When it works, it works; when it fails, it fails disastrously. This is a fact of life when working with Windows (the most complex piece of opaque software most people will ever use).
Who was the Einstein who chose to dispense with "Red Hat" for the Free/Consumer versions of the OS? Red Hat is one of the names many of us "grew up" with, along with Slackware, Debian, etc. Choosing the name Fedora seems like Red Hat took a left turn when everyone else wanted to go straight.
Am I just using the wrong terminology in describing what I do for a living?
No, it's just a case that you are correct, and so is everyone else. "Web development" is such a broad domain that it rightly includes basically every other discipline, so much so that I generally consider "web developer" to be a joke of a job title. It's a lot like "software engineer" or "analyst" or "associate".
However, the business model of providing a product at cost or a loss in order to sell consumables or service is (IMHO) vital to getting technology and higher ticket items into the hands of those who cannot afford it and don't have the credit to finance it.
This is a risky business model. All Ritz can hope for is that enough people don't hack the thing to make it profitable for them. This is the full extent of what their expectations can be.
A "customer" that pays $10.99 for a $100 to $200
Where does the $100 and $200 numbers come from? Do you have an inside peek at their accounting records? All the customer should take for granted is "Gee, a digital camera for ten bucks! Sounds like a great deal." From that point on, Ritz is gambling that that customer will also use their development service (essentially, the camera could be considered advertising for Ritz' other services).
it's Ritz fault for making them hackable. I'm sorry, but that's the lamest excuse I've heard in a long time.
It isn't lame at all. If Ritz wanted the cameras to be truly reusable and recycled through their business, they would have stuck an inexpensive encryption processor in the camera, requiring their developer services to get the pictures back. It is, in fact, a sign that Ritz didn't really put much thought into these cameras. It's just like Adobe's cereal-box-toy encryption on e-books. These companies deserve no legal protection whatsoever for their own naivte (only a child-hugging Democrat or a corrupt Republican would argue otherwise).
convince politicians that don't know any better that we need the DMCA and even stricter "Super-DMCA" laws.
If those politicians fall for this, then they are truly corrupt, espeically considering the principles of a free country and the Bill of Rights, and they should be voted out of office ASAP.
Ritz will no longer offer them, nor will anyone else.
My bet is that someone smarter than Ritz will simply do it right the next time around. Of course, with crap like the DMCA, they simply don't have to, causing stagnation in the marketplace.
And screw Ritz for thinking that if they provided enough value, people wouldn't bother them too much.
We don't know yet if Ritz is providing value. Remember, this whole Slashdot thread is based on speculation, anyway. People will buy these cameras and use Ritz' services, if, indeed, they do provide a valuable service, hackers or no.
Also, in business, people don't get an "A for effort" like weak teachers give out in school. If there aren't results, the business model fails, no ifs ands or buts. The next attempt might finally squeak out a D-, which is the start of getting the business model worked out.
Damn, Oracle running on Windows over CIFS. Anyone who does this in a production environment should be shot. You'd need black magic to troubleshoot that steaming pile of software.
depriving the manufacturer of an expected revenue stream.
Since when was any company entitled to revenue? You assume way too much. Microsoft should be grateful for every XBox sold. Ritz should be grateful for every camera sold. If they aren't, then fuck'em.
Every law is "idiotic" to those who don't like what it means.
We aren't criticizing this law because we simply don't like it. It is a law that creates fear where there is no reason for it. It stifles the free market in arbitrary ways. It is simply a bad law. This really is not ambiguous.
Is it therefore a shaky, ambiguous, and morally reprehensible law?
Yes, because the artists don't need "protection." If they can't make a living off of grants, commissions, and sales, then they need to go do something else. Why do you think they are so deserving of our charity? Why are they "better" than anyone else? They are not.
The more often I hear this argument, the shallower it sounds.
No, you are just getting more jaded.
The law serves to protect businesses from harm that occurs independently of their business models (theft, corruption, racketerring, etc.). The law should not ever protect the business models themselves. Do you really want to live in a government-controlled marketplace, where the only business models are those dreamed up by politicians, the same people who lovingly invented "pork"?
When the government gets involved with something, it is nearly always inevitable that something goes rotten. It is unnatural, and it drives away people who know a bad thing when they see it. This is why it is so common to see people in the government who are often very cynical yet conditioned to being a cog in the regulatory machine.
I know I'll probably be kicked off/. for saying this, but I don't see how you can say hacking this is not immoral, unethical, harmful or wrong. They are selling this camera at below wholesale cost so they can make their money on the back end, in the prints.
