With proper marketing and a sufficiently undiscriminating customer base, sure. Just watch out for regional designation trademarks (or whatever they're called).
I'm a fan of Hibernate, myself. Less power usage, and I can do things like completely remove power (to swap batteries or move a machine, for instance) and still get the state back. I think something like Windows' "hidden" (hold shift) option is adequate, as most people won't use it, but it's there. I don't know how KDE does it... I only use a Mac at work and Windows at home.
If nothing needs to be done, then nothing getting done really isn't much of a problem. Of course, this wouldn't apply to the sorts of tasks where being there is half the "job".
I don't know the history of it, but I get the feeling that CSS was intended as more of a text-styling language, but the minor layout controls included in it ended up having far more importance that intended.
Among other things, it's ushered in numerous security holes, from the fact that loosely-filtered user-created content sits in the same domain that people dial in all their personal information and social networking to. It's a breeding-ground for XSS exploits.
Other than that, it makes the site as a whole inefficient, slow, clunky, awkward, and unpredictable as people kludge and hack their way around what restrictions there are.
That (theoretically, assuming the system was applied correctly) sorts itself out. If it's something that anyone could think up in 5 minutes, then either someone else has thought of it (prior art) or it would be considered "obvious". If it isn't obvious and it isn't prior art, than this person apparently had something that everyone else didn't, is bringing new value into the world, and their monopoly will grant them the fruits of their innovation.
To discount 5-minute inventions is to discount things like "Eureka!" moments, the collected education and intelligence that allows someone to come up with a solution in 5 min, or the unique skill of insight that may have led to a simple solution to a previously unrealized problem.
It's not about information. Information does tend to be free. Your situation would likely not cause a conflict. However it is the representation of information that is defensible.
If I were to look on Google Maps and find that Joe's Diner is at 9th and Main, 2 blocks from the highway, I would have no trouble at all disseminating that information. However, if I were to print copies of the Google map, Google could claim infringement, because their representation of that data-- the value added that makes it more than just "facts"-- is being copied.
Maps themselves do have a bit more protection, in that although a map's shapes and features could be seen as the most distilled form of the geographical facts, copying a map, even without copying the style of the map, is an infringement.
As for satellite imagery, I believe there is case law that says that a CCTV security-cam image isn't considered protectible "intellectual property", since there was no creative force behind it, and such a thing may apply, but on a practical level, I seriously doubt that would hold up.
I think there's just a big shift going on in what needs to be secured, and the browser-makers are still catching up.
There was never really as much risk in the past as there is now of your very important data being on the same domain that anyone could openly write code on. There was Geocities and its ilk, but at the worst they'd just be able to snag your password and hax0r your lame-ass homepage. There was also the risk that someone could hack a legitimate site and convert it to phishing, but that's an entirely different exploit. Other than that, it was just assumed that the webmasters of a domain would properly secure their site. Now, with MySpace, there's a wildly popular site that allows any idiot with half a pulse to serve up interactive elements, and this is all on the same "site", for all intents and purposes, as the place where people are also dialing in sensitive personal info. Although I agree that this is a legitimate bug, given the climate, I fear that the browser manufacturer's QC job will soon be more that of protecting idiots from themselves. There are already things like time-delayed buttons and phishing databases... more and more the "exploits" are trickery and social engineering, more than bug exploitation.
Solution: Bug your car. For extra paranoia-points, solder all the connections together and put the recorder in a locked box, with the key at home. "I'm sorry, officer, but I don't have the ability to turn off the camera."
Well, you give a good, competent argument, and although I don't disagree that there is a difference, I think a larger issue is not *if* there is a difference between copyright/theft, but *why* that difference is so often brought up. As I see it, it's a semantic goading and diversion tactic for both sides.
Those who chime in to insist on "copyright infringement", I feel, push no less of an agenda than those who overzealously use the term "theft". Just as "theft" is too strong of a term-- it is nearly axiomatic that "theft=wrong"-- the term "copyright infringement" tends to be far too weak. Although it is the true technical term, it is an obtuse and complicated term that tends to dismiss itself by its own complexity (especially when compared to the tried-and-true term of "theft"). With the simple "wrongness" of theft as the comparison, it is all too easy to make a false dichotomy and easily pardon infringement when given the comparison-- "It's not theft (wrong), it's copyright infringement (???)."
Throwing up the "theft or infringement" flag diverts the attention to "is it theft or is it just piracy", when the question really should be "is it right or is it wrong".
