And even better is if there were a standard template for the "average" human genome. Then you can just show where your genes differ, and that will uniquely identify you. And you'll cut the size into almost 1/1000th of storing the full data. Of course, you would have to have the standard human template to compare it to, to get your full genome. I just imagine people going to pharmacies or doctors and they swipe their DNA card to get their full genome. If the pharmacy/doctor kept a standard human template, you can cut down the data each person needs to carry by a huge amount.
I agree with the sentiment too, but still, if we had these sort of restrictions it would be MUCH HARDER to copy music and movies, even though it might be possible. And if it were harder and more time consuming, there'd be a lot less choices out there on p2p networks and such. So it would be successful, even if it's not foolproof.
Re:Its all about the Benjamins......
on
Xbox Live Beta Report
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I don't know why you use the word "P2P", but you've already been able to play Xbox online (halo, mostly) through a vpn tunnel or something or other. Considering that Xbox live will be only 50 bucks for the first year, I'll definitely be trying it out for at least a year. And what they offer does, to me, seem worth paying for, and that's saying a lot since I don't like to pay for much. I've tried it at a friends house (he's in the beta), and it was really great. It offers a level of "community" and communication that you just don't get from anonymously popping into a rogue spear game, without any real communication, except maybe a rushed text message. To me, the communicator makes it really exciting. For one, there's the sense that you're actually playing *with* someone, that you don't get so much from playing online without a communicator. Plus, it's much easier to strategize and such. I think this sounds great. Whether they can make money on it or not (it's strictly broadband) is a separate question, but one that I don't really care about. All I care about is whether it's fun or not. Sounds fun.
Okay, you're probably right, but I guess I was talking about storage in general, going slightly offtopic. On the other hand, as far as I understand, black and white pictures last far longer than color. But, like you said, that doesn't really help much as far as "accidental" discoveries.
I have a CD burner, and I consider myself part of the Lindows target market. Actually, maybe I'm not considered to be in Lindows demographic, but I'm interested in it. I've tried installing linux and it's given me problems here and there and it just wasn't worth the effort for me. If I can do a dual-boot on my raid 0 machine (which linux didn't handle well in the past), and not be overwhelmed by tons of new things I'd have to learn all at once, I'd definitely go for Lindows. I'm not stupid, but I just don't have the time or patience to learn how to use linux properly. I do know, on the other hand, that if I can get a linux distro running painlessly that I would slowly learn it and be as adept as anyone else. I just don't deal well with being overwhelmed all at once with things I don't understand. But if I had a linux machine that ran things easily with no worry, I would no doubt learn all of it (albeit slowly) by tinkering around with it. Whatever.
I depends what you mean by archival. 100 years from now there won't be any forgotten digital photos found. When I say forgotten, I mean that no one backed it up before the media (tape, or whatever) decayed. Photo prints, from today, on the other hand, will likely be around 100 years from now. I just hope they'll come up with good storage media that is just as stable (even better, more stable) than plain old paper. I'm sure it's possible, and it'll happen, but till then I don't feel entirely comfortable with the idea of having everything archived in digital format only, since that would likely lead to lots of things being lost if they weren't tended to.
Whoa, calm down. I'll try to tone down on the rhetoric. I'll try to be open minded and not take anything for granted in my reply. But I just want to explain that in the past I thought very much like you do, so I really do understand exactly what you're saying and what you mean. Maybe I'm just taking too many things for granted and not explaining myself properly. When I say I'm taking things for granted, I mean I might be saying things that I've discovered are true, and now I take it for granted that it's true, so I don't see that I need to explain it. Of course, taking things for granted like that might also compromise my reasoning. Whatever, I'll try to give an intellectually honest reply, and to be thorough. If you want, email me. I want to pursue this.
Yes, I've heard of copyright. Ever heard of patents? Yes, patents are, or can be, used by companies like gillette as an indirect way of preventing people from selling cartridge clones. Microsoft's use of copyright in this scenario is not really about copyright at all, it's about controlling their hardware. Think about what copyright is for. It's not about controlling what people do with hardware that you sell them, at least it wasn't supposed to be.
The mod chips bypass copy protection schemes, that's what MS is miffed about.
Of course that's what they're miffed about. Does microsoft being miffed require that the law come in and fix things for them? I don't think it matters what Microsoft is miffed about. Allowing the market to be controlled in such a manner, even if it's a good thing in this limited example, ALWAYS leads to abuse and inefficiency and unfairness in the market.
