If a company wanted to penetrate a market of a billion or so people, it might be... work with me here... a halfway decent idea to hire a few locals here and there to help develop and localize your products for that market. Not to mention the sales, marketing, legal, administrative, and other types one might need to service said market.
"There is a digital divide even between people who have all gone digital. It's all in how you think about it."
I have a iPod with thousands of songs and fifty or so Audible audio books. I have a PDA that has about 150 electronic books. I have a notebook with all of those, as well as all of my digital photos.
Recently, however, I had to move yet again, and had to cart box after box of dead trees, CDs, and DVDs. Having all of those things on a couple of portable 100 terrabyte hard drives can NOT come soon enough.
Regarding the SUV/minivan comment, most average-sized SUVs (Jeep Cherokee) get mileage as good, or better, than the average minivan, so no real gain there. Most SUVs are just tall station wagons.
You're right. In an ideal world, there would be no DRM whatsoever. Of course, in an ideal world, people are also honest and trustworthy, and everyone would pay a fair price for value received.
But since we don't live in an ideal world, and since too many people seem to think they're entitled to whatever they can lay their hands on, some compromise would seem to be in order... as I find rampant theft of an artist's work to be equally unacceptable.
"People who think terms of business opportunities are the top 5% who live lavishly at the expense of others."
In anything, from business to the arts to sports, there's going to be a top 5%. And a bottom 5%. And everything in between. But of course, your world view precludes admitting that in any of those categories those people worked to get to that position, or that they contribute anything, or that they make jobs for "hard working americans" possible.
Profit. Yeah, the nasty p-word. Never mind that it makes future investment possible. Never mind that half the stocks in the US are owned in some fashion by the middle class, and that profits fuel pension funds and retirement plans. Heck, never mind that "profits" pay employees salaries and benefits.
As to the "drones", that's my nickname for those guys who, in school, thought it was smart to skip class and mastered instead in high-school football. Guess what? Actions have consequences.
There may be extenuating circumstances for some, but by and large if your career options are an auto assembly line, stockboy, the front lines of the fast food industry, or a greeter at WalMart, then you are in all probability reaping that which you've sown.
"Not everyone thinks in terms of "business opportunities". In fact, I doubt most people do."
Sorry, but business opportunities create wealth, jobs, and prosperity. People who think in terms of business opportunities are the entrepreneurs of today and the inventors of tommorrow. They're the self-reliant types who don't have to worry when Ford closes yet another assembly line staffed by day-shift drones.
And not every business opportunity is automatically a soul-ravenging, evironmentally destructive, zero-sum win-lose proposition.
"And I thank the deity for that every day - The more people who think in those terms, the worse our world becomes."
I worry that all too few people think in those terms... at all.
And as a side benefit, happy, prosperous people raising kids tend NOT to be those who blow up buildings and engage in wars and other acts of aggression. This is, in fact, our only real hope for the future...
Press average citizens into patent juries? Oh, yes, I can see it now....
Addressing the jury, "Today, we're evaluating methods of fractional co-polymer extraction using a protein-based... Hey, guys! Wakeup! You can't go to sleep yet!"
Voice from the back row. "Aw, go ahead and approve it. The title sounds like they know what they're talking about.
Point being that average citizens have no knowledge of the subject, no background in the subject, no knowledge of prior art, and no knowledge of current techniques. Other than that they should do just fine.
And before you suggest that we instead empanel a jury of experts in the field, let me remind you that this puts us back where we started, as any experts in the cutting edge of the field (where patents exist) in all likelyhood have vested interests one way or another.
No, because doing one but not the other simply further indicates the author's bias. Yes, it's possible that additional restrictions can be applied, however, with the 3-to-5 example, it's ALSO possible that in the future restrictions can be reduced or eliminated altogether based on customer demand.
"... fair use restrictions that major online music services, such as Apple's iTunes, force on their customers via Digital Rights Management (DRM) laden music files..."
Wow. Sounds like a balanced, fair, and unbiased review of the issues to me.
Peer review... Now, would those be the peers that work in the same company, or that of an affiliate or partner who would automatically say yes? Or those peers who just happen to work for the competition who would automatically say no, scribling down the idea in the meantime?
