocrisy with a beam in his own eye, as opposed to violent gaming), and insane*, opportunistic, and/or sensible enough to support Ron Paul.
* Insane, as in not possessing enough of his faculties to recognize that Dr. Paul might not approve of Dice's message.
What also gets my goat is the complete lack of intellectual integrity in the inevitable clashes among supporters of candidates. One supporter can't resist tossing in an irrelevant but cute-sounding epitaph, which sets off his opponent on a tirade, and causes a chain reaction that Fermi would be fascinated with.
Digging up information is easy, but drawing conclusions is hard*. All too often we let people do the hard part for us, and this contributes to the hard stances and the stubborn refusal to step in the other side's shoes. Gathering information and checking the reasoning of the common pundits and leaders is probably a sound compromise between not having enough time to draw all the right conclusions and blindly following a convincing voice.
Now, getting the public at large to mine data and ask the right questions may be harder than getting the White House to listen to dissension and agree to change its mind.
(Yeah, drawing conclusions may be easy for some. Don't fall into the trap of believing it's easy for everyone.)
The greater bottlenecks would be the optical disc or the Internet connection, I would think, unless the "install-to-HD" means "no more inserting discs" (I'd love to see the BSA squirm over that one).
Another problem for now is limited size: a single PS3 game can conceivably take up 1/4 of your SSD.
The thing is, hard numbers are easy, drawing conclusions isn't.
What data should you examine to compare the "TCO" of the Prius over 5 years versus a same model-year vehicle? Which vehicle would you compare it to-- a mid-size Matrix or Mazda3, since the Prius is classified as a mid-size liftback, or a Corolla-- a compact sedan-- to push cost and efficiency numbers in the ICE model's favor*? Would you take different financing plans into account in your analysis? Would you include maintenance (if any) of the electric component of the hybrid drivetrain?
Some of the "analysis" I've seen in Slashdot comments were either armchair analysis (with no references or actual logic), or oversimplified cherry-picks of data that factored in things like battery replacement after 11 years, most with the general aim of encouraging people to continue to buy small cars because they're cheaper now. It's the same mentality, IMO, that fuels the credit and financial industries-- don't worry about a few years down the road when you're effectively paying an arm and a leg more for a glorified limited rental today.
* I'd love to see why you would want a Prius/Corolla comparison if it's not for this reason.
Or the entertainment you receive from putting together your own toys is greater than the cost of your time, in which case you might even "profit".
The moral of the story is, don't conflate time with money. You can set a value to your time, but that's as far as you can go, because sometimes value isn't about money.
One other problem, if I'm not mistaken, is that it has a way of chemically altering the materials used in electrical insulation and rubber. Meaning, increased chances of shorts in cables that contain the stuff.
Another that the potting/submerging discussion touched on not long ago is the fact that mineral oil climbs anything and everything when in motion, leaching out of even the tightest seals, which is the biggest cause of the "big mess" you mentioned.
How much do you want to bet that, as Nixon sent Cheney and Rumsfeld to a Johnson-started agency to kill it, that the current crop of Republicans hired a bunch of conservative PHBs into NASA to neutralize it?
Slashdot Mirror
Probable mod if Bogtha's comment were in the Chrome TOS article: -1, Troll/Flamebait.
Actual mod for the comment in this article: +5, Insightful/Informative.
You gotta love how people assume evil when Google screws up in a rather obvious way, and then realize the incompetence when they've had a few days to think it over.
Google would have to break a few barriers:
1. The FCC, DoJ, and states' AG would have to let them do it, despite the fact that they're the biggest search engine on the planet. Even then, expect Microsoft to cry foul.
2. AT&T and a very small handful of smaller companies would need to let them use their fiber, unless Google wants to spend the billions needed to lay new fiber across the country.
3. They would need to contend with local construction laws and somehow get around the complex service arrangements that Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, et al. put in place to squeeze out true competitors (i.e. those that don't lease their services).
iTunes is most likely viewed by the record companies as a concession, because they want in on a major cash cow-- iPods-- and they don't want people copying CD or radio tracks to these devices.
