Probably not. The firewall only added value if it ever corectly stopped a program from gaining access.
Value was added, but the ignorance and/or stupidity and/or laziness of the home user negated it.
I am willing to bet good money that in 90% of typical homes, the users accept everything. Or they deny one thing once which they should have accepted, which breaks some functionality. They then "learn the lesson" and accept everything from then on, including whatever malware they may have.
That's not ZoneAlarm's fault, part of its basic functionality is to prompt the user to see if it's ok to allow the traffic. The fact that the user is an ignorant moron is no reason to remove a layer of protection. MS's enterprise customers have requested this because upper management is tired of the prompts to allow traffic, and doesn't understand (or care) about why they're there.
Microsoft claims to be comitted to increased IT security; this proves that to be a lie. After all, fixing machines is far more lucrative than putting out an OS that doesn't break in the first place. For example:
"Microsoft support, may I have your case or credit card number" "Hey! Your system allowed spyware to steal all my IP!" "May I have your credit card number please" "Don't you support this OS?" "Yes, may I have your credit card number please."
Maybe they weren't like that about that one specific topic.. but it's far more relevant to this conversation that the Puritans were people who got kicked out of England for being too uptight...
What would they care? They're already getting your check every month...
For a couple of reasons:
1. They sell local advertising. If people don't watch their ads, the ads are less effective, and their ad revenue goes down.
2. Cable companies get most of their content from outside sources, most of whom get the bulk of their operating budget from advertising sales. While ESPN isn't about to pull their content, for example, they would also have a vested interest in people watching the advertising they carry. If they're seeing less ad revenue because people are skipping their ads, it changes the playing field when the next contract is negotiated (usually to Comcast's disadvantage.)
This is my understanding of the system, but I don't work in it. It's just a logical assumption on my part that it's not in Comcast's interest to have people not watching advertising that they carry.
Not so long ago. I was skipping commercials just last night, courtesy of directions available on Wikipedia regarding how to re-enable it on my Comcast DVR. Look up your cable box's model number, and skip away.
Personally I'm amazed Comcast allowed this to exist, even hidden as it is.
Does anyone else remember when content was developed and delivered by separate companies?
This reminds me of an argument I had with someone a couple months ago regarding the importance of privacy vs. the importance of preventing terrorism. I argued that if we give up our privacy, sure, MAYBE they could gather enough intelligence and interpret it correctly to avoid another 9/11 - scale attack. (That's a BIG maybe. Personally I don't trust a government agency to tell me the sky is blue.) However, this doesn't protect American citizens.
That might not make sense until you take the position that once we give up those rights (which were so important to the Founding Fathers that they put them in the first few amendments to the constitution; I'm thinking first and fourth are most relevant) we are no longer American citizens. We're people who happen to live in the same country.
It's not worth giving up our national identity or constitutional rights/ideals for an indeterminate amount of increased security. The person I was arguing with said that if it saves just one life it's worth it; I said one life is not worth the subjugation of 300 million. It's not even close.
So then he trotted out the old "if you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to worry about" chestnut. I'm sorry, I don't want the US government to know who I talk to, who I associate with, what religon I observe, what newspapers I read, and what factors I consider when deciding when to take legal action. (Bonus points if you recognize what those five things have in common.) It's just not any of their business! Plus, it starts to have a chilling effect on what topics are "acceptable" to discuss and which ones make you an "enemy of the state". The temptation to abuse that information is just too great, and I don't trust an elected official to make that decision objectively. What one person considers treason (clearly illegal) another considers civil disobedience (legal so long as no other illegal acts are committed, protected by the Constitution.)
Like what? Selling stuff for less. Last I checked that was called competition.
"Competition" implies that the playing field is level. It's not even close in Wal-Mart's case. Wal-Mart has manipulated the system to such a degree that local business cannot possibly compete, as everyone knows that the only important thing is how much something costs, not its quality, durability, or who made it. It's also commonly known that Wal-Mart only sells products for lower prices until the competition is destroyed, then raises them to increase their profits.
Because it's really evil to switch to a lower cost provider.
Not "evil" per se. "Short-sighted", "Irresponsible", "Penny wise and pound foolish" would be the terms I'd be more likely to use.
