I haven't used it yet, but it looks like a pretty good deal. One time numbers, and it even fills them in for you. Now if only my Discover card was everywhere I wanted to be.
Last time I used it, (and it may have changed) all you had to do was change your location to some other country in the same time zone. The weak sector amplification worked if you weren't in the USA.
and money to get Macrovision not only supported, but legaly required (DMCA), they finaly figure out that it is simply less expensive to not use it after all.
My parents still live about 25 miles from Dickinson, and they have dialup, but they would love to see some sort of high speed internet out there. While they are not exactly computer whizes, they can still apreciate instant web browsing. Each time they visit me in school, (Golden, Colorado) we try to figure out some way of getting them high speed as well. All of the solutions available, and they do exist, are far too expensive. The current wireless solution requires a $1000 dollar transmitter, and going through the DirectTV system is also pretty expensive. Someday, perhaps.
If this format is simply a digitization of a regular tape, then why does it have to cost so much? VCR's are closer to the 100 dollar range, and DVD's are as low as 60 dollars. So we know that the extra mechanical parts for a tape are not too expensive, and the digital decoders and such are also not too expensive. Why the $2000 for a player? Or the $30 movies? Is it the low production numbers? Extra licensing fees? I can't think of any good reasons. Any ideas?
We all know pretty well what will be decided, eg. that DRM is good for the consumer and the provider. At least the government is making a showing of discussion on the issue before they try to decide it. Any mention of any other groups involved? I am sure that the EFF would like a presence there, but most likely the consumer groups have been left out. At least this hearing isn't tied to any of the particular bills out there. If it were, I would be more woried about the lack of representation.
I would like to point out that in many countries, the real terrorists (eg, suicide bombers, etc) are also operating within the law. I read an article just the other day concerning Pakistan and India saying that Pakistan didn't financially support terror, but they did offer "moral" support. Sounds like, from some twisted national point of view, terrorism is just as legal as the BSA tactics. Granted, the two are different, in that one kills, and one jails, but the similarities are there as well.
I for one didn't think that the major industry players would even let the public in on any sort of discussion concerning DRM. Counter productive to their cause. Of course if you read the blurb by the FSF people, you will see that the public view was only given token notice. Now if only I wasn't a poor college student, I could actually join groups like the EFF and FSF, instead of just talking about it.
"Sure, there is always a concern of piracy; there's always the concern of people illegally transferring things. But we feel the best way to combat that is by giving people a legitimate alternative, and this is a test to make that alternative available to them,"
I couldn't have said it better myself. This could be a viable alternative, although the price might be a little high. A 15 track CD at this price is just as expensive as a store bought version, without the extra goodies and higher quality. Still, if I were interested in the music, I would consider spending the buck just to support this practice.
Not too long ago, slashdot posted this
article concerning the campaign in Peru to switch the government to free software. It had a point by point by point analysis of Microsofts FUD. I hope that somebody in the US government takes the time to think through the issue, rather then just giving in to corporate pressure. What would be even better would be to see one of our own senators or high appointed officials show that they understand the issue as well as Peruvian Congressman David Villanueva Nuñez. One can hope.
It seems to me that it could be said, in court, that if someone kills an abortion doctor because of this decidedly inflammatory site, the site owners, operators, etc. could be held accountable as some type of accomplice to the crime? Especially if the address, etc. was procured there. I am decidedly not a lawyer but it makes some sense to me. An interesting side not: Weren't the Nurnberg trials about the people who ordered all the killings, not the people behind the triggers? If so, then the site operators are exactly like their example, in this case ordering killings, instead of pulling triggers? Apparently hypocrisy is ok, if you have the right cause.
Go look at this article concerning nano-computers. Near the bottom, Small Times it discusses GOVERNMENT funding of transistor research. Not to say that private business couldn't have done it, but they wouldnt have, not without knowing the benefits. And notice, in my post I DID say they were trying to find a route to Asia. The thing about known benefits refering to a shorter sea route to Asia, of course.
Through the history of technology, most innovations have followed this path. A government spends the massive capitol to prove a concept, and then industry and the public take over. No sane businessman in the 1400's would have tried to sail across the Atlantic, even with known benefits, but a government could afford to try, just to see. I think (and hope) that space travel will work the same way. We proved that space is real, and now private industry and the public will find ways to use it. I just hope they happen in my lifetime.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www2.discovercard.com/shopcenter/deskshop/m ain.shtml
I haven't used it yet, but it looks like a pretty good deal. One time numbers, and it even fills them in for you. Now if only my Discover card was everywhere I wanted to be.
