..say our developer friend here accidently forgets about the time-code. He could be called away on a family emergency or something, only to return to a rabid lawyer, a very irate company, and his reputation shot to hell.
Somebody creates a textbook with valuable information in it. They seal it up using MS-RSM. Now you can no longer copy sections of it as specifically allowed via Constitutional Fair Use rights.
..if you laid out a serious amount of money to establish COs and copper to (nearly) every house in the United States, you wouldn't be an existing telephone company either.
The DRM does start with the hardware, yes. But the hardware does not force you to use software with DRM.
You will still have some access to the BIOS, and so be able to choose your boot media. That being so, you will be able to boot up into a non-DRM system. However, any documents or data that you have saved from the DRM system will be encrypted and unavailable for use (other than attempting to crack the encryption, I guess). Finding the key will be next to impossible as it will only be available in unencrypted form in the hardware.
Besides this, if worse comes to worst, you can always reformat your hard-drive using the "Big frickin' magnet" method.
The scariest bit of Palladium is the network effects. When Grandma's email or your employer's latest job contract comes in a Palladium encrypted format because that's just the standard, what do you do? Beyond that, what happens when the internet routers start dropping non-Palladium packets so as to guard against viruses and DoS attacks?
Also scary are the criminal possibilities Palladium provides. How much do you think the Mafia, Enron, or Microsoft would give for a system that ensures not only that they're the only ones that can read their data, but can also ensure that the data is destroyed after a certain amount of time, so that even their partners can't keep incriminating evidence around.
I personally think the whole idea for Palladium came after the Microsoft emails were subpeonaed into court. You can bet Bill G's first words after seeing those emails were "Make this not happen."
..at least til the major Internet Routers start using Palladium to control virus and worm attacks. Not a Palladium verified system? Get your own internet.
Obviously you can see how, being the folks developing the software, Microsoft can (hell, probably *will* as a software protection feature) program in the ability to encrypt the data into a form that only Microsoft can read, and put a remote based command as the trigger.
So you sign in for your latest Windows Update (which you'll have to because if you don't, your encryption will soon be out of synch and nobody will be able to read squat that you make), Windows Update detects that "Hey! This copy of Palladium has been registered in a different computer", not knowing that you've just moved the hard drive over to a newer chassis with more expansion room, and sends the code to lock it all up, so that all you get on bootup is a message to "Call Microsoft at... for payment and product activation info"
The thing is, the stylesheet MSN served to Opera 6 wasn't needed in the first place. Both O6 and O7 render the MSIE stylesheet just fine.
If you'd have actually read the press release, you would have seen this tidbit: MSN now allows access to users of Opera 7, but is still targeting and sending users of earlier versions a broken page. This treatment is completely unnecessary, as the page would look the same in Opera as in Microsoft's own Internet Explorer if it had been fed the same information. [emphasis added]
If there was any bug, it's that O6 was more forgiving than O7 of non-sensically coded stylesheets such as the one MSN was serving up.
Pfah.. telling whether you've committed a crime (at least in the US) is easy.
Since the very act of creating code is obviously something that would only be done by evil terrorists, hackers, or microsoft employees, then you are a criminal.
..the manufacturers themselves could accept the returned product.
Pesronally, I do not see how the manufacturer foisting return responsibility on to the vendor is even legal.
Why should it be considered legal to essentially say in a EULA "If you don't like the terms of this agreement, go see a third party to collect a refund." The third party really has nothing to do with it. If the third party chooses to assist the consumer as a favor both to the manufacturer and the consumer, wonderful. They certainly shouldn't get penalized for that as they do now.
No, the issue is between the copyright holder and the licensee. A third party has every right to refuse to deal with it, in which case the original copyright holder had better step up to the plate.
If this means said copyright holder can't afford to make "all-or-nothing" deals with pc manufacturers because the return rate would be too high, so much the better. It'd give the pc manufacturers more freedom which means giving consumers more choice.
Without the possibility of inequality through different amounts of effort, there is no motivation to do anything.
Sure there is.
