>>Two: "Borrowed" corporate editions, etc. will validate despite being, well, "borrowed". I don't want to turn this into flamewar... But, one problem of the current world is your boss "borrowed" your time even when you are at home. Boss: You want to leave "early" (which can be N hours already after your supposed end of your work hour) fine. But, still I want to see this {program/report/proposal/and what not} by tomorrow morning....
What's wrong with borrowing the corporate edition when the "home" PC is occupied by work.... How is this scenario Microsoft's fault? Why should they be deprived of revenue? Because your boss is a jerk, so you get to use pirate software?? I don't get your point.
I might be more inclined to buy their products if I thought of them as honest and trustworthy. Instead, they engage in widespread astroturfing, multi-year disinformation campaigns against OpenGL, and all manner of other nefarious behavior. So, when it comes time to choose what I'm going to use, I'm a lot less likely to choose Microsoft because you can't believe what they say.
Yes, I have an anti-MS bias. The question is why do I have an anti-MS bias. And this is one of the big reasons.
Games are a very different animal. DRM isn't what stops me playing PS3 games on my laptop, or loading Wii games onto my iPod so it's a much more mute point. There's really no business case for dropping it. DRM could stop people from developing and using emulators for game systems.
They've got too much invested in their format to abandon it now. However, I think that if the music industry would let them they'd be more than happy to sell unprotected AAC files.
Interesting. What makes you say that? I haven't seen any behavior out of Apple that indicates that it would be willing to sell DRM-free music or movies of any kind.
iTunes Music Store carries DRM-free podcasts.
I'm not kidding.If they actually did this, you watch how quickly spam would drop.Is it overkill? Yes.Would it work? You bet. Seriously, I don't think this would work. The reasons: Spammers often work internationally. It would be too hard to get other countries to adopt the same law. Also, the extreme unliklihood of being caught + the profitability of spam + the fact that most spammers are asshats anyway = that they won't care about being caught or will think it can't happen to them and they will not be deterred. Also, it takes decades of appeals before you can execute anyone.
So what you do, is get a bunch of people to buy even more stock, bidding at a lower amount than what the spammers bought it at. This will force the price even lower, causing the spammer to LOSE money. This might require a series of stock purchases (a "reverse painting", if you will). A large enough cartel of pump-busters could likely do this without much of an investment per person. How do you force a stock to go lower by buying it? I'd love to know because I missed out on buying Apple shares when they were at $13 (back in 1996) and I'd love to buy some at that price.
Why do you thing drug companies focus on treating symptoms more often than diseases? Because most people want relief of their symptoms. (If I had a disease that didn't have symptoms and wasn't going to kill me, I could give a crap about curing it.)
System 7 had EtherTalk which was AppleTalk over Ethernet. I don't think it was over IP, though. It just used ethernet as a physical layer. It did co-exist with IP, though. It was nice to use from a security perspective because I used to have our source code repository (for a Mac development project) on a Mac server and accessed it only via AppleTalk. Since AppleTalk packets couldn't be routed in or out of our office, it provided pretty nice security for the code from outside attack.
Yeah, I know. I have that, but only could find Sims 2: University for the Mac, not the other releases. Console versions are more limited. The last time I went to the Apple store they had Sims2: Open For Business and several other expansion packs on the shelf. My daughter is addicted to Sims2.
Dude, I'm female. And I'm not lying. Just because I don't have a name like princessLinux or some bs doesn't mean I'm not a chick.:) We hide in the shadows. If your name was "princessLinux" then we would know for sure you were a man!
I have Gnome and OSX on identical Dell flatpanels right next to each other (using Synergy to control both machines).. and OSX is definitely "fuzzy" compared to Gnome.
OSX's antialiasing algorithm is really crappy. Look closely at your menubar. The E in "Edit" has antialiasing! It doesn't have any curves, and yet there's a dark grey line above all the crossbars. It makes all the fonts on OSX look bold.
I can't speak for XP though, since I only run XP at home.. on an old CRT. I have a Dell flat panel as a secondary monitor and an Apple Cinema display as my primary monitor. (I have 6 computers on my desk, two monitors, and a switchbox.) Things look a lot fuzzier on the Dell monitor.
