Bah...
What do they have to say about using the very algorithm that they apparently use to generate much of their own music, judging from the songs being released the past decade or so?
Well, the advantages do not outweigh the scary possibilities of this scheme. Imagine receiving the following in the post:
You, person #825765.983.9782.2987634 have hereby been fined $500 for littering. Coke can #178246.886.1235.783553 was found on 29-8-2005 in an area not sanctioned for waste disposal. Bank and customer records show that you purchased the aforementioned can, therefor the fine is yours. This fine can not be contested as our Object Tracking Database is infallible. Have a nice day.
Never mind that some homeless guy fished your can out of the trash and dropped it later.
Whatever happened to producing a quality product, advertising in responsible ways and having sales generated based on a great idea or product? Is this kind of "traditional" advertising not working any more?
What if you're a manufacturer of penis enlargement pumps? They may be 'quality' penis enlargers, and they're certainly based on a great idea, but... how would you advertise responsibly for them?
"During the interview when asked what are my problems when working if any, I always answer that I have a problem that with people who do not understand the word NO". Basically, you have to stake your right to say no from day -1. If you cannot do that you will be in trouble later.
In large organisations? Come on... if I tell my boss 'No', he's not going to come back to me waving my personnel file and complain that I forfeited my right to say 'No' during the job interview.
If you get in trouble for saying 'No', it will not be because of what you said or didn't say in your interview.
Microsoft got sued by the govt and that didn't stop anybody.
A very different case. I don't think that there's a person in the world who for one moment believed that the suits against Microsoft would result in Windows disappearing from the market, so to everyone, Windows remained a safe choice (politically speaking, not technically).
However in the eyes of corporate bigwigs, lawyers and analysts such as Gartner, the antics of SCO spell trouble to the extend that:
- Linux could disappear from the market as a viable OS, with support by companies like RedHat, and developed further by an enthusiastic community
- Users of Linux are being sued. The Microsoft case was purely against Microsoft. The SCO case is against any Linux user or distributor they set their sights on.
Disclaimer: I do not believe that SCO will win many cases, or that Linux will disappear. But corporations might see it differently and decide to go with a less legal troublesome technology.
start filing cease-and-desists against that company for violation of copyright.
Perhaps. But perhaps it is wiser to attack SCO's own case on its merits or lack thereof, rather than countersue.
We don't want Linux or Open Source software in general to be referred to as 'that free software that everone and his dog is sueing one another over'. John Q User may not care much about the lawsuits, but corporations certainly do, and well they should. If Linux gets a reputation for having all sorts of (potential) legal issues, that will hurt the OSS movement in the long run, even if some of the lawsuits are against scumbag outfits such as SCO. The only group that had the right idea was RedHat, who filed suit against SCO to stop the FUD.
...the RIAA/MPAA does not need to have an actual case that will stand up in court, in order to shut you down or make you pay a fine in the form of a settlement: it is sufficient to threaten you with a multimillion dollar lawsuit that they can and will drag on for the rest of your natural life. When facing that sort of lawsuit, would you take it to court and fight them all the way, or would you give in and pay the settlement even though they had no case?
The **AA's are actually quite clever to go after end-users and small-time outfits: these are the opponents that will quickly bend over and give in.
1) Blow-ups. 2.1Mpixel pictures look good on 6x4" prints, but if you enlarge them you'll notice the lack of resolution.
2) Detail. You'll notice the lower resolution in details like sharp and/or thin lines, like edges of a brightly-lit wall or power lines on poles.
3) Digital zoom benefits from a higher resolution as well.
It's a little like the difference between high-end and mid-range loudspeakers. Most people will hear the difference in quality when doing a direct comparison, and most people will see the difference in quality between a 2.1Mpixel print from a Photosmart printer, and a professional print from an SLR or a good digital camera, when both pictures are placed next to one another. 2.1Mpixel images are fine for the holiday happy snaps, but they'll look crummy in a glossy magazine. However for most people, the lower quality is enough precisely because they're just taking happy snaps, not professional photographs.
My camera is a 3.1Mpixel one, but I regularly use it at 2.1Mpixels so I can fit more pictures on the card. I'm happy enough with the quality I get, and as you said, it's close enough to 'real' photographs to serve my purposes. Photography is not my hobby... I just want to have some nice pictures.
