There are circuits in use that are essentially a write-only memory like this (but without the need for a 6 foot fan!), combined with a comparator and possibly a one-way encrypter. You can store an encrypted password in there, which then can never be read back in its encrypted form. Plaintext phrases can be encrypted and compared against the stored password.
One existing application is on debit cards (cards that are charged with a cash amount on the card itself).
Re:Before you all jump on the hate-them bandwagon.
on
lowercase music
·
· Score: 1
you should consider that an artist deserves some respect for being consistently unlistenable.
No, no. Precisely the misconception that is the cause of all sorts of rubbishy music and art.
Good music is "hard to listen to", which means that on the first listening, you won't pick up all the subtle details in the rythm, undertones or even the lyrics. After hearing it a few times again, you'll start to grasp the structure of the music and discover new subtleties. This doesn't mean that the music is for a select few only, there's enough "mainstream" bands out there that write good music like this. "Subtleties" doesn't imply quiet music, it is subtleness of the structure of the music, and can apply to anything from classical music to metal.
On the far side of the spectrum, there are bands who write simple music for an audience that doesn't want to bother with any subtleties. In other words, what we call "pulp". Which is fine, usually neither the audience nor the artists pretend that they are involved with some high art form, they just enjoy the music.
On the other end of the spectrum are the "artsy" people who take the tenet that good music must be hard to understand, thus only understandable to a select elite, then focussing on making their audience small by any means available. They then go on to make music that is so strange, mindboggingly boring or just plain awful, that only a few can stand to listen to it. These are not the "select few" that can grasp complex music, they are just "a few". To the artists, it is all the same: they have their elite audience.
Modern art forms and "studies"
on
lowercase music
·
· Score: 1
That is what this music is to me... modern artists trying some things out. The problem with modern art as a whole is that all studies, trials and experiments are deemed worthy of publication. A few of the great painters and composers of the past have done some crazy things as well, but (thankfully) in most cases, they thought "this is bollocks" and painted something else over their study, or ripped up the experimental score.
Not a definition of art, but perhaps a good negative test: good art requires effort. Not all things that cost effort are art, but art that didn't require any effort or skill is very, very rarely art in my eyes. A guy setting up a mixer in a feedback loop and walking off is not art.
...I can't help admiring the dedication and courage of this guy, if he actually climbs into that thing and sets it off.
There are few things as stimulating as such unbridled enthusiasm and resolve. Actual success is of less importance. Every now and then you meet a guy like this, at work or elsewhere, and I count myself lucky every time that happens. Makes my year, it does.
If copyrights cannot be transferred, they remain with the artist or author, and have to be licensed from them by the publishers. Currently it is the other way around: artists often have to sign over the rights to their own work lock stock and barrel, to the publishers. Already, record companies have succesfully prevented artists from distributing their own work through alternative channels such as the Internet.
If publishers have to license rights from the authors and artists, the creative rights remain where they belong, with the creative people.
At this time there is no such system in place, so they have to check each and every person. You might say that the current rate is 100% false alarms (excluding the few terrorists amongst travellers).
It all depends on how the system is used. If airports will use the system to quickly waive through the people identified as "non-terrorist", and then check the remainder, security check lines will be much shorter. One will have to worry about the false negatives obviously, but the system can still be used to make a selection. I wonder if this system (like other pattern recognition software) gives a "confidence rating" to each scan?
A legitimate worry is that the false positives will face a much harsher treatment at airports than someone who, for example, sets off the medal detector. Are we talking interrogation room, bright lights in the face and strip searches here?. Worse, it seems likely that it will be mostly the same persons who will again and again be wrongly flagged as terrorist.
Ah my point was not to play down the actual threat of terrorism, but the way this threat (however real or imaginary) is used to push all sorts of political agendas
a) I have no evidence, but Cheney failed to mention any concrete cases or even the existence of such cases, that lead them to believe the threat is still present.
b) examples abound, this mention of media pirates funding terrorism is merely the latest one.
- Another one that springs to mind is Microsoft trying to keep their source closed, because disclosing it would threaten national security and the US efforts (to fight terrorism) in Afghanistan.
