Games and accessories are different. Consoles live and die by the quality of their games. iPod owners can reasonably never buy any accessories, and Apple will still make ongoing money through iTunes.
Because if people can do whatever they want, some will be assholes.
The FCC can perform the anti-asshole role without being nearly so overbearing.
Cops patrol the streets and make sure nobody is beating anyone up or shooting anyone. Cops are able to do this without dictating exactly where everyone is allowed to walk. There's no reason the FCC can't do this too.
Is the scanner-mod really better than just dropping the red and green parts of the image in Photoshop or something? He mentions it in the article, but I'm not sure why using only blue light in the original scan is any better.
Do linux distro websites scan for security intrusions on their website computers, or not?
That's not to say that Windows quality isn't well below what it could be (eg. root privaledge separation could be relied upon much more), but even trustworthy OS's recognize that security isn't perfect, and provide extra software to try to accomodate that.
Or, stated another way: Security CAN'T be a single-layer thing. Try to break into a Area 51. If you get past the remote electronic sensors, the dogs, and the armed patrols, there's still locks, internal electronic sensors, doors that only open with specific badges, etc. Once you have multiple layers of security, you're no longer nearly as vulnerable to the "chain is only as strong as its weakest link" problem. Intrusion-detection software is just one more layer of security, and that's not a bad thing.
Apple is making tons of money on iPod, because they're apparently better than anyone else at making MP3 players that people want.
Making laptops that are better than the competition? Certainly there are a number of people who feel that way, but Apple isn't such a far-and-away leader at laptops as they are at iPods. So it makes sense they should spend more time developing new iPods. (from an "invisible hand" kind of perspective)
(furthermore, since they're the market leader at mp3 players, and it's not hard for other companies to emulate Apple, it's imperative that they capitalize on this lead right now and solidify themselves as a solid, long-term leader)
1) That's a third-party alteration, which isn't really a problem, but some people will find it more or less dodgy. 2) The Nano's battery is soldered in, so it will require some re-soldering of the motherboard if you DIY.
Think just about any online video that you'd email your friends, but since video is sometimes slow to download, think about just handing them your iPod for a second.
Most people don't go running down the street shouting that they committed a crime. If a criminal does only one really stupid thing while commiting a crime, what's wrong with admitting that one thing as evidence?
(again, I'm saying that merely arguing that something will be circumvented <50% of the time is silly... but that arguing that something is easily abused by police is good)
For instance, analog scramblers have existed for a while, but their existance doesn't negate the usefulness of being able to wiretap a suspect's POTS phone (and only after judicial review) in the 99.99% of cases that a scrambler isn't used.
Flash memory only has a certain number of write cycles it can do before it stops working. If you're rewriting 90% of your flash memory every day, you might actually see some memory problems eventually.
Lots of police practices can be circumvented in some way (eg. wearing gloves when you kill someone, saying "no, you can't enter my house without a warrant, officer", not using the phone when setting up murder-for-hire, encyrpting their hard drive and not writing the password under the mousepad, etc etc), but some (large) percentage of the population is stupid and make it easy for cops to solve crimes (eg. see any cops TV show). What's the problem with this?
If you want to argue that cops can easily abuse the law, then please, by all means, argue that route. But arguing over and over that some <50% of the population will actually get around it in practice is... just a stupid argument.
Cover art and box contents are overrated, as are DVD extras. If you want all that crap, maybe the "purchase" comes with a code to unlock that content on the web -- go get it yourself.
Cover art can earn companies more of a profit (otherwise they wouldn't do it), but you're expecting them to ditch it because it's overrated??
Maybe we can form a mob outside of Verizon HQ and nail a letter to their door that says $2.50 ringtones are overrated too. Why would they do anything but ignore us?
(while we're quibbling, I bet that real, physical cover art earns companies more money than virtual, easily-copyable covert art)
Bug free software is possible, so long as it is done right and people are prepared to pay for it.
BINGO. Why not let the market decide?
If it's like earthquake-prone apartment buildings in Tokyo, then it's reasonable to step in and mandate that everyone, no matter how poor, should pay for software designed to a government-mandated quality standard. Until then, why not let buyers and sellers decide on their own?
