Nice rebuttal, with artful sarcasm. But it is true that the terms I mentioned are the result of conscious, deliberate manipulation of language by their respective disingenuous interests, while the terms you cite have grown more organically from natural use in the language, without the intent to lend shades of meaning opposite from the words which they replaced (q.v. the "PC" movement).
And I'm certain that some poor MCSE has at least tried to slit his wrists upon seeing a BSOD at just the wrong time. Being an MCSE, though, I'm sure he did it wrong.
Just because the powers that be have had some success in manipulating the language doesn't mean that every intelligent person is going to buy into it. If you're going to use terms like "piracy" when you mean copyright infringement; "hacking" when you mean cracking; or "double opt-in" when you mean subscription confirmation, you can expect to be corrected by someone among us who knows better.
Ding! Though I tried to make them all pretty much correct. I was wrong about the guessing penalty--the SAT takes 1/4 point for guessing; the ACT is the one that doesn't.
That's one of the ugliest things about this whole DRM business. The companies selling (ahem, licensing) content get all the advantages of streaming--they control how and when and under what terms you use the content. But they get it without the disadvantage: they're using the customer's storage space, so that the content need only be transferred once. Hardly fair.
Fair enough. Of course, there's significant concern about the U.S. SSSCA, and that's been proposed by one Congressman (admittedly one bought and paid for by the "intellectual property" industry).
Often, to use the cliché, it's best to nip these things in the bud.
Lack of vigilance got us the DMCA here in the U.S. It would probably take a revolution to make that go away now, or at least some significant campaign finance reform.
I did "read the blurb," and there's no reason for you to be so self-righteous about it.
That said, what does your brilliant mind think the first workaround for taxes on "sales" of music downloads would be? That's right! It would be to give "free music downloads" with the "purchase" of something not subject like the tax. Now I know this is probably a bit more than you can comprehend, but the next step in the escalation would likely be to tax all such downloads, so as to prevent tax evasion, thus the "meter running" analogy.
Maybe if you spent more time thinking than posting poorly thought out caustic rebuttals at +2, Slashdot would be better than you seem to think it is, while yet using it.
either the EU to pull its collective head out of its ass or to make the EU build its own internet.
This idea has got to be the most absolutely insane thing I have ever heard of (never mind the practical unenforceability of it). Don't these morons know that once everyone has to pay by the kilobyte for net access, the "meter running" mentality kicks in and everything that has heretofore made it great and useful is dead?!
For example: how many times have people called Company X for information, to then be refered to www.companyx.com for that?
In this kind of scenario, people can rightfully say (provided a customer relationship exists) "I don't think so. Send it to me in the mail, because I'm not interested in paying for this information that you should be providing at no charge." Just one example--I'm sure others can come up with better ones.
- there is an authentication server connected to our brain stem
- there is no "untrusted" way to convert sound into electricity
or
- the DMCA is backed by Colombia-style death squads
To those who would argue that they're "raising the bar on piracy and keeping the honest people honest," I'd ask you to consider which people copying some of these CDs love more:
- the music of Charley Pride
- the feeling of power that comes from distributing it after cracking Cactus Data Shield
People don't need tons of practice adding and subtracting if they have a register of calculator. This isn't a terrible thing!
Tha's rawt. That thar cipherin's only for hawly edumucated folk.
What a bunch of elitist hogwash. Basic mathematical operations are necessary to function successfuly in everyday society. Founded upon them are the ability to accomplish such scholarly feats as determining if a cashier has given you the correct change or comparing the price between two items of different prices, one of which is on sale. I don't find either of these to be "calculator appropriate" situations.
When cars became dominant most people didn't bother to learn how to drive a horse and buggy, the skill was no longer needed.
Better things to compare to "learning to drive a horse and buggy" would be the manipuation of a slide rule or the use of tables to evaluate transcendantal functions.
And if missing the days when cashiers could count change back to me without having to pathetically read the amout to return off the LEDs makes me excessively nostalgic, so be it.
First, I believe in the right of parents to educate their children the way they see fit, so long as they get educated. This is true be that with computers, without computers, with schools, without schools, what have you.
I think that this has less to do with the benefits or lack thereof associated with exposure to technlogy. It has more to do with the fact that the masses, the hoi polloi, the little people, all pretty much have access to computers, earlier, thanks to well meaning social activism and government and corporate largess.
As with similar mass-market technologies that have gone before it, including radio, television, the Internet started out as a tool and toy for the creme de la creme, the elite, the upper crust. Once the newness wore off and the fact that it wasn't the hope for the transformation of the world for the better, the elites abandoned it to the lower classes. We can readily observe this phenomenon with regard to television. Not many of the intellectual class will admit to watching Friends among their equals (though I imagine many indulge occasionally as a guilty pleasure).