Seriously, what good would it do to allow Microsoft to get what they want here?
By the way, I have an Xbox, and I think it's great, and I've defended it many times before. People call it bloated and sloppily engineered and just a big mess. All I know is I like it, it's better than the other consoles, etc. etc. So I didn't care that they were selling it at a loss, as opposed to the other consoles. But if the business model isn't working out for them, try something else. Or try making the console more secure. Are we going to set ugly legal precedents just so Microsoft can save a few dollars by using the law to bully people instead of making it more secure?
I really haven't been taking things to logical extremes (maybe I have, I suppose I tend to do that sometimes, but give me examples). You can ask me if I've ever heard of copyright, but you're relying on something that most people consider necessary in general (copyright) to justify this specific example. Yes, I've heard of copyright. And I think trying to pursue this through copyright law would be an abuse of copyright, and a disrespect to its original intentions.
It's amazing what lengths we sometimes go to to avoid competition, just because we're afraid someone might go out of business. I think much more likely is that consumers would win out.
The first sale doctrine forbids such "contracts" tho. In the beginning of the 20th Century, books came with EULA type contracts, but Congress declared them invalid. By turning a sale into a "contract" or an "agreement" you are distorting the market. Regardless of your analogies, then end result is the same: a less efficient and inherently unfair market.
You mean like the ill-fated Indrema, or the 3DO? Heh.
I don't really understand what you mean. What's the difference between the Indrema and 3DO and the other consoles, besides the fact that they failed? Nothing. The machine I described is exactly like a console (it *is* a console), but it's the result of a cooperative effort
I stand by that comment. This thread has generated 36 replies so far, most of them are anti-MS bigotry. If I am wrong about you, then I apologize. If this topic were about Sony or Nintendo instead of MS, I wouldn't have all these stupid responses flooding my inbox.
I understand your point about Microsoft, but I think we might be arguing about two different things. I think you're trying to say "of course microsoft would do that, they're a business, they're looking out for themselves like businesses do". I'm simply saying that it shouldn't be supported by the law.
And anyway, when you say stuff like "of course they'd do that, they're only looking out for themselves..." you absolve them from a certain level of personal repsonsibility that most people demand from other people. You're acting like they're exempt because they're a company.
Also, it's not about what I would or wouldn't do. Look at it this way. There are all sorts of ways to regulate the behavior of a company. The law is one of them. Public opinion is another. If you don't like what a company is doing, regardless of how "logical" it is for them to do it, then get upset. That will hurt their bottom line (maybe, if other people get upset too), and they'll have to factor that into the equation when it comes time for them to decide to do something similar again.
Yes, assuming there were no such thing as public opinion, of course Microsoft is doing the "logical" thing. But public opinion, and word of mouth are powerful tools. Why give that up?
Of course, you can't think on such low level terms. That's what morality, ethics and social norms are.
So would I try to do the same thing if I were Microsoft? Probably. Does that mean it's okay? Should we just sit back and take it passively?
I have this metal lamp that brightens each time you touch it, and then turns off (the fourth touch). No matter where you touch it, it works, but if you're touching it already, touching it with the other hand, or even another person touching it won't do anything. It's pretty cool.
It's called a PC, and it's not a very successful model. Successful games on the PC are measured in hundreds of thousands. Successful games on game consoles are measured in millions.
No, it's not called a PC. What I had in mind was a closed platform, one that can't be upgraded, and one that only has one hardware configuration.
Why are you taking pokes at me? Is it that hard to have a civilized debate? Do you really feel like you need to discredit me to 'win'?
You're right, I apologize, sincerely. I get a little worked up sometimes. Especially when you say stuff (if I remember correctly) like "oh another stupid slashdot post, god these people don't even understand basic economics!"
You make it like you have a full understanding of everything, and that there is nothing outside the scope of your economic theory. But you're right, that was uncalled for; like I said, I get worked up sometimes.
Care to explain your reasoning? I mean, that *is* what a forum like this one is for, isn't it?
You listed Nintendo, Sony, and Gillette. I called them "razor blade businesses", referring to the business model, not necessarily the specific products they sell. Nintendo, Sony and Gillette have been very successful with this model. Good for them. Does this mean we should restrain trade in order to support those "razor blade businesses" that don't quite work out?