- The Russion army and Milosevitch have used this defence, that they were not stomping on civilians, but they were fighting terrorism
- Israel has used this excuse to attack the Palestines with doubled resolve, in the name of fighting terrorism
In all these cases, there is some truth to the claim that fighting terrorism is their goal. And in all cases, the perpetrators hope that by claiming to fight terrorism (notice that they rarely say terrorists), they gain some sympathy from the international community in light of what happened on the 11th of September.
Anyone have any solid facts (or at least a little more substantial than these whisps of smoke) about music and movie piracy supporting terrorism and terrorists?
Of course not. Terrorism is the new Devil, and trying to make the populace hate and fear the things you oppose, is an age-old practice.
Off topic, but of note was Chaney's (was it Chaney?) warning about new terrorist attacks. The US government have found the perfect excuse to push their own people and those of other countries around: "We must fight terrorism!". Chaney is just keeping the ball rolling. "We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia". Shades of 1984; Orwell alreay knew that a war is the best way to keep your own people in line. "War on drugs" didn't cut it, war on terrorism seems to, and everyone with an agenda, including media companies, are jumping on the bandwagon.
The next step is to force manufacturers to only build devices that will reject media without the source tag. Of course this is just to protect us consumers from pirated media, which "have inferior quality and may damage your equipment", as the warnings on VHS tapes tell us.
So what does that mean?
- The "professional" pirates will find a way to spoof or simply copy these codes
- The Slashdot crowd will tweak their players so they can play copied media
- And finally, the man in de street will be able to do none of these things. Yes, finally the media companies successfully prevented him from playing that copied CD that his neighbour made for him. He will also be prevented from making copies for himself, thus being deprived of his fair-use rights, not through direct legislation but through a back-door, in the name of combatting piracy.
It gets worse if this happens, and you can bet it will: isn't the RIAA already pushing for equipment to detect and reject unsanctioned material? So what about those people that create music themselves? Now, just like the old days, they need to go to Big Record to produce their music, or obtain one of those codes.
Laws demanding this code is the first half, Laws demanding equipment to look for these codes is the second. Both will bring control of all content we will be allowed to see or hear, back with the corporations.
A slightly pessisistic and even paranoid outlook perhaps?
when he wrote this. As he says: "It was 1931 that we last reported on television, and our readers must be wondering how things are shaping up. Not any too good. Engineers are working like beavers, but it appears that our homes are in no immediate danger. The cost of sending and receiving even the sappiest image is terrific; twenty-five miles is still considered a good hop; and a facial expression, however rapt, is often damaged en route."
In short, technology had not progressed enough in the past 5 years to make this a practical application for the home. The exitement of the concept and the idea that this might one day be commonplace technology, had probably already worn off.
Embedded electronics might well have a reather small power requirement. A few solutions (not all too serious)
- Using the heat of ones body to generate electricity.
- A tiny turbine/generator in the bloodstream. Go easy on the cholesterol or you'll clog it up!
- A micro fuel cell. Heat can be dissipated through the normal body functions, and it would run off regular petrol or methanol. When you go to gas up the car, remember to fill up yourself as well.
- Rechargeable batteries with an induction coupled charger under your bed. No worries.
Ah! An article about possible future technologies. I see the comments broken down like this:
The standard guff:
1% - "Imagine a beowulf cluster..." posts
2% - "First post" posts
10% - "Off-topic, Microsoft stinks" posts
12% - "Big Business is evil" posts
And the more relevant posts. I predict:
20% - "Very cool and exiting, I want this" posts
25% - "Very dangerous, we do not want this" posts
30% - "Very cool but it'll never happen, people" posts
Funny to see how people get worked up over these all-time, definitive, be-all-and-end-all, ultimate top 20 charts, because it doesn't happen to have their personal favorities on it.
This is not the chart you're looking for... He can go about his business... Move along.
Oh... this is not my list either, although many of my personal favorites are on it. Brah-ziiiiiil!
Suppose we all follow this advice...
on
Window or Aisle?