Re:There is a problem of ethics in our society...
on
Profile of an eBay Scammer
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
We have a society where people want to do the least amount of work, if any, to get the reward.
Every kind of society had/has its share of shirkers; this problem is not particular to western or capitalist societies.
What is particular for our type of society (and some other types) is that it wants its members to be succesful. The 'ideal' thing in our society is to do well in school, get a good job, get a nice raise and promotions from time to time, marry, buy a house and a good car, and live the good live. Those who do not attain this ideal may feel left out... in fact, their peers may start wondering about them. And this feeling may drive some people to turn to crime or unethical behaviour in order to attain the ideal... others may sit and moan about society being unfair.
I've spent some time in the Dutch Caribbean, where no-one gives a toss about how much you make, how your career is progressing or what kind of car you drive. I must say it's been refreshing to live in a society where there is no constant pressure to perform. Then again, very few people there feel the need to perform, and thus not much gets done. The real question of course is: who lives the better (ie. more enjoyable) lifestyle? Us or them?
Just maybe the Indian space program will encourage and inspire young people there to take up careers in science and engineering. Read 'the October sky' sometimes. In the long term, engineers, economists, and teachers will put more food on the nation's table than social workers handing out food stamps. Inspiration, determination and a little pride in one's own country can accomplish much...
...instead of being afraid that officials'll crackdown on this and kill his livelihood?
Which officials? EA / OSI have always stated that buying and selling virtual items in UO is legal. There's no reason why they should suddenly reverse that decision.
Dibbell has more to fear from the IRS. What if they get wise to his little scheme and demand income tax?
In an amazing upset, the winner was not even running. It appears that Linus, maker of the well known Linux operating system has won the Presidential election. Of special note is how he received four hundred billion votes...
Hmm, I hope someone will actually hack into a voting machine and do something similar... if the tally shows votes for 'Linus', '1RL33T', 'BuTtMunCh' and 'Pwn3d', I bet the rest of the world will take notice of the problems with these machines. Oh, and throw in a negative total # of votes for some actual candidates as well... fun!
My problem with the current tendency of going after those in posession of child pornography, is that (IMO) it taints the purity of the law. Do we think that the act of looking at this material is in and of itself a crime? In other words, suppose there was a legal means to create such material (for example: using CGI), would we still wish to prosecute the users of this material? If not, then I think it is wrong to prosecute those in posession of such material. The law enforcement should go after the creators of the (illegal) material. However... if the only means to create the material are illegal ones, and the prosecution of consumers proves effective in fighting actual abuse of children, then allowances could be made.
A note of interest: here in Holland we actually had a court case about whether or not fake kiddie porn should be illegal or not. I can't remember the outcome of that trial unfortunately, but I think they outlawed fake material.
Firstly, there is a mass of evidence that photos are taken to order within groups of abusers
This is the argument often used by those that want to throw the book at buyers/downloaders of child pornography. Some of them would even agree that looking at such pictures in itself is not a bad thing, but going after 'users' of kiddy porn results in a diminished demand for such stuff, and as a result less children are abused. (Not my argument, but this is the line of reasoning often quoted). However, the fact that 'consumers' of child pornography create a market for such material, does not automatically make the act of looking at or posessing the material a crime.
those with pictures are statistically likely to go on to physical acts
That is a very dangerous statement for two reasons:
1) If people who look at these pictures are more likely to go on to physical acts... is that because of the pictures, or did they have the tendency anyway? In the latter case, giving them such pictures might actually help getting them their fix, so that they will not go on to the physical act.
2) If colored people are statistically more likely to commit crimes (disclaimer: this is just an example which I picked because it's a widely held stereotype). Does that mean we should pre-emptively go and arrest them all? Propensity to commit a criminal act is not a crime! Besides, just like in the example I gave, the propensity to commit the crime isn't even proven... it's just a statistical correlation.
Too right this sort of thing should be followed up. It will protect children.
It should be followed up, but it must not turn into a witchhunt. Too bad that these days it seems that when it comes to our rights and due process, anything goes when 'the safety of our children' might be involved.