Oh fuck off (okay, that's out of me). Ritz chose to take on the risk of this business model. If it fails, then they need to learn and evolve. There is no moral dillema in buying something and then playing with it to one's heart's content. Whether Ritz uses the DMCA is a measure of their good will in the marketplace. Pissing off customers is like walking through an unmapped mine field in the business world. Only the regulated monopolies (phones, power, post office) get away from this without real consequence.
Note also that it's their customers doing this - not their competitors
It strikes me as very odd that I first thougt this was very insightful rather than obvious. This popular culture brainwashing is really getting annoying.
Yes, companies should embrace their customers rather than litigate them. God, what has the world come to where a law creates an environment where people would rather not buy something out of fear of liability?!? What does it take to get the DMCA repealed?
I think O'Reilly's Information Architecture book might have some pointers. However, since web "developers" mostly have no notion of architecture, I guess I'm wasting my time, here.
Thanks for the detailed reply. The loopholes in international spying is certainly interesting.
I really detest the way in which Slippery Slope arguments are tossed here on/.
I think it's not really a slippery slope, rather it's a long mild grade downhill. We could climb that hill if not for the cascade of 100-ton boulders of complacency just uphill from us.
True. This fact is reflected throughout existing laws. Basically most laws that mention sex fall into this category (i.e., non-missionary-style is illegal in North Carolina, IIRC, and Texas has laws about sodomy). These laws are blatany unconstitutional, yet they get passed anyway, because of the bigotry of people in state and federal congresses. While technically not censorship, the federal income tax laws are as biased as they come, where the government arbitrarily takes from one group and gives it to another. Racial profiling is unconstitutional, yet people do it. The Endowment for the Arts chooses who it funds. Etc. etc. etc. Whatever happened to equality under the law?
All these cases are very good arguements for keeping money and influence out of the government, because, once the government gets a new tool against the people, it will prod, twist, and bend the public with its arbitrary ideology defined by political motivation.
Slashdot Mirror
That's just the same thing in four words and without the Nazi taint.
When it works, it works; when it fails, it fails disastrously. This is a fact of life when working with Windows (the most complex piece of opaque software most people will ever use).
6. Sketch a woman, remove the breasts and makeup = instant male hero.
No wonder I'm so attracted to male CG characters. Thanks, this means I'm not gay at all!
Who was the Einstein who chose to dispense with "Red Hat" for the Free/Consumer versions of the OS? Red Hat is one of the names many of us "grew up" with, along with Slackware, Debian, etc. Choosing the name Fedora seems like Red Hat took a left turn when everyone else wanted to go straight.
The question is whether copying a DVD constitutes theft...
I thought "fair use" covers this.
how are you going to share what's in your head?
Use more than one straw.
"expand and conquer"
Those Germans really need a new business model.
Cause Game-Septahedron just doens't have a ring to it.
Am I just using the wrong terminology in describing what I do for a living?
No, it's just a case that you are correct, and so is everyone else. "Web development" is such a broad domain that it rightly includes basically every other discipline, so much so that I generally consider "web developer" to be a joke of a job title. It's a lot like "software engineer" or "analyst" or "associate".
I guess this is tangentially on-topic, here (my story submission got nixed, oh well).
Sun is going to sell StarOffice through traditional retailers.
However, the business model of providing a product at cost or a loss in order to sell consumables or service is (IMHO) vital to getting technology and higher ticket items into the hands of those who cannot afford it and don't have the credit to finance it.
This is a risky business model. All Ritz can hope for is that enough people don't hack the thing to make it profitable for them. This is the full extent of what their expectations can be.
A "customer" that pays $10.99 for a $100 to $200
Where does the $100 and $200 numbers come from? Do you have an inside peek at their accounting records? All the customer should take for granted is "Gee, a digital camera for ten bucks! Sounds like a great deal." From that point on, Ritz is gambling that that customer will also use their development service (essentially, the camera could be considered advertising for Ritz' other services).
it's Ritz fault for making them hackable. I'm sorry, but that's the lamest excuse I've heard in a long time.
It isn't lame at all. If Ritz wanted the cameras to be truly reusable and recycled through their business, they would have stuck an inexpensive encryption processor in the camera, requiring their developer services to get the pictures back. It is, in fact, a sign that Ritz didn't really put much thought into these cameras. It's just like Adobe's cereal-box-toy encryption on e-books. These companies deserve no legal protection whatsoever for their own naivte (only a child-hugging Democrat or a corrupt Republican would argue otherwise).
convince politicians that don't know any better that we need the DMCA and even stricter "Super-DMCA" laws.
If those politicians fall for this, then they are truly corrupt, espeically considering the principles of a free country and the Bill of Rights, and they should be voted out of office ASAP.
Ritz will no longer offer them, nor will anyone else.