And who ever said manufacturing jobs were so great? Arent they the jobs where you're exposed to toxic chemicals, work wierd hours, and are in constant danger of debilitating injury. Yeah, we're really loosing some great jobs.
Those jobs are how a lot of people feed their families. Manufacturing represents a large percentage of American jobs, and therefore are a significant factor in the American economy. Leaving alone the fact that it's taking food off the table, the drop in buying power has a measurable effect. (Not to mention increasing our trade deficit with China and the inherent lower quality of the goods produced as a result of limitations of materials and unskilled labor. If this keeps up, China will own the USA outright.)IMHO the inevitable argument that Wal-Mart compensates for that through lower prices is specious at best; the fact that something now costs $7.50 instead of $10 is pretty meaningless when you don't have any money to begin with.
Yes, how evil of walmart to let game companies know beforehand what titles they will stock. Wal-Mart should wait until the games are released, and suprise the game companies. Wouldn't that be fun!
You've missed the entire point of this article. It's not that Wal-Mart is choosing not to carry titles it considers objectionable (which is certianly their right), it's that Wal-Mart is controlling what games enter the market as a whole. They're forcing their values on the American public with their 800-pound gorilla status in the retail space. I don't share their values, and despite what some people would like to think, lots of other people don't share them either. They're restricting consumer choice based on what they consider "right" and "wrong". While it is true that feedback from a retailer indicating they will or won't carry a title isn't inherently a bad thing (the idea, after all, is to make money), Wal-Mart takes it too far.
Let ME make the choice regarding what is morally objectionable for myself (and my children). It's not right for that choice to be taken away from me. If a game comes out with rampant nudity, extreme violence, or bashes Wal-Mart (any of which, I'm sure, would keep it off Wally world's shelves) I might want to play it anyway. That's my choice, not theirs.
It's my understading, however, that there are far fewer drivers available for commodity x86 hardware, making the prospect of running OSX on a beige box PC kind of useless.
I can tell that your heart is in the right place, but the system that you suggest is ripe for abuse IMHO. I do like the idea of a peer-reviewed journal evaluating the worthiness of an idea or invention as part of the patent process. The implementation, however, would most likely be problematic.
Currently IMHO, the function of scientific journals is to test the results of research as repeatable and/or valid. There doesn't seem to be a (direct) financial motive to review an article favorably. (Yes, being published benefits the author(s) in terms of status, tenure, professorships, career advancement, etc., but those benefits are realized by the author, not the peers reviewing his/her article.)
Suddenly you introduce patents into the mix, and any objectivity on the part of the peers reviewing is gravely threatened by the financial considerations of obtaining the patent. This would be especially dangerous when pharmaceutical patents are considered; the drug companies have DEEP DEEP pockets, and who's to say that a favorable peer review wouldn't result in a new Mercedes in the driveway (less likely, easier to trace as fraudulent), or a cushy do-nothing job at said drug company (difficult to prove, as hiring processes are confidential)?
Then there's the concept of the importance of a scientific journal. The importance of said journal is currently based upon the merits of its peer review process, and the accuracy of said analysis. It's one of the few merit-based comparison systems that still exist. Suddenly you've got Joe's Pharmaceutical Journal and Bait Shop, who just happens to consistently give the pharmaceutical companies' products favorable reviews. Add a multi-million dollar precisely targeted marketing campaign extolling the virtues and excellent reputation of said journal (and maybe a couple all-expenses-paid junkets for a few of the right people) and suddenly it has "clout", leading to longer patent terms for the drug companies that benefit from obtaining patents.
I have to disagree with you that this would be effective; the only thing IMHO this would accomplish is destroying the objectivity of peer reviewed scientific journals. There's just too much money at stake; someone will inevitably be lured accross the line by the cash involved.
It's probably worth mentioning at that point that (at least in the USA) malpractice insurance premiums can easily reach six figures annually. So that $200k ends up being more like $100k after you pay the insurance cartel. Still not anything to sneeze at, but hardly huge money (especially if your house cost $750k, which would be considered a bargian in most large cities.)
(Something you may not know: The discipline with the highest malpractice premiums on average is not neurosurgery, cardiology, or another big name.. it's OB/GYN. Mostly because the first thing people do when they learn their baby has cerebral palsy is sue the OB.)