In these sad times, when companies try to save money by getting rid of plants in the office, removing the water coolers, turning down the A/C, buying cheap grade toilet paper, and switching off the 'down' escalators, saving $36.83 probably is a BFD:-)
In the words of the manager of Ultimate Robot Fighting: "It's pure lowest common denominator". Friends sells. I've seen the DVDs with Friends episodes piled high, and people were snapping them up. This in a country where you'll be hard-pressed to find episodes of any other series on DVD.
Futurama's a brilliant show but I can see that it has limited appeal... just like most quality stuff.
In all successful MMORPGs so far, role playing dies for most players around level 5 or so, except as an occasional thing.
Roleplaying in Ultima Online is alive and well (and I dare say the game is still succesfull despite its age). Not every player is into RP, but there are many who like it, and some of them are RP'ing full time.
Thank god UO has no chat window... 'spoken' text appears over the avatars' heads instead, which greatly helps immersion and makes it quite easy to ignore non-roleplayers around you.
I can see Bartle's point. Even in EQ and DAoC I find it very hard to roleplay due to the way communication is handled: chat windows. Spoken text will be far more intrusive... I can well imagine that it will kill off roleplaying in MMORPGs
Contrary to popular belief, a DBA should not have access to sensitive data. A database can be set up in such a way that a DBA will be able to manage users, table space etc, but is unable to just browse/export the data itself. We are doing just that on one of our databases, using Row-level security.
Of course a DBA can grant himself access to data, but such changes in policies should be logged into an audit trail file, which must be unalterable by the DBA, and inspected on a regular basis by a sysadmin or security officer.
Allowing (potential) access to all your sensitive data by a DBA or sysadmin may be unavoidable, but not implementing an audit trail and inspecting the audit trail (so that you can at least tell that they've accessed the data), is what I would call 'lax security'. As a bonus, you can catch and fire any BOFH-type admin.
As a/. subscriber I guess I'm proof positive they will pay. Not only do people need to feel that they are actually getting something for the money they're paying, the price also has to be right.
The success of paying for content depends for a large part on the payment method (and the ability to profitably collect very small payments), the type of content offered, the type of visitors your site gets, and the easy of payment.
Payment method: If you're charging visitors on a pay-per-view basis, you probably need a way to collect very small payments and still make a profit after deducting transaction costs. If such a system never comes into being, you will not be able to make one-time-only sales of very cheap pieces of content (like $0,10). See also the next two points...
Type of content, and Type of visitor: Sites with regular customers, like Slashdot, stand a good chance of making money off premium content. I come here every day for my dose of Stuff that Matters, and I might well pay a monthly fee for the privilege. However... the other day I was looking for info on some Greek legend, and I found a site that had the info that I needed. They required me to subscribe, though. I'll pay $10 a month (or whatever) for Slashdot, but not for access to one single article that I happened to have a need for. If they had offered micropayment, say $1, for the article, I would have paid, but subscribing was the only option, and they lost a sale. One-off sales will generally require micropayments, and as yet no such system exists. If your content is more expensive, for example $10,- for a program for your PDA, you can make one-off sales profitably through existing payment methods (and there are sites that already do this).
Ease of Payment. In some cases, the payment system should be very easy to use. For one-off payments this is generally not an issue, and for subscription payments it is often automated.
A question: would you pay $0,05 per Google search? I would, but not if I had to log into some payment system every time I googled, going through the login page and then a confirmation page. For this type of payments, you'll want a separate application or even a function built into the OS: A Google search should simply pop up a message 'you're about to use a service for which you'll be charged $0,05. Proceed? Y/N'. If making the payment for a search or similar service requires too much effort, people will look to other service providers.
In conclusion, not only does the price have to be right, but the price should also reflect the frequency and granularity with which each individual user might access your content. Also, the method of payment/collection has to take into account the (potentially very small) value of the purchase. The number of operations/clicks required of the user to make the actual payment should fit the kind of content or service he is purchasing.
A lot will depend on the development of an easy-to-use micropayments system. When such a system becomes more widespread, I suspect that many sites that are now free (especially sites which have content that does not fit the subscription model) will start charging for their content.
Microsoft will have to pay a fine of tens of millions of dollars if it does not implement the remedies.
Big freaking deal
They'll just shrug, pay the fine, and continue as before. Or will the EU undertake further actions against MS, if they persist in these practices even after paying the fines?
