Look back over the last year of articles about Diebold (for example) and their voting machines. They mislead the local election boards. They would change the software to versions that hadn't been verified by the officials. Their CEO, in a memo, said to make any changes to the system, such as printed receipts, prohibitively expensive as add-ons.
The vendors weren't building what the municipalities were asking for. They built what they wanted to build and told the municipalities "this is how it is. buy it or not, but the laws you just passed say you have to buy something before the next election, so you probably ought to buy it."
And I'm sure the massive lobbying and contributions (and inappropriate promises to deliver certain states to certain incumbent presidents) had nothing to do with the choices the local boards made.
Any computer-based system can trivially add a printed receipt. Its not like printers are some new technology. They've been on cash registers and calculators for decades.
Voting, and particularly accuracy in counting the votes, is very important. Why wouldn't the vendors, or more importantly the election boards, want a backup? Why wouldn't they want to be able to verify and demonstrate that the machines are accurate and correct? Why resist a method to prove how much better the new technology is than the old? Are they concerned that John Henry could count a mountain of votes faster and more accurately than their machines? Why not silence the skeptics by proving them wrong?
The only reason to resist a mechanism for independant verification in something as important to this country as voting is that someone wants to hide something, or at least have the ability to hide something. "Trust me" as a business model went out with Joe Isuzu.
Yeah. I haven't seen Elf, but chose it to emphasize my point. The term "unrated", as applied to DVDs, implies that you're getting something that couldn't be shown in the theaters. The studios developed the term with their initial "unrated" releases, which had scenes that were too (graphic|sexual|violent|whatever) to be included in a theatrical release.
The Unrated version of "American Pie" was much "dirtier" the rated. Standing with a pie held up to your crotch, and laying on the kitchen counter humping a pie are two entirely different things. One version of the scene made the cut, one didn't. When I went to the video store, I could make an informed decision, choosing the rated or unrated version, and getting an appropriate level of bathroom humor and "indecency" from whichever I chose (that'd be the unrated version, Bob).
The "unrated" version of "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" (which had plenty of hot chicks, mind you) is a dissappointment. Nothing that I saw would have made it ineligible for a PG-13 rating. Printing "Unrated" across the leather-clad butts of the 3 female stars on the DVD cover would pretty much guarantee additional sales of a mediocre movie, particularly in the male 18-35 demographic. (I won't fall for that trick again!)
"Unrated" has been exploited and reduced to a lame marketing ploy (instead of the powerful marketing tool it originally was), that will ultimately lose any meaning to the consumer. Instead of being a way for studios to push the boundaries by releasing films "as the artist originally intended" without the restrictions of the rating system, its just another lying label to be ignored.
So yes, releasing an unrated version of Elf would be stupid and pointless. That is unless your point was that you could sell a few million more units by misleading the consumer, in which case you'd be right.
The MPAA affiliates' products have a 150% PROFIT margin. That's insane. Not even Apple does that. Halliburton probably doesn't even get that rate of return on their Iraq "deals". Its highway robbery.
If I were making 150% profits on basically nothing (the movie's already been made, its just up to some minimum wagers to keep the DVD presses loaded), I'd be doing everything in my power to protect that business model. $6 for manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and store profits. $9 into the pocket. You can't beat that.
But yes, to anyone not reaping the ridiculous benefits, it makes no sense whatsoever. I keep hoping this stuff will eventually come back to haunt them, but with the government on their side I don't see how it can.
On the other hand, technology will only keep improving. What we have now is only the beginning. It will improve way beyond bandwidth increases. Eventually you'll be able to watch "any movie ever made in any language" (I think that's how the Qwest commercial went...) on demand. The MPAA just has to decide whether or not they want to be a part of it.
Have the MPAA, RIAA, or even Nintendo every used conscious thought in these decisions? Nintendo sent a C&D to suicidegirls.com because one of their subscribers wrote that Zelda was his favorite game. They're retarded. A battle of wits does not apply.
Filling up a computer with files pretending to be movies will only cause more headaches for the researchers having to answer to a bunch of C&Ds because their grocery list was saved in a file called "the_matrix.avi". Sure, it costs them some lawyer dollars, but they can make it up by releasing an "Unrated" DVD of Elf.
Letting the MPAA loose on a research network is not a good thing. We don't need a Broadcast Flag written into the Internet2 networking protocols.
CSI:NY tends to focus more on violating suspect's civil rights than actually collecting forensic evidence. They have a guilty-until-proven-innocent attitude, and don't think twice about illegal search and seizure.