--
Now, although I do agree that it does not fit into the simple definition of "theft", I still believe that piracy* does create a manner of deprivation, albeit not as simple and direct as simple taking. I have always seen piracy as analogous to "theft of services" or fraudulent hiring. Admittedly, the situation does differ a bit, but that's why it's an analogy. By using someone else's product, you're in-effect hiring that person to do a job for you-- keep you entertained, or perhaps perform a useful algorithmic service. Now, there may not have been a formal contract, but (analogize with me, folks) the sticker price or market value can be seen as the producer's "offer", which you are free to take or leave. Yes, it also differs in that their effort and work may be subdivided and format-shifted amongst thousands or millions of "copies", but unless we want thousands-of-dollars initial-run DVDs, that's the way the modern deal works. Just as a worker expects to be paid x-amount by their employer at the end of the week, a content-creator expects to be paid x-amount for their work when the content is used. So, like an applicant, they are presenting their terms of hire to the consumer, and the pirate, instead of accepting or denying the offer, gleans the benefit and walks away without paying the check.
Just as a stiffed worker is technically "deprived" of nothing except time and effort, the content creator is also not technically "deprived" of anything except that slice of their time and effort. However, I imagine few here would cast a similar argument against a short-changed wage-worker. Granted, yes, the situation is simpler in the worker's case-- they had one agreement with one employer for a sum of money, but I argue that a creator's offer of sale is just a more complex, but nonetheless similar, offer with "the public at large".
So, uh, you know... tip your waitresses. And legally acquire those things you haven't the skill to make.
* and don't even try to get on me for that term-- we all know what "piracy" means in context
That's irrelevant. Dell has a deal with Microsoft. Microsoft approves. That is why the preloading issue never comes up. It's been rectified before the copy is even made.
I'd say I've taken advantage of that fact to trade in buying for waiting on a number of books, but my amazing library fines amassed over the years have tipped the scale back toward "buying", I fear.
...and you'll catch me dead before you find me living in an HOA neighborhood. Really, that's one of those things you know going into the deal. Although I oppose them, I can't really feel sorry for the people who bought into restricting their own freedom.
(You can't get forced into an HOA unless you buy in, can you?)
I played it for a few months-- mostly I wanted to try my hand at some interesting 3D construction made simple. The social aspect was mostly gravy.
Land is scarce-- or, rather, expensive-- enough to be a problem. The basic plan is 512x512 metres, which sounds good, until you realize what a metre is, and where you can choose to buy. A beginning player might end up getting a good deal on a "first-timer" plot, which consists of a trailer-park lot wedged in between four other idiots with expansive towers of their own atrocious sense of aesthetic, in an area where "no traffic" is an understatement (and you might be, as in my case, right next to someone who set their land to "no trespassing", effectively making a sky-high wall on one end of my property.) Any project of any size or scope at all will involve ungainly purchase and land-use fees, especially if you want to get it anywhere public. Sandboxes are nice, as you can show off your stuff in a larger expanse of area, but everything disappears every 3 hours.
Basically, it's like Geocities around the time that they dropped the number-system. You could get your own plot, cheap, but it was worth far less than that.
If everything became plentiful, you're right, that would be no problem.
The problem as it stands now is that while physical objects have a physically-imposed work:value ratio, services and creative ventures have a natural work:value ratio that is extremely low once the initial work is done. If anyone could farm their own food or build their own house as easily and as quickly as they could copy a DVD, then copyright issues (as well as most other work issues) would likely become moot. In a world of unequal output, however, artificial restriction is there to level the playing field.
This certainly proves that the players can and should be a lot cheaper because the hardware required doesn't cost too much.
Not necessarily. They're likely subsidizing the cost of the box with licensing from the games. Since a generic HD-DVD doesn't have that lock-in, generic vendors need to recoup all cost in the sale of the unit.
Try saving a file to disk client side from JS. True.
Try enabling javascript in a browser with javascript disabled by the administrator from javascript. That's like asking C to press the power button on your computer for you. If it's not turned on, it's not turned on.
Slashdot Mirror
With proper marketing and a sufficiently undiscriminating customer base, sure. Just watch out for regional designation trademarks (or whatever they're called).
Just don't let it get too popular.
