The other problem, which isn't exclusive of the first, is that the DRM isn't applied once to each song in the store when it's being added to the database, but added at the time of sale (necessary because it's encrypted with a key that's specific to each user), somewhere on Akamai's servers. It might be difficult to the point of being cost-prohibitive to designate one song as being DRM-free, if the system wasn't designed with that capability from the beginning. Actually... iTunes adds the DRM after it is downloaded. I'm not sure whether that helps or hurts your argument though: It means that it is less server-intensive, but it also means that putting in a flag for 'don't DRM this file' would be much easier to abuse.
If he wants to do this right, tax them enough that CFLs are the same price on the shelf. (Or are cheaper...) Then people who really need incandescents for something can still buy them without going through buerocracy, but the average user will start noticing that CFLs are the same price on the shelf, and less expensive when used. Then watch people switch.
I'm a little puzzled by the anti-net-neutrality stance on slashdot. So many of you are libertarian "marketplace will solve anything" types, so I'd think that you'd be philosophically against the government stepping in to prevent what companies do with their own infrastructure. And if there was a free market in internet service, I wouldn't mind non-neutral networks. They'd die a deserved market death.
But there isn't, both because of the natural monopoly of laying the network and because of government decree. So therefore the government must regulate the monopoly market.
Actually, I do understand that. All I am saying is that users are required to know too much of the internals to get the basics done, in many cases. Sure, they don't want to learn even as much as they need to learn, but much of what they need to learn now they shouldn't need to learn.
(Oh, and as for the flux capacitor capable of blowing up a city: That's not how it would be handled. There would be a seal placed on it, and any car with the seal tampered with would be illegal to drive, and the owner would be fined. Any licenced mechanic for that part would be able to remove and replace the seal as necisary.
And that is the difference right now between how cars are handled and how computers are handled. In computers, you would be expected to know nuclear physics.)
But learning to drive is not the same as learning to fix and maintain a car. To drive you only need to operate the car, and to own it you only need to remember to take it into the shop occasionally to get looked at.
Computers, right now, require you to be mechanics to drive the car, and users don't want to be mechanics. They want to get their work done. Part of this is changing user expectation (so that they know to get routine maintaince from someone trustworthy), but part of it is building the systems so they can survive routine wear and tear for an extended length of time, without the intervention of computer 'mechanics'.
I could pay for your car and you could drop the charges.
You can't simply drop the charges on murder.
Actually, in some legal systems you can...
Regardless, if the robot owns some of themselves and was destroyed, those ownership rights would go to the robot's heirs, who (assuming the robot picked decent heirs) would be unlikely to drop the charges.
And, of course, even with complete destruction it might well be possible to restore a robot into a new body from backup. In which case the robot you destroyed can still face you in court.
My response is that it is pointless to argue hypotheticals based on technology that we have not invented yet. It may well not work in a way that relates to our hypotheticals, so our conclusions are tentative at best, and downright wrong at least.
I believe what I stated above is probably the best way to deal with the problem today, and is likely to be able to handle the problem tomorrow. If it can't, we should adapt it based on how it cannot, not on how we think it might not.
Not only are they on the wrong track for AI, but they are actually on the wrong track for this problem as well.
The base reason you don't kick a dog is because it hurts the dog, and the dog can't easily be repaired, in either programming or mechanicals. (Both of which are harmed.) You have damaged the dog and nothing can be done about it. So we have rules about letting you do it.
Both programing and mechanicals of a robot, for any bot we can design today, are reparable. So there is an easier solution: If you damage a robot, you have to pay the owner to have the damage fixed, and the downtime for the repair.
Then if we ever manage to make 'smart' robots that could ask for rights, we just assign them some self-ownership. Then if you damage one, you have to pay it to so it can fix the damage. At this point the problem becomes self-solving, especially as a robot's time becomes worth more.
As I understand it there is no desease called 'the common cold'. Instead there are literally thousands of deseases, some related and some not, that humanity has adapeted to to the point that we show only minimal symptoms. The symptoms that still show are the symptoms that get them spread: coughing, sneesing, etc. Headaches and feavers are side-effects of either the primary symptoms, or of our bodies' fighting the desease.
So, no, they can't really. The flu is caused by one family of virus, and they can target a vaccine to that virus family. The cold can be caused by thousands of viruses or bacteria, so no one treatment (besides treating the symptoms) can work on all of them.
If we just let providers choose, they will eventually make the right choice. We can't force them to make the right choice NOW, because they won't make it. They'll provide zero content. I know places where I can legally buy non-DRM music and books. (A magazine should also be mentioned.) I don't know one for movies at the moment, unless you count YouTube and other completely indepent films distributed online. (Of which there are a few, some of very high quality.)
The big cartels provide zero content. But there is a fair amount of content avalible with no DRM. It just doesn't have the big names behind it.
I do note the phrase 'reported fewer symptoms' in there. Which has the interesting idea that the subjects themselves counted how sick they got. Want to bet an optimist doesn't count a couple of coughs while a pessimist does?
Season 1 had promise. Complicated universe, diverse characters, a couple good over-arching plotlines. Some rough edges, but go back and watch season 1 of TNG and it is no worse.
But I'd rather the lines were upgraded to support faster speeds first. That should be a higher priority than embedding encryption into the network. There is little pressing need for better encyption, but more data bandwidth would help a lot of things.
This is the fundamental thing that people just don't get: If you give people the ability to live their lives in peace without interference, very few will attack others. When you take that ability away, they start to find ways to try to take it back. If that can be done peacefully, it usually will be. If it can't, it never will.
