> You're using clunky academic "Philosphy 101" tools [... ] which have absolutely no use > when you're actually wondering, "Could this EMF emitter next to my brain get my ass killed?"
I'm using the scientific method. It's a pretty damn good tool for determining the validity of falsifiable hypotheses.
If you'd care to describe your tool, and why it's better, please go ahead. As of right now, the only "tool" I see you using is FUD.
> since we don't know much about the brain, then the probability is correspondingly higher > that [Substance X might exist and create localized heating in response to low-level EMF] and lead to > brain damage.
In what way does our lack of knowledge about the brain increase the probability that a substance exists whose properties are determined only by someone's need to support a theory whose implications are unsupported by the existing data?
And I'd say that we do know enough about the brain to know what brains are made of, and whether or not such a substance exists?
I'm not saying "why has nobody (on your side) done the experiment", I'm asking "why has nobody (on your side) even posited a possible chemical structure for this mystical substance"?
As long as we're engaging in ad-hominem attacks, I'd bet $1000 that if we did fund such an experiment, and it proved conclusively that no such substance existed in brains, the proponents of your side of the argument would posit that phlogiston, or aether, or some substance undetectable by experiment, existed.
(Don't believe me? Look at all the people who fall for therapeutic touch, creation science, or other bunk - yes, bunk - and who come up with increasingly-Rube-Goldberg contraptions to explain their results in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary.)
Science doesn't work that way. Sorry if you don't get it. If you want to believe things in the face of the evidence, go ahead. But until you can come up with the evidence, please don't try to call the basis for your belief "scientific".
> > Pandering to us makes for poor soundbites, and we're not as easily-manipulated.
> the whole karma whore issue demonstrates that we're no less manipulable or pander-to-able than >
anyone else. It's just that what we want is different,
Sorry, I should have clarified:
Our wanting different things than most people makes for bad soundbites. (e.g. the false dichotomy that anyone who's against censorship is for kiddie pr0n, or that our opposition to DMCA constitutes support for piracy).
To use those two examples, anyone who panders to our segment of the electorate on those two issues, leaves themselves open to attack, and loses votes from the sheeple who fall for the "it's for the children" rhetoric and campaign donations from the entertainment industry.
As for the "not as easily-manipulated", I retract that. As much as I loathe the Demipublicans, I've observed that while Nader and Browne (Green vs. Libertarian) both have substantial followings on Slashdot, they're pretty much on opposite sides of most ideological issues.
And yet "the Slashdot crowd" appears to have split into two camps, each having been manipulated depending on whether they prefer Nader's anti-WTO rhetoric, or Browne's less-government rhetoric.
The situation isn't much different from Gore's "ban guns and save the spotted owl" rhetoric getting the "soccer mom" crowd out to vote Democrat to save the children, and Bush's "ban non-Christians and legislate morality" rhetoric getting the fundie "PTA-mom" crowd out to vote Republican.
The difference is that Nader and Browne are splitting the geeky 10% of the votes, and Gore and Bush are splitting the mundane 90%:-(
> Just because there aren't any valid studies doesn't mean that something isn't true.
BZZT. Go back to Philosophy of Science 101.
In science, the burden of proof is upon the one making the claim.
You claim that there exists a radiation hazard from cell phones. This is a falsifiable, testable claim, and is properly within the domain of science.
Yet the studies do not support your claim.
A scientist would reject the claim as being unsupported by the evidence. Until your side of the debate can come up with the evidence, your claim is invalid.
You further fail to understand the point by going on to say:
> the claim that microwaves can't do anything because they are not ionizing radiation is at best doubtful. > How do we know that there isn't a chemical substance in the brain which resonates at the frequencies of these transmitters and which will selectively absorb energy >from them causing a breakdown of the chemical from selective heating?
Because:
(i) The burden of proof is on you. If you believe such a substance exists, please derive its chemical properties (easy enough to do given the requirements of a resonance frequency matching the cellular band), and dissect a few rat brains and show it to us.
(ii)Please explain how such a substance could exist in such concentrations in the brain as to be heated several degrees above (due to the miniscule wattage of cell phones) ambient body temperature, and explain how this heating would be "bad" compared to the normal heating and cooling of the body by 1-2 degrees throughout the course of the day.
(iii) Occam's Razor. Our theories of how brains work are supported by our notions on nonionizing radiation and do not require the invocation of Substance X. Your theory requires the invention of Substance X to explain something that doesn't show up in the data. Why should we choose your theory, which invokes a substance (existence of which is unverified even by you!) expressly for the purpose of saving your theory?
> To say "Its safe because I don't see any way it could be dangerous" is pretty arrogant.
(iv) Argumentum ad hominem and back to burden of proof again. Your argument smacks of "How do we know the moon isn't made of green cheese? I mean, apart from the small areas of moon we explored in the 60s. We haven't been to all the square footage of the moon, to say that none of it is made of green cheese is arrogant!
> > [...will block...] {I} material that is obscene; and (II) child pornography; and
> > (ii) [...makes sure the censorware is on while minors are using the PCs...]
> Why the (ii)? Are adults allowed to see child porn on school computers?
For that matter, "Why the (II)? Doesn't child porn fall under obscenity laws to begin with?"
Welcome to the world of politics. Where anyone who stands up in Congress and questions the intent of (i)(II) gets branded as "opposing measures to block child pornography", and anyone who questions the intent of (ii) gets branded as "exposing your kids to child pornography".
Remember, this is the "Children's Internet Protection" measure. Anyone who opposes it must be against children, and is a bad person.
The only way we'll see freedom of expression in this country is if someone introduces the text of the First Amendment as the "Protection of Big-Eyed Kids, Cute Fluffy Kittens and Frisky Puppies Act".
> (a childless, working young adult in a high-tech field) [asks] What have you done for us lately?
The short answer - nothing.
The long answer - if (if) Dubya gets in, you'll see some sort of tax break. Gore's tax breaks are only for breeders (and at that, not even every breeder gets the full amount). If Bush wins, you might get something back. If Gore wins, you get zippo.
As for their records in the past, they've done nothing. The bottom line is that (1) we're a minority, (2) most of us have enough free time that we've probably already made up our minds well in advance of the election. The soccer-moms are so busy that half of 'em haven't even noticed there is an election. And (3) we can't be swayed by "it's for the chillllldrunnn" rhetoric. So we're a harder segment to go for because we're harder to manipulate.
Pandering to us makes for poor soundbites, and we're not as easily-manipulated. Is it any wonder we're ignored?
