The analogy breaks down in that most land is leased for a specific term, and most intellectual property that is delivered on a physical media has a perpetual license.
I would argue that the analogy breaks down because the concept itself is flawed.:P
Re:Saw It in Music! Coming Soon in Games, E-Books
on
Why Bother With DRM?
·
· Score: 1
I'm sad to report I'll be considered among the 90% piracy figure by DRM vendors. It's not that I actually have a copy of World of Goo (well - OK... I probably still have the demo install on my HD still). It's that I haven't purchased a copy of World of Goo. A lost sale is a lost sale and tantamount to thievery.
Don't let people tell you what's good or who's better when it comes to fiction. Treat them as recommendations, but never as a rule.
I think the quote goes something along the lines of "I don't know much about art - but I know what I like." I concur. What makes you happy... makes you happy. Others shouldn't define that. Especially when their recommendations are not only subjective (which is the nature of "like" and "dislike") but lacking detail.
Which, of course, doesn't mean I must refuse to see the flaws in whatever it is that makes me happy.
I'm sure some people have had to google Stephen King too.
Not me. I know who he is. Not that I'm a big fan.
Ursula LeGuin is a top-selling author who has won numerous awards and accolades and is considered by many to be one of the great authors of 20th century science fiction....
That you have not heard of someone so important is your fault.
Apparently I'm missing out. I'll keep her in mind when looking for something to read.
Having said that... my fault, huh? How do you figure that? I'm sure there are a lot of good authors out there that I've never heard of - that none of us have ever heard of. Who's fault is that?
I'd say it's not anyone's "fault" but rather an example of how these things work. That I know Doctrow and not LeGuin (at least by name) is just a blip of a data point. I'd say being "known" is actually pretty import in that business and Doctrow is right. Whether one author is better than another doesn't really enter in to it; that's not the point.
I'm not a big fan of either one, but there's just no comparison between the two. Le Guin's works just have incomparably more depth and experience behind them.
I wouldn't be surprised. I like Doctrow's work. However, it's more due to the subject matter and general concepts than the work itself. There are plenty of times I've felt something Doctrow wrote was more like story notes than finished story. But hey - still like his stuff. And I know who he is.;)
There is a structure to our legal system. You should never, ever say "Well, they're police, so I guess they can do what they want!"
I agree. If you go back over what I wrote, you won't find me making that claim.
However, what is legal for a police officer to do is not always legal for a private citizen. Again - look in to the laws involving arrests, carrying firearms ("weapons" is too general in most cases), etc.
As you noted, those powers are granted by law. And they often include checks to limit the abuses of those powers (to varying degree of success). That means that the police are not above the law (i.e. "can do what they want"). But it also doesn't mean private citizens have the same legal abilities as the police.
I think a good measure of what a the police can do without a warrant, is what a normal person can do without a warrant.
Police have a lot more power than the average citizen. The rules for carrying a firearm are different between a police officer and a private citizen (even in states with concealed carry laws). If a private citizen were to signal for you to pull over on the side of the highway, you're probably better off ignoring them - not so with a police officer. There are plenty of other examples.
This does not mean that police are above the law. But there are certain powers and checks to those powers required to both allow police to be effective while limiting abuses of those powers.
In any case, your rule of thumb is entirely inconsistent with the current system.
It's amazing that after all this time Microsoft still believe they can win the fight against piracy.
I'm not so sure this is actually about "piracy". What if this is about maintaining a perception? We currently have a lot of industry using commodity OSes (Linux, *BSD... maybe even Solaris). It isn't too far off when we'll look at the OS as a commodity layer. That doesn't bode well with Microsoft's (current) business model.
At one point, copyright infringement of Windows wasn't a big deal as it just further enforced Windows adoption. However, if you're trying to battle the perception that the OS is a commodity, you don't contribute to that perception by allowing your OS to be "free." You take every opportunity to make it very apparent that Windows isn't free (or Free) - that there's a cost that people pay to use it.
The neighbor kid puts on a pirated version because of laziness, anti-MS feelings, lack of a product key, etc.
