I think the CRTC should leave this alone, but at the same time, this has nothing to do with censorship of any kind. It's about providing incentives to produce more content, not prevent you from seeing anything you want to see. Basically, this will have absolutely no effect on you. It will, however, benefit those producing Canadian content for the web.
Linux has gotten "good enough" on PC hardware that I just don't see any reason to even play the game anymore with Microsoft.
For some of us, "good enough" isn't actually good enough.
I use Linux for my servers and my media center, but I use Vista on my main system because I want an OS that does 100% of the things I need it to do, not 99%. That includes supporting my multi-function printer (all of its functionality, not just most of it), my Creative EMU 0202, and running all of my software natively (I can't be bothered to run some stuff natively, some in a VM, and some in a "Not an Emulator").
Linux does most of what I need, but Windows does all of it. So I continue to use Windows.
And, as has already been pointed out in many other posts, the content of this article is absolute garbage.
Nope, that's the whole idea of a casino... suckering people into thinking they stand a chance.
Actually, to that end it's essential that people do win.
Basically, casinos need winners, particularly really big winners. They're what gives all the losers the illusion that they, too, could be a winner someday, and that's what keeps people in the casino.
You see, for every person who gets extremely lucky and walks away $10,000 richer, there's 1000 people who don't get lucky, and walk away $100 poorer. Do the math -- the casino still wins.
However, if no one is ever seen to get lucky, then the losers will begin to flock to another casino where they think they have a better chance.
So the casinos don't mind big winners, in fact they need them. However, it has to happen in a controlled way. That's why they don't like people who upset their ability to control the odds -- like card counters.
Well most don't kick you out if you actually Win. Even if you win big. But if they suspect you of cheating then they will.
Card counting isn't cheating. It's just a smart strategy that can increase your chances of winning.
The reason they kick you out for doing it simply because it's against the casino's rules. And it's against their rules because, well, it's a smart strategy that can increase your chances of winning.
Oh well. Allow me to turn this around and make it the website's fault instead of mine: who the hell decided that such a short article needed to be split into two pages? This isn't a print medium. Have they never heard of the scrollbar?
According to the article the method is currently too slow to be implemented and fails for encrypted traffic. So not quite the BT killer yet.
Which article did you read? The one linked in the summary says the method is fast, and it makes no mention of encryption.
Nevertheless, it sounds like encryption would do the trick here. All it's doing is looking for torrented files and comparing the hashes to a database of known "illegal" content. If it's a match, then it logs the IP address.
Not only that, but this is pretty much standard operating procedure. OEMs get nervous in the lead-up to a new release because customers know they're buying a product that's on the verge of becoming obsolete, so Microsoft has to do something to keep the OEMs in business.
So what do you suggest? Wikipedia includes information that's verifiable, not information that's true, because determining the truth of a statement is difficult.
I don't really have a suggestion. This is an unfortunate limitation of the workings of Wikipedia.
Basically, Wikipedia's version of "truth" is "if it's been repeated enough times, it's true". I think this is why so many people around here seem to dislike Wikipedia -- although I'm not one of those people.
You said that Wikipedia includes information that's verifiable, but really it includes information that's repeated, which is not necessarily the same as verifiable. I mean, staying within Wikipedia's guidelines, I would be providing "verifiable" information if I modified the entry on Chuck Norris to state that he sleeps with a pillow under his gun. I could provide countless links to prove this. Can you find a single link that disproves it?
Which, according to Paul Aiken, means I'm a criminal.
No it doesn't. He's not concerned about you reading a book out loud. He's concerned about someone (or thing) else reading a book out loud to you for profit.
In his quote where he says "they don't have the right to read out loud", "they" is referring to Amazon (through their Kindle product), not the person who purchased the book.
Courts have repeatedly held up that once you are sold a copy of a product, you are entititled to privately do whatever you want with it. That includes space and time shifting. Text to speech is just another type of space shifting. i.e. Moving from one medium to another.
First off, I'm not agreeing with Mr. Aiken here, just trying to explore his position a bit in order to understand it.
I think the issue here is a bit different than space-shifting. When you rip a CD to an MP3, you still have the same product -- an audio product to be listened to. However, when you convert text to speech, you're actually creating a different product. A book is something you read, whereas an audio book is something you listen to. This isn't space-shifting, it's product-shifting (to coin a silly term).