> It's interesting to see the Natural Law party listed -- I'd assumed they were just a UK
penomenon until now.
They also exist in Canada. Don't believe the bunk about Hagelin being a "physicist" in any meaningful sense of the word.
In Canada, the NLP is merely a front group designed to raise/launder money for the Transcendental Meditation movement under the guise of being a political party. Yogic flying? Puh-leeze. I suspect the same is true for the NLP in both the UK and US.
0) Spam is theft.
1) Spammers lie.
2) If you think a spammer's telling the truth, see Rule #1
3) Spammers are st00pid.
Canonical example - I will no longer do business with Travelocity, who spammed me after I ordered a ticket through them and made very sure to click on all the "no, leave me alone you assholes" buttons. Upon reporting the spam to them, I was assured I'd be removed in what appeared not to be a form-letter -- and of course, I got spammed a few weeks down the road.
Whenever you say "shut the fuck up and stop spamming me", marketers imagine that they hear the words "except for things your marketing department thinks I really really really do want".
Marketers lie. It's in their DNA.
Never give a valid email address to any company for any reason.
From now on, I do all my travel purchaes through another company, and I use an expendable yahoo.com dropbox for order confirmations. So far, this company hasn't spammed me, but when (not if!) they do, I'll simply switch to another company. And another dropbox.
I don't get it. EMF is non-ionizing radiation. I haven't seen any credible evidence that there's a risk posed by cell phones or power lines, and neither do many people with clue.
As for the suggestion that the phone be housed in a Faraday cage, uh, wouldn't that kinda defeat the purpose of a cell phone?
Bottom line. Not everything with the word "radiation" is bad for you. Don't believe the hype, believe the physics.
(For that matter, not everything with the word "nuclear" is bad for you either. But that's another story.)
> don't overlook the option of checking out way before age 70... and the option of having thousands cheer your death.
Old sappy new-age quote: "When you were born, you were crying while everyone in the room smiled. Try to die smiling while everyone in the room is crying."
Methods of achieving this using a dozen CueCats, an electrified wire brush, and a telemarketing call center, are left to the reader.
> I think I struck a nerve; sorry! I'd say you made a really wise and carefully-thought-out
choice, and consequently you live happily and well. May you always do so.
No nerve struck, and no apology necessary; I took no offence at your comment - but I spend many a family gathering hearing others explicitly say that I'll change my mind someday. Often coupled with "as soon as you find someone to fall in love with", as though I'm too immature to know what I want. I'm not saying you said that - but us childfrees hear it a lot from people who are saying it.
Only my good upbringing (thanks, Mom and Dad!) prevents me from ripping into them with "Actually, I've been there, done that, and broken up over it. Ain't no oxytocin rush (love) or other pleasure (orgasm) that's worth 18 years of poopy diapers (p=1.00), screaming in restaurants (p=0.90), and picking up the pieces after car accidents, unwanted pregnancies, arrest records, and/or drug overdoses (OK, p=0.10). I can get the sex with my right hand in 30 seconds. I can get the love for $500/session and a lot of self-delusion. Either one's cheaper than $500K of capital and the best years of my life spent doing things I have no interest in doing.
Sadly, my folks brung me up good, and I refrain. *g*
Likewise, it sounds like you've thought it through and decided to have kids. More power to ya, and good luck to you and yours. (Hey, someone's gotta raise 'em, as long as it's not me, I'm happy!;)
ReidMaynard: re: your comment on "being alone is lonely". If that's the case for you, then maybe you should consider having kids or doing volunteer work that puts you in contact with 'em. I'm someone for whom alone != lonely, for whom Sartre's "Hell is other people" rings true, and who figures that not having a family doesn't mean "nobody will be crying at my wake". The EFF will be crying tears of joy, assuming I outlive my capital after retiring early;-)
> The latest version of WinAmp has copy protection (misleadingly referred to as "digital rights management") designed by InterTrust Technologies.
And this compels me to upgrade my current, non-DRM-enabled copy, exactly how?
(Or to FDISK away my Linux partition and nuke xmms, how?)
Granted, you're right in that compulsive upgraders will suffer as SDMI worms its "triggers" for Phase Two into software. But the vast majority of software simply doesn't need to be upgraded.
My MP3 playback software needs to be able to... play MP3s. Anything else is bloat. I haven't upgraded since WinAMP 2.09 - after 2.09, the "Generate HTML Playlist" feature ceased to generate track lengths in the generated HTML. AFAIwasConcerned, any versions after 2.09 were buggier than 2.09, so I stuck with 2.09.
> The latest version of WinAmp has copy protection (misleadingly referred to as "digital rights management") designed by InterTrust Technologies.
And this compels me to upgrade my current, non-DRM-enabled copy, exactly how?
(Or to FDISK away my Linux partition and nuke xmms, how?)
Granted, you're right in that compulsive upgraders will suffer as SDMI worms its "triggers" for Phase Two into software. But the vast majority of software simply doesn't need to be upgraded.
My MP3 playback software needs to be able to... play MP3s. Anything else is bloat. I haven't upgraded since WinAMP 2.09 - after 2.09, the "Generate HTML Playlist" feature ceased to generate track lengths in the generated HTML. AFAIwasConcerned, any versions after 2.09 were buggier than 2.09, so I stuck with 2.09.
> As any military intelligence officer will tell you, you don't brag to the enemy that you've broken their codes. > Just ask the British government officials from World War II what their policy was when the German Enigma was cracked.
> I wonder how you will answer for yourself the question you've raised here when you first hear that tiny cry.
I don't wonder about that, I know. Every time I encounter a kidlet or a baybee, my reaction is "AUGH! Where's the off switch! Somebody shut that thing down I can code!"
(I'm firmly in the "kids are a venereal disease" camp:)
This is why I've decided not to have kids.
Playing devil's advocate - your question (alumshubby's, not The Queen's) seems to imply that "it's different once it's your own".
Given my viscerally-negative reaction whenever I encounter babies or kids, how on earth could I, in good conscience, "have one to see if my reaction was different when it was mine"?
The folks I pity the most aren't the ones who have kids. It's the ones who don't want kids but who have them to appease a kid-hungry spouse or relatives. The kid suffers as much as the coerced parent.
As for sacrifices, there's no point getting into a dicksize war about who's suffered the most.
Consider: Parents sacrifice their free time, but are rewarded with the experience of "creating a new life, nurturing it for 18 years, and charishing it forever". That's not a sacrifice, that's a long-term investment.