It's called "self-actualization", and sits at the top of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Would some people start partying all day? Damn straight. Others would sit down and do some serious thinking and writing, others would work on creating fantastic pieces of art, architecture, or what have you, and yes virginia, some people would choose to cook.
What, after all, is the motivation to post on Slashdot? It's certainly not advancing your career or your knowledge. Hell, you're lucky if *reading* Slashdot advances your knowledge, but we do it anyway.
Now I'll admit that even while some people might still be happy to take care of the sick and maintain power-plants, the numbers would probably be far fewer, but that's where the nanotech and robotics come into play.
It would have been nice if you'd have presented a link to contradict so much evidence to the contrary, including this link from Yahoo news, 5 days earlier where a MSFT spokesman say they have "'no near-term plans' to pay dividends" but after hunting around, I found that you're right. Jan 16th, they announced a plan to pay dividends of 0.08 cents per share after a split.
This changes most of my claims for them. But I still challenge you to present the material differences in what I said for the general case of companies not paying dividends to stock-holders. Is it not true that the only place a stock-holder can make money in that case is by selling to someone who is willing to spend more? Is there any other inherent worth to owing a non-voting share of a company that does not provide dividends? What are the stocks of a non-dividend paying company valued on other than belief? It's not as if they'll entitle you to get anything if the company goes bankrupt, because the company will be, well, bankrupt. A Ponzi scheme is exactly the same, in that it's the belief that you'll be able to get somebody else to invest in whatever it is, and from that is where you'll draw your profits.
The difference, as I've said, is that a Ponzi scheme does not control the "buy-in" opportunities - which allows it to over-expand and crash as people at the bottom of the chain realize nobody wants to purchase the pieces of paper they've purchased.
Reinvestment in the business and diversification are all good things, I'll agree, however they are only good so long as there is some indication that stock-holders will eventually see some return on the money spent in these things.
MSFTs decision to provide divdends surprised many share-holders even. These are people who weren't counting on making money from the company directly, but rather on selling their pieces of paper to someone else.
Can't you see the rather obvious flaw in the idea that "I'll purchase this knowing that the only way it will have any use is to sell it later at a higher price". Eventually someone will find that nobody is willing to pay the higher price.
So people who purchase non-voting stocks with no dividends are either taking the risk that they won't be the person at the end of the chain, or they are trusting that sooner or later dividends will be paid.
the shareholders back the management, because they think all these abuses are earning money for them
Earning money? How? Microsoft doesn't pay dividends.
The only way you get money out of Microsoft stock is selling it to somebody who's willing to spend more than you did on it.
There are three differences between Microsoft stock and any Ponzi scheme: 1. Microsoft stock is on NASDAQ 2. Microsoft is the only entity that can create more buy-in opportunites (aka shares) 3. Microsoft stock is (for some reason) legal.
The only thing that's kept MSFT from collapsing like any Ponzi scheme is item #2. Since they're the only ones that can create the buy-in opportunities, they've limited the expansion rate of ownership -- which means it takes a lot longer to reach that point where everybody who's interested has enough.
Sooner or later though, the investors will reach a point where nobody new wants to buy MSFT. When that happens, the self-fulfilling prophecy of MSFTs values being worth more because people think they're worth more will collapse. And since there's nothing backing it but belief, when that belief disappears, so does the value of the stock. Why do you think Bill G. has been rapidly divesting himself of MSFT stock? He's not a dumb man, and were it really a good value, no doubt he'd just keep it, yes?
An aside to this is that it seems to be entirely possible to get 100% on an engineering exam.
Damned unlikely, I'll grant, but theoretically it is possible.
On the other hand, there are a lot of liberal arts exams where it is actually *impossible* to get a full 100%. Why? Because the graders "don't give grades that high." I've actually seen this happen where a student got their paper praised as the best the prof had ever seen. The student got an 85.. when she asked why she only received an 85 if this was the best ever seen, the response was, "Oh you don't understand. That's an excellent mark. I never give marks above 80."
That's an extreme example, but a lot of professors hold the attitude that a 100% mark will never be given out, because that would imply your paper is absolutely perfect -- and since there's always more to add, no paper is perfect.
