No, I imagine it'll involve subtly hacking a grafted-on Windows 2000 version of NTOSKRNL.DLL while fending off the frothing-at-the-mouth system-file protection and changing HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\SystemEnhanc ementLayer\{0092-02D1-26E5-0990}\Security\Initiali zationProtocolIsTrue to 210 (decimal), then making sure never to install any patches.
Your average schoolkid's practical need to cross-reference, validate, update, and refute are miniscule, in comparison with the problems caused by having a computer-- easy distraction, easy routes around necessary work, a high-cost device just asking to be broken or stolen, the device's ability to much more easily break and lose all function, and maintenance headaches. A book, and proper teaching methods, have few of these problems. Any solution that comes close to patching these problems ends up making the computer little more than a glorified (expensive and fragile) book.
And how do you search that book, cross-reference it with 100 other works and validate its positions relative to current events or public opinion?
You don't. You're a gradeschooler. In college, sure. People need tools like this, and they're dedicated and goal-oriented enough (by nature of do-or-die) that the distractions don't get in the way. Schoolkids, though... they're not staking their reputations on double-cross-checked peer-reviewed research reports. They're being groomed and graded on the process of writing a paper.
I don't mean to say that computers have no uses in the classroom. Teaching things like desktop publishing, some math concepts, and computer skills using computers have their place, but just throwing computers at kids is just a counterproductive money sink.
Now, if you want to talk analogies, I'd liken it to giving a street policeman an antiaircraft gun. Sure, it's more firepower, but it's the wrong weapon for the job.
This is all well and good if your analogies work, but you've given nothing to support them.
Computers are "the future"? Okay, they were invented after books. The question is not one of who invented what when, but of usefulness. Show me an overpriced, ruggedized, locked down laptop, and I'll see yours and raise you a focused, distractionless, more rugged and cheaper... book. Sure, it's not as sexy, but you don't have to battle 10 different implementation problems just to end up with a gimped version of something that's not even suited well to most purposes. (Primary/Secondary) schools are for the basics. Have labs and classes for learning to use computers, but don't go shoving them into everyone's uninterested hands just to make learning less efficient.
Yeah, but half a moon is a whole lot of destructin'. Where're we going to put that half-a-moon, anyway? Even for the Earth, the common-man's "destruction" consists mostly of covering it with a (relatively) thin but unpalatable layer of scum.
A bit of a pick-and-tangent, but I've heard (granted, it might have been on an "Ask Slashdot", so take with salt as necessary) that going with a reseller actually can get you better service. When you call Verizon to get a physical fix, you're just some goob, but if your phone company (reseller) calls Verizon, they have the pull and the internal know-how to get things done.
(Me? I've had TDS Metrocom for phone and DSL for about three years running, and I can't recommend them enough. Some of the most intelligent and helpful phone support people I've ever dealt with.)
In cases of verification (rather than security) isn't more specificity better? I'd agree that double-hashing something like a secret password causes a loss of security, but if you're double-hashing a file to verify its contents, more specificity means it's harder to get a match by garbage-packing.
I really am asking-- I'm not all that up on the guts-and-wherefores of encryption/hashing, and I've wondered about this question as well.
That's assuming, of course, that there needs to be a link to be a lawsuit. Just apply enough fearmongering and whining in a speedy enough manner to discourage proper scientific inquiry. If the lawsuit is faster than the studies, ya' win.
Actually, I recall a study (posted here on Slashdot) said that dollar-for-dollar, AIDS research was the (one of the?) most useful and practical applications of the charitable dollar.
(From the GPP) Yeah, that's fair enough. Of course, if they can't actually afford to buy your work, does your answer change, or should they just be deprived of it?
That's the question I was answering, in the affirmative. The "should piracy be considered a lost sale" question is debatable, but that wasn't the question. The question was "if I'm a poor student, am I justified in skirting the rules." Hell, no.
My stance has nothing to do with worrying about companies. I just have an issue with breaking laws and (moreso) principles which I feel are legitimate, then using irrelevant side-issues to justify the behavior. Okay, the RIAA and big-recording reek of bastardry, and they're reaping unfair profits through inflated prices. This has no relevance to the question of someone's using their work without permission.