In the last episode I watched, the two younger CSIs both decided who did it (each with a different idea) then said, "OK. Now I'll use the evidence to prove it", instead of processing the evidence and seeing what it turns up.
Both turned out to be wrong, and the evidence eventually proved that both cops are in fact complete assholes.
The first CSI is still pretty good. Miami is getting pretty weak (too much jumping around, and just-in-time crap). CSI:NY is so far pretty awful.
Then again, how can a country that "has to" imprison more of its population than any other in the world have any sort of moral leg to stand on? America might become the best place to do business, but is it really worth it if America is not the best place to live?
In addition to the port, they're re-theming the Doom environment to be more mac friendly. All the computers and buildings are shiny white and acrylic. Where they still have to render metal, they use ipod-mini colors and give it the anodized look.
The gameplay has been tweaked for one mouse button and has a convenient menu bar for those who don't feel comfortable with keyboard commands (File->Shoot, Edit->Change_Weapon, etc).
The only time I watch live TV now is for HDTV. I don't yet have a way to record HD content, so I choose to watch a few shows a week live.
I've owned a ReplayTV ever since the first one came out, and I agree that watching live TV sucks. I miss being able to pause, rewind a bit, and skip commercials (though the breaks do give me a regularly-scheduled chance to get another beer!) on HD shows.
Its unfortunate that there is another law, but its even more unfortunate that it got to the point of NEEDING another law.
Its unlike the controversial DMCA and INDUCE Acts, which are pre-emptive strikes from a huge lobby, establishing laws before there is a problem. Spayware is a problem, amd its becoming more of a problem every day.
Sure everyone knows its "wrong", but its not yet illegal so unethical types will exploit it. Of course we're now exposed to the unethical types who will exploit certain interpretations of the law, but hopefully the Justice Department can do something about them.
Laws don't make things right or wrong, they just make things illegal. The behavior was wrong/right before the law eas enacted, but the community was, apparently, powerless to do anything.
Perhaps Microsoft (for example, since approximately 100% of the spyware I know of is for Windows) could have come up with a technical solution to the problem, but they didn't so now its a law.
I completely understand your reasoning for the political exception, but I still don't agree with it. I agree that democracy is important, but I also believe that if I tell someone I don't want them to call me, they shouldn't call me.
That's what I don't understand. Why would someone want to make a phone call to me knowing that I don't want to receive it? I assure you that if a telemarketer calls my house, it will not be well received. So why call?
The legislation of a DNC list came about because so many people are fed up having the phone ring 10 times an hour for useless calls, and had no way to eliminate the problem on their own. Telemarketers wouldn't play fair, so the government had to get involved. (Of course politicians couldn't play fair either, so they put in a bullshit exemption for themselves, and "for the children").
Maybe if it had been easier to get off the lists, the government wouldn't have had to get involved. As it is I still pay the phone company $10/month to block those calls for me.
Either way, I don't understand how a tool that allows telemarketers (political or not) to be more efficient is a bad thing.
I understand his point. But whether or not the political groups call me, I won't hear their message. In fact if they do call me, I'll be annoyed with them for that, and I still won't listen to their message. There will only be a negative outcome if they call me.
My point is that a DNC does not restrict the democratic process. The DNC doesn't deny them the right to make phone calls. It just allows it to be more efficient by not calling those who have indicated that they do not want to be called.
Yeah. That time i went from a gallon to zero, I woke up monday morning with my head still pounding, grabbed a small coke on the way to a test. The headache was gone by the time I got to class.
Drinking soda and sleeping isn't usually a problem for me, but coffee is another story. If I drink coffee after dinner, I usually can't fall asleep until 4 or 5am.
No one is trying to ban phone campaigns. No one is trying to legislate that they can't make calls. The list is just a set of people who do not want the calls.
Ending the other bullshit is easy. Its a "DO NOT CALL" list. Its not a "Do not call me as much" list. The "restricting free speech" argument is bogus.
By putting my number on that list, I'm informing all telemarketers (including the political and charity ones) that I don't want them calling me, that I will rudely hang up if they do call me, and that I'll be annoyed with their organization for calling me.
If Jerry's Kids call me up during dinner asking for money, I'll stop contributing. If a politician calls me, I won't vote for them.
The particular message isn't what bothers me. The phone ringing and having to tell the other end to "fuck off and don't call me anymore" is what bothers me.
