We're talking about a charity being set up for the benefit of the cast of an unsuccessful TV show, not free enterprise.
Nonsense. We're talking about fans trying to pay for a product they want. I wouldn't pay into this, and I doubt they will be succesful, but there's no aspect of "charity" to it. They're not doing it to keep the cast from poverty, they're doing it because they want more episodes.
That's great for them, kudos that they have spent over twenty years on the same basic idea, but what about the people who wanted to actually get some work done in that time frame.
What about them? Are you suggesting that HURD is hurting them somehow? Most of the projects that people around the world are working on are of no use or interest to me but... so?
I'm in the UK too, and have an employment contract of course. I think the thought of my employers being able to fire me without any notice wouldn't scare me as much as the thought of me being able to quit without notice would scare them. And that's not based on me being anything special, I don't think they'd agree to anyone above the most junior level being able to quit without notice. In fact I'm positive that even the most junior staff require a month's notice by either side.
(Yes, I realize that you were being funny, but a couple of the moderators didn't.)
No problem, you're right that was supposed to be funny and no way was it a +5 joke anyway.
My favorites are the ones that mod up 'underrated' like they can't think of a reason but feel compelled to mod up anyway. I can understand it to correct a post that shouldn't have been modded down, or even to bump an AC up to 1, but any more than that should at least vaguely match one of insightful, informative, funny.
If you talk about Open Source Software, people know that you are referring to a specific class of software, all of which have licenses approved by OSI.
Oh? I could have sworn I've seen you state more than once that the term was synonymous with "free software" maybe I imagined it or you changed your mind?
Personally, I might take 'open source' to mean that the licensing terms meet the OSI's open source definition but there's no way I'd take it to mean that the license has been approved by someone. I'm sceptical of your claim that many people interpret the term the way you do.
For instance, the American Revolution is a good counter-example. Not only were the original revolutionaries not "eaten" but flourished in the government that followed the revolution.
Or at least, that's the way the eaters wrote the history books.
Beatles, on the other hand, is the ugly guy who wanted to squeeze some extra money from Apple, although there never was any conflict of brands with this very generic name.
Absurd. Either you know nothing about this or else you are lying. Apple records took action against Apple computer when they first started up. Apple computer did not have deep pockets at that point, it was not about getting money, it was about preventing Apple Computer from infringing on their trademark. To resolve this, Apple Computer entered into an agreement with Apple records that they wouldn't enter the music industry.
Apple Computer have now throughly tramnpled all over that agreement.
The UK cannot have it both ways... eitehr adopt the Euro, or don't.
Unless you're ill-informed enough to think that all Euro-zone countries have the same tax regime, what possible relationship could there be between the Euro and anything else you said in your post?
It doesn't seem to include evil applications (or operating systems) that suddenly throw new windows on the screen to grab keyboard focus away from you just as you type something.
You lose your thread of thought AND the computer decides you said "OK" to "do you want to email your credit cards around the world" while you sit there wondering what just happened.
i know this may sound metaphysical, but what is "trying to be good?"
We've already covered that, it's not eating shellfish, it's not cutting the hair at the sides of your head, it's stoning to death blasphemers etc. As mjh was saying, that's the law that governs how good we are in the eyes of his god, but nobody can live up to it (whether because it's obviously silly or because the person has a conscience, you're bound to get caught out on one law or another). To make up for this, his god had a son who got crucified, which makes up for you wearing clothes made from different types of thread PROVIDED that you believe that it does. Understand now?
I agree, it's like when there's a plague everyone complains but then when there's a famine, a credible alternative to plague, everyone complains about that too!
Why can't people just criticise Microsoft when they come out with a plan but cheer on others when they offer a near identical plan? It's like people these days value consistency more than hypocrisy.
Simply feed headphone out to another computer (or perhaps even the same computer), record, and, presto!, we have a copy that is indistinguishable* from the original.
The theory is that only an encrypted signal would go out and that you'd have to have DRM headphones that decrypted the signal.
On first glance this may seem insane, but that's only because this comes from a consortium of people, some of whom probably are a little out of touch with reality, some of whom just don't understand what's involved but don't want to say so, and some of whom are cynically taking money from the others for a scheme that they know won't fly.
The general idea is that they're either going to convince everyone to completely replace their equipment in a short space of time, i.e. new computer, new stereo, new dvd player, new headphones etc etc, with ones that have reduced functionality or as an alternative they'll roll out the new equipment over a long period of time so that eventually everyone will have the hardware and they'll be able to start distributing the protected medai a decade or two after the system has been cracked anyway.
The reason is simple. The primary goal of Palladium isn't to prevent "illegal" copying, but to make it inconvenient for the average Joe.