But why should it be the business of the public/government to ensure that Microsoft's, or Sony's or Nintendo's business model works out? All of what you're saying is true but so fucking what? Lots of ventures aren't worthwhile. Try something else next time.
I can envision at least five different business models for the console gaming industry. I can very easily imagine a console created by the industry through COOPERATION, a machine that all the game developers would support. I play console games a lot, and I know it sounds sacrilegious (sp?) to console gamers, but if there were one unified market, instead of being fragmented into 3, there would be a lot more games selling.
But on the other hand, a console built based on cooperation might not work out for a number of reasons. But that's not my problem. I'm sure they'd work it out. The cell phone industry in Europe is a perfect example of the kind of progress that can sometimes be made through cooperation, especially when compared to the cell phone industry in the US.
You may not have imagination enough to imagine things being any different, but that doesn't mean they can't or wouldn't.
So...we have to close up businesses because they might put another company out of business? Yeah, MS was forced, so to speak, to drop their prices. If it's not working out for them, exit the market. You use *descriptive* economics as a sort of moral guide. You're like those people who justify anything with "evolution". "Hey, why should we save endangered species, they're dying out because they can't survive. That's evolution, survival of the fittest".
You seem to have the most elementary understanding of economics, and not only is your understanding of it elementary, you use it in a vacuum. Grow up.
No, it's not a fluke. What's your point exactly? We shouldn't be closing up businesses and restricting people's freedom just because it conflicts with somebody's business model.
No. You're referring to what people call the "razor blade" business model, and it's perfectly legitimate. But should the LAW come in and close down other businesses which might conflict with someone's razor blade business? Sorry, but no. What's good for GM is good for America, right?
Wait, so how do they produce a full season of episodes (how many? 20?) every year? According to my assumption that there are 20 episodes a year, that sounds like only 2-3 weeks per episode.
Slashdot Mirror
And even better is if there were a standard template for the "average" human genome. Then you can just show where your genes differ, and that will uniquely identify you. And you'll cut the size into almost 1/1000th of storing the full data. Of course, you would have to have the standard human template to compare it to, to get your full genome. I just imagine people going to pharmacies or doctors and they swipe their DNA card to get their full genome. If the pharmacy/doctor kept a standard human template, you can cut down the data each person needs to carry by a huge amount.
This is fake. Proof that the moderators are idiots. At the end of the mp3, these guys can barely stop themselves from laughing.
I think "Fritz" means it's fully DRM compliant.
I agree with the sentiment too, but still, if we had these sort of restrictions it would be MUCH HARDER to copy music and movies, even though it might be possible. And if it were harder and more time consuming, there'd be a lot less choices out there on p2p networks and such. So it would be successful, even if it's not foolproof.
kazaa lite, with fasttrack accelerator!
I don't know why you use the word "P2P", but you've already been able to play Xbox online (halo, mostly) through a vpn tunnel or something or other. Considering that Xbox live will be only 50 bucks for the first year, I'll definitely be trying it out for at least a year. And what they offer does, to me, seem worth paying for, and that's saying a lot since I don't like to pay for much. I've tried it at a friends house (he's in the beta), and it was really great. It offers a level of "community" and communication that you just don't get from anonymously popping into a rogue spear game, without any real communication, except maybe a rushed text message. To me, the communicator makes it really exciting. For one, there's the sense that you're actually playing *with* someone, that you don't get so much from playing online without a communicator. Plus, it's much easier to strategize and such. I think this sounds great. Whether they can make money on it or not (it's strictly broadband) is a separate question, but one that I don't really care about. All I care about is whether it's fun or not. Sounds fun.
Okay, you're probably right, but I guess I was talking about storage in general, going slightly offtopic. On the other hand, as far as I understand, black and white pictures last far longer than color. But, like you said, that doesn't really help much as far as "accidental" discoveries.
What about negatives? How long do they last?
I have a CD burner, and I consider myself part of the Lindows target market. Actually, maybe I'm not considered to be in Lindows demographic, but I'm interested in it. I've tried installing linux and it's given me problems here and there and it just wasn't worth the effort for me. If I can do a dual-boot on my raid 0 machine (which linux didn't handle well in the past), and not be overwhelmed by tons of new things I'd have to learn all at once, I'd definitely go for Lindows. I'm not stupid, but I just don't have the time or patience to learn how to use linux properly. I do know, on the other hand, that if I can get a linux distro running painlessly that I would slowly learn it and be as adept as anyone else. I just don't deal well with being overwhelmed all at once with things I don't understand. But if I had a linux machine that ran things easily with no worry, I would no doubt learn all of it (albeit slowly) by tinkering around with it. Whatever.