I don't understand how telling charities and politicians ahead of time that I, personally, do not want them (or their opponents!) calling me (but its fine with me if they call everyone else) restricts free speech. Not calling me gives them more time to call the people who will actually listen to their message.
If I go to a venue where George W is speaking, and I cover my ears the whole time, that does not restrict free speech. Why should my choosing to not receive his phone calls be any different?
Not to mention that different substances can affect different people differently. Just because HE hasn't felt those effects (for whatever reason) doesn't mean they don't happen.
I've personally felt both the hyperactive and the "withdrawal" effects, multiple times, so I know it happens. The headaches from a drastic reduction of caffeine intake (like going from, say, a gallon of Coke a day, for a month or so, to zero, as I did once in college) suck like you wouldn't believe, unless you've had them. But I have no one to blame but myself.
Boycotting Blizzard is one way for consumers to demonstrate their outrage over these laws.
Blizzard did something, whether within the law or not, that I do not agree with, therefore I will consciously boycott their products. Blizzard is responsible for this decision, precisely because they are the ones who chose to make a contest of it.
Do you think they went into this expecting the law to be overturned? They wanted the decision that was made, they took it to court, and they made it happen.
Now that its out there, boycott their asses. Let them be an example to the government, and to other companies, of what consumers think of the DMCA. Then maybe something will happen.
On the other hand, if it isn't overturned, Kodak should go after Microsoft next. Word documents ask Word for help to be edited, printed, viewed, right?
Bytecode is just input data for the Java interpreter. At worst this patent doesn't apply. At best, this patent should be overturned.
Slashdot Mirror
Look back over the last year of articles about Diebold (for example) and their voting machines. They mislead the local election boards. They would change the software to versions that hadn't been verified by the officials. Their CEO, in a memo, said to make any changes to the system, such as printed receipts, prohibitively expensive as add-ons.
The vendors weren't building what the municipalities were asking for. They built what they wanted to build and told the municipalities "this is how it is. buy it or not, but the laws you just passed say you have to buy something before the next election, so you probably ought to buy it."
And I'm sure the massive lobbying and contributions (and inappropriate promises to deliver certain states to certain incumbent presidents) had nothing to do with the choices the local boards made.
Any computer-based system can trivially add a printed receipt. Its not like printers are some new technology. They've been on cash registers and calculators for decades.
Voting, and particularly accuracy in counting the votes, is very important. Why wouldn't the vendors, or more importantly the election boards, want a backup? Why wouldn't they want to be able to verify and demonstrate that the machines are accurate and correct? Why resist a method to prove how much better the new technology is than the old? Are they concerned that John Henry could count a mountain of votes faster and more accurately than their machines? Why not silence the skeptics by proving them wrong?
The only reason to resist a mechanism for independant verification in something as important to this country as voting is that someone wants to hide something, or at least have the ability to hide something. "Trust me" as a business model went out with Joe Isuzu.
Yeah. I haven't seen Elf, but chose it to emphasize my point. The term "unrated", as applied to DVDs, implies that you're getting something that couldn't be shown in the theaters. The studios developed the term with their initial "unrated" releases, which had scenes that were too (graphic|sexual|violent|whatever) to be included in a theatrical release.
The Unrated version of "American Pie" was much "dirtier" the rated. Standing with a pie held up to your crotch, and laying on the kitchen counter humping a pie are two entirely different things. One version of the scene made the cut, one didn't. When I went to the video store, I could make an informed decision, choosing the rated or unrated version, and getting an appropriate level of bathroom humor and "indecency" from whichever I chose (that'd be the unrated version, Bob).
The "unrated" version of "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" (which had plenty of hot chicks, mind you) is a dissappointment. Nothing that I saw would have made it ineligible for a PG-13 rating. Printing "Unrated" across the leather-clad butts of the 3 female stars on the DVD cover would pretty much guarantee additional sales of a mediocre movie, particularly in the male 18-35 demographic. (I won't fall for that trick again!)
"Unrated" has been exploited and reduced to a lame marketing ploy (instead of the powerful marketing tool it originally was), that will ultimately lose any meaning to the consumer. Instead of being a way for studios to push the boundaries by releasing films "as the artist originally intended" without the restrictions of the rating system, its just another lying label to be ignored.
So yes, releasing an unrated version of Elf would be stupid and pointless. That is unless your point was that you could sell a few million more units by misleading the consumer, in which case you'd be right.