I wouldn't even call it "sneaky". It says right up front "Do you want to install this?" The right answer is "No", but the average moron will just click "Yes" to whatever comes up. I have very little sympathy for those people; they got themselves in trouble by installing something without knowing what it was.
I wouldn't consider that a rogue installation; the user is informed that they're installing this garbage, and have the option not to. That isn't a rogue installation, that's just basic user stupidity. While I won't defend the slime that writes and distributes this crap, taking advantage of someone's stupidity is what makes the (financial) world go around.
I'd define "rogue" installation as a drive-by install exploiting an ActiveX control in IE, where there's no warning that it's installing this crap.
If the executives get paid more, they pay more taxes.
Not necessarily. The executives have fancy schmancy tax pros too. Plus in that case you can think of the government only getting their money after the executive gets their "cut", ie their net income.
If the companies use the capital for investment, jobs are probably created.
True, in general. There are a couple "gotchas" there too.. If they use the money to build new production facilities, for example, they're going to make damn sure that they build it as cheaply as possible, at a site where the cost of living is the lowest (because people are poor), and pay those workers as little as they can possibly get away with. So it might actually be better if it went to taxation; the other way, quality of life suffers.
If they pay it to shareholders, it is taxed a little, but also probably used for investment.
And if those shareholders have any brains, they're generating tax-free income from it.
No matter how you slice it, it ends up that corporations pay nearly no tax, even if they have to spend the money elsewhere. So instead of being used (ostensibly) for the greater good (things like national defense, the interstate highway system, etc) it stays in the pockets of the rich.
If corporations didn't pay income tax, they would generally either pay the people working for them more
Pay... more? Are you sure these are American companies you're talking about? The same ones whose executives would rather rip off their own arms than pay a living wage?
or invest the money
Sure, if by "invest" you mean "line the executives' pockets". After all, it never happens that corporations get some sort of tax incentive or other break that goes directly into the CEO's pocket.
Most corporations hardly pay any tax as it is, and the ones who do need to fire their accountants. The removal of these taxes would reduce the need for fancy corporate accounting, but the net results would be 1) corporations would STILL not be paying their fair share of taxes, and 2) all those tax professionals would be out of a job. So we're in a position where your fix wouldn't change anything it intends to, and would in fact break several other things in the process.
I took my gf to listen to speakers (at a small hi-fi store -- no Bose here). She was a little surprised that she really could hear the difference in quality among the speakers. But when it comes right down to it, she's not going to spend $4000 on a pair of speakers.
While I wouldn't argue the point that "audiophile" speakers are hideously expensive, you don't have to spend quite that much to get a set of speakers that you can hear a difference on when you're comparing SACD/DVD-Audio to CD. I have a set of Cambridge Soundworks speakers (MovieWorks II, 5.1) attached to a 70 watts per channel $500 Onkyo amp. The setup cost me about $1200 - and I have to say it's been worth every penny. We use it every day, for TV, movies, all sorts of things.
The more you pay, the more you get.
While that's technically true, you do come to a point of diminishing returns IMHO.
Unfortunately, to get the next increment in quality, you have to pay significantly more money.
I disagree, for the reasons above.
SACD is great, but do I want to regularly pay twice as much for something that will only be heard differently on one of my CD players? Nah.
SACDs are generally not twice as expensive, they may be a few dollars more expensive than the regular CD version, and if you find them when the record first hits the market, they can be the same price. DVD-Audio disks will generally be more expensive due to some marketing nonsense, but not twice as much. And the DualDisc format (CD Audio on one side, DVD-Audio on the other) is roughly equivalent in price to the same title on regular CD. It's in the recording industry's interest to encourage the new formats, not because they're of higher quality, but so they can make people buy their entire collections over again (like what happened with CDs.)
And the excellent performance I'll be able to listen to anywhere -- like in my car. It's simply a smarter way to spend my paycheck.
Most SACDs include a CD-Audio compatible track; you can put them in your car player just as if they were regular CDs. (But IMHO this is the best argument for being able to make backup copies of your music disks: If your car gets broken into, you're out a 10 cent CDR instead of your $15 CD, and you still have your music.)