Or that finding the original media and product key for the box in question is either impossible (no media came with the box - that's what the hidden partition is for) or just nearly impossible ("maybe it's with all those manuals and boxes in the attic"). Dealing with a consumer Windows box is a PITA.
2. I prefer TNG over TOS for a few reasons: Kirk is clearly an action-based fly by the seat of his pants type guy. Makes for a great action movie like this. But please please please don't forget we're watching Star Trek for the philosophical questions that arise as well in the star trek universe. I loved Picard because he was the opposite. He drank hot tea on a regular basis. He thought about things, and thusly, I thought about things. Remember: We're not watching star wars, we're watching star trek here...
When we have a young Jean-Luc Picard on the screen, you can have more tea sipping. Meanwhile, this is Kirk. Sorry if that unbalances your view of what Trek is.
The question remains, where Dude Where's My Car should be completely doable for YouTubers, why don't we see lots of those?
I can't say with authority as I'm not in to that scene / business. But I would imagine that, first and foremost, even "trivial" content isn't trivial to make. So motivation is still a requirement. In addition, I suspect we're just now sort of getting to that point where people are realizing these things can be done. Slowly we're seeing people work it all out; The Guild, Dr. Horrible, Smosh, Fred. These are the forerunners to anything that might take a bite out of Hollywood's bottom rungs.
you do realize that many of the technologies mentioned in the article do exist today (like wireless video transmission, stock quotes etc.) but in 1903 few people if any could explain how to make that work. and the other ideas, about providing wireless electricity? those arent so far fetched either
Jules Verne also published a lot of technology ideas with no practical details on how to make them a reality. Back then these ideas were considered fantastical fictional works. Today they're considered the basis of science fiction. We also have working examples of many of these ideas. But it doesn't mean at any point real science was involved.
That doesn't mean Nikola Tesla was not a scientist. But it does point out that making predictions that one can later find functional examples of holds little weight when talking about scientific achievement.
And if "Dude, Where's My Car?" is any indication, Hollywood is screwed.
That is actually why Hollywood is screwed. Their idea of how to make films to fill in all the gaps involve the like of "Dude, Where's My Car." The thing is - a reasonably talented YouTube hack could probably do something just as good - even better. For less. And get the full rewards. With no Studio cut.
My choice of words there has nothing to do with my knowledge of child psychology, or teaching methods.
It may not. But your choice of words is another one of those pop culture memes that ultimately has no meaning. Your use of them in talking about educating children strongly implies a lack of education or experience on the topic at hand. My appologies if appearances were deceiving (and I'll admit that the jab was as about being frustrated with the over-use of the "fail" meme).
As per the parent to my post (who was quite mistaken), the bad side to taking down the book is that it prevents kids from learning history.
Are you sure I am not correct in saying that learning about 9/11 as history is more appropriate for kids who are older than those kids who typically use coloring books?
Oddly enough, we might be in agreement here. This coloring book had nothing to do with teaching history and everything to do with dealing with disasters. The premise of this argument is absurd.
Sorry, big bag of fail there. Kids who need coloring books to learn about a terrorist attack do not need to learn the history yet.
I'm not sure someone who has to describe something as a "big bag of fail" has a proper perspective on what children need much less how to educate them.
I'm sorry but I think exposing children to this sort of material will desensitise them to such actions if (when) they happen again... Is that what we really want?
Yes, by all means. We should keep them fearful and unable to deal with situations and concepts that even adults have difficulty dealing with.
There are millions of people who watch NASCAR. There are considerably fewer who participate in the races. I'm not sure NASCAR makes a good example even if your claim that you buy winnings pans out. Likewise, there are far fewer actual players in the NBA/NFL/NHL than there are fans. But what we're talking about here is not a spectator sport. It's one thing to watch people participate in an expensive or difficult activity for the entertainment value. It's another thing when your entertainment is based on participation. Boxing would have far fewer fans if involved getting your face pounded every match.
