DRM is about control and profit, if the schemes are broken fast enough there's definitely a question of why spend many thousands of dollars locking something down that'll be cracked within a few weeks. Sure it does help with sales initially
Umm.. you just hit the nail on the head. The argument is that the most money is made in the first few weeks of release. If your copy protection is any good (say, online activation using strong cryptography and hard to reverse engineer code obfuscation) you can price gouge for months before a crack is released. Then you can lower your price to capture the "its easier to buy than to crack" crowd.
Of course, if your copy protection sucks as, 99% of them do, you're just gunna piss off your customers, who will bad mouth you on their blog, and that'll get picked up by the media, killing whatever buzz you might have generated for the product.
Heh, ya actually think the DRM on the kindle works?
But you make a good point. Amazon has to at least pretend they are making an effort to "protect" the content.. it doesn't really matter that its trivial to defeat, the publishers don't know the difference and the authors obviously don't either.
When I read stories like this I imagine people going to sources other than Wikipedia (like, say, a textbook) and just doggedly believing everything they read. At least with Wikipedia (most) people have the sense to take everything they read with a grain of salt. Follow the citations people. Do your own research. If you're so easily convinced that something is "truth" then its not Wikipedia that's the problem.
I have no doubt that the porn they were distributing could well have been "degrading" women by portraying them in a "vile and depraved manner", as for the "most imaginable" part, I'm sure my imagination is a little better than yours Mary Beth, being that many pornographic movies serve exactly that purpose.. but last I looked that was still protected speech.. thus my shock at the finding.
In August 2003, a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh returned a 10-count indictment against Extreme Associates for violating federal obscenity statutes. In January 2005, a district court judge dismissed the indictment, saying that the federal obscenity statutes were unconstitutional. The government appealed, and Buchanan argued the case in October 2005 before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
In December 2005, the appeals court reversed the decision of the district court and held that the federal statutes regulating the distribution of obscenity do not violate any constitutional right to privacy. The case was then remanded back to the district court.
Wow.. just Wow. What the fuck has happened to the US? What happened to free speech? Wasn't all this shit worked out in the 70s? Why the hell was the unconstitutional finding to do with privacy and not freedom of speech?
Please tell me the next stop is to the supreme court where this will be sorted out.
If you want to make an argument for copyright, you can't talk about what *you* want, you have to talk about why *all of us* should care what you want. We're not about to give you economic incentive to *not* produce something are we?
The move is the strongest sign yet that the DOJ may block the settlement, which critics claim would grant Google (GOOG) a monopoly on orphaned works-copyrighted texts without an identifiable copyright holder.
Heh, really? Maybe if there was some copyright reform no deal would be necessary. Maybe if copyright was an opt-in system, publishers could publish out of print books without having to worry about being sued by an absentee copyright holder.
The ant is what happens when a species finds a niche and becomes so exquisitely adapted to it that further evolution is almost always detrimental. For a short time genetic change remains advantageous so long as it results in less genetic change. So you get the whole "single queen" reproductive model. The fact that ants have not completely lost their ability to sexually reproduce indicates that some advantage is still to be gained by it, but its most likely more about passing on antibodies than it is genes.
So we're at least 56 days from "first light" and the mapping program will go for 1 year, and as there's nothing to suggest that the Apollo landing sites will be first or last imaged, a good estimate is 8 months or so from now.
If that's "soon" to you, then I guess you're older than I am:)
Forget the conspiracy theorists. Those guys are haters. As a giggling space cadet I'm looking forward to "first light" from LRO because these images are going to be the best ever. This will happen sometime this month, or early next month. In regards to Apollo, the LM was 4.27m in diameter.. so that's just over 4 pixels.. I don't know how great that is gunna look:)
Slashdot Mirror
Great, can you name a single person who has? No? Then why would you bet millions of dollars on it as a deterrent?
DRM is about control and profit, if the schemes are broken fast enough there's definitely a question of why spend many thousands of dollars locking something down that'll be cracked within a few weeks. Sure it does help with sales initially
Umm.. you just hit the nail on the head. The argument is that the most money is made in the first few weeks of release. If your copy protection is any good (say, online activation using strong cryptography and hard to reverse engineer code obfuscation) you can price gouge for months before a crack is released. Then you can lower your price to capture the "its easier to buy than to crack" crowd.
