"I would prefer not to live in a society that provides special powers for small group of people at the expense of the whole."
You mean that small group of creative, talented, and dedicated people without whom those products and services wouldn't exist in the first place? That small group of people?
That's one exmple. Want others? You can buy a car, motorcycle, boat, or plane, but you can't do "anything" you want want with them. You can buy knives, scissors, or electronic parts, but you can't suddenly become a restaraunt, hair salom, or FM or TV station. You can buy a gun, but you can't shoot it whereever or at whatever (or whomever) you want.
In essence, all of those cases and hundreds of others have laws and licenses and restrictions that control your "rights" after the sale. Why? Because of the recognition that the rights of people "other" than your own are involved, need to be protected, and because it's generally recognized that abuses can and do occur.
"All the examples of ownership that people give out, including yours, are tangible property. Very few people would disagree with the assertion you can do what you want with it."
Actually, that's a good point. You can buy a car, motorcycle, boat, or plane, but you can't do anything you want want with them. You can buy knives, scissors, or electronic parts, but you can't suddenly become a restaraunt, hair salom, or FM or TV station. You can buy a gun, but you can't shoot it whereever or at whatever (or whomever) you want.
In essence, all of those cases and hundreds of others have laws and licenses that control what happens after the sale. Why? Because of the recognition that the rights of people "other" than your own are involved, and need to be protected.
Take the SUV out of the truck category so it has to honor MPG standards like all other cars. Slap a 20% federal exise tax on gas-guzzlers, increasing to 50% over 5 years, with funds going to alternative energy research and to provide a tax rebate for vehicles the exceed the standards by, say, 50%. Provide an additonal rebate to those trading in guzzlers for better cars. Repeal the hybird rebate for vehicles that are using the technology to increase performance and not milage.
In other words, make replacement vehicles better, and encourage their adoption, while discouraging the adoption of new guzzlers.
Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong!
on
Sun's Open Source DRM
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It would help if you would read with some level comprehension before you go onto a rant. I said, "In one sense, this is what Apple does with iTMS music, in that I can put a purchased song on any number of iPods that I've registered as mine."
Yes, I know about other mp3 players and all the other BS, but the point you completely missed is that they set it up so that a song will play on any number of pods that it "knows" are my pods. As such, a system could also be designed such that a song could play on my stereo, my pod, and in my car, all from different manufacturers, as long as it knows each is MY stereo, MY pod, and MY car.
Either way, I flatly refuse to believe that no possible solution that addresses the main concerns of both sides can ever be found. People do new and "impossible" things every day.
So? A state would still have its Senate and House representitives. And according to Electorial College rules, Rhode Island already has less say in electing a president than California.
As is, live in a state of the wrong "color", and your vote is meaningless, whereas on a national scale it might just tip the scales.
Since the internet is a global concern, you can't "force" anyone to do anything. Personally, I think if the main concern is a kid-friendly environment, then you setup an organization that manages a ".kids" domain and who vets every application that passes through to make sure it is in fact kid-friendly. If a site gets too maany complaints or abuses the system, they drop that domain.
Then parents can let their kids surf xyz.kids with some assurance of safety.
That spam doesn't tend to come from the vendors per se, but from jerks trying to earn "affiliate" dollars. All sites [not just porn] live and die by traffic. A great many have affiliate deals setup so that if you send a customer my way, you'll get a cut of the action. (Think "Get this book at Amazon!") And most affiliate programs already state you can be dropped for spamming.
Unfortunately, it's extremely difficult for vendors to filter out affiliates who generate their traffic by sending out spam. All it takes is a link to an affiliate site which then links the vendor, and the traffic looks real.
So how, exactly, is that a "customer-hostile activity"? People argue that the song/movie/whatever is theirs. In which case, why not have your name on your property?
I think we're taking the wrong approach. The whole idea behind DRM, in essence, is to prevent people from sharing files with 10,000 of their closest friends. As such, we put all sorts of nasty locks and restrictions into the system.
What if we approach the idea from a different perspective? What if we could setup things so that people wouldn't want to share those files in the first place? And, incidentally, so you could play them on any device you own?