Speaking for myself, I've sacrificed a 5-year relationship (she wanted 'em, I didn't, we both realized we were gonna be happier without each other over the long term), and (assuming 90% of the female population wants kids) 9 out of every 10 potential relationships going forward. I'll probably remain single and celibate the rest of my life. I'm rewarded with never having to deal with poopy diapers, and being able to hack hardware, software, or just slack off and enjoy my weekends whenever I like. And I get to retire 10 years earlier than folks with kids. My decision is also not a sacrifice, but an investment.
Different value systems. Different priorities. Different payoffs.
> The dark side of flaming is obvious enough: it inhibits free speech and it discourages > newcomers and the techno-wary. More than any other factor, flaming keeps the Net from actually > spawning open and coherent communities, since rational discussion becomes all but impossible > except in closed, moderated forums.
Aren't you contradicting yourself somewhat? The last thing I want is a "community" full of people saying "PLEEZ UNSUBSCRIBE M3 FRUM DIS L1ST!".
Flaming is as much a form of moderation as anything else, and if flaming keeps the newbies away, (e.g. flame one newbie to a helminthic crust as an example to the others), then load 'er up with napalm and let 'er rip.
Speaking of flame, there's a fascinating thread in news.admin.net-abuse.email on the nature of communication across the language barrier, and it started with a flame. Search for "worm poop" or "worm men" and watch as a native Italian speaker (and spammer) gets his flames and death threats translated through Babelfish to English (and back again), to the amusement and delight of all.
To quote one poster from the thread: "Any sufficiently advanced communication is indistinguishable from gibberish". And yet - any sufficiently advanced communicators are still able to understand said gibberish.
> They're not invading your privacy. Invading your privacy would be tapping your phone, [...]
Then I suppose you won't mind posting your meatspace address so we can all knock on your door when you're having dinner.
Or if you've got a significant other, perhaps you wouldn't mind allowing the Direct Slashdotting Association to compile a database of your condom-buying habits? We'd like to be able to knock on your bedroom door a few minutes before you get intimate because we know you'll be in a buying mood for our contraceptive products.
Think the "DSA" intruding on your sex life for marketing is a parody? How 'bout the real-world example of the woman whose sprog was stillborn... and she kept having her face rubbed into it every time some marketroid sent her a pack of free sample diapers.
No, direct marketing isn't the same kind of invasion as a wiretap. But it most certainly is invasive.
> While it may feel cathartic to harass the person calling you, you're merely annoying
someone low on the food chain.
Quite true. You also forgot one other reason not to harass the drone on the other end of the phone - several companies are hiring prisoners, and/or ex-cons on early-release programs. These clods aren't the kinds of people you want to piss off, especially since they have your real name, phone number, and meatspace address sitting in front of them on the screen.
Despite my cathartic/. rant concerning what to do with telemarketers (something I'd desperately love to see legalized - FOX TV would definitely air the wire-brushings;-), I'm actually pretty polite to 'em on the phone in Real Life.
Uttering the phrase "place this number on your firm's do-not-call list" the instant you realize it's a telemarketer usually results in a "yes sir, we'll do that", or "OK, thank you", and an immediate hangup.
The drone is interested in doing as many calls as possible - the faster they're done with you, the sooner they can harass the next person on the list.
By being polite and quick, you not only reduce the probability that an angry drone will target you for future harassment (remember, they've got your phone number, name, and address at a minimum), you increase the probability that you'll actually be placed on their do-not-call list.
I only break out the "big guns" (inform of TCPA violation and threat of TCPA suit) for repeat offenders. AT&T's been the only one dumb enough to call back three times.
It took me about three months, but I went from three calls a night down to one every month. It's actually been about 3 months since the last telemarketer darkened my phone. And I don't even pay the phone company the "ransom" for anonymous-call-rejection. (I see no reason to pay the phone company for what I see as something that should be mine by right - namely the right not to be harassed - even though the local telco sees that right as a service to be hawked.
( Besides, the bastards at the local telco sold my number immediately - even though I made sure the number was both "unpublished" and "unlisted" at the time of signup. I'll tear a slice outa my local telco some other day, though:-)
> [troll them for legitimate info then apply LART]
Actually, I've been tempted to do just that, but they haven't called me in a few months. I guess when I said "This is the third call I've received on behalf of AT&T in violation of TCPA" and they drone wimped out and hung up, he put me on the real do-not-call (read: "The guys who actually wants to sue us, as opposed to just get us to stop calling" list) list.
The real catch-22 of getting the info you need to sue (theoretically, all I need to do is sue AT&T) is that it'd be useful to know which telemarketing company called me.
F'rinstance, it'd be a much stronger case (in the eyes of a judge, who may never have dealt with a TCPA case before) to say "XYZ Drone Services" called me twice, rather than "XYZ Drone Services" called me once, I told them to put me on the do-not-call, and "ABC Droid Services" called me tomorrow.
The judge could say "It's illegal, AT&T's responsible, but it's forgivable because there's no way ABCDroid could have known about your opt-out to XYZDrone in 24 hours. Two calls from XYZDrone would be pretty bulletproof, though.
Probably the only way to get that information ("Why, I'm calling from AT&T!", "No, I want the name of the company on your paycheck, not the company that hired your firm") in the context of a telemarketing call for long distance services would be to pretend to be someone interested in working at the telemarketing company. ("Hey, I need some extra dough, where do I sign up?")
Finally, when you get to court, you have to remember you're dealing with telemarketers. Unless it's legal to record a telephone conversation where only one party (you) is aware of the recording, it's highly probable that even if XYZDrone called you twice, their representative would just lie on the stand and say "no, we only called him once", or "we never called him after he asked to be put on the do-not-call list". It'd be your word against his, as you couldn't prove it without a recording of both calls identifying the telemarketer as an employee of XYZDrone.
If you live in a state where all parties must consent to recording, in order to prove that the marketer is perjuring itself, you'd have to admit under oath that you'd broken your state's eavesdropping laws. This would be a Bad Move(tm).
> While I largely agree with your rant, I would have moderated you down as flamebait
> for the gratuitously graphic profanity...
Yeah, it was a bit over-the-top, wasn't it?:-)
Seriously, as for the flamebait/trollishness, Slashdot moderation's probably gonna be even more fup'd-uck than normal today.
Personally, when I saw the Score:5 on my rant, I'd have gone for a (-1, Redundant) than a (-1, Overrated). You're quite correct in that there are lots of posts with a higher S:N ratio, particularly when it comes to using one's state PUC to LART for slamming, as opposed to the TCPA for illegal telemarketing. That technique is probably much more effective than suing 'em under TCPA. PUCs have the time and budget to win these cases, individuals using TCPA often have to spend a lot of time and effort. Go the TCPA route if you like fighting for the general principle, the PUC route for damaging the enemy.