I'm not trying to be picky or pedantic here, I like the formats and would like to see them gain wider acceptance. (And no, I don't work for the RIAA:)
With computers, people are getting used to paying slightly more (or even the same as before), and getting drastically improved performance. Trying to sell something for drastically more money that offers slightly more performance is a tough sell, even to those of us who want it.
I disagree with you here; I find that the difference in price between the fastest CPU avaliable and the next fastest is disproportional, and the price difference between SACD/DVD-Audio is more than proportional to the quality improvement.
If you'd like to hear some titles that IMHO really do sound better on SACD, try Steely Dan's "Gaucho" (SACD), the Who's "Tommy" (SACD), Nine Inch Nails' "With Teeth" (DVD-Audio compatible DualDisc), and Blue Man Group's "Audio" (DVD-Audio) on a decent set of 5.1 speakers (like the CSW set I have). I bet the difference will not only be noticeable, but striking.
I'm out in the MetroWest area of Massachusetts; the theater in question is an AMC in Framingham, attached to the multiplex on Flutie Pass. (Yes, that's really the name of the street.)
Analog audio is good quality, let's not forget we live in an analog world..our eyes and ears process analog. The main problem in the piracy world is taking advantage of this hole properly, which many won't do because of the time and expense involved. I'm an audio engineer, I quite honestly find audio Cd's quite lacking in the sound game.
Now that I've listened to DVD-Audio and SACD, I agree that CDs are lacking. But you're an audio engineer and I'm an uptight elitist asshole, and we represent a very very very small percentage of the market. Most of the great unwashed couldn't give two shits about the quality of the experience they're having; they care that it's cheap and loud. When consumers begin to adopt HD-DVD and/or Blu-Ray, most of them will buy the inevitable converters to plug them into their older HDTVs (because they're used to having to buy extra stuff, since they don't understand or don't care about how to do things the way they're engineered), thus incurring the "analog hole" penalty, and either won't notice the difference or won't care. Thus the DRM doesn't have a negative effect on sales, even though the consumer is getting a quarter of the quality they're paying for.
It was even brought up a few times that record companies go back to distributing on vinyl to prevent piracy, it MIGHT work comsidering few people have the capability to properly record vinyl.
The key word there is "properly". People will go back to using their old-fashioned cassette decks, or capture the output in some other way that's been around since the 70's. There's a marked loss of sound quality, but again, people either don't notice or don't care.
IMHO this is the most important factor in trying to fight onerous DRM: The average consumer's complete apathy towards and/or ignorance of the drawbacks of the technology.
As far as movie theaters..that's a losing game.
And now we've hit on the REAL cause of theater revenues dropping in recent years. People used to like going to the movies. They paid a few bucks, got a decent seat, some popcorn, STFU'd, and watched the movie on a big screen. Now, you pay an arm and a leg, get a plastic seat, pay the other arm and leg for popcorn (or risked ejection by bringing your own snacks), yack yack yack incessantly throughout the movie (either to their companions or their cell phones), and watch the movie on some screen that probably has been completely poorly maintained, if at all, and listen to sound on blown out K-Mart quality speakers. Even the bigwigs at the MPAA have admitted that the poor theater experience contributes to the loss of revenues they're seeing. (There are exceptions to this experience; I saw V for Vendetta on opening weekend in a "premium cinema" near where I live. It's expensive, sure, but not all that much more than a regular theater, and when you factor in that the popcorn is free, the seats are leather, you have 2 of your own armrests, a pull-out tray table, and a full bar in the lobby that allows you to bring drinks into the theater, not to mention the THX spec sound an video, it's a fucking bargain.
All I know it isn't powerful enough to do HD output something both the original xbox and ps2 were able to do.
Sure, the PS2 could (and can) do 480p output. In my book, that's not HD, since it's the same resolution as a DVD. By way of comparison, if you have an HDTV monitor, you've probably noticed how lousy Fox HD shows look as compared to other networks. This is because Fox does 480p widescreen, and at least on my HDTV (Sony Grand Wega III 42" LCD rear projector) it looks significantly noisier than other, higher-resolution sources.
Of course, this is also predicated on your being able to find the Sony-policy-proprietary-bullshit connector to give you component video out. It's on amazon.com if you want it, but I've never seen it in a brick-and-mortar store.