Here's how. I buy a song from a iTMS-like store and it's downloaded as normal. During the process, the file was also watermarked and digitally signed with your name, address, and credit card number, which was also appended to the file in plaintext.
Now the buyer has an incentive NOT to share his music with 10,000 "friends". He can, however, play the song on any device that checks to make sure the watermarks and checksums match up.
You can also "share" your song with your mom, girlfriend, or a friend if you wish... but it had better be a good friend.
Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong!
on
Sun's Open Source DRM
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"The alternative is NO DRM, that's very easy: I buy and I can do whatever I want with it..."
So how about DRM that let's YOU do whatever you want with it? (Except put it on the internet, which you implied you weren't going to do anyway.)
To my mind a "perfect" DRM system would do just that. A movie would "know" who bought it, and that person could do whatever they want with it, including loaning it to a friend, and transferring title to it, that is selling it. No restrictions on putting it on your computer, pod, home entertainment system, or whatever.
In one sense, this is what Apple does with iTMS music, in that I can put a purchased song on any number of iPods that I've registered as mine.
"If you don't trust me, your customer giving my money, I'm not buying."
Then you must not shop or go anywhere in the real world. Security guards, cameras, devices, inspectors, ticket takers, why, any typical bricks-and-morter store has more security and "lack-of-trust" than you can shake a stick at.
The problem is that you say I should trust you. Fine, but I don't know you. You might be trustworthy.. and you might not be. You say I should assume everyone is trustworthy. Fine, but when I turn off the cameras and fire the guards my shrinkage levels reach astronomical numbers. Obviously, that's an assumption I can't make, and one which leaves us at an impasse given your hardline approach.
So from my perspective I think it's only rational to recognize that, unfortunately, we DO need locks on the front door. But given that assumption, I also think we should make sure that those locks suit us, and are as easy to use and unrestrictive as possible. Something designed from the ground up with the user's rights in mind.
And as the article implies, if that's what we want, then we're probably going to need to do it ourselves.
"In fact, most major open source projects are very tightly managed highly disciplined teams."
Which is one of the reasons they became major open source projects in the first place. Of course, that tightly managed highly disciplined team ALSO needs to be working on something we all want, and the end result needs to do the job, and do it well.
Not to mention, but have you ever noticed that people who say things like this are also usually the people who end up denying that they ever had "sex" with that woman? Lusted in their hearts? Or ask, "Did you get her too?"
Yes they would, because it's comfortable. It's the easy, simple way to look at it. Takes no understanding, and paints everyone with the same brush. Said that way, breakups and divorce are inevitable, and not our fault when they occur. Like the man said, it's CrackerJack box philosophy. It has the ring of truth, and explains nothing at all.
"They are gathering evidence to argue a case before a court..."
Get your facts straight. This is not a "case" in front of a "court". This is a fishing expedition whose data will be spun six ways from Sunday in some study to "prove" that a new law to "protect the children" is in fact needed.
In Google's case, they want to prove that an innocuous search can pull up a significant percentage of links to porn sites which, if accidentally clicked on, will suddenly and irreversably warp the precious child's mind forever.
In actuallity, their agenda is in fact to eliminate all porn and, failing that, to prevent any adult from having any access whatsoever, all under the guise of "saving the children".
After all, "Father" knows what's best for the poor citizens of our country, who're obviously unable to choose such a wise course of action for themselves.
Of course it makes a difference. Since they're just pretending, his "all corporations are evil" bias remains intact, and as such he has no need to rethink his worldview.
"...representing the consequences of choices and character. But this takes space. Drama for reasons of economy has to collapse as much as it can into fewer characters, which in turn demands that characters evolve."
Another reason, of course, is that they're different mediums. It's all well and good that that a book can spent 50 pages denoting a character's inner struggle, but that fails on the stage and screen simply because, for the most part, we can't really see what a character is thinking. As such, any translation needs to convert such thought into action or exposition.
Odd that the only credible threat is China, when over the past decade or so the world has been spending a lot of time in places like Kuwait, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. And will probably need to be in Africa and around the Phillipines in the near future.