Last time I used it, (and it may have changed) all you had to do was change your location to some other country in the same time zone. The weak sector amplification worked if you weren't in the USA.
and money to get Macrovision not only supported, but legaly required (DMCA), they finaly figure out that it is simply less expensive to not use it after all.
My parents still live about 25 miles from Dickinson, and they have dialup, but they would love to see some sort of high speed internet out there. While they are not exactly computer whizes, they can still apreciate instant web browsing. Each time they visit me in school, (Golden, Colorado) we try to figure out some way of getting them high speed as well. All of the solutions available, and they do exist, are far too expensive. The current wireless solution requires a $1000 dollar transmitter, and going through the DirectTV system is also pretty expensive. Someday, perhaps.
If this format is simply a digitization of a regular tape, then why does it have to cost so much? VCR's are closer to the 100 dollar range, and DVD's are as low as 60 dollars. So we know that the extra mechanical parts for a tape are not too expensive, and the digital decoders and such are also not too expensive. Why the $2000 for a player? Or the $30 movies? Is it the low production numbers? Extra licensing fees? I can't think of any good reasons. Any ideas?
We all know pretty well what will be decided, eg. that DRM is good for the consumer and the provider. At least the government is making a showing of discussion on the issue before they try to decide it. Any mention of any other groups involved? I am sure that the EFF would like a presence there, but most likely the consumer groups have been left out. At least this hearing isn't tied to any of the particular bills out there. If it were, I would be more woried about the lack of representation.
I would like to point out that in many countries, the real terrorists (eg, suicide bombers, etc) are also operating within the law. I read an article just the other day concerning Pakistan and India saying that Pakistan didn't financially support terror, but they did offer "moral" support. Sounds like, from some twisted national point of view, terrorism is just as legal as the BSA tactics. Granted, the two are different, in that one kills, and one jails, but the similarities are there as well.
I for one didn't think that the major industry players would even let the public in on any sort of discussion concerning DRM. Counter productive to their cause. Of course if you read the blurb by the FSF people, you will see that the public view was only given token notice. Now if only I wasn't a poor college student, I could actually join groups like the EFF and FSF, instead of just talking about it.
"Sure, there is always a concern of piracy; there's always the concern of people illegally transferring things. But we feel the best way to combat that is by giving people a legitimate alternative, and this is a test to make that alternative available to them," I couldn't have said it better myself. This could be a viable alternative, although the price might be a little high. A 15 track CD at this price is just as expensive as a store bought version, without the extra goodies and higher quality. Still, if I were interested in the music, I would consider spending the buck just to support this practice.
Not too long ago, slashdot posted this article concerning the campaign in Peru to switch the government to free software. It had a point by point by point analysis of Microsofts FUD. I hope that somebody in the US government takes the time to think through the issue, rather then just giving in to corporate pressure. What would be even better would be to see one of our own senators or high appointed officials show that they understand the issue as well as Peruvian Congressman David Villanueva Nuñez. One can hope.
It seems to me that it could be said, in court, that if someone kills an abortion doctor because of this decidedly inflammatory site, the site owners, operators, etc. could be held accountable as some type of accomplice to the crime? Especially if the address, etc. was procured there. I am decidedly not a lawyer but it makes some sense to me. An interesting side not: Weren't the Nurnberg trials about the people who ordered all the killings, not the people behind the triggers? If so, then the site operators are exactly like their example, in this case ordering killings, instead of pulling triggers? Apparently hypocrisy is ok, if you have the right cause.
Go look at this article concerning nano-computers. Near the bottom, Small Times it discusses GOVERNMENT funding of transistor research. Not to say that private business couldn't have done it, but they wouldnt have, not without knowing the benefits. And notice, in my post I DID say they were trying to find a route to Asia. The thing about known benefits refering to a shorter sea route to Asia, of course.
Through the history of technology, most innovations have followed this path. A government spends the massive capitol to prove a concept, and then industry and the public take over. No sane businessman in the 1400's would have tried to sail across the Atlantic, even with known benefits, but a government could afford to try, just to see. I think (and hope) that space travel will work the same way. We proved that space is real, and now private industry and the public will find ways to use it. I just hope they happen in my lifetime.