I don't think fair use enters into this, because it's not a question of what you can do privately with the product you have purchased, the issue is what Amazon can sell you. Basically, despite all the comments in this thread joking about Mr. Aiken claiming that we can't read Dr. Seuss books out loud to our kids, what's really being said here is not "you can't read a book out loud", but rather "you can't sell a product that converts one product (text book) into another (audio book)". With respect to reading books to your kids, it's closer to saying "you can't record yourself reading a book and then sell it to other parents to play for their kids".
The key point is that the focus is on what Amazon can sell you, not what you can do with what you purchased.
You mean like the actual fucking person the article is about? Oh wait, Wikipedia doesn't consider the actual fucking person to be a "primary source"!
And therein lies Wikipedia's problem.
Quite true.
I'm mentioned in a Wikipedia article. Not by name, but by an old nickname (the same one I use for my username on this site). However, it's spelled incorrectly, mainly because it's quoting another website that also spelled it incorrectly. That website also states a bunch of "facts" that were made up as a joke, and the Wikipedia article repeats those "facts".
I can't correct the original website, but I can correct Wikipedia -- except that I'm not allowed to, because I can't actually provide a link that proves that I really do spell the name the way I do, or that the "facts" were made up. Plus, I think it's even against the rules to edit articles about yourself.
Therefore, both of the people out there who care about the content of this particular article will remain blissfully misinformed.
So when introducing a concept for a new operating system, it makes no sense to hype it up to users until you have the developers on side.
And how exactly do you get developers on side before the users?
I'm a developer. I develop software. Who do I develop software for? Users. Therefore, there is one important requirement of all software I develop: it must run on the OS that my users are using. My users are not using this OS. Therefore, neither will I.
I think he's talking about programmer-land, not user-land here.
That's the problem. Everything about this appears to be designed for developers, not users. There's absolutely nothing that indicates anything that would make a user want to use this OS.
So, basically, if you're a developer, and want an OS that makes it cool, easy, and fun to develop applications that no one will use, then this is for you.
Not only that, but this very forum is overrun with people complaining about how many times UAC prompts appear in Vista, and this story is about Microsoft responding to users' complaints and reducing the number of prompts, only to then be told that now it had too few prompts. So, they're listening to users' complaints again and rolling things back.
First, just a note about stores that check your bags as you leave -- I personally refuse to shop at any store that automatically assumes that I've robbed them until I can prove otherwise. It boggles my mind that consumers let companies get away with this. Out of curiosity, what happens if you refuse to show your bags and insist on leaving? Assuming you're not stealing anything, you haven't committed a crime, so they can't really do anything. If they prevent you from leaving, wouldn't that be forcible confinement or something? What will they do, call the police, in which case you can probably have them charged?
Anyway, I wonder if this shouldn't fall under the realm of Miranda rights. I mean, upon being arrested, you have the right to remain silent -- essentially, the right not to give up any information. Well, your DNA is information. It should fall under that same right. The police should have to ask you for a DNA sample, and after being informed of exactly how it will be collected, stored, and used, you should have the right to allow or disallow that collection.
There's really nothing here to exploit that hasn't always existed.
All they've added to the KB document is a link to download an MSI file that, when executed, fixes the problem. As long as the web has existed it has been possible to put a link on a webpage saying "download this little utility which will fix all your problems, honest".
Really, it just makes sense. If you're already browsing Microsoft's knowledge base, and you've found the document that explains your problem, instead of following the step-by-step "fix it" instructions provided in the document, why not just click on a link that does the work for you.
So, now they're providing instructions for the people who want to do it themselves, and a convenient utility for the people who don't. Sounds reasonable to me.
It seems to me that business or political success is *usually* more a result of some type animal cunning with a heapin' helpin' of ruthlessness thrown in for good measure.
Keyboard shortcuts can be done in web apps, but too many of my fellow web developers are too lazy to bother implementing them. As a keyboard fan, it drives me nuts.
However, if the truth be told, that was a problem back when I was developing client/server GUI apps as well. I always seemed to be the only guy who put the effort into ensuring the UI was keyboard navigable.
In enterprise software development, the UI always seems to be almost an after-thought. I don't think bailing on web apps will solve that problem.
