The reason that there is a broad push for this kind of technology (intrusive content control) is that the current federal administration is very much pro big business. The tactics being employed now skirt existing interpretations of anti-trust laws by employing monopolistic tactics against consumers, not other businesses. While the MPAA may employ virtual monopoly power in forcing consumers to buy expensive new equipment (and therefore sacrifice rights), it does not impose an entry barrier to other prospective businesses. Anti-trust laws could easily be expanded to counter this new type of monopoly, but only under a pro-consumer administration. A supreme court ruling in favor of consumers would bring this whole house of cards down, but the majority of justices will (most probably) be pro-big business if any of the current democratic justices retire (Bush will only appoint pro-big business justices, of course, and it is very likely that at least one democratic justice will retire during Bush's administration).
An interesting quote re Bush:
On the 12th month of the year of the millenium, in the seat of greatest power, the village idiot shall come forth to lead.
-Nostradamus
Big businesses are entrenching themselves against what they see as a potential wave of piracy. As more people come online, and, even more importantly, as bandwidth barriers are lowered, media piracy is being made possible on an unprecedented scale (a la Napster). All they're trying to do is basically protect their profit margins. This kind of thing, however, will never work. All it would take to stop this crap is for one person to crack each major release that comes out, just once. After that, just convert it to good ol Divx, fire up Bearshare/Gnutella/Limewire (assuming all napster-type pseudo P2P services block that stuff out) and the MPAA is screwed. Soon, the industry will kill itself, as it will make obtaining pirated copies much more convenient to obtain than trying to meet all the new standards required to play legal copies. All the media industry has to do is increase the inconvenience/cost ratio of pirated media as opposed to legit goods in order to stay ahead of the game. What they just don't get is that there will always be a hardcore bunch of hackers out there that will break their system just for the hell of it. They can put everybody through a load of shit trying to achieve the golden 100%, or they can do the smart thing and implement something designed to make it inconvenient for most people to pirate media and achieve 85%. What they'll find out the hard way is that it will cost more money that they'll save to try to constantly update a system that will be a perpetual ground zero for hack attacks.
Aside from the potential (make that probable!) gross abuses of this system, it would be great for high-security environments!
Mundie is basically putting a new spin on Microsoft's effort to preserve the status quo (sorry for the redundancy, but bear with me for a min)
What most people don't realize is the true power that the status quo holds over our society (and esp our legislators). I've read a lot of posts re: the 30 yr lightbulb and everlasting car. These and many similar things are already invented, and can often be produced at lower cost than what is currently in the market. Some people have posted that strong IPP laws are necessary in industries where development costs are high. Strong IPP laws, however, often work to preserve the status quo against change. In many industries, the incumbent businesses are able to (legally) massively raise financial entrance barriers to start-ups. This often makes selling the IPR's to an idea many times more profitable than bringing a product based on that idea to market. The automotive industry is a good example. there have been many advancements in using ceramic materials for engines (they are guaranteed to last for life, run cleaner and more efficient than metal, and are not prone to warping/cracking due to heat). So why doesn't anybody manufacture those tomorrow? Because the inventors that actually got patents on the engines sold them out to the big auto manufacturers, who, utilizing the strong IPP laws, are able to effectively all but "erase" the technology. Auto manufacturers would LOSE bigtime if they manufactured those engines themselves because even if they had a monopoly on the ceramic engine market, they would make less than they are currently making because they would sell far less engines. From the business model viewpoint, it's stupid for the respective industry leaders to actually sell 30 yr lightbulbs and everlasting cars because they would put themselves out of business. Big businesses, while not necessarily philosophical powerhouses, are not stupid, esp when it comes to making money. Microsoft, I am quite sure, does "get it" (re OSS) but why the hell should they implement a real pseudo OSS system if it will shrink their revenue significantly by virtue of the way OSS works? Their products will be way cooler and may actually work as intended half the time, but they would still make less money than they are making now. What most people here don't get is that Microsoft is out there to make money, not better software. It is in their interest to preserve the status quo, not because they are afraid of a change destroying their company (which it may) or that they don't "get it," but because if they were to go along with it, they would be deliberately destroying a large ammount of their revenue-generating power. Can anyone here seriously expect ANY company out there (let alone a publicly traded one!) to switch to a business model that is GUARANTEED to negatively affect their revenue?
better software does not equal more money, and Microsoft knows it.
