We're providing commercial TV channels, university content, and some foreign language channels to the University of Wisconsin - Madison community (in cooperation with our local cable operator):
The project was a pilot that turned into a production service, and is in the (slow) process of being expanded to 78 channels and adding more foreign content, including recorded foreign content so international students can watch programming that might be on at odd times in the US.
We also created a player with TV-like controls, dynamically updated channel listing, and closed captioning support:
And, for about three years, we've been doing a pilot of capturing all closed captioning content and still image thumbnails every minute from all channels, and making it searchable. It's an excellent research tool. Through a new partnership with the UW General Library System, we just added 7TB of storage and will begin archiving the video for academic use as well. (This has already been cleared by the University's legal services group, as we fundamentally believe we have the right to store content that we have already paid for (for the same population) for academic/research/library purposes.)
Information about the project, and a PDF of a recent presentation with much more information, is available here:
What's wrong with using what is traditionally referred to as Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) against publicly available sources?
This has been done for years, and is a time-honored and respected mechanism for gathering intelligence. What's wrong with then leveraging technology to more effectively search larger volumes of information and weed out individual pieces of information for further analysis, to identify trends, and so on?
The Open Source Center, formerly the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, already does this with foreign broadcast media, and is able to collect and transcribe, on the fly, information from foreign radio and television broadcasts in a variety of languages and dialects with incredible accuracy, and then make the resultant material searchable. The new initiative would go one step further and apply artificial intelligence techniques to automated searching, that can more easily target and bring to light trends or time-critical information.
Different business and governmental entities do this globally; it's traditionally referred to as "current awareness", and many academic and corporate entities offer current awareness services. All of these services will leverage technology, live realtime searching and alerting, and so on, to make the information more timely, valuable, and relevant.
Remember, this is publicly available and published information.
Also, submitter is a little misguided when he says "No hint is given as to how this would apply to syndicated articles written in the US and published abroad." That misunderstands the purpose of this; the program is designed to look at foreign media sources as one component of OSINT, because they are a a valuable source of such information, and can reflect local trends and patterns, and may reveal changing or growing (or waning) sentiments on particular topics on the part of a local populace or media outlet, or even a government in the case of state-controlled media. We generally don't get that kind of information from US-based media, and this has nothing to do with whether US-based media outlets publish abroad. It's already public information and has been published publicly. The restrictions are geared to prevent an appearance of overt US press monitoring.
OSINT is a one-way source of intelligence information: from it, to the gathering entity. Any assumptions that the viewing of already-public information then implies that there will be a commensurate attempt to silence such information (especially when the information isn't under our control, and ignores the fact that we can't "silence" things like Iran's state media) both makes a a fallacious logical leap and grossly misunderstands the purpose and scope of OSINT.
All the critics can say is that it's "creepy and Orwellian," but of course, there's nothing wrong with the government or its intelligence components reading, viewing, or collecting publicly available and indeed overtly publicly published information. The intelligence community gets ripped when it doesn't gather enough information, and will no doubt get ripped for gathering "too much" in a "creepy" way, even when it's from overtly and intentionally public sources, and especially if it uses technology to do it.
There is a real concern about the growing use of automated and electronic intelligence gathering in lieu of human intelligence, but ultimately, both are valuable. Unfortunately, electronic and signals intelligence is often much more costly, and sometimes gets more attention in some parts of the intelligence community while human intelligence needs languish.
...is integrating it into the construction or purchase of a new home, particularly ones in a semi-rural area, or areas with larger lots and less restrictive requirements for things like wind or antenna towers. Rural areas, depending on the lay of the land, will also typically have more access to wind as well.
This way, you can integrate the purchase price of things like a windmill, solar panels, conductive liquid heating, and things of that nature into the home itself, amortizing it along with the home.
My wife and I are looking into doing a windmill, solar panels, and concrete construction for our next home, and using things like the windmill to augment commercial power, and/or be able to operate a certain portion of the home for a certain period of time (in conjunction with battery storage, and so on) in the absence of commercial power altogether.
The fact of the matter is that whether you do it yourself or pay a subsidy to a local energy provider for wind and alternative energies, it's going to be more expensive than traditional energy, because things like coal and natural gas are still cheap. So this is a decision that must transcend cost a bit. One day, "alternative" sources of energy may become cheaper, but that won't be happening anytime soon in the context of your question, even with the most dire "peak oil" arguments, so you must make a conscious choice to sacrifice a bit, possibly financially, for environmentally conscious energy sources.
All of those changes and restrictions are made possible only because of DRM. So it does actually have everything to do with DRM. Then there's the point that, regardless of what Apple has done so far, it is entirely possible and legal for them to add restrictions at any time on media that you have already purchased. So the GP post was correct that while you may know what the restrictions are now, you have no way of knowing what they'll be tomorrow.
Wrong. None of those changes had anything to do with DRM. They applied to the behavior of the software in general, regardless of whether files had DRM or not. These were intrinsic to the behavior and featureset of iTunes, and had nothing to do with, nor were they enabled by, DRM.
And yes, you can argue they could add restrictions. Sure. But the net track record is that the restrictions have become more lenient, not more restrictive. And, to repeat, the examples I cited which the GP might have erroneously believed were related to DRM had NOTHING to do with DRM and applied to non-DRM files as well. The DRM was irrelevant to those changes; they were core functional changes to iTunes. And, to further repeat, with respect to DRM, Apple has become more lenient. So, we can only go on Apple's track record, which has so far been positive and has included negotiating aggressively with content owners for the least restrictive DRM possible.
Close: they know what the restrictions are right now. They don't know what the restrictions will be tomorrow or next year. Apple has, in fact, issued updates to iTunes to tighten the restrictions on music that had already been purchased, and they may very well do so again in the future.