·
· Score: 1
...and never purchase from anyone without feedback. How are people suppose to receive feedback then?;-)
I used their worldwide service for a year or so. I could sign up on-line, using a credit card, and my account became active instantly. Great for when you find yourself in Tokyo with no ISP.
Anyway, I returned home and wanted to cancel my subscription. No problem, I filled out an on-line form, entered my details and password, and the service was terminated when the month I payed for ran out.
A post about (open sourced) WorldForge is marked Informative, while a similar post about Shadowbane is labelled "Offtopic". What gives?
"Right" means different things to different people
on
FF XI Goes Live in Japan
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Some people do not like to go after anyone they don't like. Some people even don't like to fight monsters.
Which is fine! A problem that has often been mentioned in relation to MMORPGs is that everyone wants to be a king, a mighty warrior or a mage, and no one wants to play a peasant, underdog or craftsman. Existing MMORPGS have shown that that is not true: plenty of people do not mind roleplaying such a role. The truly succesful MMORPG will either cater to a sufficiently large group of one particular kind of player, or combine a multitude of play-styles, both within the game-world, and by having different worlds for different people (like the normal and the roleplay servers of Dark age of Camelot). I would prefer the second, since it will result in diversity, and create an opportunity to try different playstyles.
That is the hard part, try and make all of the following play styles and roles viable:
- people who like to play solo
- people who like to team up
- Hardcore / casual PvP'ers
- Both casual and full-time players. A big, big problem with many of these games is that low-level characters cannot join up with the more experienced warriors and go hunting together
- Craftsmen, peasants, merchants, diplomats, etc.
- People playing for fame, for gold, for fun or for company.
Also take in mind that people will switch from one role to the other often.
Next is your environment. You need stable servers and good staff, to help out players in trouble, catch grief players and cheaters, and perhaps provide content as well.
Lastly, players need to have an impact on the environment. This can take many forms, but the idea that your actions matter in the game is a big draw for many people.
Most of todays MMORPSs seem to focus on fighting and/or PvP, and have no viable crafter classes. The ever so popular 1st person view makes having conversations with more than 2 people rather hard Compare looking at a tiny chat window that shows all text around you, to the overhead view of Ultima Online, where speech text appears over the heads of the people speaking. Whatever faults that game may have, they got that part right. Lack of meaningful, non-aggressive interaction and having only combat characters as a viable class makes all the current MMORPGs a rather bland experience. Excepting Ultima Online: I have tried all the others, but I have never given up on that one. It is still the game with by far the widest possible range of play styles.
For an article that is intended to be humorous, I find it a rather try and sparkless piece. Compared to the discussion in the movie "Clerks"...
Go here and search the text for "Jedi or". Sorry, I tried pasting the funny bit from the script in here, but I have given up trying to please this damn Slashdot code about how many characters per line I use. *curses loudly*.
True, the first drivers that came with the ATI 8500 were horrible, and did a lot of damage to their reputation. I bought an 8500 card for good 3d and dual head capability when my GeForce 2 card croaked, and I am using the latest versions of their drivers, which give me solid and stable performance. No complaints whatsoever.
Nvidia? I hated their drivers for my GeForce 2. It might have been me, my bad karma or whatever, but I had a lot of trouble with their drivers on both windows 98SE and Windows XP getting dual head to work. Even with the latest versions I still had some funny quirks with the dual head setup. To be honest, everything else did work a treat, but only with the more recent drivers from NVidia.
Hmm... did Microsoft get to the top of the OS market with dirty business practices? I think that in the old days, regardless of any dirty tricks or anti-competitive practices, Microsoft had (and arguably still has) the best product for the desktop in the market. Mind, "best" does not have to mean best in a technological sense, it means best suited to consumer or business needs.
Now... that doesn't mean we should not be afraid of the dirty tricks MS plays to stay on top, or get on top of every other line of business imaginable.