Having said that - there are a considerable number of NBA / NFL / NHL fans who also play the associated sport at a lesser level than the professionals. Nike's ad copy may imply otherwise, but in reality, even the most expensive pair of shoes can't guarantee the game. People play these sports because there is a challenge. Sure, good gear helps. But people aren't buying wins and they simply can't buy the kind of advantages MMORPG gear provides players in those games.
"The fortress model simply will not work for cyber," said one senior military officer who has been deeply engaged in the debate for several years. "Someone will always get in."
I always find it disturbing when these issues are treated like physical security issues. Part of that is because it is often physical security specialists that are brought to task. It is an environment that they often seem to be completely unprepared to deal with.
The issue is that information security and physical security are fundamentally different domains. We have no real control over the laws of physics. They exist whether we want them to or not. The best we can do is work within those laws. The most cutting edge military hardware is simply a better understanding and ability to exploit the laws of physics which have remained constant. But there are still limits. And so physical security specialists find themselves with limited options to mitigate risk and tactics designed around those limits.
Information security deals with systems, protocols, and laws that we design and implement. If we discover that an adversary has found a way to take advantage of any given law, we can alter it so that advantage no longer exists. This provides a very wide degree of options as an infosec specialist can not only mitigate existing risks, but take steps to completely change the entire situation if warranted.
And that's probably why the whole "cyber" thing annoys me to no end. It seems to be some kind of meme that tries to put our physical existence in to the electronic domain. In reality, there is no Tron. We are not Neuromancers. What is referred to as "CyberWarfare" is really information warfare - signals intelligence, espionage, electronic warfare, and other well-trodden paths. There may be new techniques and social implications. But the situations we're looking at are just extensions of things we already deal with. Attempting to blur the lines between the physical and informational domains only confuse the issue.
Huh. Wow. I either never knew or entirely forgot that this was possible (its been awhile since I've even SEEN one). Thanks for ignoring the low-flying jokes.
Slashdot Mirror
The analogy breaks down in that most land is leased for a specific term, and most intellectual property that is delivered on a physical media has a perpetual license.
I would argue that the analogy breaks down because the concept itself is flawed. :P
I'm sad to report I'll be considered among the 90% piracy figure by DRM vendors. It's not that I actually have a copy of World of Goo (well - OK... I probably still have the demo install on my HD still). It's that I haven't purchased a copy of World of Goo. A lost sale is a lost sale and tantamount to thievery.
Don't let people tell you what's good or who's better when it comes to fiction. Treat them as recommendations, but never as a rule.
I think the quote goes something along the lines of "I don't know much about art - but I know what I like." I concur. What makes you happy... makes you happy. Others shouldn't define that. Especially when their recommendations are not only subjective (which is the nature of "like" and "dislike") but lacking detail.
Which, of course, doesn't mean I must refuse to see the flaws in whatever it is that makes me happy.
I'm sure some people have had to google Stephen King too.
Not me. I know who he is. Not that I'm a big fan.
Ursula LeGuin is a top-selling author who has won numerous awards and accolades and is considered by many to be one of the great authors of 20th century science fiction. ...
That you have not heard of someone so important is your fault.
Apparently I'm missing out. I'll keep her in mind when looking for something to read.
Having said that... my fault, huh? How do you figure that? I'm sure there are a lot of good authors out there that I've never heard of - that none of us have ever heard of. Who's fault is that?
I'd say it's not anyone's "fault" but rather an example of how these things work. That I know Doctrow and not LeGuin (at least by name) is just a blip of a data point. I'd say being "known" is actually pretty import in that business and Doctrow is right. Whether one author is better than another doesn't really enter in to it; that's not the point.
I'm not a big fan of either one, but there's just no comparison between the two. Le Guin's works just have incomparably more depth and experience behind them.
I wouldn't be surprised. I like Doctrow's work. However, it's more due to the subject matter and general concepts than the work itself. There are plenty of times I've felt something Doctrow wrote was more like story notes than finished story. But hey - still like his stuff. And I know who he is. ;)
Apparently she authored the Earthsea series among other things. Don't feel bad - I had to Google her name.
There is a structure to our legal system. You should never, ever say "Well, they're police, so I guess they can do what they want!"