The goverenment is supposed to be a disinterested third party in this situation.
"Walk through a sensor and swipe my credit card and then off to the car in seconds..."
That sounds good, until you realize that all those groceries you just scanned still need to be taken out of the cart and bagged. Or were you just going to pile all of those canned goods onto the back seat? Should make unloading fun...
Are you kidding? Nuking a city and killing a bunch of innocent civilians in Iraq would instantaneously launch that number up into the millions. The entire Arab world would be up in arms. Not to mention the vast array of additional sympathizers who'd help in any way they could, or the number of people who DO have access to nukes/material who might now see it as their duty to support, aid, and abet a retaliatory act.
Hell, half the people on the planet would simply think we had it coming, and deserved no less...
"The threat of a nuke getting snuck in would not change based on if Iraq was nuked by the US."
Given the number of Islamics and Muslims around the world who would be SERIOUSLY pissed-off if we were to do something so stupid, I'd disagree and say that the odds of that threat happening in retaliation would increase towards unity...
"...beyond which the dynamics of the climate system change so much, that it is no longer self-correcting."
Wow. An "self-correcting" climate. Now what, precisely, is a "correct" climate, and how does it know when it needs to self correct back to that spot?
Or are you saying that our current century or so of measurements is the only "correct" climate that's existed out of the last 4.5 billion years? Or in that time period we've never cycled to a point were the earth's temperate is 1.5 degrees C warmer than it is now?
"Or, would you rather the jobs be offered to 10 people in your place..."
Every time I see this I have to ask, why is it an either/or proposition?
Statements like the above limit the possibilities by treating everything as a zero-sum game. My job, or their jobs. I win and everyone else loses. Why not turn the question around and ask, what do we need to do to have both?
I prefer to believe that our options, and our wealth, are limited only by our creativity.
"This article is telling me that somehow, completely independently of one another, every major record label..."
Actually, no. If you RTFA, you'd see that Sony and Warner (2 of the 4 majors) want variable pricing. Universal is quoted as saying the pricing as fine as is, and EMI doesn't sound if they care to force the issue.
Sorry, you forgot you're on/., the home of "it's my right to install ad blockers so I never see anything that might help pay for the free information I'm receiving."
Seems like there's a conflict of interest there. Especially when one side encourages the other to produce more holes that can be exploited, so there's something to track down...
Slashdot Mirror
This is news?
I have a iPod with thousands of songs and fifty or so Audible audio books. I have a PDA that has about 150 electronic books. I have a notebook with all of those, as well as all of my digital photos.
Recently, however, I had to move yet again, and had to cart box after box of dead trees, CDs, and DVDs. Having all of those things on a couple of portable 100 terrabyte hard drives can NOT come soon enough.
Regarding the SUV/minivan comment, most average-sized SUVs (Jeep Cherokee) get mileage as good, or better, than the average minivan, so no real gain there. Most SUVs are just tall station wagons.
But since we don't live in an ideal world, and since too many people seem to think they're entitled to whatever they can lay their hands on, some compromise would seem to be in order... as I find rampant theft of an artist's work to be equally unacceptable.
In anything, from business to the arts to sports, there's going to be a top 5%. And a bottom 5%. And everything in between. But of course, your world view precludes admitting that in any of those categories those people worked to get to that position, or that they contribute anything, or that they make jobs for "hard working americans" possible.
Profit. Yeah, the nasty p-word. Never mind that it makes future investment possible. Never mind that half the stocks in the US are owned in some fashion by the middle class, and that profits fuel pension funds and retirement plans. Heck, never mind that "profits" pay employees salaries and benefits.
As to the "drones", that's my nickname for those guys who, in school, thought it was smart to skip class and mastered instead in high-school football. Guess what? Actions have consequences.
There may be extenuating circumstances for some, but by and large if your career options are an auto assembly line, stockboy, the front lines of the fast food industry, or a greeter at WalMart, then you are in all probability reaping that which you've sown.