I have faith in the consumer to ultimately choose what is best for them.
I most certianly don't.
Assuming the average consumer is an idiot who never can pick what is right rings of cynicism and arrogance.
There's no "assumption" about it. Witness Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and other popular consumer choices; Wal-Mart is without question bad for society as a whole (by driving down wages, increasing the food stamp/Medicaid rolls, passing off responsibility to their employees as a corporate culture), and McDonalds basically sells heart disease on a roll.
As long as the market is freely open to new choices that might be better, a state of monopoly is not harmful to the market as a whole.
That's just it; IMHO part and parcel of a monopoly is the ability to supress innovation and competition. Wal-Mart drives the competition out of business by undercutting their prices. Then, once the competition is dead, up go the prices = bad for the consumer. And at that point, they basically have no choice, if they don't want to drive for 2 hours.
Once consumers begin demanding something that Brand X doesn't have, either Brand X changes or something better will come along from someone else.
Not if they're told that the feature they're asking for isn't important, or that it's dangerous/expensive/carcinogenic. The American consumer will basically believe whatever allows he or she to remain a lazy slob.
On an instantaneous or short term examination, it looks really bad because consumers want a product that doesn't exist.
I don't think that looks so bad; consumers desiring better product is a natural function of the economy, even with the sheeple we have here. The problem comes in when the monopolist decides that they don't want to provide the new features/product/improvement/whatever, and can get away with it because there's no other choice.
I was with you up until there. You still seem to be hung up on the concept of popular = good. I know lots of people who avoid x86 hardware like the plague for various reasons; it all depends on what you're going to do with it.
A de facto monopoly is still a monopoly. Loss of consumer choice is still bad even if it's the consumers taking it away.
I see what you're saying. And I do believe that Ford couldn't make that car, just as Microsoft couldn't make that "best OS evar".
A monopoly in any market is bad for the consumer. Removing consumer choice is always bad for the consumer, even if he/she doesn't recognize that it is. I don't care if Windows truly were the best OS available, if it were the ONLY OS available, that would be bad for the consumer; once that market dominance had been reached and there were no more competition, there would be no incentive to make a good product, and everyone who's locked in to Microsoft products suffers.
It's another case of "just because it's popular doesn't mean it's any good." See: Wal-Mart, McDonalds, country music, etc. The masses don't necessarily make the best choices.. see my sig.
Slashdot Mirror
This one point combined with all their other ass-backwards security, yes.
Microsoft claims to be comitted to increased IT security; this proves that to be a lie. After all, fixing machines is far more lucrative than putting out an OS that doesn't break in the first place. For example:
"Microsoft support, may I have your case or credit card number" "Hey! Your system allowed spyware to steal all my IP!" "May I have your credit card number please" "Don't you support this OS?" "Yes, may I have your credit card number please."
Dropping acid doesn't help your wrists any :)
No, a *good* manager would lay off two people and make someone do all three jobs.
A *great* manager would fire everyone except the H-1B visa holder and make them do everything.
Maybe they weren't like that about that one specific topic.. but it's far more relevant to this conversation that the Puritans were people who got kicked out of England for being too uptight...
Takes some doing, IMHO.
1. They sell local advertising. If people don't watch their ads, the ads are less effective, and their ad revenue goes down.
2. Cable companies get most of their content from outside sources, most of whom get the bulk of their operating budget from advertising sales. While ESPN isn't about to pull their content, for example, they would also have a vested interest in people watching the advertising they carry. If they're seeing less ad revenue because people are skipping their ads, it changes the playing field when the next contract is negotiated (usually to Comcast's disadvantage.)
This is my understanding of the system, but I don't work in it. It's just a logical assumption on my part that it's not in Comcast's interest to have people not watching advertising that they carry.
Not so long ago. I was skipping commercials just last night, courtesy of directions available on Wikipedia regarding how to re-enable it on my Comcast DVR. Look up your cable box's model number, and skip away.
Personally I'm amazed Comcast allowed this to exist, even hidden as it is.
Does anyone else remember when content was developed and delivered by separate companies?
