That's fine if they come out with a new version that includes an lcd screen. BUT, if it is as you say, and if they are just floating this idea like a test ballon, then forget about the next roll out. You can't draw any solid conclusions from the non-lcd camera to a lcd camera. The only conclusion would undoubtably be: we should just make disposable cameras like normal.
Ok, I understand it is reusable, but how much does it cost to reuse? Because it seems like it might as well be disposable if its the same price to reuse.
While its is undoubtably possible that I am the one missing the point, it sure seems like Ritz is off its rocker. The major benefit of digital camera IS the lcd screen. The whole point is to take pictures that you are certain will be good. While the concept is coming, and it sure is fun to delete things randomly (which is exactly what you would be doing with the delete feature), I think there is a lot more ground that needs to be covered before I'll be picking this over a different disposable camera that is cheaper and has comes with a free photo cd.
(On another note, it's hilarious how schools are scared to put a picture of a student on the school's website without a notorized rights waver, yet they jump at the chance to make a national database of students.) That's very intersting, perhaps the reason for their pause is because there is a difference between private information made public and private information kept private.
As for your intersting analysis about the correlation in dropping out and being labeled a father, that's a funny joke, but I don't believe it's indicative of the system and the potential benefits from the system. The problems that you experienced are not reasons to destroy or reject the system, but are instead impetuses to improve the system. It is false to say that there is no benefit from public schools and their setup, but there is always rooms for improvement.
That's a great figure, if you take don't take out the cost of the process: lawyer's fees, time, effort and motivation. The end result, you lose more than you gain. Unless you are a college student with nothing but time to spare and something to prove, then this isn't for you... fortunately, I am both a college student and have a point to prove, so bring it on.
That's a pleasant thought, but its unfortunately wrong. Companies are not going to change their process (atleast not for the better), for two reasons: First, this process is too complex and expensive for the individual to make any significant change in comparission to the expense and benefit of the company. Second, should more people do this AND succeed, companies will just come up with harder and higher standards and procedures. As soon as companies, especially Microsoft don't want competition and have an adversity to money, the system will change. Until then, I'll be hiding in my cave.
Riiight, let's have the federal government pay people for not working in an industry that collapsed because of a market failure.
And for all those who are upset that I called this a market failure, this is exactly that. The telemarket industry broke itself by biting the hand that feeds it. This response is not on of a tyranical government ending a competitve industry, but an action requested for by the consumers. In the game of capitalist-political capital, the telemarketer lost.
nobody even so much as raised an eyeball if you recorded to tape from the radio
Perhaps the reason no one raised an eyeball is because it is not illegal to record from a radio broadcast, assuming that the recording is not sold. After a broadcast, the item is open for usage, radio stations have to liscense the music to play it. The same is true with t.v., that's why you can record your favorite t.v. shows and movies. It is also the same reason why the telecommunications industry did not outright stop devices like TiVo -- or for that matter my VCR that still takes the videos in through the top.
...not giving into the demands of coporate america...
Because you know that these colleges aren't at all interested in helping corporate america. I'm sure that their real goal is the privacy of the student, that or not getting sued by the student. Additionally, it is not as if the RIAA is going to just settle down, they have a lot more invested in this than the colleges do, I would say this will take one run in the courts and the schools will step down quickly, only re-enforcing the RIAA's powerstructure and preventing other potential blockers.
It's nothing to fear, infact, it is about time that this technology got implimented. It is a secure way of verifying a person's identity. It's not tracking software, so you can still move freely about the globe as long as you are supposed too. As for the 9-11 throwback, this technology wouldn't help so much, but it does have some excellent usages for preventing fake id's, as well as locating kidnapped or missing children.
If a person does not have to join the military, does not have to give a sample, and agrees to the sampling. Then they lose, they are too dumb to not get caught.
BUT...
Last time I checked, we do still have the option of a draft in the good ole USofA (I'm moving to Tahiti), and I would rather remain innocent till proven guilty, so I think I will opt out of this one. I know we don't have a Constitutional right to privacy, but it would be nice to pretend to have atleast one or two of the "add-ons."
Close, but no cigar, that would only be in the original lawsuit -- DTV v. user.
I'm refering to user v. DTV, the slander suit for when DTV goes crazy and accusses innocent little old grandmothers who have a smartcard reader for legitimate purposes... just like my *medical* weed
Slander:
1. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
Sounds liek slander to me, I'm not often charged with crimes, but that's just me.
Seems like people would have an excellent suit in response to false claims. If the device was not used to facilitate an illegal activity, then its libel/slander. You could atleast go to court for emotion damages, and a judge would probably make the defendent pay lawyer's fees for the victim.
Or much morelikely, the money that was not spent on whatever was downloaded would not have been spent on it originally.
I would argue that musicians have a lot to benefit from people downloading their music, often I have discovered bands who I would never have found/listened too otherwise. People who like their groups will buy their music/go to their concerts/worship them/whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
That's fine if they come out with a new version that includes an lcd screen. BUT, if it is as you say, and if they are just floating this idea like a test ballon, then forget about the next roll out. You can't draw any solid conclusions from the non-lcd camera to a lcd camera. The only conclusion would undoubtably be: we should just make disposable cameras like normal.