FWIW, when I made the post, I figured my post was worth about a 4, tops, and that's with one of those points being a "Funny" for the ranting. The 5 surprised me too.
> You can get the number - *69 them and it will appear on your next telephone bill.
Hmm, this may be a function of your local carrier, or the geographic location of the telemarketer. I've tried this a few times, but generally only get a message saying "We're sorry, the last number that called your line is unavailable".
(I can't believe I'm about to say something nice about spammers, but the one nice thing about them, as opposed to telemarketers, is that it's comparatively trivial to find out where they're coming from. If I could get $500 per spam, I'd be worth about $4.5M at present count.;-)
A user writes:
> [AT&T] woudlnt' [put me on their do-not-call list]
> without my name and address, and they said it takes 60 days for them to process it,
The telemarketer is lying. (Marketers. Lying is in the genes.) The TCPA - the federal law regulating telemarketers - is very explicit about this. They must add you immediately, and after you say "Place this number on your firm's do-not-call list", any calls that any telemarketer gives you on behalf of AT&T allow you to collect $500 from AT&T in court.
> [The DMA's "Telephone Preference Service" opt-out]
> isn't binding [but it is effective]
Although what you say is true, I point out that you're still required to jump through a lot of hoops because the DMA managed to buy enough Congresscritters to make telephone harassment (they call it marketing, I call it harassment. Fuck 'em.) legal.
It's better than nothing, but the ideal solution would be legislation to ban the practice altogether. Regrettably, one such measure for California failed to gather enough signatures for the November election. Voter Revolt may choose to try again in 2002.
> and the lower forms of telemarketing scum still call,
..."lower forms of telemarketing scum"? Not only do you repeat yourself, but the ring around my bathtub is deeply offended;-)
First off - fuck AT&T and all their telemarketers with a wire brush. (Fuck all telemarketers with a wire brush, but start with AT&T's. When you're done with the rest of the telemarketers, give AT&T's another go-around with the wire brush.)
I've received numerous telemarketers trying to pimp AT&T long distance - and the past few have been in blatant violation of the TCPA.
Regrettably, the TCPA is toothless in that the telemarkters hang up (making the $500 violation a willful $1500 violation) as soon as I say "This call is in violation of the TCPA. Please state your name". Of course, since they've blocked their number, I can't get the evidence I need to launch the suit.
But anyways - fuck AT&T long distance and their telemarketers with wire brushes. I'll never do business with AT&T as long as I live, despite the fact that their junk-snail-mail arm has sent me multiple $90.00 "checks" as inducements to switch.
As for Katz, or anyone else who's getting multiple illegal telephone solicitations, if you're really pissed, there may be ways to obtain the phone numbers of the telemarketers (e.g. use the "trace/harassing calls" process and file suit, then have your landshark get the number from the cops) - and sue the motherfuckers for $500 (or $1500 for willful violation) per call.
Also, the Public Utilities Commission has a wide array of LARTs at its disposal, and they hate slammers as much as we do. Dunno what they can do about telemarketers per se, however. But if a telemarketer is habitually slamming, the PUC can apply serious mofo pressure to the offending phone company.
Did I mention I hate telemarketers, and especially AT&T's? (Fuck 'em with a wire brush! Fuck 'em until their guts bleed! Shove light bulbs up their arses and turn 'em on until they start to cook! Then tell 'em they can stop the burning by clenching their sphincters until they shatter the bulb! I hate telemarketers!)
Bottom line. Sue the motherfuckers into the stone age. Let the lawyers do the wire-brush stuff. Sell tickets to the courtroom.
> Isn't this like saying that a cassette
tape which held a pirated Metallica > song and was then recorded over with white noise and then a
clear signal >is still possible to recover the Metallica song intact?
Be warned that this paper was dated 1996. Technology has improved significantly since then. The state of the art in magnetic force microscopy and magnetic force scanning tunnelling microscopy is almost certainly highly classified.
Your audio analogy is excellent. In the case of your cassette tape, it's a virtual certainty that the record head was "off" by a fraction of an inch when it recorded the white noise over your Metallica. (And it went "off" by a different fraction of an inch when you recorded the clear signal on top of it).
So, a forensics dude will use tools to read the fraction of an inch that didn't get overwritten by the white noise, and the other fraction of an inch that escaped the clear tone, and reconstruct most of the Metallica song.
The same thing works with hard drives, except it's a hell of a lot more work.
That having been said, this technology is at the bleeding edge and costs a fortune. It's probably only used in to recover data of interest to national security.
Your typical criminal is st00pid, and your typical FBI goon merely looks at unallocated blocks containing data the criminal thought was erased.
A smart FBI goon will also use a tool to read sectors that have been marked as "bad" - there may be data there that the
A good data shredder, incidentally, will take into account the model of the hard drive and the encoding method used by the firmware - when you write "FF" to a drive, you're not actually writing eight "north poles" in sequence - and write a sequence of bytes geared to "even out" the magnetic flux as much as possible.
That said, even this isn't bulletproof. The last time I looked, the only acceptable standard in the military (and presumably in the intelligence community) for scrubbing highly sensitive data is physical destruction of the media.
If it's your nudie pics or your company's secrets, encrypt the volume or scrub the data when you're done with it. Better yet, do both.
If it's plans for compact nuclear warheads and you want to sell them to the Chinese government, make sure your friends give lots of money to the Democrats. Uh. I meant, "physically destroy the media after you've made the sale".
As long as the media is intact, if the data's important enough, someone will be able to recover it.
Re:Conceding your lawsuit is baseless?
on
RIAA CEO Speaks
·
· Score: 1
> > [now watch 'em sue broadband providers]
> I doubt it. [but] watching a death match with RIAA lawyers vs > AT&T, etc. lawyers would be exciting!
I'd pay good money to watch that!
Wouldn't give a rat's ass who won. I'd just stand on the sidelines and toss sharp pointy things into the ring. Anything that involves lawyers in combat to the death is OK by me.
But there's gotta be pointy things.
Re:Conceding your lawsuit is baseless?
on
RIAA CEO Speaks
·
· Score: 5
> [Hilary Rosen sez] "Swapping CDs with your friends isn't wrong."
>
> [a/.er sez] Now that's a big step forward!
Not really. We saw this played out for $150M during the mp3.com trial. It's the difference between an information-theory point of view and a meatspace point of view.
Hilary Rosen is thinking about swapping plastic discs that store a physical representation of music.