I remember another car with a similar system, perhaps Alfa Romeo. The problem with a "one knob control" is that
a) Many functions will be not directly accessible, but in a submenu. Instead of just turning up the heat you have to go Climate control->Temperature-> and then adjust. This puts some strain on the driver I imagine, much like handling a mobile phone.
b) Because of that, one needs feedback in order to know what one is doing. You will either have to look at a little screen (like in the Alpha Romeo) and take your eyes of the road (very dangerous), or listen to voice feedback and go through the menus that way (very annoying and slooow).
I much prefer old-style controls, so I can just blindly reach for the various buttons. No need to look at them even briefly. By all means improve the controls by laying them out well, or automating part of it, like for example the climatronic system. But please leave me with ordinary buttons and knows, don't make me use some daft menu. I am all for gadgets and such but this is plain dangerous.
...such as property rights. They are by no means a natural or moral right, but exists by the grace of a mandate from the public. As soon as that mandate is gone, everyone is free to go and steal their neighbour's car. What bollocks.
Clearly people no longer thing there's anything to be gained from copyright. Is it really that clear? I never hear anyone complaining about copyrights, except on warez boards and here on Slashdot.
But as it is now, the moment you start selling a book, a CD or whatever, you can publish so many copies that there would be no point in others trying to sell the same thing. You have it backwards. Copyright might have been useless in the past, where copying books, movies and CD's was time consuming, expensive, and lossy. These days, copying almost anything can be done fast, without significant loss of quality, and almost for free.
Think for a minute. Without copyright, Joe Schoe could legally copy a movie for a friend, and W4r3z D00d could legally put up a new bestseller up on his site for downloading. Nothing serious? Without copyright, anyone can legally copy that computer game, that you spent 2 years writing, and that you have invested your live savings into for marketing and production. They would be allowed to copy it, and even sell the copies legally. At zero development costs, and their cost for copying being next to nothing, they will be able to undercut your prices anytime. And they can do it the day you release your game into the market. Where do you think that would leave content developers?
We should fight to maintain our rights of fair use, the right to own at least our copy of the copyrighted work (rather than having to pay per use), and to do as we please with that copy. The wish of businesses and private persons to protect their works and enforce copyright laws is a legitimate one, but we should not let our rights be curtailed. However, we still need copyright, people.
Slashdot Mirror
"The 25120 will provide 50% higher speed than you will obtain".
There are circuits in use that are essentially a write-only memory like this (but without the need for a 6 foot fan!), combined with a comparator and possibly a one-way encrypter. You can store an encrypted password in there, which then can never be read back in its encrypted form. Plaintext phrases can be encrypted and compared against the stored password.
One existing application is on debit cards (cards that are charged with a cash amount on the card itself).
Good music is "hard to listen to", which means that on the first listening, you won't pick up all the subtle details in the rythm, undertones or even the lyrics. After hearing it a few times again, you'll start to grasp the structure of the music and discover new subtleties. This doesn't mean that the music is for a select few only, there's enough "mainstream" bands out there that write good music like this. "Subtleties" doesn't imply quiet music, it is subtleness of the structure of the music, and can apply to anything from classical music to metal.
On the far side of the spectrum, there are bands who write simple music for an audience that doesn't want to bother with any subtleties. In other words, what we call "pulp". Which is fine, usually neither the audience nor the artists pretend that they are involved with some high art form, they just enjoy the music.
On the other end of the spectrum are the "artsy" people who take the tenet that good music must be hard to understand, thus only understandable to a select elite, then focussing on making their audience small by any means available. They then go on to make music that is so strange, mindboggingly boring or just plain awful, that only a few can stand to listen to it. These are not the "select few" that can grasp complex music, they are just "a few". To the artists, it is all the same: they have their elite audience.
That is what this music is to me... modern artists trying some things out. The problem with modern art as a whole is that all studies, trials and experiments are deemed worthy of publication. A few of the great painters and composers of the past have done some crazy things as well, but (thankfully) in most cases, they thought "this is bollocks" and painted something else over their study, or ripped up the experimental score.
Not a definition of art, but perhaps a good negative test: good art requires effort. Not all things that cost effort are art, but art that didn't require any effort or skill is very, very rarely art in my eyes. A guy setting up a mixer in a feedback loop and walking off is not art.