Yeah, it's real old, I know. I wasn't saying it was new or anything.
I depends what you mean by archival. 100 years from now there won't be any forgotten digital photos found. When I say forgotten, I mean that no one backed it up before the media (tape, or whatever) decayed. Photo prints, from today, on the other hand, will likely be around 100 years from now. I just hope they'll come up with good storage media that is just as stable (even better, more stable) than plain old paper. I'm sure it's possible, and it'll happen, but till then I don't feel entirely comfortable with the idea of having everything archived in digital format only, since that would likely lead to lots of things being lost if they weren't tended to.
Whoa, calm down. I'll try to tone down on the rhetoric. I'll try to be open minded and not take anything for granted in my reply. But I just want to explain that in the past I thought very much like you do, so I really do understand exactly what you're saying and what you mean. Maybe I'm just taking too many things for granted and not explaining myself properly. When I say I'm taking things for granted, I mean I might be saying things that I've discovered are true, and now I take it for granted that it's true, so I don't see that I need to explain it. Of course, taking things for granted like that might also compromise my reasoning. Whatever, I'll try to give an intellectually honest reply, and to be thorough. If you want, email me. I want to pursue this.
Yes, I've heard of copyright. Ever heard of patents? Yes, patents are, or can be, used by companies like gillette as an indirect way of preventing people from selling cartridge clones. Microsoft's use of copyright in this scenario is not really about copyright at all, it's about controlling their hardware. Think about what copyright is for. It's not about controlling what people do with hardware that you sell them, at least it wasn't supposed to be.
The mod chips bypass copy protection schemes, that's what MS is miffed about.
Of course that's what they're miffed about. Does microsoft being miffed require that the law come in and fix things for them? I don't think it matters what Microsoft is miffed about. Allowing the market to be controlled in such a manner, even if it's a good thing in this limited example, ALWAYS leads to abuse and inefficiency and unfairness in the market.
Seriously, what good would it do to allow Microsoft to get what they want here?
By the way, I have an Xbox, and I think it's great, and I've defended it many times before. People call it bloated and sloppily engineered and just a big mess. All I know is I like it, it's better than the other consoles, etc. etc. So I didn't care that they were selling it at a loss, as opposed to the other consoles. But if the business model isn't working out for them, try something else. Or try making the console more secure. Are we going to set ugly legal precedents just so Microsoft can save a few dollars by using the law to bully people instead of making it more secure?
I really haven't been taking things to logical extremes (maybe I have, I suppose I tend to do that sometimes, but give me examples). You can ask me if I've ever heard of copyright, but you're relying on something that most people consider necessary in general (copyright) to justify this specific example. Yes, I've heard of copyright. And I think trying to pursue this through copyright law would be an abuse of copyright, and a disrespect to its original intentions.
It's amazing what lengths we sometimes go to to avoid competition, just because we're afraid someone might go out of business. I think much more likely is that consumers would win out.
The first sale doctrine forbids such "contracts" tho. In the beginning of the 20th Century, books came with EULA type contracts, but Congress declared them invalid. By turning a sale into a "contract" or an "agreement" you are distorting the market. Regardless of your analogies, then end result is the same: a less efficient and inherently unfair market.
You mean like the ill-fated Indrema, or the 3DO? Heh.
I don't really understand what you mean. What's the difference between the Indrema and 3DO and the other consoles, besides the fact that they failed? Nothing. The machine I described is exactly like a console (it *is* a console), but it's the result of a cooperative effort
I stand by that comment. This thread has generated 36 replies so far, most of them are anti-MS bigotry. If I am wrong about you, then I apologize. If this topic were about Sony or Nintendo instead of MS, I wouldn't have all these stupid responses flooding my inbox.
I understand your point about Microsoft, but I think we might be arguing about two different things. I think you're trying to say "of course microsoft would do that, they're a business, they're looking out for themselves like businesses do". I'm simply saying that it shouldn't be supported by the law.
And anyway, when you say stuff like "of course they'd do that, they're only looking out for themselves..." you absolve them from a certain level of personal repsonsibility that most people demand from other people. You're acting like they're exempt because they're a company.