Just a note on the Star Wars point: the prequels don't even remotely fit in with the original trilogy. If you watch the original trilogy, absolutely every single piece of dialogue that even vaguely references "the past" (ie. events that would later be detailed in the prequels) is blatantly contradicted in the prequels. It's like George Lucas had never even seen the original movies when he decided to make the prequels.
As a result, I tend to view the two sets of trilogies as similar stories, but not actually related. The prequels haven't ruined the originals, because they aren't, in my mind at least, a part of the same story.
But then again, I do still love the original trilogy. In fact, I just watched it again a few weeks ago with my girlfriend, who was seeing it for the first time ever.
Well, I guess the original comment is open to interpretation, as I didn't read it as implying history involving architectural changes. I read it as a criticism of Windows having multiple editions of each version, which is a criticism that has been around for a few years now -- and directly relates to the article to which the post was replying.
As for Windows 3 support ending last year, I also took the original post as being about the confusion that occurs when purchasing Windows, which again directly speaks to the multiple editions. Therefore, my comment about nobody using Windows 3 should more accurately have been that nobody's buying Windows 3.
I agree with your post 95%. The 5% I can't agree with is your last sentence.
I love my furry children (1 dog, 2 cats). But when they're gone, they're gone. I'll probably get more, but why would I want them to be genetic twins to the ones I had? The originals will still be gone, and there's enough animals in shelters desperate for good homes that it just seems selfish and cruel to conjure up some more in a lab.
So if you had one that was a breeze to train why not get it's genetic identical?
Because simply getting another dog of the same breed will often produce the same results. Plus, it's usually not the dog so much as the trainer. If you were successful once, you'll probably be successful again.
Want a dog that doesn't bark or crap in the house? Get a greyhound. Any greyhound. You don't need to clone mine.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the CRTC should leave this alone, but at the same time, this has nothing to do with censorship of any kind. It's about providing incentives to produce more content, not prevent you from seeing anything you want to see. Basically, this will have absolutely no effect on you. It will, however, benefit those producing Canadian content for the web.
Linux has gotten "good enough" on PC hardware that I just don't see any reason to even play the game anymore with Microsoft.
For some of us, "good enough" isn't actually good enough.
I use Linux for my servers and my media center, but I use Vista on my main system because I want an OS that does 100% of the things I need it to do, not 99%. That includes supporting my multi-function printer (all of its functionality, not just most of it), my Creative EMU 0202, and running all of my software natively (I can't be bothered to run some stuff natively, some in a VM, and some in a "Not an Emulator").
Linux does most of what I need, but Windows does all of it. So I continue to use Windows.
And, as has already been pointed out in many other posts, the content of this article is absolute garbage.
I got to keep the $200 I won and didn't even get escorted off the premises.
Now try that with $200,000 of winnings instead of $200. Might be a slightly different story.
Oh, so now you're not allowed to win, are you?
Nope, that's the whole idea of a casino... suckering people into thinking they stand a chance.
Actually, to that end it's essential that people do win.
Basically, casinos need winners, particularly really big winners. They're what gives all the losers the illusion that they, too, could be a winner someday, and that's what keeps people in the casino.
You see, for every person who gets extremely lucky and walks away $10,000 richer, there's 1000 people who don't get lucky, and walk away $100 poorer. Do the math -- the casino still wins.
However, if no one is ever seen to get lucky, then the losers will begin to flock to another casino where they think they have a better chance.
So the casinos don't mind big winners, in fact they need them. However, it has to happen in a controlled way. That's why they don't like people who upset their ability to control the odds -- like card counters.
Well most don't kick you out if you actually Win. Even if you win big. But if they suspect you of cheating then they will.
Card counting isn't cheating. It's just a smart strategy that can increase your chances of winning.
The reason they kick you out for doing it simply because it's against the casino's rules. And it's against their rules because, well, it's a smart strategy that can increase your chances of winning.
It's the lizards. It's always the lizards.
Nope. It's the queers. They're in it with the aliens. They're building landing strips for gay martians! I swear to God!
who the hell decided that such a short article needed to be split into two pages?
The guy who wants to get a lot of ad revenue by making you see more ads.
Someone should point out to that guy that he put the same ads on both pages.
He probably read page 2 of the article,.
Ouch! Wow, do I feel like a retread.