...I can't help admiring the dedication and courage of this guy, if he actually climbs into that thing and sets it off.
There are few things as stimulating as such unbridled enthusiasm and resolve. Actual success is of less importance. Every now and then you meet a guy like this, at work or elsewhere, and I count myself lucky every time that happens. Makes my year, it does.
If copyrights cannot be transferred, they remain with the artist or author, and have to be licensed from them by the publishers. Currently it is the other way around: artists often have to sign over the rights to their own work lock stock and barrel, to the publishers. Already, record companies have succesfully prevented artists from distributing their own work through alternative channels such as the Internet.
If publishers have to license rights from the authors and artists, the creative rights remain where they belong, with the creative people.
At this time there is no such system in place, so they have to check each and every person. You might say that the current rate is 100% false alarms (excluding the few terrorists amongst travellers).
It all depends on how the system is used. If airports will use the system to quickly waive through the people identified as "non-terrorist", and then check the remainder, security check lines will be much shorter. One will have to worry about the false negatives obviously, but the system can still be used to make a selection. I wonder if this system (like other pattern recognition software) gives a "confidence rating" to each scan?
A legitimate worry is that the false positives will face a much harsher treatment at airports than someone who, for example, sets off the medal detector. Are we talking interrogation room, bright lights in the face and strip searches here?. Worse, it seems likely that it will be mostly the same persons who will again and again be wrongly flagged as terrorist.
Ah my point was not to play down the actual threat of terrorism, but the way this threat (however real or imaginary) is used to push all sorts of political agendas
a) I have no evidence, but Cheney failed to mention any concrete cases or even the existence of such cases, that lead them to believe the threat is still present.
b) examples abound, this mention of media pirates funding terrorism is merely the latest one.
- Another one that springs to mind is Microsoft trying to keep their source closed, because disclosing it would threaten national security and the US efforts (to fight terrorism) in Afghanistan.
- The Russion army and Milosevitch have used this defence, that they were not stomping on civilians, but they were fighting terrorism
- Israel has used this excuse to attack the Palestines with doubled resolve, in the name of fighting terrorism
In all these cases, there is some truth to the claim that fighting terrorism is their goal. And in all cases, the perpetrators hope that by claiming to fight terrorism (notice that they rarely say terrorists), they gain some sympathy from the international community in light of what happened on the 11th of September.
Hmm, going more off-topic now.
Of course not. Terrorism is the new Devil, and trying to make the populace hate and fear the things you oppose, is an age-old practice.
Off topic, but of note was Chaney's (was it Chaney?) warning about new terrorist attacks. The US government have found the perfect excuse to push their own people and those of other countries around: "We must fight terrorism!". Chaney is just keeping the ball rolling. "We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia". Shades of 1984; Orwell alreay knew that a war is the best way to keep your own people in line. "War on drugs" didn't cut it, war on terrorism seems to, and everyone with an agenda, including media companies, are jumping on the bandwagon.
The next step is to force manufacturers to only build devices that will reject media without the source tag. Of course this is just to protect us consumers from pirated media, which "have inferior quality and may damage your equipment", as the warnings on VHS tapes tell us.
So what does that mean?
- The "professional" pirates will find a way to spoof or simply copy these codes
- The Slashdot crowd will tweak their players so they can play copied media
- And finally, the man in de street will be able to do none of these things. Yes, finally the media companies successfully prevented him from playing that copied CD that his neighbour made for him. He will also be prevented from making copies for himself, thus being deprived of his fair-use rights, not through direct legislation but through a back-door, in the name of combatting piracy.
It gets worse if this happens, and you can bet it will: isn't the RIAA already pushing for equipment to detect and reject unsanctioned material? So what about those people that create music themselves? Now, just like the old days, they need to go to Big Record to produce their music, or obtain one of those codes.
Laws demanding this code is the first half, Laws demanding equipment to look for these codes is the second. Both will bring control of all content we will be allowed to see or hear, back with the corporations.