Slashdot Mirror
If he wants to do this right, tax them enough that CFLs are the same price on the shelf. (Or are cheaper...) Then people who really need incandescents for something can still buy them without going through buerocracy, but the average user will start noticing that CFLs are the same price on the shelf, and less expensive when used. Then watch people switch.
Easy, first you start a nuclear war...
...Then once all the humans are dead, there will be no more spam problem. Except for the kind in cans. Those will last forever.
But there isn't, both because of the natural monopoly of laying the network and because of government decree. So therefore the government must regulate the monopoly market.
Damn I wish I had mod points to give you.
Agreed, and this is part of changing user expectations.
Actually, I do understand that. All I am saying is that users are required to know too much of the internals to get the basics done, in many cases. Sure, they don't want to learn even as much as they need to learn, but much of what they need to learn now they shouldn't need to learn.
(Oh, and as for the flux capacitor capable of blowing up a city: That's not how it would be handled. There would be a seal placed on it, and any car with the seal tampered with would be illegal to drive, and the owner would be fined. Any licenced mechanic for that part would be able to remove and replace the seal as necisary.
And that is the difference right now between how cars are handled and how computers are handled. In computers, you would be expected to know nuclear physics.)
Hey, it's not just the rich people in LA and SF we have to worry about! ...People drive Hummers in Chicago, and D.C., and...
But learning to drive is not the same as learning to fix and maintain a car. To drive you only need to operate the car, and to own it you only need to remember to take it into the shop occasionally to get looked at.
Computers, right now, require you to be mechanics to drive the car, and users don't want to be mechanics. They want to get their work done. Part of this is changing user expectation (so that they know to get routine maintaince from someone trustworthy), but part of it is building the systems so they can survive routine wear and tear for an extended length of time, without the intervention of computer 'mechanics'.
Did the American people ratify a new Constitution? Has the old one been burned?
No, and Yes.
You can't simply drop the charges on murder.
Actually, in some legal systems you can...
Regardless, if the robot owns some of themselves and was destroyed, those ownership rights would go to the robot's heirs, who (assuming the robot picked decent heirs) would be unlikely to drop the charges.
And, of course, even with complete destruction it might well be possible to restore a robot into a new body from backup. In which case the robot you destroyed can still face you in court.
You have a good point in there, somewhere...
My response is that it is pointless to argue hypotheticals based on technology that we have not invented yet. It may well not work in a way that relates to our hypotheticals, so our conclusions are tentative at best, and downright wrong at least.
I believe what I stated above is probably the best way to deal with the problem today, and is likely to be able to handle the problem tomorrow. If it can't, we should adapt it based on how it cannot, not on how we think it might not.
Would you be arrested if you damaged a car beyond repair?
Not only are they on the wrong track for AI, but they are actually on the wrong track for this problem as well.
The base reason you don't kick a dog is because it hurts the dog, and the dog can't easily be repaired, in either programming or mechanicals. (Both of which are harmed.) You have damaged the dog and nothing can be done about it. So we have rules about letting you do it.
Both programing and mechanicals of a robot, for any bot we can design today, are reparable. So there is an easier solution: If you damage a robot, you have to pay the owner to have the damage fixed, and the downtime for the repair.
Then if we ever manage to make 'smart' robots that could ask for rights, we just assign them some self-ownership. Then if you damage one, you have to pay it to so it can fix the damage. At this point the problem becomes self-solving, especially as a robot's time becomes worth more.
Which group is more likly to be around in a hundred years?
(I have no questions on which is going to be in charge. The robots already are, as far as I can tell...)
I'd be really impressed if you still used that address. (Even more so if you have a better than 1/500 ham to spam ratio.)
(Not that it would be hard: I got my current address about two years later...)
As I understand it there is no desease called 'the common cold'. Instead there are literally thousands of deseases, some related and some not, that humanity has adapeted to to the point that we show only minimal symptoms. The symptoms that still show are the symptoms that get them spread: coughing, sneesing, etc. Headaches and feavers are side-effects of either the primary symptoms, or of our bodies' fighting the desease.
So, no, they can't really. The flu is caused by one family of virus, and they can target a vaccine to that virus family. The cold can be caused by thousands of viruses or bacteria, so no one treatment (besides treating the symptoms) can work on all of them.
The big cartels provide zero content. But there is a fair amount of content avalible with no DRM. It just doesn't have the big names behind it.
I do note the phrase 'reported fewer symptoms' in there. Which has the interesting idea that the subjects themselves counted how sick they got. Want to bet an optimist doesn't count a couple of coughs while a pessimist does?
Season 1 had promise. Complicated universe, diverse characters, a couple good over-arching plotlines. Some rough edges, but go back and watch season 1 of TNG and it is no worse.
Then they decided to be an action show.
But I'd rather the lines were upgraded to support faster speeds first. That should be a higher priority than embedding encryption into the network. There is little pressing need for better encyption, but more data bandwidth would help a lot of things.
Liberty is safety.
This is the fundamental thing that people just don't get: If you give people the ability to live their lives in peace without interference, very few will attack others. When you take that ability away, they start to find ways to try to take it back. If that can be done peacefully, it usually will be. If it can't, it never will.
I said I wouldn't mind so much, not that I wouldn't mind.
Actually, I won't mind so much if the royalties went to the families. I'd rather copyright expired, but it would be a decent arrangement.
But the royalties usally go to the record company and whomever holds the rights, which at that point is rarely the families.
Don't worry. As has been noted, some of they are dead anyway.
(I wonder how many of the rest knew about the advert beforehand?)