What about auto manufacturers that build cars that can be stolen?
A more apt analogy would be an auto manufacturer that built cars without any locks. Oh they have keys and keyholes on the doors, it's just that actually putting the locking mechanism in is considered too difficult, time consuming, or expensive.
Now, to complete the analogy, have said auto manufacturer start going around and advertising how theft-proof their vehicles are. "Most secure ever!"
You'd think they could at least be sued for fraudulent advertising.
Hey don't laugh.. at least they're in favor of proportional representation, and their provincial governments don't seem to be tanking the economies there like you'd expect.
Read up a bit more to see the reasoning behind sweatshop workers. Try Naomi Klein.
To save you some trouble, however:
Sweatshop workers are very typically farmers who were making a poor scale of living slightly above the subsistence level in the areas they were before.
The usual course of events is that a large corporation moves in, convinces (or bribes) the government to call the previously unowned land that the farmers were using "public land", and then use their authority as the government to sell that public land to the corporation. The coporation then evicts the farmers, calling on the government to back up their demands with military force if need be.
The corporation then builds a factory on this land and hires the locals to work there - often paying them just enough to maintain subsistence, if not a little lower. These jobs are typically the justification that was used in the first place. After all, people farming and feeding themselves don't add to the GNP/GDP. People being paid less than it costs to feed themselves for working 18 hour days in crippling conditions add numbers to the GNP values.
Of course, you're right in that nobody has "forced" the farmers to work there. No, they were forced off the land they were farming, but that doesn't mean they were forced to work at a factory - why, they always have the option to leave and starve if they want. Just because the only reason they are in this situation is because the corporation moved in doesn't mean they were forced, right?
Sweatshop workers are very typically farmers who were making a poor scale of living slightly above the subsistence level in the areas they were before.
The usual course of events is that a large corporation moves in, convinces (or bribes) the government to call the previously "unowned" land that the farmers were using public, and then use their authority as the government to sell that public land to the corporation. The corporation then evict the farmers, calling on the government to back up their demands with military force if need be.
The corporation then builds a factory on this land and hires the locals to work there - often paying them just enough to maintain subsistence, if not a little lower. These jobs are typically how the government/corporation justify this move of removing the people from their farming to begin with.
Of course, nobody has "forced" the farmers to work there. No, they were forced off the land they were farming, but that doesn't mean they were forced to work at a factory - why, they always have the option to leave and starve if they want.
The myth that people will only create valuable and worthwhile art is not only provably wrong [expressivefreedom.org], it has already been proven wrong countless times, not only by myself, but by many, many others. Peruse USENET or any number of Free Media and Free Literature sites... much of the best work is available online, at no cost, with no profit motive. Whether it fits your particular taste or not, the allegation that "people would not go to the grouble of creating stuff" if it were free (the assumption implicit in your statement) is simply false.
You're absolutely correct, though no less foolish for it.
Yes, there will always be die-hards out there who create simply because they want to, and that's a wonderful thing.
There are also those whose best work comes because they've been able to sustain a career in creating. They get the practice they need over time because they are able to support themselves with their lesser art. Your plan is to deny society the greater works of art because you think only the hobbiests have any real creativity?
And the reason why copyright reduced the number of books is because it got rid of those publishers who were making money by simply not giving the author any as they were just reprinting the novel themselves. So yes, we got rid of the leeches who were simply coasting on the coat-tails of somebody else's effort and the number of books printed dropped. This is the consequence of a regime designed to foster creativity, productivity, and fairness to those who use the limited time in their lives to create something that betters all of us.
Slashdot Mirror
..say our developer friend here accidently forgets about the time-code. He could be called away on a family emergency or something, only to return to a rabid lawyer, a very irate company, and his reputation shot to hell.
Do you actually read what you link to, or do you just hope it's right and nobody actually goes to take a look.
Microsoft Works Suite comes with Word.
Microsoft Works does not.
And I also know from experience that the Works wordprocessor default format is not readable by Word.
Hey! There's an idea.. ..except, of course, when what you want to have fair use of isn't text.