Oh well. Allow me to turn this around and make it the website's fault instead of mine: who the hell decided that such a short article needed to be split into two pages? This isn't a print medium. Have they never heard of the scrollbar?
I'll go away now.
According to the article the method is currently too slow to be implemented and fails for encrypted traffic. So not quite the BT killer yet.
Which article did you read? The one linked in the summary says the method is fast, and it makes no mention of encryption.
Nevertheless, it sounds like encryption would do the trick here. All it's doing is looking for torrented files and comparing the hashes to a database of known "illegal" content. If it's a match, then it logs the IP address.
Not only that, but this is pretty much standard operating procedure. OEMs get nervous in the lead-up to a new release because customers know they're buying a product that's on the verge of becoming obsolete, so Microsoft has to do something to keep the OEMs in business.
Nothing new to see here. Move along.
So what do you suggest? Wikipedia includes information that's verifiable, not information that's true, because determining the truth of a statement is difficult.
I don't really have a suggestion. This is an unfortunate limitation of the workings of Wikipedia.
Basically, Wikipedia's version of "truth" is "if it's been repeated enough times, it's true". I think this is why so many people around here seem to dislike Wikipedia -- although I'm not one of those people.
You said that Wikipedia includes information that's verifiable, but really it includes information that's repeated, which is not necessarily the same as verifiable. I mean, staying within Wikipedia's guidelines, I would be providing "verifiable" information if I modified the entry on Chuck Norris to state that he sleeps with a pillow under his gun. I could provide countless links to prove this. Can you find a single link that disproves it?
Which, according to Paul Aiken, means I'm a criminal.
No it doesn't. He's not concerned about you reading a book out loud. He's concerned about someone (or thing) else reading a book out loud to you for profit.
In his quote where he says "they don't have the right to read out loud", "they" is referring to Amazon (through their Kindle product), not the person who purchased the book.
Courts have repeatedly held up that once you are sold a copy of a product, you are entititled to privately do whatever you want with it. That includes space and time shifting. Text to speech is just another type of space shifting. i.e. Moving from one medium to another.
First off, I'm not agreeing with Mr. Aiken here, just trying to explore his position a bit in order to understand it.
I think the issue here is a bit different than space-shifting. When you rip a CD to an MP3, you still have the same product -- an audio product to be listened to. However, when you convert text to speech, you're actually creating a different product. A book is something you read, whereas an audio book is something you listen to. This isn't space-shifting, it's product-shifting (to coin a silly term).
I don't think fair use enters into this, because it's not a question of what you can do privately with the product you have purchased, the issue is what Amazon can sell you. Basically, despite all the comments in this thread joking about Mr. Aiken claiming that we can't read Dr. Seuss books out loud to our kids, what's really being said here is not "you can't read a book out loud", but rather "you can't sell a product that converts one product (text book) into another (audio book)". With respect to reading books to your kids, it's closer to saying "you can't record yourself reading a book and then sell it to other parents to play for their kids".
The key point is that the focus is on what Amazon can sell you, not what you can do with what you purchased.
You mean like the actual fucking person the article is about? Oh wait, Wikipedia doesn't consider the actual fucking person to be a "primary source"!
And therein lies Wikipedia's problem.
Quite true.
I'm mentioned in a Wikipedia article. Not by name, but by an old nickname (the same one I use for my username on this site). However, it's spelled incorrectly, mainly because it's quoting another website that also spelled it incorrectly. That website also states a bunch of "facts" that were made up as a joke, and the Wikipedia article repeats those "facts".
I can't correct the original website, but I can correct Wikipedia -- except that I'm not allowed to, because I can't actually provide a link that proves that I really do spell the name the way I do, or that the "facts" were made up. Plus, I think it's even against the rules to edit articles about yourself.
Therefore, both of the people out there who care about the content of this particular article will remain blissfully misinformed.
So when introducing a concept for a new operating system, it makes no sense to hype it up to users until you have the developers on side.
And how exactly do you get developers on side before the users?
I'm a developer. I develop software. Who do I develop software for? Users. Therefore, there is one important requirement of all software I develop: it must run on the OS that my users are using. My users are not using this OS. Therefore, neither will I.
I think he's talking about programmer-land, not user-land here.