You seem to misunderstand how the patent system works (in the US especially). I am not too sure myself...
1) Almost any patent might be granted, even those to which prior art applies, or those that offer little or no innovative ideas. The only reason why you cannot patent, for instance, swinging sideways on a swing, is the fact that someone has beaten you to it (I kid you not).
2) Almost any patent, however bollocksy, can be profitably enforced if you can find a victim who does not have sufficiently deep pockets to defend themselves. Just aim for an out-of-court settlement
3) You can apparently enforce and profit from patents even if the defendant plans on actually fighting you in court, if it is clear that they violate the patent. The patent itself might be crap (as in this case), but it seems that the courts only assess the alledged violation of the patent, not the validity of the patent itself. Please correct me if I am wrong, but that is the impression I get, and it seems a big flaw in the system. If I am charged with patent violation, I should be able to challenge the patent itself. So... how does this actually work in the US?
Slashdot Mirror
Bah...
What do they have to say about using the very algorithm that they apparently use to generate much of their own music, judging from the songs being released the past decade or so?
Well, the advantages do not outweigh the scary possibilities of this scheme. Imagine receiving the following in the post:
You, person #825765.983.9782.2987634 have hereby been fined $500 for littering. Coke can #178246.886.1235.783553 was found on 29-8-2005 in an area not sanctioned for waste disposal. Bank and customer records show that you purchased the aforementioned can, therefor the fine is yours. This fine can not be contested as our Object Tracking Database is infallible. Have a nice day.
Never mind that some homeless guy fished your can out of the trash and dropped it later.
You think you have it bad?
In Holland, you pay a fee to some music copyright management organisation for playing music on-line or on the radio... even your own music!.
You write a song, record it in your basement, and play it on-line. Yes, you are now breaking the law, until you pay royalties on your own work.
If you get in trouble for saying 'No', it will not be because of what you said or didn't say in your interview.
Visit engrish.com! Hours of fun...
However in the eyes of corporate bigwigs, lawyers and analysts such as Gartner, the antics of SCO spell trouble to the extend that:
- Linux could disappear from the market as a viable OS, with support by companies like RedHat, and developed further by an enthusiastic community
- Users of Linux are being sued. The Microsoft case was purely against Microsoft. The SCO case is against any Linux user or distributor they set their sights on.
Disclaimer: I do not believe that SCO will win many cases, or that Linux will disappear. But corporations might see it differently and decide to go with a less legal troublesome technology.
We don't want Linux or Open Source software in general to be referred to as 'that free software that everone and his dog is sueing one another over'. John Q User may not care much about the lawsuits, but corporations certainly do, and well they should. If Linux gets a reputation for having all sorts of (potential) legal issues, that will hurt the OSS movement in the long run, even if some of the lawsuits are against scumbag outfits such as SCO. The only group that had the right idea was RedHat, who filed suit against SCO to stop the FUD.
...the RIAA/MPAA does not need to have an actual case that will stand up in court, in order to shut you down or make you pay a fine in the form of a settlement: it is sufficient to threaten you with a multimillion dollar lawsuit that they can and will drag on for the rest of your natural life. When facing that sort of lawsuit, would you take it to court and fight them all the way, or would you give in and pay the settlement even though they had no case?
The **AA's are actually quite clever to go after end-users and small-time outfits: these are the opponents that will quickly bend over and give in.
1) Blow-ups. 2.1Mpixel pictures look good on 6x4" prints, but if you enlarge them you'll notice the lack of resolution.
2) Detail. You'll notice the lower resolution in details like sharp and/or thin lines, like edges of a brightly-lit wall or power lines on poles.
3) Digital zoom benefits from a higher resolution as well.
It's a little like the difference between high-end and mid-range loudspeakers. Most people will hear the difference in quality when doing a direct comparison, and most people will see the difference in quality between a 2.1Mpixel print from a Photosmart printer, and a professional print from an SLR or a good digital camera, when both pictures are placed next to one another. 2.1Mpixel images are fine for the holiday happy snaps, but they'll look crummy in a glossy magazine. However for most people, the lower quality is enough precisely because they're just taking happy snaps, not professional photographs.
