Which means that the cost of giving away the products is added to a relatively miniscule fine. (Compared to the gains of future pricing power.)
And thus, completely justified in terms of ROI.
Let's face it. They aren't putting companies in jail. You have to screw up pretty damn bad to actually worry about the legality of your actions in the corporate world.
When was the last time that a CEO was put in jail for doing something illegal that helped the company?
All the CEO's I see going to jail hurt their companies.
Basically they attached a projector to a contact lens that was worn by the patient so that images could be projected into the eye yet remain in a constant position relative to the eye. (The were trying to eleminate "eye jitter".) The result was that the images were perceptible when introduced, but slowly "faded" away and disappeared.
and they're making sure I don't do anything illegal
to
and they're treating me like I just committed a crime
and the analogy would be better.
Here is what DRM says to me:
Since you are a criminal you will not be able to listen to your music at any time. You will only be able to listen after we aprove the request.
Since you are a criminal you will not be able to place the music you bought on all of your computers and access it. We will limit the number of computers to something *we* feel is reasonable. We don't give a damn if you have eight computers, you can only put it on five of them.
Since you are a criminal you will not be able to store your music on a single computer and stream the music to all of your other computers. We will limit the number of computers that can access the music, and *how* they access the music.
Since you are a criminal you will not be able to give your music to someone else. And don't even think about selling it. You should have (somehow) figured out if you liked it *before* buying it.
and on... and on...
Now, most of these things have "work arounds"... but that is only because they haven't figure out how to plug them yet.
In the end, DRM makes the assumption that one is guilty of a crime until proven otherwise. It is only after proving otherwise that you are "allowed" to listen to the music you bought.
I find that highly distasteful.
Until they can figure out a way to treat me as "innocent until proven guilty", with no requirement of defense on my part... they can shove it. If they can't manage that by themselves, they can bend over and I'll do it for 'em.
Well, I can tell you that if you are a draft dodger... and you get caught, you'll be working your ass off at Fort Leavenworth.
I was just telling a guy today there were people in the service that didn't do nearly as much good as people over here who may have been draft dodgers because there were draft dodgers, sure, but they had to go to work somewhere and they had to work. They couldn't screw up. But there were guys in the service that were goof offs, their main thing was finding something to drink or stealing stuff to sell to the black market. Did they do us any good? They did us harm. Where some supposed draft dodger working 8 hours a day, six days a week was actually doing more good. People don't think about that either.
Actually, if there were not an alternative... I still wouldn't accept it.
I would simply 1) stop consuming the product or 2) act like the criminal they assume me to be and get it another way.
The second one is the reason I won't use it in the first place. If you treat me like a criminal, I'm going to act like one.
As far as I'm concerned, your DRM just "punished" me for something I didn't do. (Don't know what I'm talking about? Wipe your hard drive and restore without an internet connection.) Now I feel justified in commiting the crime you punished me for.
If you don't trust me, don't sell me the fscking product.
A language can encourage readability or discourage it. What does Perl do?
Perl encourages writing code.
It leaves readability as a lesson to be learned by the programmer when he has to fix his own bugs.
If I added a "+++" operator to C that increments by two then I now have at least three (obvious) ways to increment by two. Does that mean that I can now be more creative in C?
That depends, if you don't know the other two "obvious" ways... but you can easily remember the "new" way... then, yes. You are now more creative. Because now you have a tool you know how to use that will let you increment by two when you need to. The other two ways weren't much use to you, because you could not remember how to use them. (I'll leave discussion as to whether you should be programming if this is the case to another thread... that isn't the point)
I think that is the part that people don't get about Perl. It isn't necessarily about the many, many ways to do a thing. It is about doing things in ways that are easy for the programmer to understand.
By having many ways to do a thing, chances are, one will fit your thought process better than the others... and you'll have a tool you are comfortable with. Working with tools you are comfortable with... will make you more creative. Because you will spend your energy focusing on the problem, not on how to use your tool.
Actually, I'm talking about the OP's point of writing clean, understandable code with good variable names.
Something you can do with Perl, if you so desired.
My point, which flew over your tiny little head, was that this wasn't an integral part of the language... but rather a style of coding that can be used in most languages.
Or are they simply there to skew the results the way you want...
Why don't you go ahead and fill them up, then admit that while it increases the cost of the PC to fill those slots... the Mac already has those features built in.
(I expect now you will try covering your ass by finding esoteric PCI cards that cost as much as the computer, so you can claim no Mac counterpart. Don't worry... we'll understand.)
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously you are not a Perl programmer...
Only the hardware that comes with Windows preinstalled.
Except that's illegal fot a monopoly.
Which means that the cost of giving away the products is added to a relatively miniscule fine. (Compared to the gains of future pricing power.)
And thus, completely justified in terms of ROI.
Let's face it. They aren't putting companies in jail. You have to screw up pretty damn bad to actually worry about the legality of your actions in the corporate world.
When was the last time that a CEO was put in jail for doing something illegal that helped the company?
All the CEO's I see going to jail hurt their companies.
You forgot the Microsoft registration key that indicates the passport is not a pirated copy.
It is usually the shoes.
How on earth would a bird find its nest again if it couldn't see its stationary eggs/nest structure?
Well... if the target isn't moving, and the "system" requires movement... and there are only two parts that can be moving...
The answer should be obvious where the movement occurs.
here is an article that goes a bit more in depth about the theory.