In my personal opinion, OSS will eventually beat out Microsoft's business model, but unless Microsoft is taken over by some complete and utter idiot, the company itself will adapt to the change. Before that happens, however, I think the OSS community really needs to consider what they're trying to accomplish. I agree that you all (I'm assuming all/. is pro-OSS) have the ethical highground, but if your true goal is the spread of OSS, being elitist and derisive of those less knowledgeable is only hurting your cause. Consider this, I believe that Gandhi had every right to be pissed off at Britain for occupying India, but would he have accomplished his goals as effectively if he formed a radical terrorist group instead of practicing truly civil disobedience? I don't think so.
Gandhi said:
1. They ignore you
2. They laugh at you
3. They fight you
4. You win
What I find most disturbing is that the above saying applies to both the OSS community and Microsoft. Linux users used to generally dismiss Microsoft, Microsoft never used to give a crap about Linux users. Then Linux users laughed at Microslough and Internet exploder, Microsoft laughed at OSS idiots who were giving away their IPR's. Now the OSS community and Microsoft will, for the first time, engage in serious direct head to head. It remains to be seen who will win.
The reason that this type information is considered significant is that the brain behaves in ways that are "unnatural" when in deep (esp. yogic) meditation. I don't know anything about specific areas of the brain, but I do know that an encephalograph will show that during deep yogic meditation (and probably other types as well) the entire brain in general is in a state of profound relaxation that is distinctly different from any of the various stages of sleep. This pattern of neural activity is something that is never found in any "natural" state of consciousness or unconsciousness, including concentration, procreation, or LSD high (which produces its own distinct pattern of neural activity). The fact that it may be possible to isolate the area of the brain that essentially controls your state of consciousness is a huge breakthrough in both the field of neurological science and philosophy/religion. It normally takes serious students years to acquire the mental discipline necessary to achieve a truly altered state of consciousness (measurable by scientific means) through "pure" meditation (not enhanced by the use of chemical substances). What if someone could guarantee you full-blown meditational powers worthy of a guru for $99.99? Wouldn't that be cool? Would it be wrong?
Some interesting reading on the subject:
http://www.neovedanta.org/a28.html
Slashdot Mirror
The reason that there is a broad push for this kind of technology (intrusive content control) is that the current federal administration is very much pro big business. The tactics being employed now skirt existing interpretations of anti-trust laws by employing monopolistic tactics against consumers, not other businesses. While the MPAA may employ virtual monopoly power in forcing consumers to buy expensive new equipment (and therefore sacrifice rights), it does not impose an entry barrier to other prospective businesses. Anti-trust laws could easily be expanded to counter this new type of monopoly, but only under a pro-consumer administration. A supreme court ruling in favor of consumers would bring this whole house of cards down, but the majority of justices will (most probably) be pro-big business if any of the current democratic justices retire (Bush will only appoint pro-big business justices, of course, and it is very likely that at least one democratic justice will retire during Bush's administration).
An interesting quote re Bush:
On the 12th month of the year of the millenium, in the seat of greatest power, the village idiot shall come forth to lead.
-Nostradamus
Big businesses are entrenching themselves against what they see as a potential wave of piracy. As more people come online, and, even more importantly, as bandwidth barriers are lowered, media piracy is being made possible on an unprecedented scale (a la Napster). All they're trying to do is basically protect their profit margins. This kind of thing, however, will never work. All it would take to stop this crap is for one person to crack each major release that comes out, just once. After that, just convert it to good ol Divx, fire up Bearshare/Gnutella/Limewire (assuming all napster-type pseudo P2P services block that stuff out) and the MPAA is screwed. Soon, the industry will kill itself, as it will make obtaining pirated copies much more convenient to obtain than trying to meet all the new standards required to play legal copies. All the media industry has to do is increase the inconvenience/cost ratio of pirated media as opposed to legit goods in order to stay ahead of the game. What they just don't get is that there will always be a hardcore bunch of hackers out there that will break their system just for the hell of it. They can put everybody through a load of shit trying to achieve the golden 100%, or they can do the smart thing and implement something designed to make it inconvenient for most people to pirate media and achieve 85%. What they'll find out the hard way is that it will cost more money that they'll save to try to constantly update a system that will be a perpetual ground zero for hack attacks.
Aside from the potential (make that probable!) gross abuses of this system, it would be great for high-security environments!