You and I are thinking in terms of swapping bits that store an informational representation of music.
Hilary has no problem with our swapping plastic discs, because the number of plastic discs remains constant after the swap. After thee swap, I can no longer hear the music on my piece of plastic, because the plastic's in your basement.
She's still got a big problem with our swapping bits, because me giving you my bits doesn't prevent me from continuing to use my bits. After we swap, we can both listen to the music encoded in both my bits and your bits.
(Indeed, the notion of "my" and "your" to denote ownership of "bits" in the context of swapping stuff is nonsensical, which is why Hilary gets angry, judges get confused, companies get sued, and geeks wonder what all the fuss is about, whenever people "swap CDs with their friends" from an information-theoretic point of view instead of a meatspace point of view.)
The record companies know how to sell plastic. They don't know how to deal with bits. They only know how to think plastic and scarcity. They can't think bits and plenitude.
Viewed this way, SDMI is merely an attempt to turn back the clock - to glue those bits back onto a piece of hardware, thereby making the bits scarce and consequently more valuable.
Won't work, of course. But at least now you know where she's coming from.
Slashdot Mirror
> when you're actually wondering, "Could this EMF emitter next to my brain get my ass killed?"
I'm using the scientific method. It's a pretty damn good tool for determining the validity of falsifiable hypotheses.
If you'd care to describe your tool, and why it's better, please go ahead. As of right now, the only "tool" I see you using is FUD.
> since we don't know much about the brain, then the probability is correspondingly higher
> that [Substance X might exist and create localized heating in response to low-level EMF] and lead to
> brain damage.
In what way does our lack of knowledge about the brain increase the probability that a substance exists whose properties are determined only by someone's need to support a theory whose implications are unsupported by the existing data?
And I'd say that we do know enough about the brain to know what brains are made of, and whether or not such a substance exists?
I'm not saying "why has nobody (on your side) done the experiment", I'm asking "why has nobody (on your side) even posited a possible chemical structure for this mystical substance"?
As long as we're engaging in ad-hominem attacks, I'd bet $1000 that if we did fund such an experiment, and it proved conclusively that no such substance existed in brains, the proponents of your side of the argument would posit that phlogiston, or aether, or some substance undetectable by experiment, existed.
(Don't believe me? Look at all the people who fall for therapeutic touch, creation science, or other bunk - yes, bunk - and who come up with increasingly-Rube-Goldberg contraptions to explain their results in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary.)
Science doesn't work that way. Sorry if you don't get it. If you want to believe things in the face of the evidence, go ahead. But until you can come up with the evidence, please don't try to call the basis for your belief "scientific".
> the whole karma whore issue demonstrates that we're no less manipulable or pander-to-able than
> anyone else. It's just that what we want is different,
Sorry, I should have clarified:
Our wanting different things than most people makes for bad soundbites. (e.g. the false dichotomy that anyone who's against censorship is for kiddie pr0n, or that our opposition to DMCA constitutes support for piracy).
To use those two examples, anyone who panders to our segment of the electorate on those two issues, leaves themselves open to attack, and loses votes from the sheeple who fall for the "it's for the children" rhetoric and campaign donations from the entertainment industry.
As for the "not as easily-manipulated", I retract that. As much as I loathe the Demipublicans, I've observed that while Nader and Browne (Green vs. Libertarian) both have substantial followings on Slashdot, they're pretty much on opposite sides of most ideological issues.
And yet "the Slashdot crowd" appears to have split into two camps, each having been manipulated depending on whether they prefer Nader's anti-WTO rhetoric, or Browne's less-government rhetoric.
The situation isn't much different from Gore's "ban guns and save the spotted owl" rhetoric getting the "soccer mom" crowd out to vote Democrat to save the children, and Bush's "ban non-Christians and legislate morality" rhetoric getting the fundie "PTA-mom" crowd out to vote Republican.
The difference is that Nader and Browne are splitting the geeky 10% of the votes, and Gore and Bush are splitting the mundane 90% :-(
BZZT. Go back to Philosophy of Science 101.
In science, the burden of proof is upon the one making the claim.
You claim that there exists a radiation hazard from cell phones. This is a falsifiable, testable claim, and is properly within the domain of science.
Yet the studies do not support your claim.
A scientist would reject the claim as being unsupported by the evidence. Until your side of the debate can come up with the evidence, your claim is invalid.
You further fail to understand the point by going on to say:
> the claim that microwaves can't do anything because they are not ionizing radiation is at best doubtful.
> How do we know that there isn't a chemical substance in the brain which resonates at the frequencies of these transmitters and which will selectively absorb energy
>from them causing a breakdown of the chemical from selective heating?
Because:
(i) The burden of proof is on you. If you believe such a substance exists, please derive its chemical properties (easy enough to do given the requirements of a resonance frequency matching the cellular band), and dissect a few rat brains and show it to us.
(ii)Please explain how such a substance could exist in such concentrations in the brain as to be heated several degrees above (due to the miniscule wattage of cell phones) ambient body temperature, and explain how this heating would be "bad" compared to the normal heating and cooling of the body by 1-2 degrees throughout the course of the day.
(iii) Occam's Razor. Our theories of how brains work are supported by our notions on nonionizing radiation and do not require the invocation of Substance X. Your theory requires the invention of Substance X to explain something that doesn't show up in the data. Why should we choose your theory, which invokes a substance (existence of which is unverified even by you!) expressly for the purpose of saving your theory?
> To say "Its safe because I don't see any way it could be dangerous" is pretty arrogant.
(iv) Argumentum ad hominem and back to burden of proof again. Your argument smacks of "How do we know the moon isn't made of green cheese? I mean, apart from the small areas of moon we explored in the 60s. We haven't been to all the square footage of the moon, to say that none of it is made of green cheese is arrogant!
> > (ii) [...makes sure the censorware is on while minors are using the PCs...]
> Why the (ii)? Are adults allowed to see child porn on school computers?
For that matter, "Why the (II)? Doesn't child porn fall under obscenity laws to begin with?"
Welcome to the world of politics. Where anyone who stands up in Congress and questions the intent of (i)(II) gets branded as "opposing measures to block child pornography", and anyone who questions the intent of (ii) gets branded as "exposing your kids to child pornography".
Remember, this is the "Children's Internet Protection" measure. Anyone who opposes it must be against children, and is a bad person.
The only way we'll see freedom of expression in this country is if someone introduces the text of the First Amendment as the "Protection of Big-Eyed Kids, Cute Fluffy Kittens and Frisky Puppies Act".
The short answer - nothing.