I agree. If you go back over what I wrote, you won't find me making that claim.
However, what is legal for a police officer to do is not always legal for a private citizen. Again - look in to the laws involving arrests, carrying firearms ("weapons" is too general in most cases), etc.
As you noted, those powers are granted by law. And they often include checks to limit the abuses of those powers (to varying degree of success). That means that the police are not above the law (i.e. "can do what they want"). But it also doesn't mean private citizens have the same legal abilities as the police.
I think a good measure of what a the police can do without a warrant, is what a normal person can do without a warrant.
Police have a lot more power than the average citizen. The rules for carrying a firearm are different between a police officer and a private citizen (even in states with concealed carry laws). If a private citizen were to signal for you to pull over on the side of the highway, you're probably better off ignoring them - not so with a police officer. There are plenty of other examples.
This does not mean that police are above the law. But there are certain powers and checks to those powers required to both allow police to be effective while limiting abuses of those powers.
In any case, your rule of thumb is entirely inconsistent with the current system.
I'm wondering if this isn't more about real estate / land prices than the cost of building.
....which is what we're talking about; "piracy" of Windows.
I was about to say the same thing - this is actually a pretty well known incident
No kidding. And the movie Kelly's Heroes was true too. I mean, seriously - can't anyone do some research on WWII? It was a pretty well known incident.
It's amazing that after all this time Microsoft still believe they can win the fight against piracy.
I'm not so sure this is actually about "piracy". What if this is about maintaining a perception? We currently have a lot of industry using commodity OSes (Linux, *BSD... maybe even Solaris). It isn't too far off when we'll look at the OS as a commodity layer. That doesn't bode well with Microsoft's (current) business model.
At one point, copyright infringement of Windows wasn't a big deal as it just further enforced Windows adoption. However, if you're trying to battle the perception that the OS is a commodity, you don't contribute to that perception by allowing your OS to be "free." You take every opportunity to make it very apparent that Windows isn't free (or Free) - that there's a cost that people pay to use it.
The neighbor kid puts on a pirated version because of laziness, anti-MS feelings, lack of a product key, etc.
Or that finding the original media and product key for the box in question is either impossible (no media came with the box - that's what the hidden partition is for) or just nearly impossible ("maybe it's with all those manuals and boxes in the attic"). Dealing with a consumer Windows box is a PITA.
2. I prefer TNG over TOS for a few reasons: Kirk is clearly an action-based fly by the seat of his pants type guy. Makes for a great action movie like this. But please please please don't forget we're watching Star Trek for the philosophical questions that arise as well in the star trek universe. I loved Picard because he was the opposite. He drank hot tea on a regular basis. He thought about things, and thusly, I thought about things. Remember: We're not watching star wars, we're watching star trek here...
When we have a young Jean-Luc Picard on the screen, you can have more tea sipping. Meanwhile, this is Kirk. Sorry if that unbalances your view of what Trek is.
The question remains, where Dude Where's My Car should be completely doable for YouTubers, why don't we see lots of those?
I can't say with authority as I'm not in to that scene / business. But I would imagine that, first and foremost, even "trivial" content isn't trivial to make. So motivation is still a requirement. In addition, I suspect we're just now sort of getting to that point where people are realizing these things can be done. Slowly we're seeing people work it all out; The Guild, Dr. Horrible, Smosh, Fred. These are the forerunners to anything that might take a bite out of Hollywood's bottom rungs.
you do realize that many of the technologies mentioned in the article do exist today (like wireless video transmission, stock quotes etc.) but in 1903 few people if any could explain how to make that work. and the other ideas, about providing wireless electricity? those arent so far fetched either
Jules Verne also published a lot of technology ideas with no practical details on how to make them a reality. Back then these ideas were considered fantastical fictional works. Today they're considered the basis of science fiction. We also have working examples of many of these ideas. But it doesn't mean at any point real science was involved.
That doesn't mean Nikola Tesla was not a scientist. But it does point out that making predictions that one can later find functional examples of holds little weight when talking about scientific achievement.
about:config
set noscript.firstRunRedirection to false
And if "Dude, Where's My Car?" is any indication, Hollywood is screwed.