Um, examples, please? Are you talking about things like being able to burn one playlist 7 consecutive times instead of 10? (Even though you can just make one change to the playlist, change it back, and then burn again?) Other than that, I am not aware of any changes that makes Apple's DRM more restrictive, unless you're talking about the waaaaay-old changes to iTunes that disabled the ability to do music sharing via IP (as opposed to only on your local subnet, the way it is now), which had nothing to do with DRM, or the syncing changes in iTunes 2.0, which again had nothing to with with DRM, or disallowing music from easily being downloaded by others (as opposed to streamed) via iTunes, which, again, had nothing to do with DRM.
As I said in another post, Apple has actually been making their DRM more lenient: you can now two-way sync any iPod with any iTunes libraries on computers that are authorized on the same iTunes account (and you can have up to five computers and an unlimited number of iPods, which is how it's always been). Previously, you could have an iPod associated with only one music library; now you can easily keep all libraries in sync across multiple computers and multiple iPods.
While your point stands in general with regard to DRM, Apple has not introduced any new restrictions that fundamentally limit what you can do, and instead has removed limitations that previously existed.
Has anyone verified that? My understanding was that the whole "PlayForSure/Zune" thing was speculated on because MS didn't happen to mention WMV is a list of other supported file formats, but that WMV was the default anyway so didn't need to be explicitely mentioned so the speculation that Zune wouldn't support it was probably not true
Nope.
Stunningly, Zune will not play PlaysForSure content. Ironic, huh?
Conversely, Apple has actually been making their DRM more lenient: you can now two-way sync any iPod with any iTunes libraries on computers that are authorized on the same iTunes account (and you can have up to five computers and an unlimited number of iPods, which is how it's always been). Previously, you could have an iPod associated with only one music library; now you can easily keep all libraries in sync across multiple computers and multiple iPods.
Hey, you were the one who made yourself look like a tool when you posted what you did...these issues couldn't possibly be more unrelated, and just as Apple did nothing to Real (because it can't), nothing will happen to DVD Jon. Sorry to disappoint.
DRM will ALWAYS be able to be broken. The idea is to prevent casual abuse en masse and provide a show of good faith to content owners on the part of technology companies like Apple, both of which are exactly what it does.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, Apple isn't utterly retarded like Microsoft, doing things like making "PlaysForSure" content NOT work on their own devices, and doing other ridiculous and confusing things with DRM. Apple's DRM is unobtrusive enough to most customers that most customers DON'T CARE, and will NEVER "get screwed" by it. Period.
Note I said "most". And ultimately, that's all that counts.
Also, DRM isn't necessarily intrinsically evil. I know there's a lot of belief here that copyright law is hopelessly corrupted, content owners are greedy bastards, the laws surrounding DRM are horrid, and I could go on and on. And all of that may be true. But as long as there is some level of legal protection for someone who generates content and/or their agents, or their agent's agents, or trade groups that represent them, etc., there is nothing intrinsically wrong with using some level of technological means to protect that content from misappropriation under the current body of legal frameworks that cover such use. Everyone who buys content from, e.g., iTunes, knows exactly what the restrictions are. No one is forcing them to buy it.
DRM will never die. Shitty, overly restrictive DRM that pisses off massive amounts of customers will die. But "DRM" in general won't.
With each successive iPod update, Apple can keep breaking Harmony. Sure, they can come back and "fix" it again, only for it to be broken again.
Besides which, anyone can sell or deliver content on Apple's iPod now:
- They can deliver it in any number of media formats without DRM (since DRM is so evil, right?)
- If they really want DRM, any music provider not currently affiliated with a major label can distribute on iTunes to iPod via services like this
So, if we're to believe the putative reasons that FairPlay has been "reverse-engineered", it is actually to specifically enable and further the usage of DRM.
Is this what the people who would applaud DVD Jon actually want? More DRM, and DRM that won't be guaranteed to work (in fact, will almost be guaranteed to NOT work) the next time an update comes out from the vendor, at that?
So, you're saying that "Occam's razor" tells you that the United States government flew two remotely controlled military aircraft (or the actual commercial planes; you haven't told me which conspiracy theory you believe) into two buildings, demolished them with explosives, destroyed a third in such an outrageous way as to be obviously demolition even to a child, fired a missle (or flew a drone) at the Pentagon, diverted one (or three) aircraft to secret locations, had agents of the US government actively murder all of the passengers, and then made it appear that it was all to blame almost exclusively on Saudi nationals, masterminded by a Saudi, and then used it as an excuse to warmonger in almost completely unrelated countries on unrelated evidence?
I know you probably don't give it much credence, but have you ever read the 9/11 Commission Report? I mean, consider the source and all if you really think it's part of the conspiracy, but your little rant leads me to believe you haven't read any official details - which there are hordes of - about the attack. Ironically, you're also posting this in a story about how the Bush administration was allegedly ignoring intelligence on the person who committed the attacks.
You kept saying I wasn't responding to anything you said. That's because NOTHING you said is provable. All of the "science" that allegedly "proves" this was a conspiracy isn't science at all. It's science with a political or ideological axe to grind. You can neatly dismiss anything I say with classic conspiracy theory justifications, like "anyone who questions the official line will have his/her career instantly ended", etc. If there weren't video that YOU felt believable enough of the planes crashing into WTC 1 and 2, I have serious doubts you'd even believe there were any planes at all...given everything else you've said, be honest with yourself here.