Say, a section of music, a picture, a few frames of an animation, a precise graph, or an audio clip for starters.
Come join us in the new millenium, you'd be amazed at what people can create.
Somebody creates a textbook with valuable information in it. They seal it up using MS-RSM. Now you can no longer copy sections of it as specifically allowed via Constitutional Fair Use rights.
..if you laid out a serious amount of money to establish COs and copper to (nearly) every house in the United States, you wouldn't be an existing telephone company either.
Here's a hint, they didn't - the public did.
The DRM does start with the hardware, yes. But the hardware does not force you to use software with DRM.
You will still have some access to the BIOS, and so be able to choose your boot media. That being so, you will be able to boot up into a non-DRM system. However, any documents or data that you have saved from the DRM system will be encrypted and unavailable for use (other than attempting to crack the encryption, I guess). Finding the key will be next to impossible as it will only be available in unencrypted form in the hardware.
Besides this, if worse comes to worst, you can always reformat your hard-drive using the "Big frickin' magnet" method.
The scariest bit of Palladium is the network effects. When Grandma's email or your employer's latest job contract comes in a Palladium encrypted format because that's just the standard, what do you do? Beyond that, what happens when the internet routers start dropping non-Palladium packets so as to guard against viruses and DoS attacks?
Also scary are the criminal possibilities Palladium provides. How much do you think the Mafia, Enron, or Microsoft would give for a system that ensures not only that they're the only ones that can read their data, but can also ensure that the data is destroyed after a certain amount of time, so that even their partners can't keep incriminating evidence around.
I personally think the whole idea for Palladium came after the Microsoft emails were subpeonaed into court. You can bet Bill G's first words after seeing those emails were "Make this not happen."
..at least til the major Internet Routers start using Palladium to control virus and worm attacks. Not a Palladium verified system? Get your own internet.
Obviously you can see how, being the folks developing the software, Microsoft can (hell, probably *will* as a software protection feature) program in the ability to encrypt the data into a form that only Microsoft can read, and put a remote based command as the trigger.
... for payment and product activation info"
So you sign in for your latest Windows Update (which you'll have to because if you don't, your encryption will soon be out of synch and nobody will be able to read squat that you make), Windows Update detects that "Hey! This copy of Palladium has been registered in a different computer", not knowing that you've just moved the hard drive over to a newer chassis with more expansion room, and sends the code to lock it all up, so that all you get on bootup is a message to "Call Microsoft at
The thing is, the stylesheet MSN served to Opera 6 wasn't needed in the first place. Both O6 and O7 render the MSIE stylesheet just fine.
If you'd have actually read the press release, you would have seen this tidbit:
MSN now allows access to users of Opera 7, but is still targeting and sending users of earlier versions a broken page. This treatment is completely unnecessary, as the page would look the same in Opera as in Microsoft's own Internet Explorer if it had been fed the same information. [emphasis added]
If there was any bug, it's that O6 was more forgiving than O7 of non-sensically coded stylesheets such as the one MSN was serving up.
Pfah.. telling whether you've committed a crime (at least in the US) is easy.
Since the very act of creating code is obviously something that would only be done by evil terrorists, hackers, or microsoft employees, then you are a criminal.
See? Easy.
..the manufacturers themselves could accept the returned product.
Pesronally, I do not see how the manufacturer foisting return responsibility on to the vendor is even legal.
Why should it be considered legal to essentially say in a EULA "If you don't like the terms of this agreement, go see a third party to collect a refund." The third party really has nothing to do with it. If the third party chooses to assist the consumer as a favor both to the manufacturer and the consumer, wonderful. They certainly shouldn't get penalized for that as they do now.
No, the issue is between the copyright holder and the licensee. A third party has every right to refuse to deal with it, in which case the original copyright holder had better step up to the plate.
If this means said copyright holder can't afford to make "all-or-nothing" deals with pc manufacturers because the return rate would be too high, so much the better. It'd give the pc manufacturers more freedom which means giving consumers more choice.
Without the possibility of inequality through different amounts of effort, there is no motivation to do anything.
Sure there is.