As for business models, I agree that the music industry has had its head buried in the sand for far too long, and some programs really need to be gotten-with. But that's their issue, and also irrelevant to the legality or justification of piracy. If the RIAA et al think that anti-piracy education is the way to go, then, well, it's their dime to sink. Even if their education efforts are heavyhanded to the point of deception, practicing simple piracy is more a reinforcement than a counter to their campaigns. I do find it unfortunate that there have been no effective counter-campaigns (for various reasons) properly educating the public as to their own rights under copyright, but I see that more as a failing of the opposing side. As well, I practically think that as long as copying is possible, yes, illegitimate copying will exist, and that ought to be taken into account, but it doesn't make it right.
Well, one upside to gold (and other precious metals) might be cheaper available recycling after the life of the product, since there is lucrative material to be mined.
Personally, I'm a very broke student, I really can't afford to buy music.
Then learn to sing. You don't seem to understand the concept of trade and services. If you don't have the time or ability to do it yourself, you trade your talents and time (converted to currency) for those of another. Sure, the copyright system is a bit bolted-on*, but it basically comes down to the artist providing a service at a price, which you can take or leave. The only reason copyright infringement is still commonly defensible that it's often nickel-dime petty, and difficult and overbearing to punish.
You might have a more convincing case talking about something critical like medical care, but with something as nonessential as music, "do without" is a reasonable request.
* to support the fact that content is far more difficult to produce than reproduce, being nonphysical. It's a legitimate consideration, IMO.
And small artists/labels who can feel a significant "hit" from unpaid distribution? Even disregarding that, the copier was not involved in the willful dealings between the artist and the distributor, in any way, and should, basically, STFU.
How's nuclear doing? From what I vaguely recall, it has a slow ramp-up time as well, but it's gaining a bit more traction with environmentally-minded folk (again, if I vaguely recall correctly).
I was with you up until "legal to download it", and possibly "neighbor's stereo". Of course, both of these things are such petty offences that no one actually cares, given that you aren't committing more wholesale violation, but strictly from an academic standpoint, could you provide some sort of citation, especially for the "legal to download"? (Unless you were talking about music you already owned, in which case... well... I can't seem to find if/where it mentions archival copies of anything but computer programs in Title 17... I think it's generally considered "fair use"?)
I think another reason for the lack of good music videos nowadays is that few in the hierarchy of the RIAA want to hire anyone with imagination to write something original. Costs money, you know, and hiring an outside writer means they may have to pay royalties (O.M.G.). That may be just what I see. But I agree with you about Artists vs. "artists".
I disagree. I think that it's more of a lack of visibility, if anything. The star-system stagnation of radio and record labels has the same sort of effect on music video as it does on the music. LCD* crap gets pumped out the big pipes, and if you want anything of value, you have to look to the people still watching the quality more than the sales numbers. There were and are good music videos being put out. Perhaps not to the level of a Take On Me, but the great ones, by their nature, only come around rarely in any era.
Of course, I think that with the advent of cheap and compact DVD pressing, the kind that can easily go into a CD case, a new market has evolved that could drive the production of good videos. I know I've bought a couple discs-- singles, even-- only because they had a few music videos from the band on them as well. (The Fischerspooner #1 DVD was particularily good... the documentary was actually quite entertaining). Add sites like YouTube to the mix to work as low-cost distribution of promotion, and I would definitely hesitate to call music video a dead art.
Right. Really, the only thing stopping the publishers is the complete idiocy of filing lawsuits against fanfic from a PR perspective. If/as the word of Creative Commons gets spread, hopefully more content producers will realize that it's simply a way of expressing and formalizing a more open relationship with their customers.
(as I d-r-i-f-t offtopic...) I think the biggest thing standing in the way of more open licensing (and copyright moderation in general) is that for every derivative artist breaking the copyright law constructively, there're four or five shiftless leeches who just want free content for simple consumption. Unfortunately, it's difficult to make legal distinctions that make the content useful, but don't make producers fear that the leeches will take over. Well, there's that, and the creeping concept of intellectual property as property more than intellectual.
Slashdot Mirror
Branding. Just in case you forget that the computer you're using is running Windows.
File?
c ementLayer\{0092-02D1-26E5-0990}\Security\Initiali zationProtocolIsTrue to 210 (decimal), then making sure never to install any patches.