Hell, even when the US has *planned* false flag operations, they never target civilians, and they ALWAYS assign blame to the party we want to assign blame to. If we wanted 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq, you'd better be damned sure we would make certain it appeared that Iraq was to blame. (Again, hardcore conspiracy theorists will say that's exactly why we DIDN'T make it look like Iraq was to blame: because it's plausible that Saudi extremists would attack us, and because we're friendly with Saudi Arabia officially, it would for sure look like it wasn't planned, and all manner of other utter tripe. That's exactly how conspiracy theories work: anything I say can be brushed away with one stroke: "Well, of COURSE we didn't make it look like Iraq did it - that would be too obvious!"
As to WTC 7, you apparently choose to ignore numerous official and independent opinions and studies (no doubt because they don't agree with the things you're choosing to believe) that assert that the building was STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND after the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, and suffered severe damage, and that it was surprising but not at ALL impossible or even improbable that the damage could cause that level and type of destruction. The same thing goes for WTC 1 and 2. People keep saying it's categorically impossible that they would have collapsed at those temperatures, ignoring the pure facts that steel loses upwards of 50%-60% of its compression resistance and integrity at those temperatures. Steel doesn't have to melt to lose significant amounts of strength.
You also read nothing I linked in regard to the Pentagon. And yes, the reason I linked things is because people would say "OH, YOU HAVE NO PROOF!~!(@(!" if one posts something without links, so there you go. At LEAST read them. There were shitloads of windows broken out of the Pentagon, there are clear marks where the wings hit the building, Purdue did a simulation of exactly what happened, and the hole is exactly the appropriate size for a 757 fuselage. (And I love conspiracy theories: some say the hole is too *small*, and others - apparently yours - say the hole is too *big*! And you can't win with
Oh, wait, sorry about believing what you want to believe, I forgot.
I actually hope a Republican DOESN'T win in 2008 so we can have a 4 year reprieve from the incessant bitching about people who thing Bush/Republicans stole the election(s). (I didn't vote for Bush.)
First of all, I can't believe this is moderated +5.
A couple questions:
Why did WTC 7 have to be demolished? If this was a conspiracy, and the government actually went out of their way to somehow secretly wire the WTC buildings with explosives AND fly remote controlled military aircraft painted to look like commercial jetliners (or the actual planes themselves, depending on whose conspiracy theories you believe), why did WTC 7 "have" to be destroyed? So much focus on why WTC 7 should allegedly have not collapsed, when two 110 story buildings accounting for millions of tons of material collapsed in that proximity? Just think about it: why did WTC 7 have to be destroyed when everything was focused on flying planes into buildings in the context of the conspiracy theory? (As an aside, notice that no conspiracy theories deny that planes hit WTC 1 and 2 because there was indisputable video evidence of that fact...if there weren't, there probably would be conspiracy theories that no planes were involved at all.)
As to the Pentagon, there were tons of plane wreckage recovered. Even some of the photos used to prove there was "no wreckage" actually *contain* identifiable wreckage! (Some different conspiracy theories say that wreckage was planted.) All but 5 of the Pentagon crash victims' DNA was identified *at the site* by pathologists.
I could continue to go on, but the part that defies logic the most is the idea that the government would orchestrate an attack that would be almost completely blamed on Saudis, masterminded by a Saudi expatriate (remember, Saudi Arabia is one of the countries people always like to say Bush is buddy-buddy with), as an excuse to warmonger in two utterly and totally unrelated countries in the mideast? Why? It makes literally no sense. The true hardcore conspiracy buffs will say that blaming it on the Saudis and then invading Afghanistan is all just a ruse to invade Iraq (????????) while simultaneously calling this administration the dumbest we've ever had, and while further utterly and totally ignoring the actual radical Islamic movements that exist, and all of the numerous attacks they've pulled off globally. I gotta hand it to them: they have one hell of an imagination. The True Believers even say that ALL of the alleged "Al Qaeda" attacks are actually false flag operations orchestrated and conducted 100% by the United States as an excuse to warmonger in the mideast.
Not to mention that the government can't keep some of its most classified programs secret, but has somehow managed to keep secret that it landed at least 3 commercial airliners at secret locations and murdered all of the passengers, planted explosives and blew up the 2 or more WTC buildings killing 3000 American citizens on our own soil, fired a missile at or a flew a drone into the Pentagon, and more, and kept it all secret and had no leakers? Come the fuck on. Seriously.
Also, your last statement about Christianity is pretty much bullshit, because where the Panislamic radicals are in respect to *anyone* in this administration with respect to religion are not even close. 11th century Christianity, maybe.
It's sad that people actually believe, or even consider believing, what you do. More below. I would legitimately love a response on this.
(PS: I didn't vote for Bush.)
Here was an email that I wrote up before, in the interest of time savings, that referred to a popular flash video that circulated about the Pentagon:
-----
The problem here is the way the flash movie was done. First of all, some of the images in the movie were edited from the original photographs to support the author's view of events. Second, the only quotes from witnesses in the flash movie are selectively picked - from HUNDREDS of statements - to support the "missile" theory. Additionally, the author even contradicts himself, including statements about a missile, AND a "small" or "commuter" plane. (Well, which is it?)
Of course we knew to varying degrees that there was going to be some kind of attack, and one of many scenarios was previous described as using planes as missiles.
So what if we don't know where, when, or how the attack is to take place?
Perhaps we could explore doing things to proactively protect the United States, such as secretly monitoring and mining international calling records to try to eke out worrying patterns, or cooperating covertly with the EU to monitor bank accounts of suspected and/or known terrorist entities, or keeping the detention of high-value targets secret so that their collaborators might be kept in the dark for a period longer...
Hasn't this been attempted before, with the likes of PassPort, and other numerous "universal" single-signon type things that have attempted to partner with commercial sites, and so on?
It says it's different from PassPort, and I agree, but I fail to see why this would have any more success.