The long answer - if (if) Dubya gets in, you'll see some sort of tax break. Gore's tax breaks are only for breeders (and at that, not even every breeder gets the full amount). If Bush wins, you might get something back. If Gore wins, you get zippo.
As for their records in the past, they've done nothing. The bottom line is that (1) we're a minority, (2) most of us have enough free time that we've probably already made up our minds well in advance of the election. The soccer-moms are so busy that half of 'em haven't even noticed there is an election. And (3) we can't be swayed by "it's for the chillllldrunnn" rhetoric. So we're a harder segment to go for because we're harder to manipulate.
Pandering to us makes for poor soundbites, and we're not as easily-manipulated. Is it any wonder we're ignored?
As usual, The Misanthropic Bitch puts it best:
They also exist in Canada. Don't believe the bunk about Hagelin being a "physicist" in any meaningful sense of the word.
In Canada, the NLP is merely a front group designed to raise/launder money for the Transcendental Meditation movement under the guise of being a political party. Yogic flying? Puh-leeze. I suspect the same is true for the NLP in both the UK and US.
1) Spammers lie.
2) If you think a spammer's telling the truth, see Rule #1
3) Spammers are st00pid.
Canonical example - I will no longer do business with Travelocity, who spammed me after I ordered a ticket through them and made very sure to click on all the "no, leave me alone you assholes" buttons. Upon reporting the spam to them, I was assured I'd be removed in what appeared not to be a form-letter -- and of course, I got spammed a few weeks down the road.
Whenever you say "shut the fuck up and stop spamming me", marketers imagine that they hear the words "except for things your marketing department thinks I really really really do want".
Marketers lie. It's in their DNA.
Never give a valid email address to any company for any reason.
From now on, I do all my travel purchaes through another company, and I use an expendable yahoo.com dropbox for order confirmations. So far, this company hasn't spammed me, but when (not if!) they do, I'll simply switch to another company. And another dropbox.
As for the suggestion that the phone be housed in a Faraday cage, uh, wouldn't that kinda defeat the purpose of a cell phone?
Bottom line. Not everything with the word "radiation" is bad for you. Don't believe the hype, believe the physics.
(For that matter, not everything with the word "nuclear" is bad for you either. But that's another story.)
Old sappy new-age quote: "When you were born, you were crying while everyone in the room smiled. Try to die smiling while everyone in the room is crying."
Methods of achieving this using a dozen CueCats, an electrified wire brush, and a telemarketing call center, are left to the reader.
No nerve struck, and no apology necessary; I took no offence at your comment - but I spend many a family gathering hearing others explicitly say that I'll change my mind someday. Often coupled with "as soon as you find someone to fall in love with", as though I'm too immature to know what I want. I'm not saying you said that - but us childfrees hear it a lot from people who are saying it.
Only my good upbringing (thanks, Mom and Dad!) prevents me from ripping into them with "Actually, I've been there, done that, and broken up over it. Ain't no oxytocin rush (love) or other pleasure (orgasm) that's worth 18 years of poopy diapers (p=1.00), screaming in restaurants (p=0.90), and picking up the pieces after car accidents, unwanted pregnancies, arrest records, and/or drug overdoses (OK, p=0.10). I can get the sex with my right hand in 30 seconds. I can get the love for $500/session and a lot of self-delusion. Either one's cheaper than $500K of capital and the best years of my life spent doing things I have no interest in doing.
Sadly, my folks brung me up good, and I refrain. *g*
Likewise, it sounds like you've thought it through and decided to have kids. More power to ya, and good luck to you and yours. (Hey, someone's gotta raise 'em, as long as it's not me, I'm happy! ;)
ReidMaynard: re: your comment on "being alone is lonely". If that's the case for you, then maybe you should consider having kids or doing volunteer work that puts you in contact with 'em. I'm someone for whom alone != lonely, for whom Sartre's "Hell is other people" rings true, and who figures that not having a family doesn't mean "nobody will be crying at my wake". The EFF will be crying tears of joy, assuming I outlive my capital after retiring early ;-)
And this compels me to upgrade my current, non-DRM-enabled copy, exactly how?
(Or to FDISK away my Linux partition and nuke xmms, how?)
Granted, you're right in that compulsive upgraders will suffer as SDMI worms its "triggers" for Phase Two into software. But the vast majority of software simply doesn't need to be upgraded.
My MP3 playback software needs to be able to... play MP3s. Anything else is bloat. I haven't upgraded since WinAMP 2.09 - after 2.09, the "Generate HTML Playlist" feature ceased to generate track lengths in the generated HTML. AFAIwasConcerned, any versions after 2.09 were buggier than 2.09, so I stuck with 2.09.
And this compels me to upgrade my current, non-DRM-enabled copy, exactly how?
(Or to FDISK away my Linux partition and nuke xmms, how?)
Granted, you're right in that compulsive upgraders will suffer as SDMI worms its "triggers" for Phase Two into software. But the vast majority of software simply doesn't need to be upgraded.
My MP3 playback software needs to be able to... play MP3s. Anything else is bloat. I haven't upgraded since WinAMP 2.09 - after 2.09, the "Generate HTML Playlist" feature ceased to generate track lengths in the generated HTML. AFAIwasConcerned, any versions after 2.09 were buggier than 2.09, so I stuck with 2.09.
> Just ask the British government officials from World War II what their policy was when the German Enigma was cracked.
"Enigma ist kracked? Vas der fikken?"
(Reputedly the last words of Adolf Hitler ;-)
I don't wonder about that, I know. Every time I encounter a kidlet or a baybee, my reaction is "AUGH! Where's the off switch! Somebody shut that thing down I can code!" (I'm firmly in the "kids are a venereal disease" camp :)
This is why I've decided not to have kids.
Playing devil's advocate - your question (alumshubby's, not The Queen's) seems to imply that "it's different once it's your own".
Given my viscerally-negative reaction whenever I encounter babies or kids, how on earth could I, in good conscience, "have one to see if my reaction was different when it was mine"?
The folks I pity the most aren't the ones who have kids. It's the ones who don't want kids but who have them to appease a kid-hungry spouse or relatives. The kid suffers as much as the coerced parent.
As for sacrifices, there's no point getting into a dicksize war about who's suffered the most.
Consider: Parents sacrifice their free time, but are rewarded with the experience of "creating a new life, nurturing it for 18 years, and charishing it forever". That's not a sacrifice, that's a long-term investment.