No, I imagine it'll involve subtly hacking a grafted-on Windows 2000 version of NTOSKRNL.DLL while fending off the frothing-at-the-mouth system-file protection and changing HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\SystemEnhan
Your average schoolkid's practical need to cross-reference, validate, update, and refute are miniscule, in comparison with the problems caused by having a computer-- easy distraction, easy routes around necessary work, a high-cost device just asking to be broken or stolen, the device's ability to much more easily break and lose all function, and maintenance headaches. A book, and proper teaching methods, have few of these problems. Any solution that comes close to patching these problems ends up making the computer little more than a glorified (expensive and fragile) book.
And how do you search that book, cross-reference it with 100 other works and validate its positions relative to current events or public opinion?
You don't. You're a gradeschooler. In college, sure. People need tools like this, and they're dedicated and goal-oriented enough (by nature of do-or-die) that the distractions don't get in the way. Schoolkids, though... they're not staking their reputations on double-cross-checked peer-reviewed research reports. They're being groomed and graded on the process of writing a paper.
I don't mean to say that computers have no uses in the classroom. Teaching things like desktop publishing, some math concepts, and computer skills using computers have their place, but just throwing computers at kids is just a counterproductive money sink.
Now, if you want to talk analogies, I'd liken it to giving a street policeman an antiaircraft gun. Sure, it's more firepower, but it's the wrong weapon for the job.
This is all well and good if your analogies work, but you've given nothing to support them.
Computers are "the future"? Okay, they were invented after books. The question is not one of who invented what when, but of usefulness. Show me an overpriced, ruggedized, locked down laptop, and I'll see yours and raise you a focused, distractionless, more rugged and cheaper... book. Sure, it's not as sexy, but you don't have to battle 10 different implementation problems just to end up with a gimped version of something that's not even suited well to most purposes. (Primary/Secondary) schools are for the basics. Have labs and classes for learning to use computers, but don't go shoving them into everyone's uninterested hands just to make learning less efficient.
Yeah, but half a moon is a whole lot of destructin'. Where're we going to put that half-a-moon, anyway? Even for the Earth, the common-man's "destruction" consists mostly of covering it with a (relatively) thin but unpalatable layer of scum.
A bit of a pick-and-tangent, but I've heard (granted, it might have been on an "Ask Slashdot", so take with salt as necessary) that going with a reseller actually can get you better service. When you call Verizon to get a physical fix, you're just some goob, but if your phone company (reseller) calls Verizon, they have the pull and the internal know-how to get things done.
(Me? I've had TDS Metrocom for phone and DSL for about three years running, and I can't recommend them enough. Some of the most intelligent and helpful phone support people I've ever dealt with.)
In cases of verification (rather than security) isn't more specificity better? I'd agree that double-hashing something like a secret password causes a loss of security, but if you're double-hashing a file to verify its contents, more specificity means it's harder to get a match by garbage-packing.
I really am asking-- I'm not all that up on the guts-and-wherefores of encryption/hashing, and I've wondered about this question as well.
Of course it's more like 1/10000 and 9/10
That's assuming, of course, that there needs to be a link to be a lawsuit. Just apply enough fearmongering and whining in a speedy enough manner to discourage proper scientific inquiry. If the lawsuit is faster than the studies, ya' win.
but if they break the law -- shoot an innocent person, for example
Last I checked, using a Trojan horse to break into a computer without permission was illegal. At best, it's selective enforcement.
I've got Option-R set to run Quicksilver on my work Mac. Don't leave home without my Winkey-R!
Of course, I'm Winkey-everything on my home comps, since I run GeoShell.
Actually, I recall a study (posted here on Slashdot) said that dollar-for-dollar, AIDS research was the (one of the?) most useful and practical applications of the charitable dollar.
(From the GPP) Yeah, that's fair enough. Of course, if they can't actually afford to buy your work, does your answer change, or should they just be deprived of it?
That's the question I was answering, in the affirmative. The "should piracy be considered a lost sale" question is debatable, but that wasn't the question. The question was "if I'm a poor student, am I justified in skirting the rules." Hell, no.
My stance has nothing to do with worrying about companies. I just have an issue with breaking laws and (moreso) principles which I feel are legitimate, then using irrelevant side-issues to justify the behavior. Okay, the RIAA and big-recording reek of bastardry, and they're reaping unfair profits through inflated prices. This has no relevance to the question of someone's using their work without permission.