How is it a strawman when most of the time the perception that it's Republicans who *want* e-voting? This is an example of one instance where it's different, and we have people defending it.
And it's not bait, and then getting huffed up at "someone": this was that very same poster responding to by question. I'm literally astounded by the number of highly moderated posts in this story *defending* keeping Diebold e-voting in Maryland, given the utter hatred for e-voting in general and Diebold in particular that is shared by many here.
My only point is that if the tables were in fact turned - and while that's hypothetical, it's certainly reasonable and definitely not a strawman - there would not be nearly as many people here actually *defending* e-voting, even if the reasons raised here were just as valid.
If you could find a sitation where Democrats have attempted to systematically disenranchise voters, sure. Good luck with that.
Thanks. So you're admitting that you wouldn't. Your hypocrisy doesn't surprise me in the least.
There are decades-old jokes that have been going around Democratic stronghold cities like Chicago and St. Louis, probably before you were born:
Why did the Democrat walk into the graveyard? To thank his voters.
Oh, but wait, let me guess: overvoting is "not as bad as" disenfranchisement, right? I'm sorry, but that's just another hypocritical rationalization you use to reinforce your view that Republicans and only Republicans engage in widespread, systematic denial of Americans' right to vote, and that even if you'll concede that sometimes Democrats do bad things in the context of elections, too, they're still not "as bad" as Republicans.
Think a little more critically when you read a story on truthout.org that claims that there are things like one-day "roadblocks" in black areas of Florida, etc., and other similar one-sided reporting by people with agendas.
There has been voter disenfranchisement in this country since it was founded. There is, quite simply, no mass conspiratorial systematic disenfranchisement of only-Democratic voters. To balance things like Kennedy's Rolling Stone article I'm sure you hold dear, try reading something like this in balance.
Believing people who you don't agree with are literally out to get you and will do anything at all costs, no matter how immoral or illegal or unethical, is not healthy for our political system as a whole. Debate people on points rather than predicating everything on the assumption that Republicans are always more evil, more dishonest, etc., than the politicians that you might chose to vote for.
Would you be defending this situation in the exact same manner as you just did if it the Republican and Democratic tables in this situation were turned?
I will opine that you would indeed not be, and that there are many who would be quick to defend anyone who is non-Republican, and vilify Republicans in any part of this process, even if it conflicts with their other beliefs (e.g., that electronic voting is bad in general).
If electronic voting is so horrible, and indeed, if there really are active conspiracies within Diebold and within the e-voting process that would allow Republicans to steal elections under the radar, it should be no problem for the governor to hold onto power, right?
Even if every single assertion and assumption you make is true, I highly doubt that you, or any others reading it that find themselves rationalizing this in their minds, would be so quick to make this rationalizing argument that is implicitly in favor of Diebold, paperless e-voting if the Republican and Democratic places were switched in this instance.
If the tables were turned here (e.g., Democratic governor fighting to remote e-voting and Republicans fighting to keep it), would you still be justifying keeping Diebold e-voting in Maryland in the same way you just did?
You're quick to defend non-Republicans, because, like many, you want to believe that Republicans' only motivation is illegitimately securing power at all costs and with any dirty tricks possible, and coming up with all kinds of justifications that support that view (like trying to keep working class communities away from the polls, creating fear about the process (which helps only the Republican governor how?), etc.) Well, I have news for you: the Democrats have done, and do, the same things.
(And again, lest the normal commenters who respond to my posts forget, I am not a Republican and voted at least 2:1 Democratic to anything else in the last two elections.)
For the record, as of 2:30P CT, this is the only +5 moderated post in this story.
Why is it unsurprising that in a group that traditionally lambasts e-voting as essentially a Republican conspiracy to steal elections at every turn would take every opportunity to moderate up the first post justifying *not* getting rid of e-voting when the Republican governor actually wants to go back to all paper ballots?
If this were a Democratic governor wanting to get rid of e-voting and Republicans fighting it, ask yourself: would a post like the parent really be modded up? Think about that and give yourself an honest answer.
So in other words, electronic voting and Diebold are always evil, except when Democrats support it?
I get it now.
Also, I call total bullshit on this. These machines are either bad, or not. You can't have it both ways. I'm surprised at how many are now coming up with justifications to still vilify only the Republicans in this process, regardless of whether they want - or want to get rid of - e-voting.
(By the way, I'm not a Republican, didn't vote for Bush, etc.)
But "open source" voting systems are just as useless as proprietary ones without a permanent voter-verifiable paper audit trail.
In fact, given the choice of 1.) open source voting systems, and 2.) a permanent voter-verifiable paper audit trail, you'd be foolish not to pick 2.) every time.
Now if we could have both, fantastic. However, you'll probably go a LOT further arguing for a paper trail in ALL instances than trying to unseat traditional enterprise and commercial vendors in any market.
Slashdot Mirror
...this when they read this article? ;-)
We're providing commercial TV channels, university content, and some foreign language channels to the University of Wisconsin - Madison community (in cooperation with our local cable operator):
http://tv.wisc.edu/
http://tv.wisc.edu/about/
The project was a pilot that turned into a production service, and is in the (slow) process of being expanded to 78 channels and adding more foreign content, including recorded foreign content so international students can watch programming that might be on at odd times in the US.
We also created a player with TV-like controls, dynamically updated channel listing, and closed captioning support:
http://tv.wisc.edu/player/
And, for about three years, we've been doing a pilot of capturing all closed captioning content and still image thumbnails every minute from all channels, and making it searchable. It's an excellent research tool. Through a new partnership with the UW General Library System, we just added 7TB of storage and will begin archiving the video for academic use as well. (This has already been cleared by the University's legal services group, as we fundamentally believe we have the right to store content that we have already paid for (for the same population) for academic/research/library purposes.)