Kind of OT, feel free to moderate as such:
This reminds me of an argument I had with someone a couple months ago regarding the importance of privacy vs. the importance of preventing terrorism. I argued that if we give up our privacy, sure, MAYBE they could gather enough intelligence and interpret it correctly to avoid another 9/11 - scale attack. (That's a BIG maybe. Personally I don't trust a government agency to tell me the sky is blue.) However, this doesn't protect American citizens.
That might not make sense until you take the position that once we give up those rights (which were so important to the Founding Fathers that they put them in the first few amendments to the constitution; I'm thinking first and fourth are most relevant) we are no longer American citizens. We're people who happen to live in the same country.
It's not worth giving up our national identity or constitutional rights/ideals for an indeterminate amount of increased security. The person I was arguing with said that if it saves just one life it's worth it; I said one life is not worth the subjugation of 300 million. It's not even close.
So then he trotted out the old "if you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to worry about" chestnut. I'm sorry, I don't want the US government to know who I talk to, who I associate with, what religon I observe, what newspapers I read, and what factors I consider when deciding when to take legal action. (Bonus points if you recognize what those five things have in common.) It's just not any of their business! Plus, it starts to have a chilling effect on what topics are "acceptable" to discuss and which ones make you an "enemy of the state". The temptation to abuse that information is just too great, and I don't trust an elected official to make that decision objectively. What one person considers treason (clearly illegal) another considers civil disobedience (legal so long as no other illegal acts are committed, protected by the Constitution.)
AFAIK think "prawn" with less of the W sound.
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
"Is our children learning?"
Opposite ends of the social spectrum, same effect. (The "learnings" sent me in this direction.)
Let ME make the choice regarding what is morally objectionable for myself (and my children). It's not right for that choice to be taken away from me. If a game comes out with rampant nudity, extreme violence, or bashes Wal-Mart (any of which, I'm sure, would keep it off Wally world's shelves) I might want to play it anyway. That's my choice, not theirs.
It's my understading, however, that there are far fewer drivers available for commodity x86 hardware, making the prospect of running OSX on a beige box PC kind of useless.
Has this changed?
I can tell that your heart is in the right place, but the system that you suggest is ripe for abuse IMHO. I do like the idea of a peer-reviewed journal evaluating the worthiness of an idea or invention as part of the patent process. The implementation, however, would most likely be problematic.
Currently IMHO, the function of scientific journals is to test the results of research as repeatable and/or valid. There doesn't seem to be a (direct) financial motive to review an article favorably. (Yes, being published benefits the author(s) in terms of status, tenure, professorships, career advancement, etc., but those benefits are realized by the author, not the peers reviewing his/her article.)
Suddenly you introduce patents into the mix, and any objectivity on the part of the peers reviewing is gravely threatened by the financial considerations of obtaining the patent. This would be especially dangerous when pharmaceutical patents are considered; the drug companies have DEEP DEEP pockets, and who's to say that a favorable peer review wouldn't result in a new Mercedes in the driveway (less likely, easier to trace as fraudulent), or a cushy do-nothing job at said drug company (difficult to prove, as hiring processes are confidential)?
Then there's the concept of the importance of a scientific journal. The importance of said journal is currently based upon the merits of its peer review process, and the accuracy of said analysis. It's one of the few merit-based comparison systems that still exist. Suddenly you've got Joe's Pharmaceutical Journal and Bait Shop, who just happens to consistently give the pharmaceutical companies' products favorable reviews. Add a multi-million dollar precisely targeted marketing campaign extolling the virtues and excellent reputation of said journal (and maybe a couple all-expenses-paid junkets for a few of the right people) and suddenly it has "clout", leading to longer patent terms for the drug companies that benefit from obtaining patents.
I have to disagree with you that this would be effective; the only thing IMHO this would accomplish is destroying the objectivity of peer reviewed scientific journals. There's just too much money at stake; someone will inevitably be lured accross the line by the cash involved.
It's probably worth mentioning at that point that (at least in the USA) malpractice insurance premiums can easily reach six figures annually. So that $200k ends up being more like $100k after you pay the insurance cartel. Still not anything to sneeze at, but hardly huge money (especially if your house cost $750k, which would be considered a bargian in most large cities.)