Also, it's not about what I would or wouldn't do. Look at it this way. There are all sorts of ways to regulate the behavior of a company. The law is one of them. Public opinion is another. If you don't like what a company is doing, regardless of how "logical" it is for them to do it, then get upset. That will hurt their bottom line (maybe, if other people get upset too), and they'll have to factor that into the equation when it comes time for them to decide to do something similar again.
Yes, assuming there were no such thing as public opinion, of course Microsoft is doing the "logical" thing. But public opinion, and word of mouth are powerful tools. Why give that up?
Of course, you can't think on such low level terms. That's what morality, ethics and social norms are.
So would I try to do the same thing if I were Microsoft? Probably. Does that mean it's okay? Should we just sit back and take it passively?
I have this metal lamp that brightens each time you touch it, and then turns off (the fourth touch). No matter where you touch it, it works, but if you're touching it already, touching it with the other hand, or even another person touching it won't do anything. It's pretty cool.
It's called a PC, and it's not a very successful model. Successful games on the PC are measured in hundreds of thousands. Successful games on game consoles are measured in millions.
No, it's not called a PC. What I had in mind was a closed platform, one that can't be upgraded, and one that only has one hardware configuration.
Why are you taking pokes at me? Is it that hard to have a civilized debate? Do you really feel like you need to discredit me to 'win'?
You're right, I apologize, sincerely. I get a little worked up sometimes. Especially when you say stuff (if I remember correctly) like "oh another stupid slashdot post, god these people don't even understand basic economics!"
You make it like you have a full understanding of everything, and that there is nothing outside the scope of your economic theory. But you're right, that was uncalled for; like I said, I get worked up sometimes.
Care to explain your reasoning? I mean, that *is* what a forum like this one is for, isn't it?
You listed Nintendo, Sony, and Gillette. I called them "razor blade businesses", referring to the business model, not necessarily the specific products they sell. Nintendo, Sony and Gillette have been very successful with this model. Good for them. Does this mean we should restrain trade in order to support those "razor blade businesses" that don't quite work out?
Don't give me a half-assed answer this time.
But why should it be the business of the public/government to ensure that Microsoft's, or Sony's or Nintendo's business model works out? All of what you're saying is true but so fucking what? Lots of ventures aren't worthwhile. Try something else next time.
I can envision at least five different business models for the console gaming industry. I can very easily imagine a console created by the industry through COOPERATION, a machine that all the game developers would support. I play console games a lot, and I know it sounds sacrilegious (sp?) to console gamers, but if there were one unified market, instead of being fragmented into 3, there would be a lot more games selling.
But on the other hand, a console built based on cooperation might not work out for a number of reasons. But that's not my problem. I'm sure they'd work it out. The cell phone industry in Europe is a perfect example of the kind of progress that can sometimes be made through cooperation, especially when compared to the cell phone industry in the US.
You may not have imagination enough to imagine things being any different, but that doesn't mean they can't or wouldn't.
So...we have to close up businesses because they might put another company out of business? Yeah, MS was forced, so to speak, to drop their prices. If it's not working out for them, exit the market. You use *descriptive* economics as a sort of moral guide. You're like those people who justify anything with "evolution". "Hey, why should we save endangered species, they're dying out because they can't survive. That's evolution, survival of the fittest".
You seem to have the most elementary understanding of economics, and not only is your understanding of it elementary, you use it in a vacuum. Grow up.
No, it's not a fluke. What's your point exactly? We shouldn't be closing up businesses and restricting people's freedom just because it conflicts with somebody's business model.
No. You're referring to what people call the "razor blade" business model, and it's perfectly legitimate. But should the LAW come in and close down other businesses which might conflict with someone's razor blade business? Sorry, but no. What's good for GM is good for America, right?
Wait, so how do they produce a full season of episodes (how many? 20?) every year? According to my assumption that there are 20 episodes a year, that sounds like only 2-3 weeks per episode.
Just a word of advice. Never say "ayn rand was right". It just totally ruins your credibility. Then again, you are user #382.
Yeah, it's a really great movie, especially the last 2 minutes. It's capitalized strangely. The title is: "eXistenZ"
>Not really sure what you're getting here. Sorry :-)
My point is: does the fact that it makes people more violent warrant suspending the first amendment?