So far as I could see from the article, the authors fully appreciated that "the average Joe" doesn't need to crack the protection. So long as some copies make it through to the darknet (which they feel is inevitable) then (they theorised) the efficiency of distribution after that point is the key factor.
At least, it seems to me that's what they were saying, and it makes sense.
Also Palladium isn't supposed to prevent you from playing content from the darknet, it only restricts the playing of "legitimate" copies. Once they've been cracked Palladium is as neutral about them as it would be about any home movie. Again, this is something that the authors seemed to understand very clearly.
If Palladium works then a paper by some Microsoft employees speculating that it wouldn't is probably not going to hurt the company. In fact a paper like that might even make it easier to get widespread adoption by consumers who might otherwise be uneasy about it.
If Palladium doesn't work then a fallback position that basically nobody else's scheme is going to work either probably isn't such a bad thing for Microsoft. One thing they don't want is legislative attempts to force them to implement a scheme which simply isn't possible, causing them to spend millions of dollars without ever getting anywhere.
If Palladium works they're going to be ecstatic. If Palladium doesn't work then I don't think they'll be surprised, they will want it to be clearly seen that they did the best they could, and (maybe) they'll prefer itif people are let down gently i.e. a few reports in advanace saying that the whole thing's impossible might not hurt.
I don't think you have anything to be ashamed about but if you put in all that time and money without first finding out the characteristics of the market you were entering into then perhaps you should consider it a learning experience.
If you did realise your work was going to be copied and shared and you went ahead anyway then I guess you thought the rewards would be worth it; if you're going into any business then you're going to have to make judgments and take risks like that. Sorry if it didn't work out for you. Congratulations if it did.
You forgot to include in the 'against DRM' category "plus people will still manage to share files, leaving all the problems of not having DRM in addition to the new ones that DRM creates".
Slashdot Mirror
We're talking about a charity being set up for the benefit of the cast of an unsuccessful TV show, not free enterprise.
Nonsense. We're talking about fans trying to pay for a product they want. I wouldn't pay into this, and I doubt they will be succesful, but there's no aspect of "charity" to it. They're not doing it to keep the cast from poverty, they're doing it because they want more episodes.
Neither should receive such money. They will both succeed or fail on their own merits in the market.
People gathering together the money to pay for something they want IS the market at work.
That's great for them, kudos that they have spent over twenty years on the same basic idea, but what about the people who wanted to actually get some work done in that time frame.
What about them? Are you suggesting that HURD is hurting them somehow? Most of the projects that people around the world are working on are of no use or interest to me but... so?
I'm in the UK too, and have an employment contract of course. I think the thought of my employers being able to fire me without any notice wouldn't scare me as much as the thought of me being able to quit without notice would scare them. And that's not based on me being anything special, I don't think they'd agree to anyone above the most junior level being able to quit without notice. In fact I'm positive that even the most junior staff require a month's notice by either side.
(Yes, I realize that you were being funny, but a couple of the moderators didn't.)
No problem, you're right that was supposed to be funny and no way was it a +5 joke anyway.
My favorites are the ones that mod up 'underrated' like they can't think of a reason but feel compelled to mod up anyway. I can understand it to correct a post that shouldn't have been modded down, or even to bump an AC up to 1, but any more than that should at least vaguely match one of insightful, informative, funny.
If you talk about Open Source Software, people know that you are referring to a specific class of software, all of which have licenses approved by OSI.
Oh? I could have sworn I've seen you state more than once that the term was synonymous with "free software" maybe I imagined it or you changed your mind?
Personally, I might take 'open source' to mean that the licensing terms meet the OSI's open source definition but there's no way I'd take it to mean that the license has been approved by someone. I'm sceptical of your claim that many people interpret the term the way you do.
For instance, the American Revolution is a good counter-example. Not only were the original revolutionaries not "eaten" but flourished in the government that followed the revolution.
Or at least, that's the way the eaters wrote the history books.
Writing adventure stories about dogs in this post-Columbine world.
Beatles, on the other hand, is the ugly guy who wanted to squeeze some extra money from Apple, although there never was any conflict of brands with this very generic name.
Absurd. Either you know nothing about this or else you are lying. Apple records took action against Apple computer when they first started up. Apple computer did not have deep pockets at that point, it was not about getting money, it was about preventing Apple Computer from infringing on their trademark. To resolve this, Apple Computer entered into an agreement with Apple records that they wouldn't enter the music industry.
Apple Computer have now throughly tramnpled all over that agreement.
This is well documented and well known.
The UK cannot have it both ways... eitehr adopt the Euro, or don't.
Unless you're ill-informed enough to think that all Euro-zone countries have the same tax regime, what possible relationship could there be between the Euro and anything else you said in your post?
designed for the sole porpoise
When you put it like that, it does sound a bit fishy.