And yes, China may be a problem. And yes, it's going to become a prosperous nation. But that has a good chance of working in our favor as well. Is a happy, prosperous Chinese population going to want to go to war over Taiwan, or is it going to want to take its kids to soccer games?
And yes, you can take out a carrier group with a nuke if you get it close enough. But if China does that, then I feel the world is going to have more problems to deal with than considering the proper carrier/destroyer/sub mix. We may get a first hand chance to see if we can deal with global warming with nuclear winter.
He's right. Something has to get within range to launch them. That's why aircraft carriers have a CAP and typically one or two hummers in the air at all times during critical situations. A hummer (E-2C Hawkeye) can fly out to cover your approaches and monitor more than 150,000 square miles of ocean. If you're within support range of a land airbase, an AWACs can provide additional coverage out to a range of 400km plus.
An Exocet, OTOH, has a range of about 70km. A Chinese Silkworm about 90km. A YJ-8 about 120km max. So you still need to let a plane or ship within range of your carrier, something they're not likely to let happen, as they know how much their ship costs as much as you do.
And even if they did, a strike has to get through your outer and inner missile defenses, past the close-in defense, and actually hit the right ship (not an escort). And even then, a modern carrier can probably shake off several hits, more if they're lucky, before being forced to withdraw.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean that small group of creative, talented, and dedicated people without whom those products and services wouldn't exist in the first place? That small group of people?
In essence, all of those cases and hundreds of others have laws and licenses and restrictions that control your "rights" after the sale. Why? Because of the recognition that the rights of people "other" than your own are involved, need to be protected, and because it's generally recognized that abuses can and do occur.
Actually, that's a good point. You can buy a car, motorcycle, boat, or plane, but you can't do anything you want want with them. You can buy knives, scissors, or electronic parts, but you can't suddenly become a restaraunt, hair salom, or FM or TV station. You can buy a gun, but you can't shoot it whereever or at whatever (or whomever) you want.
In essence, all of those cases and hundreds of others have laws and licenses that control what happens after the sale. Why? Because of the recognition that the rights of people "other" than your own are involved, and need to be protected.
In other words, make replacement vehicles better, and encourage their adoption, while discouraging the adoption of new guzzlers.
Yes, I know about other mp3 players and all the other BS, but the point you completely missed is that they set it up so that a song will play on any number of pods that it "knows" are my pods. As such, a system could also be designed such that a song could play on my stereo, my pod, and in my car, all from different manufacturers, as long as it knows each is MY stereo, MY pod, and MY car.
Or you could do something like this...
Either way, I flatly refuse to believe that no possible solution that addresses the main concerns of both sides can ever be found. People do new and "impossible" things every day.
As is, live in a state of the wrong "color", and your vote is meaningless, whereas on a national scale it might just tip the scales.
Then parents can let their kids surf xyz.kids with some assurance of safety.
Unfortunately, it's extremely difficult for vendors to filter out affiliates who generate their traffic by sending out spam. All it takes is a link to an affiliate site which then links the vendor, and the traffic looks real.
So how, exactly, is that a "customer-hostile activity"? People argue that the song/movie/whatever is theirs. In which case, why not have your name on your property?
What if we approach the idea from a different perspective? What if we could setup things so that people wouldn't want to share those files in the first place? And, incidentally, so you could play them on any device you own?
Here's how. I buy a song from a iTMS-like store and it's downloaded as normal. During the process, the file was also watermarked and digitally signed with your name, address, and credit card number, which was also appended to the file in plaintext.
Now the buyer has an incentive NOT to share his music with 10,000 "friends". He can, however, play the song on any device that checks to make sure the watermarks and checksums match up.
You can also "share" your song with your mom, girlfriend, or a friend if you wish... but it had better be a good friend.
Why? When everyone is standing up for their rights on the subject I never hear them arguing for THEIR responsibilities.
OMG!!! Ponies!!!!
So how about DRM that let's YOU do whatever you want with it? (Except put it on the internet, which you implied you weren't going to do anyway.)
To my mind a "perfect" DRM system would do just that. A movie would "know" who bought it, and that person could do whatever they want with it, including loaning it to a friend, and transferring title to it, that is selling it. No restrictions on putting it on your computer, pod, home entertainment system, or whatever.
