Except that isn't the problem. Most of the people who steal content don't buy much anyway. They can't afford it.
What makes these jokers' knuckles white is the thought that somewhere, out there, someone is going to buy content, and then put it on the Internet. Nevermind the fact that the pirates get everything anyway, they can't handle the idea of their actual customers copying anything. Once people realize it costs nothing to copy, they'll never buy anything again! They won't need us anymore! Every DRM scheme is focused around keeping "honest people honest" by making copying a difficult process.
It is basically a moral panic, akin to the comics code, anti-porn hysteria, and the drug wars. They assume that as soon as taste the forbidden fruit, their entire industry will collapse.
Except that isn't the way it works. None of these companies sell you what you want to buy, they sell you what they want you to buy.
After all, where is the demand for FairPlay, Macrovision, HDCP, and phones locked to one carrier? Where is the demand for more expensive privatized water, gas, electricity, and trash collection? Where is the demand for slow digital boxes from your cable company, when modern televisions can show digital video just fine on their own?
It is the nature of modern capitalism to lead the consumer. Demand is a resource to be managed and controlled. And you don't need an explicit cartel to do it, with supply all on the same page, using the same talking points, and the government in deep in their pockets.
Oh, boy, an article dissing on IQ, and out of the woodwork come all the jealous haters.
You want to know why extraordinarily smart people do silly things? It is because they don't live in the same world as you do. They live in a world full of abstract complexity and wonder, and they don't notice or care about the tedium that is your day-to-day life. So what if they drop cell phones in the toilet and microwave forks? That has nothing to do with being "smart". They just don't care. Why learn what doesn't matter?
That's what you really hate, isn't it? It isn't just that some things are easier for them. It is that they dismiss what you consider important the way you dismiss the games of children.
He didn't write it, "NIK282000" wrote it. You want him to tone down someone else's words? That'd be, like, censorship, man. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a world where editors can change what people write.
So you're saying that it makes everyone else look bad purely because they got caught? It had nothing to do with them violating the airline's policy. It's only bad because they got caught?!?
Says the anonymous coward reading slashdot at work.
Where the hell do you think the money comes from to pay the corporate taxes? The tooth fairy? Of course it comes from the consumer, and of course prices will rise to accomodate them.
Where the hell do you think the money comes from to pay income taxes? Santa Claus? Of course it comes from the employer, and of courses salaries will rise to accommodate them.
If we take this as true, it's an example of why for some people, paying a premium for a Macintosh is worth the cost and can make sense. You give up the freedom to do all sorts of things (like get a machine with specs perfectly suited to specialized needs for example), but you gain freedom from a lot of problems of this sort.
My Macbook Pro stopped charging its battery. To fix it I had to download and install an update to the power management firmware, a process every bit as "scary" as applying a BIOS update. Then, a few months later, the battery swelled so much it popped open its enclosure.
But hey, having a hardware and software monoculture solves these kinds of problems, right? Dream on. All it really buys you is the ability to hold the vendor completely accountable for any problems. But then again, it's that way with all laptops, ain't it?
Besides the Bank of Mom and Dad that most posters pretend DIDN'T finance their college education (including housing), how is your claim possible? Really. I'd like to hear this one.
You're joking, right?
I know not everyone can get scholarships, but scholarships alone are an assumption of future success. The people with highest loan debt are also the highest risk for paying it back. There is always a cheaper school, and there is always a school with less stringent entrance requirements, one more likely to award scholarships and financial aid to whomever raises its averages. For many people, their "safety" school should have been their first choice.
Think of it this way: if you're paying full tuition, you're actually there to subsidize the people the school believes will increase its prestige.
You wrote a wall of text that addresses nothing I said. A doctor that does not understand the effect of radiation on human tissue is as useful as a pilot who doesn't understand turbulence. Or a barista who doesn't know how steam makes coffee and frothed milk.
This machine obfuscated the radiation level it was outputting. Or the technician ignored the value the machine was reporting. There was a disconnect with reality - the mental model of the user was different than the model the machine was designed around. It is not supposed to be as intuitive as an iPod (whose intuitiveness is a fiction in itself).
Every one of your examples emphasized my point: there is no cockpit or nuclear control room that isn't covered with displays, indicators and switches. There is no such thing as a "Landing Wizard". There is an extremely well defined model for proper operation of these machines, they have thousands of inputs, and nothing in their immense automation systems contradict that. Automation isn't an interface, automation is an aspect of the machine itself. Using a machine is all about knowing beforehand the effect of an action, being able to predict the output of an input, and knowing which action to take. A good user interface is about giving the user what they need to make those decisions accurately. Not easily, not without understanding. Accurately.
What's wrong with that? When I get in my car, I expect to have a handbrake which I can use in case my normal brakes fail. Machines SHOULD be designed in a way that makes it damn near impossible for the user to screw up.
You contradict yourself. Applying the parking brake at sufficient speed will cause you to lose control. It isn't in any use case, therefore it should be disabled while the car is in motion.
Nonsense, you're still asking users to trust the default, only now the default useless because you lowered it to something 'safe'.