Won't anyone give them a break?
Funny you should say that as IBM have a team committed to breaking them.
Nice link to IP-Wars in the article. Maybe Groklaw will link to anti-slash in retatliation.
It doesn't seem to include evil applications (or operating systems) that suddenly throw new windows on the screen to grab keyboard focus away from you just as you type something.
You lose your thread of thought AND the computer decides you said "OK" to "do you want to email your credit cards around the world" while you sit there wondering what just happened.
Yes, it's semantical in the sense that 'open source' means something specific
"In the sense that..."???
I LOVE this. The self proclaimed hater of semantic debates is getting in a sideways quibble over the meaning of SEMANTICAL.
Tell us in what sense you like to use the word 'semantical', K98sven.
but it's the recent UN urgency to fight a war that changed the picture entirely.
Is that supposed to be a joke? The prompting for the war comes from the USA. There's no way it's coming from the UN, quite the reverse.
Technically more of a whine than a complaint.
i know this may sound metaphysical, but what is "trying to be good?"
We've already covered that, it's not eating shellfish, it's not cutting the hair at the sides of your head, it's stoning to death blasphemers etc. As mjh was saying, that's the law that governs how good we are in the eyes of his god, but nobody can live up to it (whether because it's obviously silly or because the person has a conscience, you're bound to get caught out on one law or another). To make up for this, his god had a son who got crucified, which makes up for you wearing clothes made from different types of thread PROVIDED that you believe that it does. Understand now?
I agree, it's like when there's a plague everyone complains but then when there's a famine, a credible alternative to plague, everyone complains about that too!
Why can't people just criticise Microsoft when they come out with a plan but cheer on others when they offer a near identical plan? It's like people these days value consistency more than hypocrisy.
Simply feed headphone out to another computer (or perhaps even the same computer), record, and, presto!, we have a copy that is indistinguishable* from the original.
The theory is that only an encrypted signal would go out and that you'd have to have DRM headphones that decrypted the signal.
On first glance this may seem insane, but that's only because this comes from a consortium of people, some of whom probably are a little out of touch with reality, some of whom just don't understand what's involved but don't want to say so, and some of whom are cynically taking money from the others for a scheme that they know won't fly.
The general idea is that they're either going to convince everyone to completely replace their equipment in a short space of time, i.e. new computer, new stereo, new dvd player, new headphones etc etc, with ones that have reduced functionality or as an alternative they'll roll out the new equipment over a long period of time so that eventually everyone will have the hardware and they'll be able to start distributing the protected medai a decade or two after the system has been cracked anyway.
The reason is simple. The primary goal of Palladium isn't to prevent "illegal" copying, but to make it inconvenient for the average Joe.
So far as I could see from the article, the authors fully appreciated that "the average Joe" doesn't need to crack the protection. So long as some copies make it through to the darknet (which they feel is inevitable) then (they theorised) the efficiency of distribution after that point is the key factor.
At least, it seems to me that's what they were saying, and it makes sense.
Also Palladium isn't supposed to prevent you from playing content from the darknet, it only restricts the playing of "legitimate" copies. Once they've been cracked Palladium is as neutral about them as it would be about any home movie. Again, this is something that the authors seemed to understand very clearly.
If Palladium works then a paper by some Microsoft employees speculating that it wouldn't is probably not going to hurt the company. In fact a paper like that might even make it easier to get widespread adoption by consumers who might otherwise be uneasy about it.
If Palladium doesn't work then a fallback position that basically nobody else's scheme is going to work either probably isn't such a bad thing for Microsoft. One thing they don't want is legislative attempts to force them to implement a scheme which simply isn't possible, causing them to spend millions of dollars without ever getting anywhere.
If Palladium works they're going to be ecstatic. If Palladium doesn't work then I don't think they'll be surprised, they will want it to be clearly seen that they did the best they could, and (maybe) they'll prefer itif people are let down gently i.e. a few reports in advanace saying that the whole thing's impossible might not hurt.
I don't think you have anything to be ashamed about but if you put in all that time and money without first finding out the characteristics of the market you were entering into then perhaps you should consider it a learning experience.
If you did realise your work was going to be copied and shared and you went ahead anyway then I guess you thought the rewards would be worth it; if you're going into any business then you're going to have to make judgments and take risks like that. Sorry if it didn't work out for you. Congratulations if it did.
You forgot to include in the 'against DRM' category "plus people will still manage to share files, leaving all the problems of not having DRM in addition to the new ones that DRM creates".
And on top of that, it's my way of dumping the digital tea into the harbour.
:(
Leading to mutated virus-carrying micro-fishes, that's all we need