My bet is that someone smarter than Ritz will simply do it right the next time around. Of course, with crap like the DMCA, they simply don't have to, causing stagnation in the marketplace.
And screw Ritz for thinking that if they provided enough value, people wouldn't bother them too much.
We don't know yet if Ritz is providing value. Remember, this whole Slashdot thread is based on speculation, anyway. People will buy these cameras and use Ritz' services, if, indeed, they do provide a valuable service, hackers or no.
Also, in business, people don't get an "A for effort" like weak teachers give out in school. If there aren't results, the business model fails, no ifs ands or buts. The next attempt might finally squeak out a D-, which is the start of getting the business model worked out.
Oracle will run perfectly using CIFS shares
Damn, Oracle running on Windows over CIFS. Anyone who does this in a production environment should be shot. You'd need black magic to troubleshoot that steaming pile of software.
Actually, that's about on-par with disposable cameras. It's up to prospective buyers whether it's worth $10.
depriving the manufacturer of an expected revenue stream.
Since when was any company entitled to revenue? You assume way too much. Microsoft should be grateful for every XBox sold. Ritz should be grateful for every camera sold. If they aren't, then fuck'em.
Why can't they use something like RSA to encrypt the photos so that only the Ritz people can read them?
Because this takes thought and work, which Americans are becoming much more adverse to as our society becomes effectively more socialized every day.
Every law is "idiotic" to those who don't like what it means.
We aren't criticizing this law because we simply don't like it. It is a law that creates fear where there is no reason for it. It stifles the free market in arbitrary ways. It is simply a bad law. This really is not ambiguous.
Is it therefore a shaky, ambiguous, and morally reprehensible law?
Yes, because the artists don't need "protection." If they can't make a living off of grants, commissions, and sales, then they need to go do something else. Why do you think they are so deserving of our charity? Why are they "better" than anyone else? They are not.
The more often I hear this argument, the shallower it sounds.
No, you are just getting more jaded.
The law serves to protect businesses from harm that occurs independently of their business models (theft, corruption, racketerring, etc.). The law should not ever protect the business models themselves. Do you really want to live in a government-controlled marketplace, where the only business models are those dreamed up by politicians, the same people who lovingly invented "pork"?
When the government gets involved with something, it is nearly always inevitable that something goes rotten. It is unnatural, and it drives away people who know a bad thing when they see it. This is why it is so common to see people in the government who are often very cynical yet conditioned to being a cog in the regulatory machine.
I know I'll probably be kicked off /. for saying this, but I don't see how you can say hacking this is not immoral, unethical, harmful or wrong. They are selling this camera at below wholesale cost so they can make their money on the back end, in the prints.
Oh fuck off (okay, that's out of me). Ritz chose to take on the risk of this business model. If it fails, then they need to learn and evolve. There is no moral dillema in buying something and then playing with it to one's heart's content. Whether Ritz uses the DMCA is a measure of their good will in the marketplace. Pissing off customers is like walking through an unmapped mine field in the business world. Only the regulated monopolies (phones, power, post office) get away from this without real consequence.
Note also that it's their customers doing this - not their competitors
It strikes me as very odd that I first thougt this was very insightful rather than obvious. This popular culture brainwashing is really getting annoying.
Yes, companies should embrace their customers rather than litigate them. God, what has the world come to where a law creates an environment where people would rather not buy something out of fear of liability?!? What does it take to get the DMCA repealed?
I think O'Reilly's Information Architecture book might have some pointers. However, since web "developers" mostly have no notion of architecture, I guess I'm wasting my time, here.
Thanks for the detailed reply. The loopholes in international spying is certainly interesting.
/.
I really detest the way in which Slippery Slope arguments are tossed here on
I think it's not really a slippery slope, rather it's a long mild grade downhill. We could climb that hill if not for the cascade of 100-ton boulders of complacency just uphill from us.
Ah, but the Europeans have a choice of both cheese and/em snow!
True. This fact is reflected throughout existing laws. Basically most laws that mention sex fall into this category (i.e., non-missionary-style is illegal in North Carolina, IIRC, and Texas has laws about sodomy). These laws are blatany unconstitutional, yet they get passed anyway, because of the bigotry of people in state and federal congresses. While technically not censorship, the federal income tax laws are as biased as they come, where the government arbitrarily takes from one group and gives it to another. Racial profiling is unconstitutional, yet people do it. The Endowment for the Arts chooses who it funds. Etc. etc. etc. Whatever happened to equality under the law?
All these cases are very good arguements for keeping money and influence out of the government, because, once the government gets a new tool against the people, it will prod, twist, and bend the public with its arbitrary ideology defined by political motivation.
Well, the Georges Bush dynasty is not too bad at that game.
Ouch. Okay...you win.