My camera is a 3.1Mpixel one, but I regularly use it at 2.1Mpixels so I can fit more pictures on the card. I'm happy enough with the quality I get, and as you said, it's close enough to 'real' photographs to serve my purposes. Photography is not my hobby... I just want to have some nice pictures.
Every kind of society had/has its share of shirkers; this problem is not particular to western or capitalist societies.
What is particular for our type of society (and some other types) is that it wants its members to be succesful. The 'ideal' thing in our society is to do well in school, get a good job, get a nice raise and promotions from time to time, marry, buy a house and a good car, and live the good live. Those who do not attain this ideal may feel left out... in fact, their peers may start wondering about them. And this feeling may drive some people to turn to crime or unethical behaviour in order to attain the ideal... others may sit and moan about society being unfair.
I've spent some time in the Dutch Caribbean, where no-one gives a toss about how much you make, how your career is progressing or what kind of car you drive. I must say it's been refreshing to live in a society where there is no constant pressure to perform. Then again, very few people there feel the need to perform, and thus not much gets done. The real question of course is: who lives the better (ie. more enjoyable) lifestyle? Us or them?
Just maybe the Indian space program will encourage and inspire young people there to take up careers in science and engineering. Read 'the October sky' sometimes. In the long term, engineers, economists, and teachers will put more food on the nation's table than social workers handing out food stamps. Inspiration, determination and a little pride in one's own country can accomplish much...
Which officials? EA / OSI have always stated that buying and selling virtual items in UO is legal. There's no reason why they should suddenly reverse that decision.
Dibbell has more to fear from the IRS. What if they get wise to his little scheme and demand income tax?
My problem with the current tendency of going after those in posession of child pornography, is that (IMO) it taints the purity of the law. Do we think that the act of looking at this material is in and of itself a crime? In other words, suppose there was a legal means to create such material (for example: using CGI), would we still wish to prosecute the users of this material? If not, then I think it is wrong to prosecute those in posession of such material. The law enforcement should go after the creators of the (illegal) material. However... if the only means to create the material are illegal ones, and the prosecution of consumers proves effective in fighting actual abuse of children, then allowances could be made.
A note of interest: here in Holland we actually had a court case about whether or not fake kiddie porn should be illegal or not. I can't remember the outcome of that trial unfortunately, but I think they outlawed fake material.
This is the argument often used by those that want to throw the book at buyers/downloaders of child pornography. Some of them would even agree that looking at such pictures in itself is not a bad thing, but going after 'users' of kiddy porn results in a diminished demand for such stuff, and as a result less children are abused. (Not my argument, but this is the line of reasoning often quoted). However, the fact that 'consumers' of child pornography create a market for such material, does not automatically make the act of looking at or posessing the material a crime.
That is a very dangerous statement for two reasons:
1) If people who look at these pictures are more likely to go on to physical acts... is that because of the pictures, or did they have the tendency anyway? In the latter case, giving them such pictures might actually help getting them their fix, so that they will not go on to the physical act.
2) If colored people are statistically more likely to commit crimes (disclaimer: this is just an example which I picked because it's a widely held stereotype). Does that mean we should pre-emptively go and arrest them all? Propensity to commit a criminal act is not a crime! Besides, just like in the example I gave, the propensity to commit the crime isn't even proven... it's just a statistical correlation.
It should be followed up, but it must not turn into a witchhunt. Too bad that these days it seems that when it comes to our rights and due process, anything goes when 'the safety of our children' might be involved.
In these sad times, when companies try to save money by getting rid of plants in the office, removing the water coolers, turning down the A/C, buying cheap grade toilet paper, and switching off the 'down' escalators, saving $36.83 probably is a BFD :-)
Friends?
In the words of the manager of Ultimate Robot Fighting: "It's pure lowest common denominator". Friends sells. I've seen the DVDs with Friends episodes piled high, and people were snapping them up. This in a country where you'll be hard-pressed to find episodes of any other series on DVD.
Futurama's a brilliant show but I can see that it has limited appeal... just like most quality stuff.
Roleplaying in Ultima Online is alive and well (and I dare say the game is still succesfull despite its age). Not every player is into RP, but there are many who like it, and some of them are RP'ing full time.
Thank god UO has no chat window... 'spoken' text appears over the avatars' heads instead, which greatly helps immersion and makes it quite easy to ignore non-roleplayers around you.