The 1992 Audio Home Recording Act protects personal, noncommercial copies of audio recordings:
This activity was further protected by RIAA v. Diamond when the Diamond Rio was challenged in court. Even so, the recording industry continues to insist that making high-fidelity or exact copies off of CDs is impermissible, if not illegal. But Apple was able to use both the AHRA, and the record companies' desire to keep anyone but them from making exact copies, to bring them to the negotiating table.
If it were about money, the labels would have banded together to form their own online store using Microsoft DRM and thus bankrupt any competitors like iTMS-- any forward-thinking businessman would jump on the internet and expand their profits a few orders of magnitude. If they really cared about expanding CD sales, they would have expanded their audience by making tracks freely available for download. Instead, they are getting jumped by Apple, Amazon, and a variety of other services publishing their media with or without DRM.
It is not about money. It is about maintaining an iron grip on the production and distribution of music. I suspect they really don't care whether you pay your fair share for the tracks you rip from your CD or buy from services like iTunes-- they're much more afraid of you or anyone else but them becoming a distributor through file sharing, because that means artists can use file sharing to distribute their works, cutting the labels completely out of the process. Notice that, for all the talk of getting back their money, they're primarily targeting people who "make available" CD tracks?
It's happening already, but only the most well-known or wealthiest of artists can do it, so far, and nearly all celebrity artists are indentured to the mainstream labels. If there were a Youtube-like service where artists can inexpensively distribute their works radio-style without any involvement of the mainstream record labels, and if that service supersedes radio in listenership, that will be the beginning of the end of the recording industry cartel, which is dependent on maintaining a monopoly on music listeners. This is why they are trying to kill both mainstream and independent internet radio through the Copyright Royalties Board, and why they are trying to legislate the protection of their production and distribution model.
The first thing we must do is find a way to stop SoundExchange from collecting royalties on non-affiliate music.
The counsel would have to be uncannily stupid and/or desperate to try this argument in court. It would be akin to a man convicted of fraud shifting the blame to his victims.
Not that this sort of blame-shifting hasn't happened before, mind you...
They do-- at least, the record companies' counsel does. This is a delaying tactic so that the victims will be forced to pay their counsel for their time.
They would have to get private eyes who treat their licenses as our Vice President treats the Constitution, and don't mind doing the same activities that the record companies are suing ordinary people for.
Sadly, they may not have to look far.
It has to do with the accumulation of a lot of wealth by Google, and the fact that Google's business is optimized by collecting data about the users using its free services. It also has to do with the fact that no security system is impregnable, especially if it's connected to the internet as closely as Google is.
Some conspiracy theorists think that this means Google cannot possibly collect user data in a responsible way that does not breach privacy, or that there is no guarantee that Google will not release the data to partner companies in return for more advertising dollars. I'm willing to hold off on judgment unless there was a verifiable pattern of abuse by Google, but most here don't want to wait until Google "shows its true evil colors". Any perceived intrusion into privacy, even if it is opt-in, is unacceptable to many a libertarian here.
Does the SEC have much power to investigate potential foul play? If they do, the DoJ movements can be political-- note that the Bush administration let Microsoft off with a fine and a big document saying "don't do it again, we'll be watching you with this kaleidoscope."
It'd run the eternal life of the author plus 75 years.
I'm sure someone would argue that the last compiler and/or translator of the work would be the copyright holder. At least, post-Luther and Gutenberg.
A hard-right conspiracy theorist and political activist with a dirty mouth and tactics (red flags for a 'false teacher' in Christian-speak), who is, ironically, a Ron Paul supporter-- which probably means he's a fiscal rather than social libertarian, as his demands on public figures and individuals smack of authoritarian values.
So, he's essentially Jack Thompson without the law degree/license, with different targets (pop culture in general, Christian hypocrisy with a beam in his own eye, as opposed to violent gaming), and insane*, opportunistic, and/or sensible enough to support Ron Paul.