A slightly pessisistic and even paranoid outlook perhaps?
when he wrote this. As he says: "It was 1931 that we last reported on television, and our readers must be wondering how things are shaping up. Not any too good. Engineers are working like beavers, but it appears that our homes are in no immediate danger. The cost of sending and receiving even the sappiest image is terrific; twenty-five miles is still considered a good hop; and a facial expression, however rapt, is often damaged en route."
In short, technology had not progressed enough in the past 5 years to make this a practical application for the home. The exitement of the concept and the idea that this might one day be commonplace technology, had probably already worn off.
Can't be right all the time ;-)
Embedded electronics might well have a reather small power requirement. A few solutions (not all too serious)
- Using the heat of ones body to generate electricity.
- A tiny turbine/generator in the bloodstream. Go easy on the cholesterol or you'll clog it up!
- A micro fuel cell. Heat can be dissipated through the normal body functions, and it would run off regular petrol or methanol. When you go to gas up the car, remember to fill up yourself as well.
- Rechargeable batteries with an induction coupled charger under your bed. No worries.
Ah! An article about possible future technologies. I see the comments broken down like this:
The standard guff:
1% - "Imagine a beowulf cluster..." posts
2% - "First post" posts
10% - "Off-topic, Microsoft stinks" posts
12% - "Big Business is evil" posts
And the more relevant posts. I predict:
20% - "Very cool and exiting, I want this" posts
25% - "Very dangerous, we do not want this" posts
30% - "Very cool but it'll never happen, people" posts
Funny to see how people get worked up over these all-time, definitive, be-all-and-end-all, ultimate top 20 charts, because it doesn't happen to have their personal favorities on it.
This is not the chart you're looking for... He can go about his business... Move along.
Oh... this is not my list either, although many of my personal favorites are on it. Brah-ziiiiiil!
...and never purchase from anyone without feedback. How are people suppose to receive feedback then? ;-)
I used their worldwide service for a year or so. I could sign up on-line, using a credit card, and my account became active instantly. Great for when you find yourself in Tokyo with no ISP.
Anyway, I returned home and wanted to cancel my subscription. No problem, I filled out an on-line form, entered my details and password, and the service was terminated when the month I payed for ran out.
That's the sort of service I expect.
A post about (open sourced) WorldForge is marked Informative, while a similar post about Shadowbane is labelled "Offtopic". What gives?
Some people do not like to go after anyone they don't like. Some people even don't like to fight monsters.
Which is fine! A problem that has often been mentioned in relation to MMORPGs is that everyone wants to be a king, a mighty warrior or a mage, and no one wants to play a peasant, underdog or craftsman. Existing MMORPGS have shown that that is not true: plenty of people do not mind roleplaying such a role. The truly succesful MMORPG will either cater to a sufficiently large group of one particular kind of player, or combine a multitude of play-styles, both within the game-world, and by having different worlds for different people (like the normal and the roleplay servers of Dark age of Camelot). I would prefer the second, since it will result in diversity, and create an opportunity to try different playstyles.
That is the hard part, try and make all of the following play styles and roles viable:
- people who like to play solo
- people who like to team up
- Hardcore / casual PvP'ers
- Both casual and full-time players. A big, big problem with many of these games is that low-level characters cannot join up with the more experienced warriors and go hunting together
- Craftsmen, peasants, merchants, diplomats, etc.
- People playing for fame, for gold, for fun or for company.
Also take in mind that people will switch from one role to the other often.
Next is your environment. You need stable servers and good staff, to help out players in trouble, catch grief players and cheaters, and perhaps provide content as well.
Lastly, players need to have an impact on the environment. This can take many forms, but the idea that your actions matter in the game is a big draw for many people.
Most of todays MMORPSs seem to focus on fighting and/or PvP, and have no viable crafter classes. The ever so popular 1st person view makes having conversations with more than 2 people rather hard Compare looking at a tiny chat window that shows all text around you, to the overhead view of Ultima Online, where speech text appears over the heads of the people speaking. Whatever faults that game may have, they got that part right. Lack of meaningful, non-aggressive interaction and having only combat characters as a viable class makes all the current MMORPGs a rather bland experience. Excepting Ultima Online: I have tried all the others, but I have never given up on that one. It is still the game with by far the widest possible range of play styles.