The MPAA affiliates' products have a 150% PROFIT margin. That's insane. Not even Apple does that. Halliburton probably doesn't even get that rate of return on their Iraq "deals". Its highway robbery.
If I were making 150% profits on basically nothing (the movie's already been made, its just up to some minimum wagers to keep the DVD presses loaded), I'd be doing everything in my power to protect that business model. $6 for manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and store profits. $9 into the pocket. You can't beat that.
But yes, to anyone not reaping the ridiculous benefits, it makes no sense whatsoever. I keep hoping this stuff will eventually come back to haunt them, but with the government on their side I don't see how it can.
On the other hand, technology will only keep improving. What we have now is only the beginning. It will improve way beyond bandwidth increases. Eventually you'll be able to watch "any movie ever made in any language" (I think that's how the Qwest commercial went...) on demand. The MPAA just has to decide whether or not they want to be a part of it.
Who said anything about a battle of wits?
Have the MPAA, RIAA, or even Nintendo every used conscious thought in these decisions? Nintendo sent a C&D to suicidegirls.com because one of their subscribers wrote that Zelda was his favorite game. They're retarded. A battle of wits does not apply.
Filling up a computer with files pretending to be movies will only cause more headaches for the researchers having to answer to a bunch of C&Ds because their grocery list was saved in a file called "the_matrix.avi". Sure, it costs them some lawyer dollars, but they can make it up by releasing an "Unrated" DVD of Elf.
Letting the MPAA loose on a research network is not a good thing. We don't need a Broadcast Flag written into the Internet2 networking protocols.
They really need to embed these trackers into shoes, so they can also tax those bastards who walk or ride the bus instead of driving themselves.
CSI:NY tends to focus more on violating suspect's civil rights than actually collecting forensic evidence. They have a guilty-until-proven-innocent attitude, and don't think twice about illegal search and seizure.
In the last episode I watched, the two younger CSIs both decided who did it (each with a different idea) then said, "OK. Now I'll use the evidence to prove it", instead of processing the evidence and seeing what it turns up.
Both turned out to be wrong, and the evidence eventually proved that both cops are in fact complete assholes.
The first CSI is still pretty good. Miami is getting pretty weak (too much jumping around, and just-in-time crap). CSI:NY is so far pretty awful.
I don't think its been determined that downloaders are actually criminals. Its not as clean cut as the record companies want you to believe.
At least we know where our "morals" stand.
Then again, how can a country that "has to" imprison more of its population than any other in the world have any sort of moral leg to stand on? America might become the best place to do business, but is it really worth it if America is not the best place to live?
Which is more important?
Wh-wh-wh-what?
Are you saying that ACTUAL STEALING carries less penalty than some sort of nebulous pseudo-theft of "intellectual property"?
That actual criminals get off easier than high-school kids trying to find new music?
Read the article.
;)
In addition to the port, they're re-theming the Doom environment to be more mac friendly. All the computers and buildings are shiny white and acrylic. Where they still have to render metal, they use ipod-mini colors and give it the anodized look.
The gameplay has been tweaked for one mouse button and has a convenient menu bar for those who don't feel comfortable with keyboard commands (File->Shoot, Edit->Change_Weapon, etc).
I can't wait!
Educate your users, or come up with a better term. Maybe "downtime" is sufficient.
I've had FreeBSD servers running in a busy environment with over 2 years uptime. No planned or unplanned downtime for 2 years.
How much downtime did your "stable" windows servers have?
Downtime is downtime.
The only time I watch live TV now is for HDTV. I don't yet have a way to record HD content, so I choose to watch a few shows a week live.
I've owned a ReplayTV ever since the first one came out, and I agree that watching live TV sucks. I miss being able to pause, rewind a bit, and skip commercials (though the breaks do give me a regularly-scheduled chance to get another beer!) on HD shows.
Mitch Rosenbaum is a hack.
I don't know. My 5mpix Sony DSC-T1 has some pretty small parts in it, so I don't doubt they can make it fit.
I would hope that if they're bothing to go with that resolution, they would use optics and flash (granted I haven't read the article) to support it.
Nah. That's just people trying to figure out what the hell it is, since the article gives no indication.
I thought it was that ATT wireless thing, but its not. That's some other "O*O" device.
Its unfortunate that there is another law, but its even more unfortunate that it got to the point of NEEDING another law.
Its unlike the controversial DMCA and INDUCE Acts, which are pre-emptive strikes from a huge lobby, establishing laws before there is a problem. Spayware is a problem, amd its becoming more of a problem every day.