* Insane, as in not possessing enough of his faculties to recognize that Dr. Paul might not approve of Dice's message.
What also gets my goat is the complete lack of intellectual integrity in the inevitable clashes among supporters of candidates. One supporter can't resist tossing in an irrelevant but cute-sounding epitaph, which sets off his opponent on a tirade, and causes a chain reaction that Fermi would be fascinated with.
Digging up information is easy, but drawing conclusions is hard*. All too often we let people do the hard part for us, and this contributes to the hard stances and the stubborn refusal to step in the other side's shoes. Gathering information and checking the reasoning of the common pundits and leaders is probably a sound compromise between not having enough time to draw all the right conclusions and blindly following a convincing voice.
Now, getting the public at large to mine data and ask the right questions may be harder than getting the White House to listen to dissension and agree to change its mind.
(Yeah, drawing conclusions may be easy for some. Don't fall into the trap of believing it's easy for everyone.)
They patented Page Up / Page Down behaviors*, so what makes us think they wouldn't patent this as well?
* Yes, yes, not the keys themselves.
So before the hounds descend upon Microsoft it would seem the LSE has a history managing to bring down whatever system they run on.
So it's like the Slashdot Effect, only unintentional. Usually.
(How to annoy someone, point out a spelling error, AND be a creative twit at the same time)
The greater bottlenecks would be the optical disc or the Internet connection, I would think, unless the "install-to-HD" means "no more inserting discs" (I'd love to see the BSA squirm over that one).
Another problem for now is limited size: a single PS3 game can conceivably take up 1/4 of your SSD.
The thing is, hard numbers are easy, drawing conclusions isn't.
What data should you examine to compare the "TCO" of the Prius over 5 years versus a same model-year vehicle? Which vehicle would you compare it to-- a mid-size Matrix or Mazda3, since the Prius is classified as a mid-size liftback, or a Corolla-- a compact sedan-- to push cost and efficiency numbers in the ICE model's favor*? Would you take different financing plans into account in your analysis? Would you include maintenance (if any) of the electric component of the hybrid drivetrain?
Some of the "analysis" I've seen in Slashdot comments were either armchair analysis (with no references or actual logic), or oversimplified cherry-picks of data that factored in things like battery replacement after 11 years, most with the general aim of encouraging people to continue to buy small cars because they're cheaper now. It's the same mentality, IMO, that fuels the credit and financial industries-- don't worry about a few years down the road when you're effectively paying an arm and a leg more for a glorified limited rental today.
* I'd love to see why you would want a Prius/Corolla comparison if it's not for this reason.
The moral of the story is, don't conflate time with money. You can set a value to your time, but that's as far as you can go, because sometimes value isn't about money.
One other problem, if I'm not mistaken, is that it has a way of chemically altering the materials used in electrical insulation and rubber. Meaning, increased chances of shorts in cables that contain the stuff.
Another that the potting/submerging discussion touched on not long ago is the fact that mineral oil climbs anything and everything when in motion, leaching out of even the tightest seals, which is the biggest cause of the "big mess" you mentioned.
So, does Mithrandir then become the code name for the firewall, preventing pre-release leaks of footage?
"You cannot pass!!"
On the contrary, if it's McCain, it's going to be, "Heckuva job, Georgie!"
How much do you want to bet that, as Nixon sent Cheney and Rumsfeld to a Johnson-started agency to kill it, that the current crop of Republicans hired a bunch of conservative PHBs into NASA to neutralize it?
8 pages worth of stuff, 1/3 of which is denied by Privoxy/Adblock, and no "print version" in sight?
At least some of the big journos have done something right. Print version style sheets.
Okay, rant over.
You know that's corporate-speak for "We're looking for a strategy to minimize the negative PR, and make this customer go away."
"You tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try."
--Homer Simpson
I doubt they'd gut the kitchen; in fact, I can imagine them inviting Emeril and/or Alton Brown.