Speaking for myself, I've sacrificed a 5-year relationship (she wanted 'em, I didn't, we both realized we were gonna be happier without each other over the long term), and (assuming 90% of the female population wants kids) 9 out of every 10 potential relationships going forward. I'll probably remain single and celibate the rest of my life. I'm rewarded with never having to deal with poopy diapers, and being able to hack hardware, software, or just slack off and enjoy my weekends whenever I like. And I get to retire 10 years earlier than folks with kids. My decision is also not a sacrifice, but an investment.
Different value systems. Different priorities. Different payoffs.
> newcomers and the techno-wary. More than any other factor, flaming keeps the Net from actually
> spawning open and coherent communities, since rational discussion becomes all but impossible
> except in closed, moderated forums.
Aren't you contradicting yourself somewhat? The last thing I want is a "community" full of people saying "PLEEZ UNSUBSCRIBE M3 FRUM DIS L1ST!".
Flaming is as much a form of moderation as anything else, and if flaming keeps the newbies away, (e.g. flame one newbie to a helminthic crust as an example to the others), then load 'er up with napalm and let 'er rip.
Speaking of flame, there's a fascinating thread in news.admin.net-abuse.email on the nature of communication across the language barrier, and it started with a flame. Search for "worm poop" or "worm men" and watch as a native Italian speaker (and spammer) gets his flames and death threats translated through Babelfish to English (and back again), to the amusement and delight of all.
To quote one poster from the thread: "Any sufficiently advanced communication is indistinguishable from gibberish". And yet - any sufficiently advanced communicators are still able to understand said gibberish.
Then I suppose you won't mind posting your meatspace address so we can all knock on your door when you're having dinner.
Or if you've got a significant other, perhaps you wouldn't mind allowing the Direct Slashdotting Association to compile a database of your condom-buying habits? We'd like to be able to knock on your bedroom door a few minutes before you get intimate because we know you'll be in a buying mood for our contraceptive products.
Think the "DSA" intruding on your sex life for marketing is a parody? How 'bout the real-world example of the woman whose sprog was stillborn... and she kept having her face rubbed into it every time some marketroid sent her a pack of free sample diapers.
No, direct marketing isn't the same kind of invasion as a wiretap. But it most certainly is invasive.
Quite true. You also forgot one other reason not to harass the drone on the other end of the phone - several companies are hiring prisoners, and/or ex-cons on early-release programs. These clods aren't the kinds of people you want to piss off, especially since they have your real name, phone number, and meatspace address sitting in front of them on the screen.
Despite my cathartic /. rant concerning what to do with telemarketers (something I'd desperately love to see legalized - FOX TV would definitely air the wire-brushings ;-), I'm actually pretty polite to 'em on the phone in Real Life.
Uttering the phrase "place this number on your firm's do-not-call list" the instant you realize it's a telemarketer usually results in a "yes sir, we'll do that", or "OK, thank you", and an immediate hangup.
The drone is interested in doing as many calls as possible - the faster they're done with you, the sooner they can harass the next person on the list.
By being polite and quick, you not only reduce the probability that an angry drone will target you for future harassment (remember, they've got your phone number, name, and address at a minimum), you increase the probability that you'll actually be placed on their do-not-call list.
I only break out the "big guns" (inform of TCPA violation and threat of TCPA suit) for repeat offenders. AT&T's been the only one dumb enough to call back three times.
It took me about three months, but I went from three calls a night down to one every month. It's actually been about 3 months since the last telemarketer darkened my phone. And I don't even pay the phone company the "ransom" for anonymous-call-rejection. (I see no reason to pay the phone company for what I see as something that should be mine by right - namely the right not to be harassed - even though the local telco sees that right as a service to be hawked.
( Besides, the bastards at the local telco sold my number immediately - even though I made sure the number was both "unpublished" and "unlisted" at the time of signup. I'll tear a slice outa my local telco some other day, though :-)
Actually, I've been tempted to do just that, but they haven't called me in a few months. I guess when I said "This is the third call I've received on behalf of AT&T in violation of TCPA" and they drone wimped out and hung up, he put me on the real do-not-call (read: "The guys who actually wants to sue us, as opposed to just get us to stop calling" list) list.
The real catch-22 of getting the info you need to sue (theoretically, all I need to do is sue AT&T) is that it'd be useful to know which telemarketing company called me.
F'rinstance, it'd be a much stronger case (in the eyes of a judge, who may never have dealt with a TCPA case before) to say "XYZ Drone Services" called me twice, rather than "XYZ Drone Services" called me once, I told them to put me on the do-not-call, and "ABC Droid Services" called me tomorrow.
The judge could say "It's illegal, AT&T's responsible, but it's forgivable because there's no way ABCDroid could have known about your opt-out to XYZDrone in 24 hours. Two calls from XYZDrone would be pretty bulletproof, though.
Probably the only way to get that information ("Why, I'm calling from AT&T!", "No, I want the name of the company on your paycheck, not the company that hired your firm") in the context of a telemarketing call for long distance services would be to pretend to be someone interested in working at the telemarketing company. ("Hey, I need some extra dough, where do I sign up?")
Finally, when you get to court, you have to remember you're dealing with telemarketers. Unless it's legal to record a telephone conversation where only one party (you) is aware of the recording, it's highly probable that even if XYZDrone called you twice, their representative would just lie on the stand and say "no, we only called him once", or "we never called him after he asked to be put on the do-not-call list". It'd be your word against his, as you couldn't prove it without a recording of both calls identifying the telemarketer as an employee of XYZDrone.
If you live in a state where all parties must consent to recording, in order to prove that the marketer is perjuring itself, you'd have to admit under oath that you'd broken your state's eavesdropping laws. This would be a Bad Move(tm).
> While I largely agree with your rant, I would have moderated you down as flamebait
> for the gratuitously graphic profanity...
Yeah, it was a bit over-the-top, wasn't it? :-)
Seriously, as for the flamebait/trollishness, Slashdot moderation's probably gonna be even more fup'd-uck than normal today.
Personally, when I saw the Score:5 on my rant, I'd have gone for a (-1, Redundant) than a (-1, Overrated). You're quite correct in that there are lots of posts with a higher S:N ratio, particularly when it comes to using one's state PUC to LART for slamming, as opposed to the TCPA for illegal telemarketing. That technique is probably much more effective than suing 'em under TCPA. PUCs have the time and budget to win these cases, individuals using TCPA often have to spend a lot of time and effort. Go the TCPA route if you like fighting for the general principle, the PUC route for damaging the enemy.
FWIW, when I made the post, I figured my post was worth about a 4, tops, and that's with one of those points being a "Funny" for the ranting. The 5 surprised me too.