DRM's biggest downside is that it prohibits any features that the DRM designer didn't explicitely think of. It's a blacklist instead of a whitelist. Which is why it irks geeks out there, because there are all sorts of uses for music and video that companies don't think are useful.
So Microsoft is getting annoyed that their suggested improvement on things isn't allowed by DRM. But the obvious irony is that Microsoft would be forced to DRM the heck out of their streaming video project, if they were able to implement it.
Limiting new ideas isn't necessarily a fatal problem in the long run, but potentially it could allow more free technologies to pass DRM's stuff up.
If there's a minority view that the earth is flat (which I am sure there is), why _dosen't_ wikipedia discuss flat-earth ideas?
As mentioned higher up the thread, Wikipedia doesn't have to give all possible views a seat at the table, especially given such strong evidence as satellite sensory data. But a tiny part of the minority view is explained. Wikipedia isn't censoring anybody.
Yes, there are obvious differences between Linux and Wikipedia (Wikipedia doesn't have to pass through a compiler syntax-checker, for instance. Nor can mistakes in Wikipedia content directly cause an internet-wide security problem).
Wikipedia leaders believe that 1) anonymous editors DO often contribute useful information, and 2) that on the whole, the various policies in place (eg. that people can revert vandals, or revert very poor edits for various reasons) make for an environment where anonymous editors do improve the quality of Wikipedia over time. If this weren't the case, they would obviously disable the ability for anonymous people to make edits.
You're right. This whole religious thing you guys have about Wikipedia is bullshit. No one is allowed to point out it's flaws without fanatics like you spouting off dogma.
Wikipedia zealots are like Linux zealots. Both communities believe that it's possible to take a large group of well-meaning contributors, combined with policies that ensure that the overall quality of the projects will improve over time, and the results will eventually be something that no one will be able to ignore.
Wikipedia has been around for four years, and has many friendly and not-so-friendly people editing it. Outsiders may see potential problems that are already being effectively dealt with. In these cases, it's absolutely appropriate to point out that there is a known, practical solution for the hypothetical problem that was stated.
Which is exactly what the watchlist and three-revert rule are for. With the watchlist, every edit can be reviewed by many previous editors. Everyone acts like adults, but if legitimate conflicts come up, then they discuss it on the Talk page. If they still can't resolve the problem, they can escalate the discussion to higher arbitration.
Slashdot Mirror
Games and accessories are different. Consoles live and die by the quality of their games. iPod owners can reasonably never buy any accessories, and Apple will still make ongoing money through iTunes.
The FCC can perform the anti-asshole role without being nearly so overbearing.
Cops patrol the streets and make sure nobody is beating anyone up or shooting anyone. Cops are able to do this without dictating exactly where everyone is allowed to walk. There's no reason the FCC can't do this too.
Is the scanner-mod really better than just dropping the red and green parts of the image in Photoshop or something? He mentions it in the article, but I'm not sure why using only blue light in the original scan is any better.
That's not to say that Windows quality isn't well below what it could be (eg. root privaledge separation could be relied upon much more), but even trustworthy OS's recognize that security isn't perfect, and provide extra software to try to accomodate that.
Or, stated another way: Security CAN'T be a single-layer thing. Try to break into a Area 51. If you get past the remote electronic sensors, the dogs, and the armed patrols, there's still locks, internal electronic sensors, doors that only open with specific badges, etc. Once you have multiple layers of security, you're no longer nearly as vulnerable to the "chain is only as strong as its weakest link" problem. Intrusion-detection software is just one more layer of security, and that's not a bad thing.
For example, the summer of 1816.
Making laptops that are better than the competition? Certainly there are a number of people who feel that way, but Apple isn't such a far-and-away leader at laptops as they are at iPods. So it makes sense they should spend more time developing new iPods. (from an "invisible hand" kind of perspective)
(furthermore, since they're the market leader at mp3 players, and it's not hard for other companies to emulate Apple, it's imperative that they capitalize on this lead right now and solidify themselves as a solid, long-term leader)
The first people to get real information, strangely enough, was Stuff Magazine. Though, granted, iTunes was in Act 3, after all the other stuff.