Information about the project, and a PDF of a recent presentation with much more information, is available here:
http://tv.wisc.edu/about/
http://tv.wisc.edu/about/DATN_WWDC_2006.pdf
What's wrong with using what is traditionally referred to as Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) against publicly available sources?
This has been done for years, and is a time-honored and respected mechanism for gathering intelligence. What's wrong with then leveraging technology to more effectively search larger volumes of information and weed out individual pieces of information for further analysis, to identify trends, and so on?
The Open Source Center, formerly the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, already does this with foreign broadcast media, and is able to collect and transcribe, on the fly, information from foreign radio and television broadcasts in a variety of languages and dialects with incredible accuracy, and then make the resultant material searchable. The new initiative would go one step further and apply artificial intelligence techniques to automated searching, that can more easily target and bring to light trends or time-critical information.
Different business and governmental entities do this globally; it's traditionally referred to as "current awareness", and many academic and corporate entities offer current awareness services. All of these services will leverage technology, live realtime searching and alerting, and so on, to make the information more timely, valuable, and relevant.
Remember, this is publicly available and published information.
Also, submitter is a little misguided when he says "No hint is given as to how this would apply to syndicated articles written in the US and published abroad." That misunderstands the purpose of this; the program is designed to look at foreign media sources as one component of OSINT, because they are a a valuable source of such information, and can reflect local trends and patterns, and may reveal changing or growing (or waning) sentiments on particular topics on the part of a local populace or media outlet, or even a government in the case of state-controlled media. We generally don't get that kind of information from US-based media, and this has nothing to do with whether US-based media outlets publish abroad. It's already public information and has been published publicly. The restrictions are geared to prevent an appearance of overt US press monitoring.
OSINT is a one-way source of intelligence information: from it, to the gathering entity. Any assumptions that the viewing of already-public information then implies that there will be a commensurate attempt to silence such information (especially when the information isn't under our control, and ignores the fact that we can't "silence" things like Iran's state media) both makes a a fallacious logical leap and grossly misunderstands the purpose and scope of OSINT.
All the critics can say is that it's "creepy and Orwellian," but of course, there's nothing wrong with the government or its intelligence components reading, viewing, or collecting publicly available and indeed overtly publicly published information. The intelligence community gets ripped when it doesn't gather enough information, and will no doubt get ripped for gathering "too much" in a "creepy" way, even when it's from overtly and intentionally public sources, and especially if it uses technology to do it.
There is a real concern about the growing use of automated and electronic intelligence gathering in lieu of human intelligence, but ultimately, both are valuable. Unfortunately, electronic and signals intelligence is often much more costly, and sometimes gets more attention in some parts of the intelligence community while human intelligence needs languish.
...is integrating it into the construction or purchase of a new home, particularly ones in a semi-rural area, or areas with larger lots and less restrictive requirements for things like wind or antenna towers. Rural areas, depending on the lay of the land, will also typically have more access to wind as well.
This way, you can integrate the purchase price of things like a windmill, solar panels, conductive liquid heating, and things of that nature into the home itself, amortizing it along with the home.
My wife and I are looking into doing a windmill, solar panels, and concrete construction for our next home, and using things like the windmill to augment commercial power, and/or be able to operate a certain portion of the home for a certain period of time (in conjunction with battery storage, and so on) in the absence of commercial power altogether.
The fact of the matter is that whether you do it yourself or pay a subsidy to a local energy provider for wind and alternative energies, it's going to be more expensive than traditional energy, because things like coal and natural gas are still cheap. So this is a decision that must transcend cost a bit. One day, "alternative" sources of energy may become cheaper, but that won't be happening anytime soon in the context of your question, even with the most dire "peak oil" arguments, so you must make a conscious choice to sacrifice a bit, possibly financially, for environmentally conscious energy sources.
All of those changes and restrictions are made possible only because of DRM. So it does actually have everything to do with DRM. Then there's the point that, regardless of what Apple has done so far, it is entirely possible and legal for them to add restrictions at any time on media that you have already purchased. So the GP post was correct that while you may know what the restrictions are now, you have no way of knowing what they'll be tomorrow.
Wrong. None of those changes had anything to do with DRM. They applied to the behavior of the software in general, regardless of whether files had DRM or not. These were intrinsic to the behavior and featureset of iTunes, and had nothing to do with, nor were they enabled by, DRM.
And yes, you can argue they could add restrictions. Sure. But the net track record is that the restrictions have become more lenient, not more restrictive. And, to repeat, the examples I cited which the GP might have erroneously believed were related to DRM had NOTHING to do with DRM and applied to non-DRM files as well. The DRM was irrelevant to those changes; they were core functional changes to iTunes. And, to further repeat, with respect to DRM, Apple has become more lenient. So, we can only go on Apple's track record, which has so far been positive and has included negotiating aggressively with content owners for the least restrictive DRM possible.
Close: they know what the restrictions are right now. They don't know what the restrictions will be tomorrow or next year. Apple has, in fact, issued updates to iTunes to tighten the restrictions on music that had already been purchased, and they may very well do so again in the future.
n terview-j-allard-microsoft-corporate-vice-presi/ )
Um, examples, please? Are you talking about things like being able to burn one playlist 7 consecutive times instead of 10? (Even though you can just make one change to the playlist, change it back, and then burn again?) Other than that, I am not aware of any changes that makes Apple's DRM more restrictive, unless you're talking about the waaaaay-old changes to iTunes that disabled the ability to do music sharing via IP (as opposed to only on your local subnet, the way it is now), which had nothing to do with DRM, or the syncing changes in iTunes 2.0, which again had nothing to with with DRM, or disallowing music from easily being downloaded by others (as opposed to streamed) via iTunes, which, again, had nothing to do with DRM.