Sorry, but business opportunities create wealth, jobs, and prosperity. People who think in terms of business opportunities are the entrepreneurs of today and the inventors of tommorrow. They're the self-reliant types who don't have to worry when Ford closes yet another assembly line staffed by day-shift drones.
And not every business opportunity is automatically a soul-ravenging, evironmentally destructive, zero-sum win-lose proposition.
"And I thank the deity for that every day - The more people who think in those terms, the worse our world becomes."
I worry that all too few people think in those terms... at all.
And as a side benefit, happy, prosperous people raising kids tend NOT to be those who blow up buildings and engage in wars and other acts of aggression. This is, in fact, our only real hope for the future...
Addressing the jury, "Today, we're evaluating methods of fractional co-polymer extraction using a protein-based... Hey, guys! Wakeup! You can't go to sleep yet!"
Voice from the back row. "Aw, go ahead and approve it. The title sounds like they know what they're talking about.
Point being that average citizens have no knowledge of the subject, no background in the subject, no knowledge of prior art, and no knowledge of current techniques. Other than that they should do just fine.
And before you suggest that we instead empanel a jury of experts in the field, let me remind you that this puts us back where we started, as any experts in the cutting edge of the field (where patents exist) in all likelyhood have vested interests one way or another.
No, because doing one but not the other simply further indicates the author's bias. Yes, it's possible that additional restrictions can be applied, however, with the 3-to-5 example, it's ALSO possible that in the future restrictions can be reduced or eliminated altogether based on customer demand.
Wow. Sounds like a balanced, fair, and unbiased review of the issues to me.
The goverenment is supposed to be a disinterested third party in this situation.
If you bought a Mac, you own a Mac and its software. DMCA doesn't prevent you from owning either.
That sounds good, until you realize that all those groceries you just scanned still need to be taken out of the cart and bagged. Or were you just going to pile all of those canned goods onto the back seat? Should make unloading fun...
Are you kidding? Nuking a city and killing a bunch of innocent civilians in Iraq would instantaneously launch that number up into the millions. The entire Arab world would be up in arms. Not to mention the vast array of additional sympathizers who'd help in any way they could, or the number of people who DO have access to nukes/material who might now see it as their duty to support, aid, and abet a retaliatory act.
Hell, half the people on the planet would simply think we had it coming, and deserved no less...
Actually, if you recall, we're all dead now from starvation due to overpopulation. Remember "The Population Bomb", ZPG, and Soylent Green?
Given the number of Islamics and Muslims around the world who would be SERIOUSLY pissed-off if we were to do something so stupid, I'd disagree and say that the odds of that threat happening in retaliation would increase towards unity...
Wow. An "self-correcting" climate. Now what, precisely, is a "correct" climate, and how does it know when it needs to self correct back to that spot?
Or are you saying that our current century or so of measurements is the only "correct" climate that's existed out of the last 4.5 billion years? Or in that time period we've never cycled to a point were the earth's temperate is 1.5 degrees C warmer than it is now?
Every time I see this I have to ask, why is it an either/or proposition?
Statements like the above limit the possibilities by treating everything as a zero-sum game. My job, or their jobs. I win and everyone else loses. Why not turn the question around and ask, what do we need to do to have both?
I prefer to believe that our options, and our wealth, are limited only by our creativity.
Actually, no. If you RTFA, you'd see that Sony and Warner (2 of the 4 majors) want variable pricing. Universal is quoted as saying the pricing as fine as is, and EMI doesn't sound if they care to force the issue.
So off with the conspiracy theories...
Sorry, you forgot you're on /., the home of "it's my right to install ad blockers so I never see anything that might help pay for the free information I'm receiving."
Also the mantra of the Tivo crowd.
Seems like there's a conflict of interest there. Especially when one side encourages the other to produce more holes that can be exploited, so there's something to track down...
Yes, because apparently you were also doing it to steal the wallets located inside said clothes.
Yeah, but how else does he get "credit" for it?
No doubt. But do I gain compensating advantages, as in needing less of a heat shield, or one that's simpler to build and require less high technology?
Ummmmm.... how about doing a really serious deorbit burn to kill off a lot of that forward speed BEFORE hitting the atmosphere.