1) That's a third-party alteration, which isn't really a problem, but some people will find it more or less dodgy. 2) The Nano's battery is soldered in, so it will require some re-soldering of the motherboard if you DIY.
Except that it goes down every time someone links to it from Slashdot. :( How long until Google donates money and machines to Uncyclopedia?
Think Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire
Think Super-Bowl wardrobe malfunction
Think just about any online video that you'd email your friends, but since video is sometimes slow to download, think about just handing them your iPod for a second.
(though, as the old adage goes... think porn)
(again, I'm saying that merely arguing that something will be circumvented <50% of the time is silly... but that arguing that something is easily abused by police is good)
For instance, analog scramblers have existed for a while, but their existance doesn't negate the usefulness of being able to wiretap a suspect's POTS phone (and only after judicial review) in the 99.99% of cases that a scrambler isn't used.
Flash memory only has a certain number of write cycles it can do before it stops working. If you're rewriting 90% of your flash memory every day, you might actually see some memory problems eventually.
Lots of police practices can be circumvented in some way (eg. wearing gloves when you kill someone, saying "no, you can't enter my house without a warrant, officer", not using the phone when setting up murder-for-hire, encyrpting their hard drive and not writing the password under the mousepad, etc etc), but some (large) percentage of the population is stupid and make it easy for cops to solve crimes (eg. see any cops TV show). What's the problem with this?
If you want to argue that cops can easily abuse the law, then please, by all means, argue that route. But arguing over and over that some <50% of the population will actually get around it in practice is... just a stupid argument.
Maybe we can form a mob outside of Verizon HQ and nail a letter to their door that says $2.50 ringtones are overrated too. Why would they do anything but ignore us?
(while we're quibbling, I bet that real, physical cover art earns companies more money than virtual, easily-copyable covert art)
BINGO. Why not let the market decide?
If it's like earthquake-prone apartment buildings in Tokyo, then it's reasonable to step in and mandate that everyone, no matter how poor, should pay for software designed to a government-mandated quality standard. Until then, why not let buyers and sellers decide on their own?
Other countries are going ahead with the Kyoto Protocol, so America's economic success isn't realy part of it. And there is lots of lots of data that points towards human-induced global warming, it's pretty hard to deny anymore.
Your post is in bold. So, yes.
So Microsoft is getting annoyed that their suggested improvement on things isn't allowed by DRM. But the obvious irony is that Microsoft would be forced to DRM the heck out of their streaming video project, if they were able to implement it.
Limiting new ideas isn't necessarily a fatal problem in the long run, but potentially it could allow more free technologies to pass DRM's stuff up.
Wikipedia is both a traditional product (encyclopedia) as well as the community behind it.
As mentioned higher up the thread, Wikipedia doesn't have to give all possible views a seat at the table, especially given such strong evidence as satellite sensory data. But a tiny part of the minority view is explained. Wikipedia isn't censoring anybody.
Wikipedia leaders believe that 1) anonymous editors DO often contribute useful information, and 2) that on the whole, the various policies in place (eg. that people can revert vandals, or revert very poor edits for various reasons) make for an environment where anonymous editors do improve the quality of Wikipedia over time. If this weren't the case, they would obviously disable the ability for anonymous people to make edits.
Wikipedia zealots are like Linux zealots. Both communities believe that it's possible to take a large group of well-meaning contributors, combined with policies that ensure that the overall quality of the projects will improve over time, and the results will eventually be something that no one will be able to ignore.
Wikipedia has been around for four years, and has many friendly and not-so-friendly people editing it. Outsiders may see potential problems that are already being effectively dealt with. In these cases, it's absolutely appropriate to point out that there is a known, practical solution for the hypothetical problem that was stated.
Which is exactly what the watchlist and three-revert rule are for. With the watchlist, every edit can be reviewed by many previous editors. Everyone acts like adults, but if legitimate conflicts come up, then they discuss it on the Talk page. If they still can't resolve the problem, they can escalate the discussion to higher arbitration.