Sure everyone knows its "wrong", but its not yet illegal so unethical types will exploit it. Of course we're now exposed to the unethical types who will exploit certain interpretations of the law, but hopefully the Justice Department can do something about them.
Laws don't make things right or wrong, they just make things illegal. The behavior was wrong/right before the law eas enacted, but the community was, apparently, powerless to do anything.
Perhaps Microsoft (for example, since approximately 100% of the spyware I know of is for Windows) could have come up with a technical solution to the problem, but they didn't so now its a law.
I completely understand your reasoning for the political exception, but I still don't agree with it. I agree that democracy is important, but I also believe that if I tell someone I don't want them to call me, they shouldn't call me.
That's what I don't understand. Why would someone want to make a phone call to me knowing that I don't want to receive it? I assure you that if a telemarketer calls my house, it will not be well received. So why call?
The legislation of a DNC list came about because so many people are fed up having the phone ring 10 times an hour for useless calls, and had no way to eliminate the problem on their own. Telemarketers wouldn't play fair, so the government had to get involved. (Of course politicians couldn't play fair either, so they put in a bullshit exemption for themselves, and "for the children").
Maybe if it had been easier to get off the lists, the government wouldn't have had to get involved. As it is I still pay the phone company $10/month to block those calls for me.
Either way, I don't understand how a tool that allows telemarketers (political or not) to be more efficient is a bad thing.
I understand his point. But whether or not the political groups call me, I won't hear their message. In fact if they do call me, I'll be annoyed with them for that, and I still won't listen to their message. There will only be a negative outcome if they call me.
My point is that a DNC does not restrict the democratic process. The DNC doesn't deny them the right to make phone calls. It just allows it to be more efficient by not calling those who have indicated that they do not want to be called.
Yeah. That time i went from a gallon to zero, I woke up monday morning with my head still pounding, grabbed a small coke on the way to a test. The headache was gone by the time I got to class.
Drinking soda and sleeping isn't usually a problem for me, but coffee is another story. If I drink coffee after dinner, I usually can't fall asleep until 4 or 5am.
No one is trying to ban phone campaigns. No one is trying to legislate that they can't make calls. The list is just a set of people who do not want the calls.
Ending the other bullshit is easy. Its a "DO NOT CALL" list. Its not a "Do not call me as much" list. The "restricting free speech" argument is bogus.
By putting my number on that list, I'm informing all telemarketers (including the political and charity ones) that I don't want them calling me, that I will rudely hang up if they do call me, and that I'll be annoyed with their organization for calling me.
If Jerry's Kids call me up during dinner asking for money, I'll stop contributing. If a politician calls me, I won't vote for them.
The particular message isn't what bothers me. The phone ringing and having to tell the other end to "fuck off and don't call me anymore" is what bothers me.
I don't understand how telling charities and politicians ahead of time that I, personally, do not want them (or their opponents!) calling me (but its fine with me if they call everyone else) restricts free speech. Not calling me gives them more time to call the people who will actually listen to their message.
If I go to a venue where George W is speaking, and I cover my ears the whole time, that does not restrict free speech. Why should my choosing to not receive his phone calls be any different?
Not to mention that different substances can affect different people differently. Just because HE hasn't felt those effects (for whatever reason) doesn't mean they don't happen.
I've personally felt both the hyperactive and the "withdrawal" effects, multiple times, so I know it happens. The headaches from a drastic reduction of caffeine intake (like going from, say, a gallon of Coke a day, for a month or so, to zero, as I did once in college) suck like you wouldn't believe, unless you've had them. But I have no one to blame but myself.
Boycotting Blizzard is one way for consumers to demonstrate their outrage over these laws.
Blizzard did something, whether within the law or not, that I do not agree with, therefore I will consciously boycott their products. Blizzard is responsible for this decision, precisely because they are the ones who chose to make a contest of it.
Do you think they went into this expecting the law to be overturned? They wanted the decision that was made, they took it to court, and they made it happen.
Now that its out there, boycott their asses. Let them be an example to the government, and to other companies, of what consumers think of the DMCA. Then maybe something will happen.
My attempt at humor has been proven wrong. :)
But didn't Apple give Real some grief when they made their product iPod compatible?
Well, hopefully.
On the other hand, if it isn't overturned, Kodak should go after Microsoft next. Word documents ask Word for help to be edited, printed, viewed, right?
Bytecode is just input data for the Java interpreter. At worst this patent doesn't apply. At best, this patent should be overturned.