Of course, if your copy protection sucks as, 99% of them do, you're just gunna piss off your customers, who will bad mouth you on their blog, and that'll get picked up by the media, killing whatever buzz you might have generated for the product.
Heh, ya actually think the DRM on the kindle works?
But you make a good point. Amazon has to at least pretend they are making an effort to "protect" the content.. it doesn't really matter that its trivial to defeat, the publishers don't know the difference and the authors obviously don't either.
Alternatively, now there's only one server (farm) you need to own.
How exactly are they reducing the latency from the controller to the cloud? Let alone the roundtrip latency of the video/sound.
Anything more than 100ms ping time is gunna kill this thing.
Pirate Party Australia, join as a preliminary member today!
The vast majority of people are idiots, yes. This isn't News.
I achieved my goal of not playing it anymore. I didn't achieve my goal of figuring out why I wanted to play it in the first place.
When I read stories like this I imagine people going to sources other than Wikipedia (like, say, a textbook) and just doggedly believing everything they read. At least with Wikipedia (most) people have the sense to take everything they read with a grain of salt. Follow the citations people. Do your own research. If you're so easily convinced that something is "truth" then its not Wikipedia that's the problem.
I don't really care if they were simulating bestiality.. its protected speech.
Hopefully this case will go to the supreme court and this shit will get worked out.
I have no doubt that the porn they were distributing could well have been "degrading" women by portraying them in a "vile and depraved manner", as for the "most imaginable" part, I'm sure my imagination is a little better than yours Mary Beth, being that many pornographic movies serve exactly that purpose.. but last I looked that was still protected speech.. thus my shock at the finding.
In August 2003, a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh returned a 10-count indictment against Extreme Associates for violating federal obscenity statutes. In January 2005, a district court judge dismissed the indictment, saying that the federal obscenity statutes were unconstitutional. The government appealed, and Buchanan argued the case in October 2005 before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
In December 2005, the appeals court reversed the decision of the district court and held that the federal statutes regulating the distribution of obscenity do not violate any constitutional right to privacy. The case was then remanded back to the district court.
Wow.. just Wow. What the fuck has happened to the US? What happened to free speech? Wasn't all this shit worked out in the 70s? Why the hell was the unconstitutional finding to do with privacy and not freedom of speech?
Please tell me the next stop is to the supreme court where this will be sorted out.
If you want to make an argument for copyright, you can't talk about what *you* want, you have to talk about why *all of us* should care what you want. We're not about to give you economic incentive to *not* produce something are we?
automatically learn how to best optimise programs for re-configurable heterogeneous embedded processors
That's kinda important to mention no?
http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/
I look forward to "not available in your country".
you're a retard.
The move is the strongest sign yet that the DOJ may block the settlement, which critics claim would grant Google (GOOG) a monopoly on orphaned works-copyrighted texts without an identifiable copyright holder.
Heh, really? Maybe if there was some copyright reform no deal would be necessary. Maybe if copyright was an opt-in system, publishers could publish out of print books without having to worry about being sued by an absentee copyright holder.
Mycocepurus smithii are the exception not the rule :)
The ant is what happens when a species finds a niche and becomes so exquisitely adapted to it that further evolution is almost always detrimental. For a short time genetic change remains advantageous so long as it results in less genetic change. So you get the whole "single queen" reproductive model. The fact that ants have not completely lost their ability to sexually reproduce indicates that some advantage is still to be gained by it, but its most likely more about passing on antibodies than it is genes.
The commissioning phase will end approximately 60 days after launch, when LRO will use its engines to transition to its primary mission orbit.
LRO is now in a commissioning orbit! - June 27
So we're at least 56 days from "first light" and the mapping program will go for 1 year, and as there's nothing to suggest that the Apollo landing sites will be first or last imaged, a good estimate is 8 months or so from now.
If that's "soon" to you, then I guess you're older than I am :)
Forget the conspiracy theorists. Those guys are haters. As a giggling space cadet I'm looking forward to "first light" from LRO because these images are going to be the best ever. This will happen sometime this month, or early next month. In regards to Apollo, the LM was 4.27m in diameter.. so that's just over 4 pixels.. I don't know how great that is gunna look :)
actually yes, Google will be integrating the LRO data into Google Moon in realtime.
empty cybernetic shells rather than as people.
Or as slashtards?
hehe, sure sold 'em that bridge.