The Intel engineers, as members of a relatively high social and intellectual class, apparently think computers and the Internet sufficiently droll that they do not wish their offspring to risk their potential mentally stunting effects for the chance of unproven educational benefit.
I agree with what you say with regard to caching, but not with regard to transparent proxies. Users are giving their ISPs money for access to the Internet, not some caching proxy. If the paying customer wants to use his ISPs proxy, he should be able to do so by pointing his browser at it. The ISP should not force users into a proxy without explicitly advertising that the access they provide is not true access to the Internet.
Combined with a database containing the address of cable modem subscribers, Comcast can now conveniently use this data to ferret out their subscribers "stealing" from them using 802.11b. Watch for the Comcast van in your neighborhood!
- abolish all software patents
- abolish all business process patents
- repeal the DMCA
- make using copy protection a Federal felony
- publish the DeCSS code on a scrolling marquee in Times Square
- ban the RIAA and MPAA
- have Jack Valenti made U.S. Ambassador to Somalia
- have Sonny Bono, uh, never mind
You might be able to pick up some here for a while after Radio Shack hammers theirs. A tasteful selection is available in prices ranging from $7.95 to $89.95 for your privacy dilution needs.
with your local phone company, if you can. While local phone companies may suck in some ways, you can bet they're acquainted with the defintions of such terms as "wiretap" and "common carrier" and are more likely to only try Comcasting you when presented with a valid subpoena or warrant.
It's the difference in culture between the telecommunications and entertainment industries, I think.
This is the price we pay for "free" tv. If you don't want ads, you're going to have to pay for it . ..
Oh. Pay for it. You mean like cable--but wait! There are commercials on cable. Thus, the networks are stealing from me!!! I'll sue! Oh, wait. I don't own a Congressman or a judge. Bummer.
-- PVRs are out there. People are used to them. If you manage to legally get them broken via an "upgrade" (q.v. TiVo) or technical countermeasure, you're going to piss off your loyal viewers.
-- A video capture card + a PC + software = a PVR. This has already been done, though primitively. You can outlaw anything you want, but you can't stop everyone (and it only takes one) from capturing NTSC/PAL content.
-- PVR users aren't generally intellectual property Robin Hoods intent on stealing from you. They just want to watch TV, and help build mindshare for your programs. If you push them underground, though, expect to see commercial free versions of your programs on P2P networks.
-- Your copy protected HDTV, D-VHS, "rights managed" media, etc. will fail in the marketplace. Should you purchase legislation to mandate them, people will simply turn elsewhere for entertainment.
Slashdot Mirror
T-1 connection: $1,000/month
Slashcode GPL: free
Proposing marriage on your own website and having your beloved say "yes," priceless.
And I'm certain that some poor MCSE has at least tried to slit his wrists upon seeing a BSOD at just the wrong time. Being an MCSE, though, I'm sure he did it wrong.
Just because the powers that be have had some success in manipulating the language doesn't mean that every intelligent person is going to buy into it. If you're going to use terms like "piracy" when you mean copyright infringement; "hacking" when you mean cracking; or "double opt-in" when you mean subscription confirmation, you can expect to be corrected by someone among us who knows better.
1. eBook encryption and associated restrctions
2. Macrovision
Ding! Though I tried to make them all pretty much correct. I was wrong about the guessing penalty--the SAT takes 1/4 point for guessing; the ACT is the one that doesn't.
That's one of the ugliest things about this whole DRM business. The companies selling (ahem, licensing) content get all the advantages of streaming--they control how and when and under what terms you use the content. But they get it without the disadvantage: they're using the customer's storage space, so that the content need only be transferred once. Hardly fair.
This is a hard one! The good news is that the SAT has no guessing penalty.
Often, to use the cliché, it's best to nip these things in the bud.
Lack of vigilance got us the DMCA here in the U.S. It would probably take a revolution to make that go away now, or at least some significant campaign finance reform.
That said, what does your brilliant mind think the first workaround for taxes on "sales" of music downloads would be? That's right! It would be to give "free music downloads" with the "purchase" of something not subject like the tax. Now I know this is probably a bit more than you can comprehend, but the next step in the escalation would likely be to tax all such downloads, so as to prevent tax evasion, thus the "meter running" analogy.
Maybe if you spent more time thinking than posting poorly thought out caustic rebuttals at +2, Slashdot would be better than you seem to think it is, while yet using it.
This idea has got to be the most absolutely insane thing I have ever heard of (never mind the practical unenforceability of it). Don't these morons know that once everyone has to pay by the kilobyte for net access, the "meter running" mentality kicks in and everything that has heretofore made it great and useful is dead?!