It sounds like the error was simply that the doctors didn't reset the machine after cranking up the dosage for a very particular situation. To expect that the machine would forget this setting, and go back to what it had been doing for years previously, is ridiculous, and goes to show how dangerous what you're suggesting is. They have obviously been trained to trust the machine to fix their mistakes.
This is a lesson in user interface design, though it goes against the dominant ideology, which wants to wrap everything in kid gloves and training wheels, hide complexity and make as many decisions for the user as possible. The user should have a total understanding of the thing they are manipulating. That doesn't mean they need to know physics or software architecture, it only means they share the same domain model in their mind as the author of the software.
These doctors treated this machine like a magic button that takes pictures. This is what happens when a user interface lies to its users, fooling them into thinking something is simple when it is in fact complex and dangerous.
The one really big hurdle which Android faces and which WinMo and iPhone have worked around is the problem of a moving target.
What does this mean? Do you have any understanding of what you're talking about? Please explain to us how these other platforms "worked around" this issue.
Overweight, socially awkward men with poor hygiene resent women. They really resent women who are smarter than them or are better at the things around which they derive self-esteem.
The problem isn't that you aren't tolerant of women. The problem is that you're tolerant of the sad sacks who drive them away. FOSS needs a pecking order and it needs to keep the cretins at the bottom, where they belong. You're living Revenge of the Nerds but you're letting Booger call the shots.
Why would they? Sun wanted standardization and encouraged independent implementations from the get-go. Microsoft, on the other hand, has made vague threats about suing Linux users in the past, from which the Novell-Microsoft alliance was born as a protection racket.
It has nothing to do with other languages, or the comical idea that a naive Slashdot poster might accidentally reinvent the technology in question. It has to do with what patented technology exists in Mono, and what parts of it are not covered by Microsoft's promise not to sue people over as a requirement for ECMA standardization.
For people who need full compatibility with the Windows platform, Mono's strategy for dealing with any potential issues that might arise with ASP.NET, ADO.NET or Windows.Forms is: (1) work around the patent by using a different implementation technique that retains the API, but changes the mechanism; if that is not possible, we would (2) remove the pieces of code that were covered by those patents, and also (3) find prior art that would render the patent useless.
Gives you warm fuzzies, doesn't it? Do you know who wrote this? Is your error starting to click yet?
Slashdot Mirror
Except that isn't the problem. Most of the people who steal content don't buy much anyway. They can't afford it.
What makes these jokers' knuckles white is the thought that somewhere, out there, someone is going to buy content, and then put it on the Internet. Nevermind the fact that the pirates get everything anyway, they can't handle the idea of their actual customers copying anything. Once people realize it costs nothing to copy, they'll never buy anything again! They won't need us anymore! Every DRM scheme is focused around keeping "honest people honest" by making copying a difficult process.
It is basically a moral panic, akin to the comics code, anti-porn hysteria, and the drug wars. They assume that as soon as taste the forbidden fruit, their entire industry will collapse.
Except that isn't the way it works. None of these companies sell you what you want to buy, they sell you what they want you to buy.
After all, where is the demand for FairPlay, Macrovision, HDCP, and phones locked to one carrier? Where is the demand for more expensive privatized water, gas, electricity, and trash collection? Where is the demand for slow digital boxes from your cable company, when modern televisions can show digital video just fine on their own?
It is the nature of modern capitalism to lead the consumer. Demand is a resource to be managed and controlled. And you don't need an explicit cartel to do it, with supply all on the same page, using the same talking points, and the government in deep in their pockets.
Oh, boy, an article dissing on IQ, and out of the woodwork come all the jealous haters.
You want to know why extraordinarily smart people do silly things? It is because they don't live in the same world as you do. They live in a world full of abstract complexity and wonder, and they don't notice or care about the tedium that is your day-to-day life. So what if they drop cell phones in the toilet and microwave forks? That has nothing to do with being "smart". They just don't care. Why learn what doesn't matter?
That's what you really hate, isn't it? It isn't just that some things are easier for them. It is that they dismiss what you consider important the way you dismiss the games of children.
So, perhaps this gene is more of a "delusion of competence" gene?
FTFY
I hope no one tells them about DEFCON. You can kill billions of civilians in that game.
He didn't write it, "NIK282000" wrote it. You want him to tone down someone else's words? That'd be, like, censorship, man. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a world where editors can change what people write.
So you're saying that it makes everyone else look bad purely because they got caught? It had nothing to do with them violating the airline's policy. It's only bad because they got caught?!?
Says the anonymous coward reading slashdot at work.
Where the hell do you think the money comes from to pay the corporate taxes? The tooth fairy? Of course it comes from the consumer, and of course prices will rise to accomodate them.
Where the hell do you think the money comes from to pay income taxes? Santa Claus? Of course it comes from the employer, and of courses salaries will rise to accommodate them.
So is property.
The GPL, being dependent on copyright and contracts, is very much in line with strong property rights.
Those loosey-goosey MIT and BSD licenses, not so much.
If we take this as true, it's an example of why for some people, paying a premium for a Macintosh is worth the cost and can make sense. You give up the freedom to do all sorts of things (like get a machine with specs perfectly suited to specialized needs for example), but you gain freedom from a lot of problems of this sort.