(Something you may not know: The discipline with the highest malpractice premiums on average is not neurosurgery, cardiology, or another big name.. it's OB/GYN. Mostly because the first thing people do when they learn their baby has cerebral palsy is sue the OB.)
I wouldn't even call it "sneaky". It says right up front "Do you want to install this?" The right answer is "No", but the average moron will just click "Yes" to whatever comes up. I have very little sympathy for those people; they got themselves in trouble by installing something without knowing what it was.
I wouldn't consider that a rogue installation; the user is informed that they're installing this garbage, and have the option not to. That isn't a rogue installation, that's just basic user stupidity. While I won't defend the slime that writes and distributes this crap, taking advantage of someone's stupidity is what makes the (financial) world go around.
I'd define "rogue" installation as a drive-by install exploiting an ActiveX control in IE, where there's no warning that it's installing this crap.
No matter how you slice it, it ends up that corporations pay nearly no tax, even if they have to spend the money elsewhere. So instead of being used (ostensibly) for the greater good (things like national defense, the interstate highway system, etc) it stays in the pockets of the rich.
(ducks expecting HURR LIBTARD HURR flames)
Most corporations hardly pay any tax as it is, and the ones who do need to fire their accountants. The removal of these taxes would reduce the need for fancy corporate accounting, but the net results would be 1) corporations would STILL not be paying their fair share of taxes, and 2) all those tax professionals would be out of a job. So we're in a position where your fix wouldn't change anything it intends to, and would in fact break several other things in the process.
I'm not trying to be picky or pedantic here, I like the formats and would like to see them gain wider acceptance. (And no, I don't work for the RIAA
If you'd like to hear some titles that IMHO really do sound better on SACD, try Steely Dan's "Gaucho" (SACD), the Who's "Tommy" (SACD), Nine Inch Nails' "With Teeth" (DVD-Audio compatible DualDisc), and Blue Man Group's "Audio" (DVD-Audio) on a decent set of 5.1 speakers (like the CSW set I have). I bet the difference will not only be noticeable, but striking.
I'm out in the MetroWest area of Massachusetts; the theater in question is an AMC in Framingham, attached to the multiplex on Flutie Pass. (Yes, that's really the name of the street.)
IMHO this is the most important factor in trying to fight onerous DRM: The average consumer's complete apathy towards and/or ignorance of the drawbacks of the technology. And now we've hit on the REAL cause of theater revenues dropping in recent years. People used to like going to the movies. They paid a few bucks, got a decent seat, some popcorn, STFU'd, and watched the movie on a big screen. Now, you pay an arm and a leg, get a plastic seat, pay the other arm and leg for popcorn (or risked ejection by bringing your own snacks), yack yack yack incessantly throughout the movie (either to their companions or their cell phones), and watch the movie on some screen that probably has been completely poorly maintained, if at all, and listen to sound on blown out K-Mart quality speakers. Even the bigwigs at the MPAA have admitted that the poor theater experience contributes to the loss of revenues they're seeing. (There are exceptions to this experience; I saw V for Vendetta on opening weekend in a "premium cinema" near where I live. It's expensive, sure, but not all that much more than a regular theater, and when you factor in that the popcorn is free, the seats are leather, you have 2 of your own armrests, a pull-out tray table, and a full bar in the lobby that allows you to bring drinks into the theater, not to mention the THX spec sound an video, it's a fucking bargain.
Of course, this is also predicated on your being able to find the Sony-policy-proprietary-bullshit connector to give you component video out. It's on amazon.com if you want it, but I've never seen it in a brick-and-mortar store.
A de facto monopoly is still a monopoly. Loss of consumer choice is still bad even if it's the consumers taking it away.
I see what you're saying. And I do believe that Ford couldn't make that car, just as Microsoft couldn't make that "best OS evar".
A monopoly in any market is bad for the consumer. Removing consumer choice is always bad for the consumer, even if he/she doesn't recognize that it is. I don't care if Windows truly were the best OS available, if it were the ONLY OS available, that would be bad for the consumer; once that market dominance had been reached and there were no more competition, there would be no incentive to make a good product, and everyone who's locked in to Microsoft products suffers.
It's another case of "just because it's popular doesn't mean it's any good." See: Wal-Mart, McDonalds, country music, etc. The masses don't necessarily make the best choices.. see my sig.