As for business models, I agree that the music industry has had its head buried in the sand for far too long, and some programs really need to be gotten-with. But that's their issue, and also irrelevant to the legality or justification of piracy. If the RIAA et al think that anti-piracy education is the way to go, then, well, it's their dime to sink. Even if their education efforts are heavyhanded to the point of deception, practicing simple piracy is more a reinforcement than a counter to their campaigns. I do find it unfortunate that there have been no effective counter-campaigns (for various reasons) properly educating the public as to their own rights under copyright, but I see that more as a failing of the opposing side. As well, I practically think that as long as copying is possible, yes, illegitimate copying will exist, and that ought to be taken into account, but it doesn't make it right.
Well, one upside to gold (and other precious metals) might be cheaper available recycling after the life of the product, since there is lucrative material to be mined.
Personally, I'm a very broke student, I really can't afford to buy music.
Then learn to sing. You don't seem to understand the concept of trade and services. If you don't have the time or ability to do it yourself, you trade your talents and time (converted to currency) for those of another. Sure, the copyright system is a bit bolted-on*, but it basically comes down to the artist providing a service at a price, which you can take or leave. The only reason copyright infringement is still commonly defensible that it's often nickel-dime petty, and difficult and overbearing to punish.
You might have a more convincing case talking about something critical like medical care, but with something as nonessential as music, "do without" is a reasonable request.
* to support the fact that content is far more difficult to produce than reproduce, being nonphysical. It's a legitimate consideration, IMO.
And small artists/labels who can feel a significant "hit" from unpaid distribution? Even disregarding that, the copier was not involved in the willful dealings between the artist and the distributor, in any way, and should, basically, STFU.
And it's not offtopic, it's a counterpoint.
How's nuclear doing? From what I vaguely recall, it has a slow ramp-up time as well, but it's gaining a bit more traction with environmentally-minded folk (again, if I vaguely recall correctly).
I was with you up until "legal to download it", and possibly "neighbor's stereo". Of course, both of these things are such petty offences that no one actually cares, given that you aren't committing more wholesale violation, but strictly from an academic standpoint, could you provide some sort of citation, especially for the "legal to download"? (Unless you were talking about music you already owned, in which case... well... I can't seem to find if/where it mentions archival copies of anything but computer programs in Title 17... I think it's generally considered "fair use"?)
Why in God's holy name does Windows fail to boot one time, and then boot successfully the second time?
Hardware problems.
Don't worry, they'll be gone within the week.
I think another reason for the lack of good music videos nowadays is that few in the hierarchy of the RIAA want to hire anyone with imagination to write something original. Costs money, you know, and hiring an outside writer means they may have to pay royalties (O.M.G.). That may be just what I see. But I agree with you about Artists vs. "artists".
I disagree. I think that it's more of a lack of visibility, if anything. The star-system stagnation of radio and record labels has the same sort of effect on music video as it does on the music. LCD* crap gets pumped out the big pipes, and if you want anything of value, you have to look to the people still watching the quality more than the sales numbers. There were and are good music videos being put out. Perhaps not to the level of a Take On Me, but the great ones, by their nature, only come around rarely in any era.
Of course, I think that with the advent of cheap and compact DVD pressing, the kind that can easily go into a CD case, a new market has evolved that could drive the production of good videos. I know I've bought a couple discs-- singles, even-- only because they had a few music videos from the band on them as well. (The Fischerspooner #1 DVD was particularily good... the documentary was actually quite entertaining). Add sites like YouTube to the mix to work as low-cost distribution of promotion, and I would definitely hesitate to call music video a dead art.
* Lowest Common Denominator
I don't know if the RIAA will try to touch it, since these videos are out in public domain
Says who? Citation?
YouTube killed my Podcast?
(If anyone else is wondering, it was three-and-a-half screens when I got here.)
Don't worry. It's another Infinium Labs article. If they didn't want cliches, they wouldn't be here.
Okay, so I haven't scrolled down yet... how far to the "Duke Nukem Forever" post?
Right. Really, the only thing stopping the publishers is the complete idiocy of filing lawsuits against fanfic from a PR perspective. If/as the word of Creative Commons gets spread, hopefully more content producers will realize that it's simply a way of expressing and formalizing a more open relationship with their customers.
(as I d-r-i-f-t offtopic...) I think the biggest thing standing in the way of more open licensing (and copyright moderation in general) is that for every derivative artist breaking the copyright law constructively, there're four or five shiftless leeches who just want free content for simple consumption. Unfortunately, it's difficult to make legal distinctions that make the content useful, but don't make producers fear that the leeches will take over. Well, there's that, and the creeping concept of intellectual property as property more than intellectual.