I do see the anti-aliasing you are talking about - when I use Pixie. Just looking at the display, it looks fine to me.
Sounds reasonable. But then how does the copyright holder distinguish between the purchaser engaging in illegal distribution vs being the victim of theft?
Since you're comparing this to theft, let's compare with what happens when it turns out some physical property you bought was actually stolen. You don't get to keep it -- you're not a "victim." You have to give it back. Translating back to this case, they'd probably ask/require you to delete your copies.
Of course, comparing copyright violation to theft isn't legally valid, so the analogy doesn't help much.
You have it backwards. In this case, you'd be in trouble for having your property stolen (i.e. being the true victim), not from receiving stolen property which is what you are talking about. With watermarking there is no difference between purposely uploading your music to Kazaa and having it stolen by a hacker who uploads it to Kazaa.
Basically the media companies would be asking people to treat their files as if they were national secrets which is too burdensome. They are NOT being marketed as state secrets - they are being marketed as a replacement for music CDs. If you leave music CDs on the seat of your car and a thief breaks your window and steals them, you are a victim. Under this scheme if the thief breaks your car window and steals your iPod (and shares your music files), you are a criminal. Big difference.
But then how does the copyright holder distinguish between the purchaser engaging in illegal distribution vs being the victim of theft?
They have to prove it "beyond a shadow of a doubt" in a court of law. It's not a perfect system, I'll grant you, but it's better than the alternative.
FWIW, this is a non-issue anyway. Files purchased online are almost certainly not the ones floating around P2P sites. Those are usually either from audio engineers who leak them, or rips of source media like CDs. So in the long-run, such watermarking would only be good for consumers as it would prove that they're more honest than the RIAA gives them credit for.
Or the a*holes will accuse everyone and their grandma (literally) of removing the watermark. One of those two.
No, they don't have to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt - or even a reasonable doubt (as in a criminal case). The standard for civil cases (like the RIAA cases) is much lower. They would still be able to use their current tactics.
My biggest peeve is the display. OSX uses a font-smoothing technology that to me makes the text look fuzzy. I've argued with people on IRC channels over it, and I must admit that it's technically superior and produces a better match with what's eventually going to come out of the printer, but the fact is if I'm reading text off the monitor 8-12 hours per day I want it to be less fuzzy, accurate or not. I use both MacOS X and Windows XP all day using a switchbox. Text on the Mac looks a lot nicer to me. I think this may be a personal preference thing, but the text on WinXP - to MY eye- looks jagged and pixelated.
Something else I don't like is the inability to easily see how many windows are open for each app. Yes, I know about the F9/F10/F11 tricks, but it'd be nice to have a few ticks next to the icon for running apps rather than a single tick showing it's running. I haven't noticed this feature on Windows. How do I activate it? This sounds like a third party opportunity to me.
The problem is those infuriating mac commercials! Macs. Are. Not. Better. You have problems with Apple's commercials but yet use Microsoft products when Steve Ballmer acts like a fucking retard.
I am glad that Windows tech support guys didn't become physicians - their idea of drumming up business would be to break people's kneecaps with a hammer.
One thing that needs to happen is legislation that trumps stupid deed restrictions on green energy. You shouldn't be held back from solar on the roof or using wind energy by that shit.
My electic bill in a 2400 square foot all electric house (when I had one) was about $80/month. However, we actively did things to reduce energy usage - such as using CF bulbs. And I lived in the northwest.
My electric bill is currently $100/month, but our heat comes from fuel oil:-(
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want to turn this into flamewar... But, one problem of the current world is your boss "borrowed" your time even when you are at home. Boss: You want to leave "early" (which can be N hours already after your supposed end of your work hour) fine. But, still I want to see this {program/report/proposal/and what not} by tomorrow morning....
What's wrong with borrowing the corporate edition when the "home" PC is occupied by work.... How is this scenario Microsoft's fault? Why should they be deprived of revenue? Because your boss is a jerk, so you get to use pirate software?? I don't get your point.
Eventually, I plan to buy a Wii, but I won't buy a PS3. Even with a discount, they are too expensive.
I might be more inclined to buy their products if I thought of them as honest and trustworthy. Instead, they engage in widespread astroturfing, multi-year disinformation campaigns against OpenGL, and all manner of other nefarious behavior. So, when it comes time to choose what I'm going to use, I'm a lot less likely to choose Microsoft because you can't believe what they say.