As I said in another post, Apple has actually been making their DRM more lenient: you can now two-way sync any iPod with any iTunes libraries on computers that are authorized on the same iTunes account (and you can have up to five computers and an unlimited number of iPods, which is how it's always been). Previously, you could have an iPod associated with only one music library; now you can easily keep all libraries in sync across multiple computers and multiple iPods.
While your point stands in general with regard to DRM, Apple has not introduced any new restrictions that fundamentally limit what you can do, and instead has removed limitations that previously existed.
Microsoft has done precisely the opposite, even introducing a new music player that doesn't play its *own* ironically-branded PlaysForSure content. (And to others reading this, no it wasn't just a rumor or misunderstanding...Zune really won't play PlaysForSure content, and vice versa: http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/14/the-engadget-i
Has anyone verified that? My understanding was that the whole "PlayForSure/Zune" thing was speculated on because MS didn't happen to mention WMV is a list of other supported file formats, but that WMV was the default anyway so didn't need to be explicitely mentioned so the speculation that Zune wouldn't support it was probably not true
n terview-j-allard-microsoft-corporate-vice-presi/
Nope.
Stunningly, Zune will not play PlaysForSure content. Ironic, huh?
More here:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004910.php
And direct from Microsoft itself:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/14/the-engadget-i
Conversely, Apple has actually been making their DRM more lenient: you can now two-way sync any iPod with any iTunes libraries on computers that are authorized on the same iTunes account (and you can have up to five computers and an unlimited number of iPods, which is how it's always been). Previously, you could have an iPod associated with only one music library; now you can easily keep all libraries in sync across multiple computers and multiple iPods.
Enabling more DRM usage, and DRM that won't even work on the device every time Apple updates the iPod?
Yeah, I'm sure people will be falling all over themselves for that: not only more DRM, but DRM that isn't guaranteed to even be functional.
Way to go!
Hah. Nice comeback.
Hey, you were the one who made yourself look like a tool when you posted what you did...these issues couldn't possibly be more unrelated, and just as Apple did nothing to Real (because it can't), nothing will happen to DVD Jon. Sorry to disappoint.
DRM will ALWAYS be able to be broken. The idea is to prevent casual abuse en masse and provide a show of good faith to content owners on the part of technology companies like Apple, both of which are exactly what it does.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, Apple isn't utterly retarded like Microsoft, doing things like making "PlaysForSure" content NOT work on their own devices, and doing other ridiculous and confusing things with DRM. Apple's DRM is unobtrusive enough to most customers that most customers DON'T CARE, and will NEVER "get screwed" by it. Period.
Note I said "most". And ultimately, that's all that counts.
Also, DRM isn't necessarily intrinsically evil. I know there's a lot of belief here that copyright law is hopelessly corrupted, content owners are greedy bastards, the laws surrounding DRM are horrid, and I could go on and on. And all of that may be true. But as long as there is some level of legal protection for someone who generates content and/or their agents, or their agent's agents, or trade groups that represent them, etc., there is nothing intrinsically wrong with using some level of technological means to protect that content from misappropriation under the current body of legal frameworks that cover such use. Everyone who buys content from, e.g., iTunes, knows exactly what the restrictions are. No one is forcing them to buy it.
DRM will never die. Shitty, overly restrictive DRM that pisses off massive amounts of customers will die. But "DRM" in general won't.
Why do I have the feeling that somebody is going to turn out like Dmitry Sklyarov?
Because you're an unfortunate idiot?
This has already been done with Real's Harmony.
With each successive iPod update, Apple can keep breaking Harmony. Sure, they can come back and "fix" it again, only for it to be broken again.
Besides which, anyone can sell or deliver content on Apple's iPod now:
- They can deliver it in any number of media formats without DRM (since DRM is so evil, right?)
- If they really want DRM, any music provider not currently affiliated with a major label can distribute on iTunes to iPod via services like this
So, if we're to believe the putative reasons that FairPlay has been "reverse-engineered", it is actually to specifically enable and further the usage of DRM.
Is this what the people who would applaud DVD Jon actually want? More DRM, and DRM that won't be guaranteed to work (in fact, will almost be guaranteed to NOT work) the next time an update comes out from the vendor, at that?
So, you're saying that "Occam's razor" tells you that the United States government flew two remotely controlled military aircraft (or the actual commercial planes; you haven't told me which conspiracy theory you believe) into two buildings, demolished them with explosives, destroyed a third in such an outrageous way as to be obviously demolition even to a child, fired a missle (or flew a drone) at the Pentagon, diverted one (or three) aircraft to secret locations, had agents of the US government actively murder all of the passengers, and then made it appear that it was all to blame almost exclusively on Saudi nationals, masterminded by a Saudi, and then used it as an excuse to warmonger in almost completely unrelated countries on unrelated evidence?
I know you probably don't give it much credence, but have you ever read the 9/11 Commission Report? I mean, consider the source and all if you really think it's part of the conspiracy, but your little rant leads me to believe you haven't read any official details - which there are hordes of - about the attack. Ironically, you're also posting this in a story about how the Bush administration was allegedly ignoring intelligence on the person who committed the attacks.
You kept saying I wasn't responding to anything you said. That's because NOTHING you said is provable. All of the "science" that allegedly "proves" this was a conspiracy isn't science at all. It's science with a political or ideological axe to grind. You can neatly dismiss anything I say with classic conspiracy theory justifications, like "anyone who questions the official line will have his/her career instantly ended", etc. If there weren't video that YOU felt believable enough of the planes crashing into WTC 1 and 2, I have serious doubts you'd even believe there were any planes at all...given everything else you've said, be honest with yourself here.