I'm a fan of Hibernate, myself. Less power usage, and I can do things like completely remove power (to swap batteries or move a machine, for instance) and still get the state back. I think something like Windows' "hidden" (hold shift) option is adequate, as most people won't use it, but it's there. I don't know how KDE does it... I only use a Mac at work and Windows at home.
I wouldn't find it odd that people who are reading the article and its comments are the ones who consider the article validly posted.
If nothing needs to be done, then nothing getting done really isn't much of a problem. Of course, this wouldn't apply to the sorts of tasks where being there is half the "job".
I don't know the history of it, but I get the feeling that CSS was intended as more of a text-styling language, but the minor layout controls included in it ended up having far more importance that intended.
Just curious: Why was sign preferable to just text chat? Visual inflection cues?
Ooh! Ooh! I know this one!
Among other things, it's ushered in numerous security holes, from the fact that loosely-filtered user-created content sits in the same domain that people dial in all their personal information and social networking to. It's a breeding-ground for XSS exploits.
Other than that, it makes the site as a whole inefficient, slow, clunky, awkward, and unpredictable as people kludge and hack their way around what restrictions there are.
That (theoretically, assuming the system was applied correctly) sorts itself out. If it's something that anyone could think up in 5 minutes, then either someone else has thought of it (prior art) or it would be considered "obvious". If it isn't obvious and it isn't prior art, than this person apparently had something that everyone else didn't, is bringing new value into the world, and their monopoly will grant them the fruits of their innovation.
To discount 5-minute inventions is to discount things like "Eureka!" moments, the collected education and intelligence that allows someone to come up with a solution in 5 min, or the unique skill of insight that may have led to a simple solution to a previously unrealized problem.
Even if it didn't, it could still work in a tape-backup sense.
It's not about information. Information does tend to be free. Your situation would likely not cause a conflict. However it is the representation of information that is defensible.
If I were to look on Google Maps and find that Joe's Diner is at 9th and Main, 2 blocks from the highway, I would have no trouble at all disseminating that information. However, if I were to print copies of the Google map, Google could claim infringement, because their representation of that data-- the value added that makes it more than just "facts"-- is being copied.
Maps themselves do have a bit more protection, in that although a map's shapes and features could be seen as the most distilled form of the geographical facts, copying a map, even without copying the style of the map, is an infringement.
As for satellite imagery, I believe there is case law that says that a CCTV security-cam image isn't considered protectible "intellectual property", since there was no creative force behind it, and such a thing may apply, but on a practical level, I seriously doubt that would hold up.
(USA, IANAL, YMMV)
OTOH, though, they do have your name and contact info now. You don't completely "leave the store" as easily on the Internet.
I think there's just a big shift going on in what needs to be secured, and the browser-makers are still catching up.
There was never really as much risk in the past as there is now of your very important data being on the same domain that anyone could openly write code on. There was Geocities and its ilk, but at the worst they'd just be able to snag your password and hax0r your lame-ass homepage. There was also the risk that someone could hack a legitimate site and convert it to phishing, but that's an entirely different exploit. Other than that, it was just assumed that the webmasters of a domain would properly secure their site. Now, with MySpace, there's a wildly popular site that allows any idiot with half a pulse to serve up interactive elements, and this is all on the same "site", for all intents and purposes, as the place where people are also dialing in sensitive personal info. Although I agree that this is a legitimate bug, given the climate, I fear that the browser manufacturer's QC job will soon be more that of protecting idiots from themselves. There are already things like time-delayed buttons and phishing databases... more and more the "exploits" are trickery and social engineering, more than bug exploitation.
Solution: Bug your car. For extra paranoia-points, solder all the connections together and put the recorder in a locked box, with the key at home. "I'm sorry, officer, but I don't have the ability to turn off the camera."
Well, you give a good, competent argument, and although I don't disagree that there is a difference, I think a larger issue is not *if* there is a difference between copyright/theft, but *why* that difference is so often brought up. As I see it, it's a semantic goading and diversion tactic for both sides.
Those who chime in to insist on "copyright infringement", I feel, push no less of an agenda than those who overzealously use the term "theft". Just as "theft" is too strong of a term-- it is nearly axiomatic that "theft=wrong"-- the term "copyright infringement" tends to be far too weak. Although it is the true technical term, it is an obtuse and complicated term that tends to dismiss itself by its own complexity (especially when compared to the tried-and-true term of "theft"). With the simple "wrongness" of theft as the comparison, it is all too easy to make a false dichotomy and easily pardon infringement when given the comparison-- "It's not theft (wrong), it's copyright infringement (???)."