That's the problem. Everything about this appears to be designed for developers, not users. There's absolutely nothing that indicates anything that would make a user want to use this OS.
So, basically, if you're a developer, and want an OS that makes it cool, easy, and fun to develop applications that no one will use, then this is for you.
Not only that, but this very forum is overrun with people complaining about how many times UAC prompts appear in Vista, and this story is about Microsoft responding to users' complaints and reducing the number of prompts, only to then be told that now it had too few prompts. So, they're listening to users' complaints again and rolling things back.
But apparently that's "caving".
First, just a note about stores that check your bags as you leave -- I personally refuse to shop at any store that automatically assumes that I've robbed them until I can prove otherwise. It boggles my mind that consumers let companies get away with this. Out of curiosity, what happens if you refuse to show your bags and insist on leaving? Assuming you're not stealing anything, you haven't committed a crime, so they can't really do anything. If they prevent you from leaving, wouldn't that be forcible confinement or something? What will they do, call the police, in which case you can probably have them charged?
Anyway, I wonder if this shouldn't fall under the realm of Miranda rights. I mean, upon being arrested, you have the right to remain silent -- essentially, the right not to give up any information. Well, your DNA is information. It should fall under that same right. The police should have to ask you for a DNA sample, and after being informed of exactly how it will be collected, stored, and used, you should have the right to allow or disallow that collection.
There's really nothing here to exploit that hasn't always existed.
All they've added to the KB document is a link to download an MSI file that, when executed, fixes the problem. As long as the web has existed it has been possible to put a link on a webpage saying "download this little utility which will fix all your problems, honest".
Really, it just makes sense. If you're already browsing Microsoft's knowledge base, and you've found the document that explains your problem, instead of following the step-by-step "fix it" instructions provided in the document, why not just click on a link that does the work for you.
So, now they're providing instructions for the people who want to do it themselves, and a convenient utility for the people who don't. Sounds reasonable to me.
It seems to me that business or political success is *usually* more a result of some type animal cunning with a heapin' helpin' of ruthlessness thrown in for good measure.
Also, a solid starting point doesn't hurt.
Keyboard shortcuts can be done in web apps, but too many of my fellow web developers are too lazy to bother implementing them. As a keyboard fan, it drives me nuts.
However, if the truth be told, that was a problem back when I was developing client/server GUI apps as well. I always seemed to be the only guy who put the effort into ensuring the UI was keyboard navigable.
In enterprise software development, the UI always seems to be almost an after-thought. I don't think bailing on web apps will solve that problem.
Just a note on the Star Wars point: the prequels don't even remotely fit in with the original trilogy. If you watch the original trilogy, absolutely every single piece of dialogue that even vaguely references "the past" (ie. events that would later be detailed in the prequels) is blatantly contradicted in the prequels. It's like George Lucas had never even seen the original movies when he decided to make the prequels.
As a result, I tend to view the two sets of trilogies as similar stories, but not actually related. The prequels haven't ruined the originals, because they aren't, in my mind at least, a part of the same story.
But then again, I do still love the original trilogy. In fact, I just watched it again a few weeks ago with my girlfriend, who was seeing it for the first time ever.
Well, I guess the original comment is open to interpretation, as I didn't read it as implying history involving architectural changes. I read it as a criticism of Windows having multiple editions of each version, which is a criticism that has been around for a few years now -- and directly relates to the article to which the post was replying.
As for Windows 3 support ending last year, I also took the original post as being about the confusion that occurs when purchasing Windows, which again directly speaks to the multiple editions. Therefore, my comment about nobody using Windows 3 should more accurately have been that nobody's buying Windows 3.
I agree with your post 95%. The 5% I can't agree with is your last sentence.
I love my furry children (1 dog, 2 cats). But when they're gone, they're gone. I'll probably get more, but why would I want them to be genetic twins to the ones I had? The originals will still be gone, and there's enough animals in shelters desperate for good homes that it just seems selfish and cruel to conjure up some more in a lab.
So if you had one that was a breeze to train why not get it's genetic identical?
Because simply getting another dog of the same breed will often produce the same results. Plus, it's usually not the dog so much as the trainer. If you were successful once, you'll probably be successful again.
Want a dog that doesn't bark or crap in the house? Get a greyhound. Any greyhound. You don't need to clone mine.