In one sense, this is what Apple does with iTMS music, in that I can put a purchased song on any number of iPods that I've registered as mine.
"If you don't trust me, your customer giving my money, I'm not buying."
Then you must not shop or go anywhere in the real world. Security guards, cameras, devices, inspectors, ticket takers, why, any typical bricks-and-morter store has more security and "lack-of-trust" than you can shake a stick at.
The problem is that you say I should trust you. Fine, but I don't know you. You might be trustworthy.. and you might not be. You say I should assume everyone is trustworthy. Fine, but when I turn off the cameras and fire the guards my shrinkage levels reach astronomical numbers. Obviously, that's an assumption I can't make, and one which leaves us at an impasse given your hardline approach.
So from my perspective I think it's only rational to recognize that, unfortunately, we DO need locks on the front door. But given that assumption, I also think we should make sure that those locks suit us, and are as easy to use and unrestrictive as possible. Something designed from the ground up with the user's rights in mind.
And as the article implies, if that's what we want, then we're probably going to need to do it ourselves.
Which is one of the reasons they became major open source projects in the first place. Of course, that tightly managed highly disciplined team ALSO needs to be working on something we all want, and the end result needs to do the job, and do it well.
Of course, the fallacy behind the fallacy is that it assumes he's capable of being used in a more productive manner...
Not to mention, but have you ever noticed that people who say things like this are also usually the people who end up denying that they ever had "sex" with that woman? Lusted in their hearts? Or ask, "Did you get her too?"
Yes they would, because it's comfortable. It's the easy, simple way to look at it. Takes no understanding, and paints everyone with the same brush. Said that way, breakups and divorce are inevitable, and not our fault when they occur. Like the man said, it's CrackerJack box philosophy. It has the ring of truth, and explains nothing at all.
Get your facts straight. This is not a "case" in front of a "court". This is a fishing expedition whose data will be spun six ways from Sunday in some study to "prove" that a new law to "protect the children" is in fact needed.
In Google's case, they want to prove that an innocuous search can pull up a significant percentage of links to porn sites which, if accidentally clicked on, will suddenly and irreversably warp the precious child's mind forever.
In actuallity, their agenda is in fact to eliminate all porn and, failing that, to prevent any adult from having any access whatsoever, all under the guise of "saving the children".
After all, "Father" knows what's best for the poor citizens of our country, who're obviously unable to choose such a wise course of action for themselves.
Of course it makes a difference. Since they're just pretending, his "all corporations are evil" bias remains intact, and as such he has no need to rethink his worldview.
The music on your iPod should already be on your PC. And on a backup drive.
An Intel Core Duo has 151 million transistors. This has a little over 4.75x that. So the MTBF wouldn't be too bad, I would think.
They already did. There's a cmd line shell, but it's not DOS. And any such app already runs in the Windows-on-Windows (WOW) emulation layer.
Another reason, of course, is that they're different mediums. It's all well and good that that a book can spent 50 pages denoting a character's inner struggle, but that fails on the stage and screen simply because, for the most part, we can't really see what a character is thinking. As such, any translation needs to convert such thought into action or exposition.
And yes, China may be a problem. And yes, it's going to become a prosperous nation. But that has a good chance of working in our favor as well. Is a happy, prosperous Chinese population going to want to go to war over Taiwan, or is it going to want to take its kids to soccer games?
And yes, you can take out a carrier group with a nuke if you get it close enough. But if China does that, then I feel the world is going to have more problems to deal with than considering the proper carrier/destroyer/sub mix. We may get a first hand chance to see if we can deal with global warming with nuclear winter.
"Unfortunately, not being a naval expert..."
An Exocet, OTOH, has a range of about 70km. A Chinese Silkworm about 90km. A YJ-8 about 120km max. So you still need to let a plane or ship within range of your carrier, something they're not likely to let happen, as they know how much their ship costs as much as you do.
And even if they did, a strike has to get through your outer and inner missile defenses, past the close-in defense, and actually hit the right ship (not an escort). And even then, a modern carrier can probably shake off several hits, more if they're lucky, before being forced to withdraw.
It's not as easy as you make it sound...