For an article that is intended to be humorous, I find it a rather try and sparkless piece. Compared to the discussion in the movie "Clerks"...
Go here and search the text for "Jedi or". Sorry, I tried pasting the funny bit from the script in here, but I have given up trying to please this damn Slashdot code about how many characters per line I use. *curses loudly*.
Ask yourself Microsoft would be without these practices... that was my point. My guess is that MS Windows would still be the OS of choice.
Also I am talking before the OEM thing... that was when they already had market domination, and they could pull that stunt because of it.
True, the first drivers that came with the ATI 8500 were horrible, and did a lot of damage to their reputation. I bought an 8500 card for good 3d and dual head capability when my GeForce 2 card croaked, and I am using the latest versions of their drivers, which give me solid and stable performance. No complaints whatsoever.
Nvidia? I hated their drivers for my GeForce 2. It might have been me, my bad karma or whatever, but I had a lot of trouble with their drivers on both windows 98SE and Windows XP getting dual head to work. Even with the latest versions I still had some funny quirks with the dual head setup. To be honest, everything else did work a treat, but only with the more recent drivers from NVidia.
Hmm... did Microsoft get to the top of the OS market with dirty business practices? I think that in the old days, regardless of any dirty tricks or anti-competitive practices, Microsoft had (and arguably still has) the best product for the desktop in the market. Mind, "best" does not have to mean best in a technological sense, it means best suited to consumer or business needs.
Now... that doesn't mean we should not be afraid of the dirty tricks MS plays to stay on top, or get on top of every other line of business imaginable.
I remember another car with a similar system, perhaps Alfa Romeo. The problem with a "one knob control" is that
a) Many functions will be not directly accessible, but in a submenu. Instead of just turning up the heat you have to go Climate control->Temperature-> and then adjust. This puts some strain on the driver I imagine, much like handling a mobile phone.
b) Because of that, one needs feedback in order to know what one is doing. You will either have to look at a little screen (like in the Alpha Romeo) and take your eyes of the road (very dangerous), or listen to voice feedback and go through the menus that way (very annoying and slooow).
I much prefer old-style controls, so I can just blindly reach for the various buttons. No need to look at them even briefly. By all means improve the controls by laying them out well, or automating part of it, like for example the climatronic system. But please leave me with ordinary buttons and knows, don't make me use some daft menu. I am all for gadgets and such but this is plain dangerous.
...such as property rights. They are by no means a natural or moral right, but exists by the grace of a mandate from the public. As soon as that mandate is gone, everyone is free to go and steal their neighbour's car. What bollocks.
Clearly people no longer thing there's anything to be gained from copyright. Is it really that clear? I never hear anyone complaining about copyrights, except on warez boards and here on Slashdot.
But as it is now, the moment you start selling a book, a CD or whatever, you can publish so many copies that there would be no point in others trying to sell the same thing. You have it backwards. Copyright might have been useless in the past, where copying books, movies and CD's was time consuming, expensive, and lossy. These days, copying almost anything can be done fast, without significant loss of quality, and almost for free.
Think for a minute. Without copyright, Joe Schoe could legally copy a movie for a friend, and W4r3z D00d could legally put up a new bestseller up on his site for downloading. Nothing serious? Without copyright, anyone can legally copy that computer game, that you spent 2 years writing, and that you have invested your live savings into for marketing and production. They would be allowed to copy it, and even sell the copies legally. At zero development costs, and their cost for copying being next to nothing, they will be able to undercut your prices anytime. And they can do it the day you release your game into the market. Where do you think that would leave content developers?
We should fight to maintain our rights of fair use, the right to own at least our copy of the copyrighted work (rather than having to pay per use), and to do as we please with that copy. The wish of businesses and private persons to protect their works and enforce copyright laws is a legitimate one, but we should not let our rights be curtailed. However, we still need copyright, people.