Throwing up the "theft or infringement" flag diverts the attention to "is it theft or is it just piracy", when the question really should be "is it right or is it wrong".
--
Now, although I do agree that it does not fit into the simple definition of "theft", I still believe that piracy* does create a manner of deprivation, albeit not as simple and direct as simple taking. I have always seen piracy as analogous to "theft of services" or fraudulent hiring. Admittedly, the situation does differ a bit, but that's why it's an analogy. By using someone else's product, you're in-effect hiring that person to do a job for you-- keep you entertained, or perhaps perform a useful algorithmic service. Now, there may not have been a formal contract, but (analogize with me, folks) the sticker price or market value can be seen as the producer's "offer", which you are free to take or leave. Yes, it also differs in that their effort and work may be subdivided and format-shifted amongst thousands or millions of "copies", but unless we want thousands-of-dollars initial-run DVDs, that's the way the modern deal works. Just as a worker expects to be paid x-amount by their employer at the end of the week, a content-creator expects to be paid x-amount for their work when the content is used. So, like an applicant, they are presenting their terms of hire to the consumer, and the pirate, instead of accepting or denying the offer, gleans the benefit and walks away without paying the check.
Just as a stiffed worker is technically "deprived" of nothing except time and effort, the content creator is also not technically "deprived" of anything except that slice of their time and effort. However, I imagine few here would cast a similar argument against a short-changed wage-worker. Granted, yes, the situation is simpler in the worker's case-- they had one agreement with one employer for a sum of money, but I argue that a creator's offer of sale is just a more complex, but nonetheless similar, offer with "the public at large".
So, uh, you know... tip your waitresses. And legally acquire those things you haven't the skill to make.
* and don't even try to get on me for that term-- we all know what "piracy" means in context
That's irrelevant. Dell has a deal with Microsoft. Microsoft approves. That is why the preloading issue never comes up. It's been rectified before the copy is even made.
Give it a couple years. HDMI? Broadcast flag?
I'd say I've taken advantage of that fact to trade in buying for waiting on a number of books, but my amazing library fines amassed over the years have tipped the scale back toward "buying", I fear.
...and you'll catch me dead before you find me living in an HOA neighborhood. Really, that's one of those things you know going into the deal. Although I oppose them, I can't really feel sorry for the people who bought into restricting their own freedom.
(You can't get forced into an HOA unless you buy in, can you?)
I played it for a few months-- mostly I wanted to try my hand at some interesting 3D construction made simple. The social aspect was mostly gravy.
Land is scarce-- or, rather, expensive-- enough to be a problem. The basic plan is 512x512 metres, which sounds good, until you realize what a metre is, and where you can choose to buy. A beginning player might end up getting a good deal on a "first-timer" plot, which consists of a trailer-park lot wedged in between four other idiots with expansive towers of their own atrocious sense of aesthetic, in an area where "no traffic" is an understatement (and you might be, as in my case, right next to someone who set their land to "no trespassing", effectively making a sky-high wall on one end of my property.) Any project of any size or scope at all will involve ungainly purchase and land-use fees, especially if you want to get it anywhere public. Sandboxes are nice, as you can show off your stuff in a larger expanse of area, but everything disappears every 3 hours.
Basically, it's like Geocities around the time that they dropped the number-system. You could get your own plot, cheap, but it was worth far less than that.
If everything became plentiful, you're right, that would be no problem.
The problem as it stands now is that while physical objects have a physically-imposed work:value ratio, services and creative ventures have a natural work:value ratio that is extremely low once the initial work is done. If anyone could farm their own food or build their own house as easily and as quickly as they could copy a DVD, then copyright issues (as well as most other work issues) would likely become moot. In a world of unequal output, however, artificial restriction is there to level the playing field.
This certainly proves that the players can and should be a lot cheaper because the hardware required doesn't cost too much.
Not necessarily. They're likely subsidizing the cost of the box with licensing from the games. Since a generic HD-DVD doesn't have that lock-in, generic vendors need to recoup all cost in the sale of the unit.
It lends richness and setting to the narrative.
Now that's a new and useful analogy. I'll have to add that to my own rhetorical arsenal.
Try saving a file to disk client side from JS.
True.
Try enabling javascript in a browser with javascript disabled by the administrator from javascript.
That's like asking C to press the power button on your computer for you. If it's not turned on, it's not turned on.