For example: how many times have people called Company X for information, to then be refered to www.companyx.com for that?
In this kind of scenario, people can rightfully say (provided a customer relationship exists) "I don't think so. Send it to me in the mail, because I'm not interested in paying for this information that you should be providing at no charge." Just one example--I'm sure others can come up with better ones.
- there is an authentication server connected to our brain stem
- there is no "untrusted" way to convert sound into electricity
- the DMCA is backed by Colombia-style death squads
To those who would argue that they're "raising the bar on piracy and keeping the honest people honest," I'd ask you to consider which people copying some of these CDs love more:
- the music of Charley Pride
- the feeling of power that comes from distributing it after cracking Cactus Data Shield
Tha's rawt. That thar cipherin's only for hawly edumucated folk.
What a bunch of elitist hogwash. Basic mathematical operations are necessary to function successfuly in everyday society. Founded upon them are the ability to accomplish such scholarly feats as determining if a cashier has given you the correct change or comparing the price between two items of different prices, one of which is on sale. I don't find either of these to be "calculator appropriate" situations.
When cars became dominant most people didn't bother to learn how to drive a horse and buggy, the skill was no longer needed.
Better things to compare to "learning to drive a horse and buggy" would be the manipuation of a slide rule or the use of tables to evaluate transcendantal functions.
And if missing the days when cashiers could count change back to me without having to pathetically read the amout to return off the LEDs makes me excessively nostalgic, so be it.
I think that this has less to do with the benefits or lack thereof associated with exposure to technlogy. It has more to do with the fact that the masses, the hoi polloi, the little people, all pretty much have access to computers, earlier, thanks to well meaning social activism and government and corporate largess.
As with similar mass-market technologies that have gone before it, including radio, television, the Internet started out as a tool and toy for the creme de la creme, the elite, the upper crust. Once the newness wore off and the fact that it wasn't the hope for the transformation of the world for the better, the elites abandoned it to the lower classes. We can readily observe this phenomenon with regard to television. Not many of the intellectual class will admit to watching Friends among their equals (though I imagine many indulge occasionally as a guilty pleasure).
The Intel engineers, as members of a relatively high social and intellectual class, apparently think computers and the Internet sufficiently droll that they do not wish their offspring to risk their potential mentally stunting effects for the chance of unproven educational benefit.
We carry a harpoon.
But there ain't no whales
So we tell tall tales
And sing our whaling tune.
Every year, I'll sprinkle a drop or two of Mom's robot oil on the grave and reminisce. <sniff>
I agree with what you say with regard to caching, but not with regard to transparent proxies. Users are giving their ISPs money for access to the Internet, not some caching proxy. If the paying customer wants to use his ISPs proxy, he should be able to do so by pointing his browser at it. The ISP should not force users into a proxy without explicitly advertising that the access they provide is not true access to the Internet.
Fair enough. Did you get anywhere with the regional rep?
Combined with a database containing the address of cable modem subscribers, Comcast can now conveniently use this data to ferret out their subscribers "stealing" from them using 802.11b. Watch for the Comcast van in your neighborhood!
- abolish all business process patents
- repeal the DMCA
- make using copy protection a Federal felony
- publish the DeCSS code on a scrolling marquee in Times Square
- ban the RIAA and MPAA
- have Jack Valenti made U.S. Ambassador to Somalia
- have Sonny Bono, uh, never mind
That ought to be a good start to a "balance."
Gosh. I'll miss you, honeybunch!
You might be able to pick up some here for a while after Radio Shack hammers theirs. A tasteful selection is available in prices ranging from $7.95 to $89.95 for your privacy dilution needs.
It's the difference in culture between the telecommunications and entertainment industries, I think.
Oh. Pay for it. You mean like cable--but wait! There are commercials on cable. Thus, the networks are stealing from me!!! I'll sue! Oh, wait. I don't own a Congressman or a judge. Bummer.
If they do, they'd better move them around lest their brilliant scheme be defeated by a black oblong piece of cardboard.
-- A video capture card + a PC + software = a PVR. This has already been done, though primitively. You can outlaw anything you want, but you can't stop everyone (and it only takes one) from capturing NTSC/PAL content.
-- PVR users aren't generally intellectual property Robin Hoods intent on stealing from you. They just want to watch TV, and help build mindshare for your programs. If you push them underground, though, expect to see commercial free versions of your programs on P2P networks.
-- Your copy protected HDTV, D-VHS, "rights managed" media, etc. will fail in the marketplace. Should you purchase legislation to mandate them, people will simply turn elsewhere for entertainment.
Would you please point out the sentence in which I'm knocking the workers?