I have never heard of the "eye is constantly moving so we can see" theory/idea. Sounds like BS to me.
I came across this years ago... had to drag out an old psychology book to find a reference.
Look for: Stabilized images on the retina by R. M. Pritchard
I found an associated study... and this article. But, could not find the real deal freely available.
Basically they attached a projector to a contact lens that was worn by the patient so that images could be projected into the eye yet remain in a constant position relative to the eye. (The were trying to eleminate "eye jitter".) The result was that the images were perceptible when introduced, but slowly "faded" away and disappeared.
It would have been helpful if the scientists had provided a hypothesis on the preservation of the tissues.
Maybe they didn't want to sound stupid.
(via Boing Boing)
Change:
and they're making sure I don't do anything illegal
to
and they're treating me like I just committed a crime
and the analogy would be better.
Here is what DRM says to me:
Since you are a criminal you will not be able to listen to your music at any time. You will only be able to listen after we aprove the request.
Since you are a criminal you will not be able to place the music you bought on all of your computers and access it. We will limit the number of computers to something *we* feel is reasonable. We don't give a damn if you have eight computers, you can only put it on five of them.
Since you are a criminal you will not be able to store your music on a single computer and stream the music to all of your other computers. We will limit the number of computers that can access the music, and *how* they access the music.
Since you are a criminal you will not be able to give your music to someone else. And don't even think about selling it. You should have (somehow) figured out if you liked it *before* buying it.
and on... and on...
Now, most of these things have "work arounds"... but that is only because they haven't figure out how to plug them yet.
In the end, DRM makes the assumption that one is guilty of a crime until proven otherwise. It is only after proving otherwise that you are "allowed" to listen to the music you bought.
I find that highly distasteful.
Until they can figure out a way to treat me as "innocent until proven guilty", with no requirement of defense on my part... they can shove it. If they can't manage that by themselves, they can bend over and I'll do it for 'em.
Well, I can tell you that if you are a draft dodger... and you get caught, you'll be working your ass off at Fort Leavenworth. http://www.usd230.k12.ks.us/espictt/Audio/zouzas.
Not as long as I have any alternative.
Actually, if there were not an alternative... I still wouldn't accept it.
I would simply 1) stop consuming the product or 2) act like the criminal they assume me to be and get it another way.
The second one is the reason I won't use it in the first place. If you treat me like a criminal, I'm going to act like one.
As far as I'm concerned, your DRM just "punished" me for something I didn't do. (Don't know what I'm talking about? Wipe your hard drive and restore without an internet connection.) Now I feel justified in commiting the crime you punished me for.
If you don't trust me, don't sell me the fscking product.
Except of course for the Govt.
Think draft...
A language can encourage readability or discourage it. What does Perl do?
Perl encourages writing code.
It leaves readability as a lesson to be learned by the programmer when he has to fix his own bugs.
If I added a "+++" operator to C that increments by two then I now have at least three (obvious) ways to increment by two. Does that mean that I can now be more creative in C?
That depends, if you don't know the other two "obvious" ways... but you can easily remember the "new" way... then, yes. You are now more creative. Because now you have a tool you know how to use that will let you increment by two when you need to. The other two ways weren't much use to you, because you could not remember how to use them. (I'll leave discussion as to whether you should be programming if this is the case to another thread... that isn't the point)
I think that is the part that people don't get about Perl. It isn't necessarily about the many, many ways to do a thing. It is about doing things in ways that are easy for the programmer to understand.
By having many ways to do a thing, chances are, one will fit your thought process better than the others... and you'll have a tool you are comfortable with. Working with tools you are comfortable with... will make you more creative. Because you will spend your energy focusing on the problem, not on how to use your tool.
How is that relevant?
Actually, I'm talking about the OP's point of writing clean, understandable code with good variable names.
Something you can do with Perl, if you so desired.
My point, which flew over your tiny little head, was that this wasn't an integral part of the language... but rather a style of coding that can be used in most languages.
Even Perl.
I disagree when writing Java and C#. These languages are inherintley readable if you write clean, understandable code with good variable names.
Yeah, with those constraints... so is Perl.
You gonna put something in those slots?
Or are they simply there to skew the results the way you want...
Why don't you go ahead and fill them up, then admit that while it increases the cost of the PC to fill those slots... the Mac already has those features built in.
(I expect now you will try covering your ass by finding esoteric PCI cards that cost as much as the computer, so you can claim no Mac counterpart. Don't worry... we'll understand.)
Let's be conservative and call it a 100 Million.
That means 92 percent DO NOT play one of the most populare games out today.
A clear majority, even if you let the "other party" count the votes.
Q: Where does telling the truth hurt your credibility.
A: Jesusland
Actually, it isn't hard drive space...
The guy in the article quotes a price to store a DVD.
It is the cost of the *total* system divided by the number of DVDs it can hold.
for all the hot air about Linux in the last 5 years, it hasn't cost MS a cent in their monopoly desktop space
Yet.
But there has certainly been some missed opportunity.
And, they are taking their eye off the ball.
if you're from the south, you can slow down the show
But, does it add the extra syllables?
I'm pretty sure that should have been:
;-)
You have proposed a false dichotomy, because there were other reasons not having to do with being pre-emptive or ML.
As in, retaliatory.
However, I have absolutely no problem saying it was to get ML off the front page either.
After all, he (Clinton) wasn't my boy. He was simply the best of a few bad choices.