Yes, I have an anti-MS bias. The question is why do I have an anti-MS bias. And this is one of the big reasons.
Interesting. What makes you say that? I haven't seen any behavior out of Apple that indicates that it would be willing to sell DRM-free music or movies of any kind.
iTunes Music Store carries DRM-free podcasts.
This is precisely why Apple makes MacOS X, iLife, and iWork available in family packs that cost only marginally more.
What kind of retaliation are you talking about? How do spammers retailiate for this?
System 7 had EtherTalk which was AppleTalk over Ethernet. I don't think it was over IP, though. It just used ethernet as a physical layer. It did co-exist with IP, though. It was nice to use from a security perspective because I used to have our source code repository (for a Mac development project) on a Mac server and accessed it only via AppleTalk. Since AppleTalk packets couldn't be routed in or out of our office, it provided pretty nice security for the code from outside attack.
I have Gnome and OSX on identical Dell flatpanels right next to each other (using Synergy to control both machines).. and OSX is definitely "fuzzy" compared to Gnome.
OSX's antialiasing algorithm is really crappy. Look closely at your menubar. The E in "Edit" has antialiasing! It doesn't have any curves, and yet there's a dark grey line above all the crossbars. It makes all the fonts on OSX look bold.
I can't speak for XP though, since I only run XP at home.. on an old CRT. I have a Dell flat panel as a secondary monitor and an Apple Cinema display as my primary monitor. (I have 6 computers on my desk, two monitors, and a switchbox.) Things look a lot fuzzier on the Dell monitor.
I do see the anti-aliasing you are talking about - when I use Pixie. Just looking at the display, it looks fine to me.
Sounds reasonable. But then how does the copyright holder distinguish between the purchaser engaging in illegal distribution vs being the victim of theft?
Since you're comparing this to theft, let's compare with what happens when it turns out some physical property you bought was actually stolen. You don't get to keep it -- you're not a "victim." You have to give it back. Translating back to this case, they'd probably ask/require you to delete your copies.
Of course, comparing copyright violation to theft isn't legally valid, so the analogy doesn't help much.
You have it backwards. In this case, you'd be in trouble for having your property stolen (i.e. being the true victim), not from receiving stolen property which is what you are talking about. With watermarking there is no difference between purposely uploading your music to Kazaa and having it stolen by a hacker who uploads it to Kazaa.Basically the media companies would be asking people to treat their files as if they were national secrets which is too burdensome. They are NOT being marketed as state secrets - they are being marketed as a replacement for music CDs. If you leave music CDs on the seat of your car and a thief breaks your window and steals them, you are a victim. Under this scheme if the thief breaks your car window and steals your iPod (and shares your music files), you are a criminal. Big difference.
They have to prove it "beyond a shadow of a doubt" in a court of law. It's not a perfect system, I'll grant you, but it's better than the alternative.
FWIW, this is a non-issue anyway. Files purchased online are almost certainly not the ones floating around P2P sites. Those are usually either from audio engineers who leak them, or rips of source media like CDs. So in the long-run, such watermarking would only be good for consumers as it would prove that they're more honest than the RIAA gives them credit for.
Or the a*holes will accuse everyone and their grandma (literally) of removing the watermark. One of those two.
No, they don't have to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt - or even a reasonable doubt (as in a criminal case). The standard for civil cases (like the RIAA cases) is much lower. They would still be able to use their current tactics.
They have Sims2 for Mac.
What if you wanted to do file sharing with some very old Macs running System 6? You'd need Appletalk.
No one on Slashdot is female. Anyone claiming to be female is lying.
I am glad that Windows tech support guys didn't become physicians - their idea of drumming up business would be to break people's kneecaps with a hammer.
One thing that needs to happen is legislation that trumps stupid deed restrictions on green energy. You shouldn't be held back from solar on the roof or using wind energy by that shit.
My electic bill in a 2400 square foot all electric house (when I had one) was about $80/month. However, we actively did things to reduce energy usage - such as using CF bulbs. And I lived in the northwest.
:-(
My electric bill is currently $100/month, but our heat comes from fuel oil