My Macbook Pro stopped charging its battery. To fix it I had to download and install an update to the power management firmware, a process every bit as "scary" as applying a BIOS update. Then, a few months later, the battery swelled so much it popped open its enclosure.
But hey, having a hardware and software monoculture solves these kinds of problems, right? Dream on. All it really buys you is the ability to hold the vendor completely accountable for any problems. But then again, it's that way with all laptops, ain't it?
how do you develop applications that will run on ALL of these phones when the screen real-estate can be so varied
Easily. You don't assume a specific screen size.
I'd be astounded if you could build a device that could measure the velocity of a person walking across the room.
Besides the Bank of Mom and Dad that most posters pretend DIDN'T finance their college education (including housing), how is your claim possible? Really. I'd like to hear this one.
You're joking, right?
I know not everyone can get scholarships, but scholarships alone are an assumption of future success. The people with highest loan debt are also the highest risk for paying it back. There is always a cheaper school, and there is always a school with less stringent entrance requirements, one more likely to award scholarships and financial aid to whomever raises its averages. For many people, their "safety" school should have been their first choice.
Think of it this way: if you're paying full tuition, you're actually there to subsidize the people the school believes will increase its prestige.
You wrote a wall of text that addresses nothing I said. A doctor that does not understand the effect of radiation on human tissue is as useful as a pilot who doesn't understand turbulence. Or a barista who doesn't know how steam makes coffee and frothed milk.
This machine obfuscated the radiation level it was outputting. Or the technician ignored the value the machine was reporting. There was a disconnect with reality - the mental model of the user was different than the model the machine was designed around. It is not supposed to be as intuitive as an iPod (whose intuitiveness is a fiction in itself).
Every one of your examples emphasized my point: there is no cockpit or nuclear control room that isn't covered with displays, indicators and switches. There is no such thing as a "Landing Wizard". There is an extremely well defined model for proper operation of these machines, they have thousands of inputs, and nothing in their immense automation systems contradict that. Automation isn't an interface, automation is an aspect of the machine itself. Using a machine is all about knowing beforehand the effect of an action, being able to predict the output of an input, and knowing which action to take. A good user interface is about giving the user what they need to make those decisions accurately. Not easily, not without understanding. Accurately.
What's wrong with that? When I get in my car, I expect to have a handbrake which I can use in case my normal brakes fail.
Machines SHOULD be designed in a way that makes it damn near impossible for the user to screw up.
You contradict yourself. Applying the parking brake at sufficient speed will cause you to lose control. It isn't in any use case, therefore it should be disabled while the car is in motion.
Yeah, but wait 'til those terrorists get out the nerve stapler, then watch the drones start running.
Nonsense, you're still asking users to trust the default, only now the default useless because you lowered it to something 'safe'.
It sounds like the error was simply that the doctors didn't reset the machine after cranking up the dosage for a very particular situation. To expect that the machine would forget this setting, and go back to what it had been doing for years previously, is ridiculous, and goes to show how dangerous what you're suggesting is. They have obviously been trained to trust the machine to fix their mistakes.
This is a lesson in user interface design, though it goes against the dominant ideology, which wants to wrap everything in kid gloves and training wheels, hide complexity and make as many decisions for the user as possible. The user should have a total understanding of the thing they are manipulating. That doesn't mean they need to know physics or software architecture, it only means they share the same domain model in their mind as the author of the software.
These doctors treated this machine like a magic button that takes pictures. This is what happens when a user interface lies to its users, fooling them into thinking something is simple when it is in fact complex and dangerous.
The one really big hurdle which Android faces and which WinMo and iPhone have worked around is the problem of a moving target.
What does this mean? Do you have any understanding of what you're talking about? Please explain to us how these other platforms "worked around" this issue.
Overweight, socially awkward men with poor hygiene resent women. They really resent women who are smarter than them or are better at the things around which they derive self-esteem.
The problem isn't that you aren't tolerant of women. The problem is that you're tolerant of the sad sacks who drive them away. FOSS needs a pecking order and it needs to keep the cretins at the bottom, where they belong. You're living Revenge of the Nerds but you're letting Booger call the shots.
I don't think this is a good idea at all.
That's ok, what you think doesn't affect them. People with actual credibility will make use of this, which is a good thing.
As someone said on TPM, this sounds more like a 'Congratulations for not picking McCain' award.
Isn't that enough? I guess you could say that we all won the Nobel Prize. Well, at least those of us with the presence of mind to vote for him.
Nobel Prize winner and Time Person of the Year... my resume is getting impressive.
Why would they? Sun wanted standardization and encouraged independent implementations from the get-go. Microsoft, on the other hand, has made vague threats about suing Linux users in the past, from which the Novell-Microsoft alliance was born as a protection racket.
It has nothing to do with other languages, or the comical idea that a naive Slashdot poster might accidentally reinvent the technology in question. It has to do with what patented technology exists in Mono, and what parts of it are not covered by Microsoft's promise not to sue people over as a requirement for ECMA standardization.
Gives you warm fuzzies, doesn't it? Do you know who wrote this? Is your error starting to click yet?