Ok, I understand it is reusable, but how much does it cost to reuse? Because it seems like it might as well be disposable if its the same price to reuse.
While its is undoubtably possible that I am the one missing the point, it sure seems like Ritz is off its rocker. The major benefit of digital camera IS the lcd screen. The whole point is to take pictures that you are certain will be good. While the concept is coming, and it sure is fun to delete things randomly (which is exactly what you would be doing with the delete feature), I think there is a lot more ground that needs to be covered before I'll be picking this over a different disposable camera that is cheaper and has comes with a free photo cd.
(On another note, it's hilarious how schools are scared to put a picture of a student on the school's website without a notorized rights waver, yet they jump at the chance to make a national database of students.)
That's very intersting, perhaps the reason for their pause is because there is a difference between private information made public and private information kept private.
As for your intersting analysis about the correlation in dropping out and being labeled a father, that's a funny joke, but I don't believe it's indicative of the system and the potential benefits from the system. The problems that you experienced are not reasons to destroy or reject the system, but are instead impetuses to improve the system. It is false to say that there is no benefit from public schools and their setup, but there is always rooms for improvement.
That's a great figure, if you take don't take out the cost of the process: lawyer's fees, time, effort and motivation. The end result, you lose more than you gain. Unless you are a college student with nothing but time to spare and something to prove, then this isn't for you... fortunately, I am both a college student and have a point to prove, so bring it on.
That's a pleasant thought, but its unfortunately wrong. Companies are not going to change their process (atleast not for the better), for two reasons:
First, this process is too complex and expensive for the individual to make any significant change in comparission to the expense and benefit of the company. Second, should more people do this AND succeed, companies will just come up with harder and higher standards and procedures. As soon as companies, especially Microsoft don't want competition and have an adversity to money, the system will change. Until then, I'll be hiding in my cave.
Because you know that telemarketers have such great people skills... they should be able to find jobs easily.
Riiight, let's have the federal government pay people for not working in an industry that collapsed because of a market failure.
And for all those who are upset that I called this a market failure, this is exactly that. The telemarket industry broke itself by biting the hand that feeds it. This response is not on of a tyranical government ending a competitve industry, but an action requested for by the consumers. In the game of capitalist-political capital, the telemarketer lost.
nobody even so much as raised an eyeball if you recorded to tape from the radio
Perhaps the reason no one raised an eyeball is because it is not illegal to record from a radio broadcast, assuming that the recording is not sold. After a broadcast, the item is open for usage, radio stations have to liscense the music to play it. The same is true with t.v., that's why you can record your favorite t.v. shows and movies. It is also the same reason why the telecommunications industry did not outright stop devices like TiVo -- or for that matter my VCR that still takes the videos in through the top.
Close, but no cigar. You have 30 days to begin the 24 hour period. Even still the article does speak of broad band access... could it be required?
The movies can only be watched repeatedly within a 24 hour period, after that it locks you out.
Behold the power of Disney, once again, innovating before the rest of corporate america. If they didn't own my soul already, I think I'd love them.
...not giving into the demands of coporate america...
Because you know that these colleges aren't at all interested in helping corporate america. I'm sure that their real goal is the privacy of the student, that or not getting sued by the student. Additionally, it is not as if the RIAA is going to just settle down, they have a lot more invested in this than the colleges do, I would say this will take one run in the courts and the schools will step down quickly, only re-enforcing the RIAA's powerstructure and preventing other potential blockers.
It's nothing to fear, infact, it is about time that this technology got implimented. It is a secure way of verifying a person's identity. It's not tracking software, so you can still move freely about the globe as long as you are supposed too.
As for the 9-11 throwback, this technology wouldn't help so much, but it does have some excellent usages for preventing fake id's, as well as locating kidnapped or missing children.
If a person does not have to join the military, does not have to give a sample, and agrees to the sampling. Then they lose, they are too dumb to not get caught.
BUT...
Last time I checked, we do still have the option of a draft in the good ole USofA (I'm moving to Tahiti), and I would rather remain innocent till proven guilty, so I think I will opt out of this one. I know we don't have a Constitutional right to privacy, but it would be nice to pretend to have atleast one or two of the "add-ons."
Close, but no cigar, that would only be in the original lawsuit -- DTV v. user.
I'm refering to user v. DTV, the slander suit for when DTV goes crazy and accusses innocent little old grandmothers who have a smartcard reader for legitimate purposes... just like my *medical* weed
Slander: 1. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. Sounds liek slander to me, I'm not often charged with crimes, but that's just me.
Seems like people would have an excellent suit in response to false claims. If the device was not used to facilitate an illegal activity, then its libel/slander. You could atleast go to court for emotion damages, and a judge would probably make the defendent pay lawyer's fees for the victim.
Or much morelikely, the money that was not spent on whatever was downloaded would not have been spent on it originally. I would argue that musicians have a lot to benefit from people downloading their music, often I have discovered bands who I would never have found/listened too otherwise. People who like their groups will buy their music/go to their concerts/worship them/whatever.