Mundie is basically putting a new spin on Microsoft's effort to preserve the status quo (sorry for the redundancy, but bear with me for a min)
/. is pro-OSS) have the ethical highground, but if your true goal is the spread of OSS, being elitist and derisive of those less knowledgeable is only hurting your cause. Consider this, I believe that Gandhi had every right to be pissed off at Britain for occupying India, but would he have accomplished his goals as effectively if he formed a radical terrorist group instead of practicing truly civil disobedience? I don't think so.
What most people don't realize is the true power that the status quo holds over our society (and esp our legislators). I've read a lot of posts re: the 30 yr lightbulb and everlasting car. These and many similar things are already invented, and can often be produced at lower cost than what is currently in the market. Some people have posted that strong IPP laws are necessary in industries where development costs are high. Strong IPP laws, however, often work to preserve the status quo against change. In many industries, the incumbent businesses are able to (legally) massively raise financial entrance barriers to start-ups. This often makes selling the IPR's to an idea many times more profitable than bringing a product based on that idea to market. The automotive industry is a good example. there have been many advancements in using ceramic materials for engines (they are guaranteed to last for life, run cleaner and more efficient than metal, and are not prone to warping/cracking due to heat). So why doesn't anybody manufacture those tomorrow? Because the inventors that actually got patents on the engines sold them out to the big auto manufacturers, who, utilizing the strong IPP laws, are able to effectively all but "erase" the technology. Auto manufacturers would LOSE bigtime if they manufactured those engines themselves because even if they had a monopoly on the ceramic engine market, they would make less than they are currently making because they would sell far less engines. From the business model viewpoint, it's stupid for the respective industry leaders to actually sell 30 yr lightbulbs and everlasting cars because they would put themselves out of business. Big businesses, while not necessarily philosophical powerhouses, are not stupid, esp when it comes to making money. Microsoft, I am quite sure, does "get it" (re OSS) but why the hell should they implement a real pseudo OSS system if it will shrink their revenue significantly by virtue of the way OSS works? Their products will be way cooler and may actually work as intended half the time, but they would still make less money than they are making now. What most people here don't get is that Microsoft is out there to make money, not better software. It is in their interest to preserve the status quo, not because they are afraid of a change destroying their company (which it may) or that they don't "get it," but because if they were to go along with it, they would be deliberately destroying a large ammount of their revenue-generating power. Can anyone here seriously expect ANY company out there (let alone a publicly traded one!) to switch to a business model that is GUARANTEED to negatively affect their revenue?
better software does not equal more money, and Microsoft knows it.
In my personal opinion, OSS will eventually beat out Microsoft's business model, but unless Microsoft is taken over by some complete and utter idiot, the company itself will adapt to the change. Before that happens, however, I think the OSS community really needs to consider what they're trying to accomplish. I agree that you all (I'm assuming all
Gandhi said:
1. They ignore you
2. They laugh at you
3. They fight you
4. You win
What I find most disturbing is that the above saying applies to both the OSS community and Microsoft. Linux users used to generally dismiss Microsoft, Microsoft never used to give a crap about Linux users. Then Linux users laughed at Microslough and Internet exploder, Microsoft laughed at OSS idiots who were giving away their IPR's. Now the OSS community and Microsoft will, for the first time, engage in serious direct head to head. It remains to be seen who will win.
The reason that this type information is considered significant is that the brain behaves in ways that are "unnatural" when in deep (esp. yogic) meditation. I don't know anything about specific areas of the brain, but I do know that an encephalograph will show that during deep yogic meditation (and probably other types as well) the entire brain in general is in a state of profound relaxation that is distinctly different from any of the various stages of sleep. This pattern of neural activity is something that is never found in any "natural" state of consciousness or unconsciousness, including concentration, procreation, or LSD high (which produces its own distinct pattern of neural activity). The fact that it may be possible to isolate the area of the brain that essentially controls your state of consciousness is a huge breakthrough in both the field of neurological science and philosophy/religion. It normally takes serious students years to acquire the mental discipline necessary to achieve a truly altered state of consciousness (measurable by scientific means) through "pure" meditation (not enhanced by the use of chemical substances). What if someone could guarantee you full-blown meditational powers worthy of a guru for $99.99? Wouldn't that be cool? Would it be wrong? Some interesting reading on the subject: http://www.neovedanta.org/a28.html