Hmm, this may be a function of your local carrier, or the geographic location of the telemarketer. I've tried this a few times, but generally only get a message saying "We're sorry, the last number that called your line is unavailable".
(I can't believe I'm about to say something nice about spammers, but the one nice thing about them, as opposed to telemarketers, is that it's comparatively trivial to find out where they're coming from. If I could get $500 per spam, I'd be worth about $4.5M at present count. ;-)
> without my name and address, and they said it takes 60 days for them to process it,
The telemarketer is lying. (Marketers. Lying is in the genes.) The TCPA - the federal law regulating telemarketers - is very explicit about this. They must add you immediately, and after you say "Place this number on your firm's do-not-call list", any calls that any telemarketer gives you on behalf of AT&T allow you to collect $500 from AT&T in court.
Sue the fux0rs.
> isn't binding [but it is effective]
Although what you say is true, I point out that you're still required to jump through a lot of hoops because the DMA managed to buy enough Congresscritters to make telephone harassment (they call it marketing, I call it harassment. Fuck 'em.) legal.
It's better than nothing, but the ideal solution would be legislation to ban the practice altogether. Regrettably, one such measure for California failed to gather enough signatures for the November election. Voter Revolt may choose to try again in 2002.
> and the lower forms of telemarketing scum still call,
I've received numerous telemarketers trying to pimp AT&T long distance - and the past few have been in blatant violation of the TCPA.
Regrettably, the TCPA is toothless in that the telemarkters hang up (making the $500 violation a willful $1500 violation) as soon as I say "This call is in violation of the TCPA. Please state your name". Of course, since they've blocked their number, I can't get the evidence I need to launch the suit.
But anyways - fuck AT&T long distance and their telemarketers with wire brushes. I'll never do business with AT&T as long as I live, despite the fact that their junk-snail-mail arm has sent me multiple $90.00 "checks" as inducements to switch.
As for Katz, or anyone else who's getting multiple illegal telephone solicitations, if you're really pissed, there may be ways to obtain the phone numbers of the telemarketers (e.g. use the "trace/harassing calls" process and file suit, then have your landshark get the number from the cops) - and sue the motherfuckers for $500 (or $1500 for willful violation) per call.
Also, the Public Utilities Commission has a wide array of LARTs at its disposal, and they hate slammers as much as we do. Dunno what they can do about telemarketers per se, however. But if a telemarketer is habitually slamming, the PUC can apply serious mofo pressure to the offending phone company.
Did I mention I hate telemarketers, and especially AT&T's? (Fuck 'em with a wire brush! Fuck 'em until their guts bleed! Shove light bulbs up their arses and turn 'em on until they start to cook! Then tell 'em they can stop the burning by clenching their sphincters until they shatter the bulb! I hate telemarketers!)
Bottom line. Sue the motherfuckers into the stone age. Let the lawyers do the wire-brush stuff. Sell tickets to the courtroom.
> song and was then recorded over with white noise and then a clear signal
>is still possible to recover the Metallica song intact?
Actually, its not just like that, it is that.
A good introduction to the field: A 1996 paper on Secure Deletion of Data from Magnetic and Solid-State Memory.
Be warned that this paper was dated 1996. Technology has improved significantly since then. The state of the art in magnetic force microscopy and magnetic force scanning tunnelling microscopy is almost certainly highly classified.
Your audio analogy is excellent. In the case of your cassette tape, it's a virtual certainty that the record head was "off" by a fraction of an inch when it recorded the white noise over your Metallica. (And it went "off" by a different fraction of an inch when you recorded the clear signal on top of it).
So, a forensics dude will use tools to read the fraction of an inch that didn't get overwritten by the white noise, and the other fraction of an inch that escaped the clear tone, and reconstruct most of the Metallica song.
The same thing works with hard drives, except it's a hell of a lot more work.
That having been said, this technology is at the bleeding edge and costs a fortune. It's probably only used in to recover data of interest to national security.
Your typical criminal is st00pid, and your typical FBI goon merely looks at unallocated blocks containing data the criminal thought was erased.
A smart FBI goon will also use a tool to read sectors that have been marked as "bad" - there may be data there that the
A good data shredder, incidentally, will take into account the model of the hard drive and the encoding method used by the firmware - when you write "FF" to a drive, you're not actually writing eight "north poles" in sequence - and write a sequence of bytes geared to "even out" the magnetic flux as much as possible.
That said, even this isn't bulletproof. The last time I looked, the only acceptable standard in the military (and presumably in the intelligence community) for scrubbing highly sensitive data is physical destruction of the media.
If it's your nudie pics or your company's secrets, encrypt the volume or scrub the data when you're done with it. Better yet, do both.
If it's plans for compact nuclear warheads and you want to sell them to the Chinese government, make sure your friends give lots of money to the Democrats. Uh. I meant, "physically destroy the media after you've made the sale".
As long as the media is intact, if the data's important enough, someone will be able to recover it.
> I doubt it. [but] watching a death match with RIAA lawyers vs
> AT&T, etc. lawyers would be exciting!
I'd pay good money to watch that!
Wouldn't give a rat's ass who won. I'd just stand on the sidelines and toss sharp pointy things into the ring. Anything that involves lawyers in combat to the death is OK by me.
But there's gotta be pointy things.
>
> [a
Not really. We saw this played out for $150M during the mp3.com trial. It's the difference between an information-theory point of view and a meatspace point of view.
Hilary Rosen is thinking about swapping plastic discs that store a physical representation of music.
You and I are thinking in terms of swapping bits that store an informational representation of music.
Hilary has no problem with our swapping plastic discs, because the number of plastic discs remains constant after the swap. After thee swap, I can no longer hear the music on my piece of plastic, because the plastic's in your basement.
She's still got a big problem with our swapping bits, because me giving you my bits doesn't prevent me from continuing to use my bits. After we swap, we can both listen to the music encoded in both my bits and your bits.
(Indeed, the notion of "my" and "your" to denote ownership of "bits" in the context of swapping stuff is nonsensical, which is why Hilary gets angry, judges get confused, companies get sued, and geeks wonder what all the fuss is about, whenever people "swap CDs with their friends" from an information-theoretic point of view instead of a meatspace point of view.)
The record companies know how to sell plastic. They don't know how to deal with bits. They only know how to think plastic and scarcity. They can't think bits and plenitude.
Viewed this way, SDMI is merely an attempt to turn back the clock - to glue those bits back onto a piece of hardware, thereby making the bits scarce and consequently more valuable.
Won't work, of course. But at least now you know where she's coming from.