Hell, even when the US has *planned* false flag operations, they never target civilians, and they ALWAYS assign blame to the party we want to assign blame to. If we wanted 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq, you'd better be damned sure we would make certain it appeared that Iraq was to blame. (Again, hardcore conspiracy theorists will say that's exactly why we DIDN'T make it look like Iraq was to blame: because it's plausible that Saudi extremists would attack us, and because we're friendly with Saudi Arabia officially, it would for sure look like it wasn't planned, and all manner of other utter tripe. That's exactly how conspiracy theories work: anything I say can be brushed away with one stroke: "Well, of COURSE we didn't make it look like Iraq did it - that would be too obvious!"
As to WTC 7, you apparently choose to ignore numerous official and independent opinions and studies (no doubt because they don't agree with the things you're choosing to believe) that assert that the building was STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND after the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, and suffered severe damage, and that it was surprising but not at ALL impossible or even improbable that the damage could cause that level and type of destruction. The same thing goes for WTC 1 and 2. People keep saying it's categorically impossible that they would have collapsed at those temperatures, ignoring the pure facts that steel loses upwards of 50%-60% of its compression resistance and integrity at those temperatures. Steel doesn't have to melt to lose significant amounts of strength.
You also read nothing I linked in regard to the Pentagon. And yes, the reason I linked things is because people would say "OH, YOU HAVE NO PROOF!~!(@(!" if one posts something without links, so there you go. At LEAST read them. There were shitloads of windows broken out of the Pentagon, there are clear marks where the wings hit the building, Purdue did a simulation of exactly what happened, and the hole is exactly the appropriate size for a 757 fuselage. (And I love conspiracy theories: some say the hole is too *small*, and others - apparently yours - say the hole is too *big*! And you can't win with
...of many, but just an example:
http://www.wm.edu/news/?id=4027
Oh, wait, sorry about believing what you want to believe, I forgot.
I actually hope a Republican DOESN'T win in 2008 so we can have a 4 year reprieve from the incessant bitching about people who thing Bush/Republicans stole the election(s). (I didn't vote for Bush.)
Also sent via email:
First of all, I can't believe this is moderated +5.
A couple questions:
Why did WTC 7 have to be demolished? If this was a conspiracy, and the government actually went out of their way to somehow secretly wire the WTC buildings with explosives AND fly remote controlled military aircraft painted to look like commercial jetliners (or the actual planes themselves, depending on whose conspiracy theories you believe), why did WTC 7 "have" to be destroyed? So much focus on why WTC 7 should allegedly have not collapsed, when two 110 story buildings accounting for millions of tons of material collapsed in that proximity? Just think about it: why did WTC 7 have to be destroyed when everything was focused on flying planes into buildings in the context of the conspiracy theory? (As an aside, notice that no conspiracy theories deny that planes hit WTC 1 and 2 because there was indisputable video evidence of that fact...if there weren't, there probably would be conspiracy theories that no planes were involved at all.)
As to the Pentagon, there were tons of plane wreckage recovered. Even some of the photos used to prove there was "no wreckage" actually *contain* identifiable wreckage! (Some different conspiracy theories say that wreckage was planted.) All but 5 of the Pentagon crash victims' DNA was identified *at the site* by pathologists.
I could continue to go on, but the part that defies logic the most is the idea that the government would orchestrate an attack that would be almost completely blamed on Saudis, masterminded by a Saudi expatriate (remember, Saudi Arabia is one of the countries people always like to say Bush is buddy-buddy with), as an excuse to warmonger in two utterly and totally unrelated countries in the mideast? Why? It makes literally no sense. The true hardcore conspiracy buffs will say that blaming it on the Saudis and then invading Afghanistan is all just a ruse to invade Iraq (????????) while simultaneously calling this administration the dumbest we've ever had, and while further utterly and totally ignoring the actual radical Islamic movements that exist, and all of the numerous attacks they've pulled off globally. I gotta hand it to them: they have one hell of an imagination. The True Believers even say that ALL of the alleged "Al Qaeda" attacks are actually false flag operations orchestrated and conducted 100% by the United States as an excuse to warmonger in the mideast.
Not to mention that the government can't keep some of its most classified programs secret, but has somehow managed to keep secret that it landed at least 3 commercial airliners at secret locations and murdered all of the passengers, planted explosives and blew up the 2 or more WTC buildings killing 3000 American citizens on our own soil, fired a missile at or a flew a drone into the Pentagon, and more, and kept it all secret and had no leakers? Come the fuck on. Seriously.
Also, your last statement about Christianity is pretty much bullshit, because where the Panislamic radicals are in respect to *anyone* in this administration with respect to religion are not even close. 11th century Christianity, maybe.
It's sad that people actually believe, or even consider believing, what you do. More below. I would legitimately love a response on this.
(PS: I didn't vote for Bush.)
Here was an email that I wrote up before, in the interest of time savings, that referred to a popular flash video that circulated about the Pentagon:
-----
The problem here is the way the flash movie was done. First of all, some of the images in the movie were edited from the original photographs to support the author's view of events. Second, the only quotes from witnesses in the flash movie are selectively picked - from HUNDREDS of statements - to support the "missile" theory. Additionally, the author even contradicts himself, including statements about a missile, AND a "small" or "commuter" plane. (Well, which is it?)
Let's take a step back for a moment:
No, that would be treating the symptom, not the problem.
If you are worried about [...]
And what if we don't know "what we're worried about"?
What then?
Have an attack happen and then keeping running flamebait stories on slashdot five years after the fact when there's plenty of blame to go around?