I can see Bartle's point. Even in EQ and DAoC I find it very hard to roleplay due to the way communication is handled: chat windows. Spoken text will be far more intrusive... I can well imagine that it will kill off roleplaying in MMORPGs
Contrary to popular belief, a DBA should not have access to sensitive data. A database can be set up in such a way that a DBA will be able to manage users, table space etc, but is unable to just browse/export the data itself. We are doing just that on one of our databases, using Row-level security.
Of course a DBA can grant himself access to data, but such changes in policies should be logged into an audit trail file, which must be unalterable by the DBA, and inspected on a regular basis by a sysadmin or security officer.
Allowing (potential) access to all your sensitive data by a DBA or sysadmin may be unavoidable, but not implementing an audit trail and inspecting the audit trail (so that you can at least tell that they've accessed the data), is what I would call 'lax security'. As a bonus, you can catch and fire any BOFH-type admin.
The success of paying for content depends for a large part on the payment method (and the ability to profitably collect very small payments), the type of content offered, the type of visitors your site gets, and the easy of payment.
Payment method: If you're charging visitors on a pay-per-view basis, you probably need a way to collect very small payments and still make a profit after deducting transaction costs. If such a system never comes into being, you will not be able to make one-time-only sales of very cheap pieces of content (like $0,10). See also the next two points...
Type of content, and Type of visitor: Sites with regular customers, like Slashdot, stand a good chance of making money off premium content. I come here every day for my dose of Stuff that Matters, and I might well pay a monthly fee for the privilege.
However... the other day I was looking for info on some Greek legend, and I found a site that had the info that I needed. They required me to subscribe, though. I'll pay $10 a month (or whatever) for Slashdot, but not for access to one single article that I happened to have a need for. If they had offered micropayment, say $1, for the article, I would have paid, but subscribing was the only option, and they lost a sale. One-off sales will generally require micropayments, and as yet no such system exists. If your content is more expensive, for example $10,- for a program for your PDA, you can make one-off sales profitably through existing payment methods (and there are sites that already do this).
Ease of Payment. In some cases, the payment system should be very easy to use. For one-off payments this is generally not an issue, and for subscription payments it is often automated.
A question: would you pay $0,05 per Google search? I would, but not if I had to log into some payment system every time I googled, going through the login page and then a confirmation page. For this type of payments, you'll want a separate application or even a function built into the OS: A Google search should simply pop up a message 'you're about to use a service for which you'll be charged $0,05. Proceed? Y/N'. If making the payment for a search or similar service requires too much effort, people will look to other service providers.
In conclusion, not only does the price have to be right, but the price should also reflect the frequency and granularity with which each individual user might access your content. Also, the method of payment/collection has to take into account the (potentially very small) value of the purchase. The number of operations/clicks required of the user to make the actual payment should fit the kind of content or service he is purchasing.
A lot will depend on the development of an easy-to-use micropayments system. When such a system becomes more widespread, I suspect that many sites that are now free (especially sites which have content that does not fit the subscription model) will start charging for their content.
Answer from SCO: "because we like receiving revenue!" (This falls firmly into the 'duh' category)
Microsoft will have to pay a fine of tens of millions of dollars if it does not implement the remedies.
Big freaking deal
They'll just shrug, pay the fine, and continue as before. Or will the EU undertake further actions against MS, if they persist in these practices even after paying the fines?
You seem to misunderstand how the patent system works (in the US especially). I am not too sure myself...
1) Almost any patent might be granted, even those to which prior art applies, or those that offer little or no innovative ideas. The only reason why you cannot patent, for instance, swinging sideways on a swing, is the fact that someone has beaten you to it (I kid you not).
2) Almost any patent, however bollocksy, can be profitably enforced if you can find a victim who does not have sufficiently deep pockets to defend themselves. Just aim for an out-of-court settlement
3) You can apparently enforce and profit from patents even if the defendant plans on actually fighting you in court, if it is clear that they violate the patent. The patent itself might be crap (as in this case), but it seems that the courts only assess the alledged violation of the patent, not the validity of the patent itself. Please correct me if I am wrong, but that is the impression I get, and it seems a big flaw in the system. If I am charged with patent violation, I should be able to challenge the patent itself. So... how does this actually work in the US?