That is actually why Hollywood is screwed. Their idea of how to make films to fill in all the gaps involve the like of "Dude, Where's My Car." The thing is - a reasonably talented YouTube hack could probably do something just as good - even better. For less. And get the full rewards. With no Studio cut.
My choice of words there has nothing to do with my knowledge of child psychology, or teaching methods.
It may not. But your choice of words is another one of those pop culture memes that ultimately has no meaning. Your use of them in talking about educating children strongly implies a lack of education or experience on the topic at hand. My appologies if appearances were deceiving (and I'll admit that the jab was as about being frustrated with the over-use of the "fail" meme).
As per the parent to my post (who was quite mistaken), the bad side to taking down the book is that it prevents kids from learning history.
Are you sure I am not correct in saying that learning about 9/11 as history is more appropriate for kids who are older than those kids who typically use coloring books?
Oddly enough, we might be in agreement here. This coloring book had nothing to do with teaching history and everything to do with dealing with disasters. The premise of this argument is absurd.
Sorry, big bag of fail there. Kids who need coloring books to learn about a terrorist attack do not need to learn the history yet.
I'm not sure someone who has to describe something as a "big bag of fail" has a proper perspective on what children need much less how to educate them.
I'm sorry but I think exposing children to this sort of material will desensitise them to such actions if (when) they happen again... Is that what we really want?
Yes, by all means. We should keep them fearful and unable to deal with situations and concepts that even adults have difficulty dealing with.
There are millions of people who watch NASCAR. There are considerably fewer who participate in the races. I'm not sure NASCAR makes a good example even if your claim that you buy winnings pans out. Likewise, there are far fewer actual players in the NBA/NFL/NHL than there are fans. But what we're talking about here is not a spectator sport. It's one thing to watch people participate in an expensive or difficult activity for the entertainment value. It's another thing when your entertainment is based on participation. Boxing would have far fewer fans if involved getting your face pounded every match.
Having said that - there are a considerable number of NBA / NFL / NHL fans who also play the associated sport at a lesser level than the professionals. Nike's ad copy may imply otherwise, but in reality, even the most expensive pair of shoes can't guarantee the game. People play these sports because there is a challenge. Sure, good gear helps. But people aren't buying wins and they simply can't buy the kind of advantages MMORPG gear provides players in those games.
From the article:
I always find it disturbing when these issues are treated like physical security issues. Part of that is because it is often physical security specialists that are brought to task. It is an environment that they often seem to be completely unprepared to deal with.
The issue is that information security and physical security are fundamentally different domains. We have no real control over the laws of physics. They exist whether we want them to or not. The best we can do is work within those laws. The most cutting edge military hardware is simply a better understanding and ability to exploit the laws of physics which have remained constant. But there are still limits. And so physical security specialists find themselves with limited options to mitigate risk and tactics designed around those limits.
Information security deals with systems, protocols, and laws that we design and implement. If we discover that an adversary has found a way to take advantage of any given law, we can alter it so that advantage no longer exists. This provides a very wide degree of options as an infosec specialist can not only mitigate existing risks, but take steps to completely change the entire situation if warranted.
And that's probably why the whole "cyber" thing annoys me to no end. It seems to be some kind of meme that tries to put our physical existence in to the electronic domain. In reality, there is no Tron. We are not Neuromancers. What is referred to as "CyberWarfare" is really information warfare - signals intelligence, espionage, electronic warfare, and other well-trodden paths. There may be new techniques and social implications. But the situations we're looking at are just extensions of things we already deal with. Attempting to blur the lines between the physical and informational domains only confuse the issue.
I used to have a top-of-the-line 3dfx graphics card. It was all I ever thought I'd need.
I remember when this WHOLE website was nothin' but ORCHARDS; as far as the eye could see.
Huh. Wow. I either never knew or entirely forgot that this was possible (its been awhile since I've even SEEN one). Thanks for ignoring the low-flying jokes.