It's called "self-actualization", and sits at the top of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Would some people start partying all day? Damn straight. Others would sit down and do some serious thinking and writing, others would work on creating fantastic pieces of art, architecture, or what have you, and yes virginia, some people would choose to cook.
What, after all, is the motivation to post on Slashdot? It's certainly not advancing your career or your knowledge. Hell, you're lucky if *reading* Slashdot advances your knowledge, but we do it anyway.
Now I'll admit that even while some people might still be happy to take care of the sick and maintain power-plants, the numbers would probably be far fewer, but that's where the nanotech and robotics come into play.
It would have been nice if you'd have presented a link to contradict so much evidence to the contrary, including this link from Yahoo news, 5 days earlier where a MSFT spokesman say they have "'no near-term plans' to pay dividends" but after hunting around, I found that you're right. Jan 16th, they announced a plan to pay dividends of 0.08 cents per share after a split.
This changes most of my claims for them. But I still challenge you to present the material differences in what I said for the general case of companies not paying dividends to stock-holders. Is it not true that the only place a stock-holder can make money in that case is by selling to someone who is willing to spend more? Is there any other inherent worth to owing a non-voting share of a company that does not provide dividends? What are the stocks of a non-dividend paying company valued on other than belief? It's not as if they'll entitle you to get anything if the company goes bankrupt, because the company will be, well, bankrupt. A Ponzi scheme is exactly the same, in that it's the belief that you'll be able to get somebody else to invest in whatever it is, and from that is where you'll draw your profits.
The difference, as I've said, is that a Ponzi scheme does not control the "buy-in" opportunities - which allows it to over-expand and crash as people at the bottom of the chain realize nobody wants to purchase the pieces of paper they've purchased.
Reinvestment in the business and diversification are all good things, I'll agree, however they are only good so long as there is some indication that stock-holders will eventually see some return on the money spent in these things.
MSFTs decision to provide divdends surprised many share-holders even. These are people who weren't counting on making money from the company directly, but rather on selling their pieces of paper to someone else.
Can't you see the rather obvious flaw in the idea that "I'll purchase this knowing that the only way it will have any use is to sell it later at a higher price". Eventually someone will find that nobody is willing to pay the higher price.
So people who purchase non-voting stocks with no dividends are either taking the risk that they won't be the person at the end of the chain, or they are trusting that sooner or later dividends will be paid.
Of course they can.
Good luck in collecting anything though.
the shareholders back the management, because they think all these abuses are earning money for them
Earning money? How? Microsoft doesn't pay dividends.
The only way you get money out of Microsoft stock is selling it to somebody who's willing to spend more than you did on it.
There are three differences between Microsoft stock and any Ponzi scheme:
1. Microsoft stock is on NASDAQ
2. Microsoft is the only entity that can create more buy-in opportunites (aka shares)
3. Microsoft stock is (for some reason) legal.
The only thing that's kept MSFT from collapsing like any Ponzi scheme is item #2. Since they're the only ones that can create the buy-in opportunities, they've limited the expansion rate of ownership -- which means it takes a lot longer to reach that point where everybody who's interested has enough.
Sooner or later though, the investors will reach a point where nobody new wants to buy MSFT. When that happens, the self-fulfilling prophecy of MSFTs values being worth more because people think they're worth more will collapse. And since there's nothing backing it but belief, when that belief disappears, so does the value of the stock. Why do you think Bill G. has been rapidly divesting himself of MSFT stock? He's not a dumb man, and were it really a good value, no doubt he'd just keep it, yes?
..the posting as an AC.
Because, after all, references are for weenies, eh?
An aside to this is that it seems to be entirely possible to get 100% on an engineering exam.
Damned unlikely, I'll grant, but theoretically it is possible.
On the other hand, there are a lot of liberal arts exams where it is actually *impossible* to get a full 100%. Why? Because the graders "don't give grades that high." I've actually seen this happen where a student got their paper praised as the best the prof had ever seen. The student got an 85.. when she asked why she only received an 85 if this was the best ever seen, the response was, "Oh you don't understand. That's an excellent mark. I never give marks above 80."