Or actually do something to aggressively try to detect plots and prevent attacks before they happen?
Of course we knew to varying degrees that there was going to be some kind of attack, and one of many scenarios was previous described as using planes as missiles.
So what if we don't know where, when, or how the attack is to take place?
Perhaps we could explore doing things to proactively protect the United States, such as secretly monitoring and mining international calling records to try to eke out worrying patterns, or cooperating covertly with the EU to monitor bank accounts of suspected and/or known terrorist entities, or keeping the detention of high-value targets secret so that their collaborators might be kept in the dark for a period longer...
Oh, wait...
Hasn't this been attempted before, with the likes of PassPort, and other numerous "universal" single-signon type things that have attempted to partner with commercial sites, and so on?
It says it's different from PassPort, and I agree, but I fail to see why this would have any more success.
How is it a strawman when most of the time the perception that it's Republicans who *want* e-voting? This is an example of one instance where it's different, and we have people defending it.
And it's not bait, and then getting huffed up at "someone": this was that very same poster responding to by question. I'm literally astounded by the number of highly moderated posts in this story *defending* keeping Diebold e-voting in Maryland, given the utter hatred for e-voting in general and Diebold in particular that is shared by many here.
My only point is that if the tables were in fact turned - and while that's hypothetical, it's certainly reasonable and definitely not a strawman - there would not be nearly as many people here actually *defending* e-voting, even if the reasons raised here were just as valid.
If you could find a sitation where Democrats have attempted to systematically disenranchise voters, sure. Good luck with that.
Thanks. So you're admitting that you wouldn't. Your hypocrisy doesn't surprise me in the least.
There are decades-old jokes that have been going around Democratic stronghold cities like Chicago and St. Louis, probably before you were born:
Why did the Democrat walk into the graveyard? To thank his voters.
Oh, but wait, let me guess: overvoting is "not as bad as" disenfranchisement, right? I'm sorry, but that's just another hypocritical rationalization you use to reinforce your view that Republicans and only Republicans engage in widespread, systematic denial of Americans' right to vote, and that even if you'll concede that sometimes Democrats do bad things in the context of elections, too, they're still not "as bad" as Republicans.
Think a little more critically when you read a story on truthout.org that claims that there are things like one-day "roadblocks" in black areas of Florida, etc., and other similar one-sided reporting by people with agendas.
There has been voter disenfranchisement in this country since it was founded. There is, quite simply, no mass conspiratorial systematic disenfranchisement of only-Democratic voters. To balance things like Kennedy's Rolling Stone article I'm sure you hold dear, try reading something like this in balance.
Believing people who you don't agree with are literally out to get you and will do anything at all costs, no matter how immoral or illegal or unethical, is not healthy for our political system as a whole. Debate people on points rather than predicating everything on the assumption that Republicans are always more evil, more dishonest, etc., than the politicians that you might chose to vote for.
Would you be defending this situation in the exact same manner as you just did if it the Republican and Democratic tables in this situation were turned?
I will opine that you would indeed not be, and that there are many who would be quick to defend anyone who is non-Republican, and vilify Republicans in any part of this process, even if it conflicts with their other beliefs (e.g., that electronic voting is bad in general).
If electronic voting is so horrible, and indeed, if there really are active conspiracies within Diebold and within the e-voting process that would allow Republicans to steal elections under the radar, it should be no problem for the governor to hold onto power, right?
Even if every single assertion and assumption you make is true, I highly doubt that you, or any others reading it that find themselves rationalizing this in their minds, would be so quick to make this rationalizing argument that is implicitly in favor of Diebold, paperless e-voting if the Republican and Democratic places were switched in this instance.
No, I do get it.
If the tables were turned here (e.g., Democratic governor fighting to remote e-voting and Republicans fighting to keep it), would you still be justifying keeping Diebold e-voting in Maryland in the same way you just did?
You're quick to defend non-Republicans, because, like many, you want to believe that Republicans' only motivation is illegitimately securing power at all costs and with any dirty tricks possible, and coming up with all kinds of justifications that support that view (like trying to keep working class communities away from the polls, creating fear about the process (which helps only the Republican governor how?), etc.) Well, I have news for you: the Democrats have done, and do, the same things.
(And again, lest the normal commenters who respond to my posts forget, I am not a Republican and voted at least 2:1 Democratic to anything else in the last two elections.)
For the record, as of 2:30P CT, this is the only +5 moderated post in this story.
Why is it unsurprising that in a group that traditionally lambasts e-voting as essentially a Republican conspiracy to steal elections at every turn would take every opportunity to moderate up the first post justifying *not* getting rid of e-voting when the Republican governor actually wants to go back to all paper ballots?
If this were a Democratic governor wanting to get rid of e-voting and Republicans fighting it, ask yourself: would a post like the parent really be modded up? Think about that and give yourself an honest answer.
So in other words, electronic voting and Diebold are always evil, except when Democrats support it?
I get it now.
Also, I call total bullshit on this. These machines are either bad, or not. You can't have it both ways. I'm surprised at how many are now coming up with justifications to still vilify only the Republicans in this process, regardless of whether they want - or want to get rid of - e-voting.
(By the way, I'm not a Republican, didn't vote for Bush, etc.)
http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/
But "open source" voting systems are just as useless as proprietary ones without a permanent voter-verifiable paper audit trail.
In fact, given the choice of 1.) open source voting systems, and 2.) a permanent voter-verifiable paper audit trail, you'd be foolish not to pick 2.) every time.
Now if we could have both, fantastic. However, you'll probably go a LOT further arguing for a paper trail in ALL instances than trying to unseat traditional enterprise and commercial vendors in any market.