That's an extreme example, but a lot of professors hold the attitude that a 100% mark will never be given out, because that would imply your paper is absolutely perfect -- and since there's always more to add, no paper is perfect.
the American Second Amendment is pretty unusual for countries not ruled by hereditary warlords.
So what you're saying is that it's not unusual at all for America to have it?
What about auto manufacturers that build cars that can be stolen?
A more apt analogy would be an auto manufacturer that built cars without any locks. Oh they have keys and keyholes on the doors, it's just that actually putting the locking mechanism in is considered too difficult, time consuming, or expensive.
Now, to complete the analogy, have said auto manufacturer start going around and advertising how theft-proof their vehicles are. "Most secure ever!"
You'd think they could at least be sued for fraudulent advertising.
It's a PC with a graphics card that does TV-out.
is to vote NDP.
Hey don't laugh.. at least they're in favor of proportional representation, and their provincial governments don't seem to be tanking the economies there like you'd expect.
Read up a bit more to see the reasoning behind sweatshop workers. Try Naomi Klein.
To save you some trouble, however:
Sweatshop workers are very typically farmers who were making a poor scale of living slightly above the subsistence level in the areas they were before.
The usual course of events is that a large corporation moves in, convinces (or bribes) the government to call the previously unowned land that the farmers were using "public land", and then use their authority as the government to sell that public land to the corporation. The coporation then evicts the farmers, calling on the government to back up their demands with military force if need be.
The corporation then builds a factory on this land and hires the locals to work there - often paying them just enough to maintain subsistence, if not a little lower. These jobs are typically the justification that was used in the first place. After all, people farming and feeding themselves don't add to the GNP/GDP. People being paid less than it costs to feed themselves for working 18 hour days in crippling conditions add numbers to the GNP values.
Of course, you're right in that nobody has "forced" the farmers to work there. No, they were forced off the land they were farming, but that doesn't mean they were forced to work at a factory - why, they always have the option to leave and starve if they want. Just because the only reason they are in this situation is because the corporation moved in doesn't mean they were forced, right?
Read up a bit more.
Sweatshop workers are very typically farmers who were making a poor scale of living slightly above the subsistence level in the areas they were before.
The usual course of events is that a large corporation moves in, convinces (or bribes) the government to call the previously "unowned" land that the farmers were using public, and then use their authority as the government to sell that public land to the corporation. The corporation then evict the farmers, calling on the government to back up their demands with military force if need be.
The corporation then builds a factory on this land and hires the locals to work there - often paying them just enough to maintain subsistence, if not a little lower. These jobs are typically how the government/corporation justify this move of removing the people from their farming to begin with.
Of course, nobody has "forced" the farmers to work there. No, they were forced off the land they were farming, but that doesn't mean they were forced to work at a factory - why, they always have the option to leave and starve if they want.
The myth that people will only create valuable and worthwhile art is not only provably wrong [expressivefreedom.org], it has already been proven wrong countless times, not only by myself, but by many, many others. Peruse USENET or any number of Free Media and Free Literature sites ... much of the best work is available online, at no cost, with no profit motive. Whether it fits your particular taste or not, the allegation that "people would not go to the grouble of creating stuff" if it were free (the assumption implicit in your statement) is simply false.
You're absolutely correct, though no less foolish for it.
Yes, there will always be die-hards out there who create simply because they want to, and that's a wonderful thing.
There are also those whose best work comes because they've been able to sustain a career in creating. They get the practice they need over time because they are able to support themselves with their lesser art. Your plan is to deny society the greater works of art because you think only the hobbiests have any real creativity?
And the reason why copyright reduced the number of books is because it got rid of those publishers who were making money by simply not giving the author any as they were just reprinting the novel themselves. So yes, we got rid of the leeches who were simply coasting on the coat-tails of somebody else's effort and the number of books printed dropped. This is the consequence of a regime designed to foster creativity, productivity, and fairness to those who use the limited time in their lives to create something that betters all of us.
Fortunately for you, unfortunately for us, you don't write anything worth paying for.
For those few who do, it makes sense to encourage them to do that by, oh I don't know, paying them for their time.