The fact is that if you are an American and you haven't taken the opportunity to call and write your Congressmen/Congresswomen and pitch a huge fit, you are shirking *your* responsibility. After that, it may become necessary to protest in street, even if it's not a right that benefits us personally or reflects our party's position.
Frankly, that's been tried, and the US is still in the hands of, at best, a greedy oligarchy. Shouldn't citizens be doing a bit more than writing letters or peacefully protesting? Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." It's been a while since the tree was refreshed.
Isn't this what those guns are for? Isn't this what the NRA is all about and why it fights so hard to protect that right? Isn't it time for the people of the US to rise up and kick the current administration's ASS out of government, by force if necessary? Isn't the problem that too many people today think that violence is NEVER justified, when in fact it is only SELDOM justified? I'd say self-defence of your liberty and democracy from tyranny is one of those rare cases where violence IS justified.
'Back to your ranch in Texas, or bullet to the head.'
Krusty: Kids, today we have to talk about Krusty Brand Chew-
Goo Gum-like Substance. We knew it contained spider
eggs, but the Hantavirus, well, that really came out
of left field. [At home, Bart blows a bubble. When
it pops, dozens of tiny spiders run off] So, if any
of you've experienced numbness, or comas, send proof
of purchase and five dollars to: Antidote, PO Box
14 --
... or that they need to pass a law to make politicians exempt from any new police powers, lest the 'safety of the nation' be compromised. Which is actually a real possibility if they do what Blair wants and create a super-database of people's information.
Yeah! A much better system would be to have an elected House of Lords, which could just automatically pass any legislation passed by the Commons because its makeup would be virtually identical!
Right now, you don't have the vaugest idea of what any sort of Net Neutrality legislation would entail, because no sort of legislation has been written up.
I know it would entail my being able to download stuff nice and quickly from eMule.;-)
Isn't another argument that these private toll roads are probably making a tidy profit for the owner? The idea is that government doesn't turn a profit, so you hopefully end up paying less overall. I don't like the idea of big companies getting a juicy opportunity to profit from content providers by charging extra for priority through their tubes.
Now you fly out to a city; you immediately get stopped because you need to pay for the roads and streets even if you are not native to that city. Now you are told you have to walk slower because your friend that you came to visit didn't pay extra for your trip.
On the other hand, if a movie star came out and said that they believed in fair use rights for consumers and that DRM was a completely unnecessary headache, it might rather backfire for the movie studios, non?
If you can't give an explanation of how Vista miraculously triples your download speeds, don't expect me to be impressed any more than I am by Creationism. Sorry.
Right. And there are a few silly things said in that rebuttal that I picked up from even a cursory glance...
"If the policies required protections that Windows Vista couldn't support, then the content would not be able to play at all on Windows Vista PCs."
No, the PCs would display a message along the lines of, 'This media cannot be played by Windows Vista because of the overly-restrictive policies of content providers with millions of dollars, mainly based in Hollywood. If you don't like this, please contact your local senator/representative and tell them you'd like to see this sort of content being released without silly anti-fair use restrictions.' See how much that would sting.
"In fact, much of the functionality discussed in the paper has been part of previous versions of Windows, and hasn't resulted in significant consumer problems"
The existing 'functionality' for restriction of content playback is chickenfeed compared to the 'encryption-all-the-way' attitude taken by Vista's premium content protection mechanism.
"In the case of HD optical media formats such as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, the constraint requirement is 520K pixels per frame (i.e., roughly 960x540), which is still higher than the native resolution of content distributed in the DVD-Video format. We feel that this is still yields a great user experience, even when using a high definition screen."
So, pirated content will still deliver a 'great user experience'! Just not-quite-as-great as HD. I think people who are pirating stuff will generally be happy with that, especially given that ultra-high quality content would require way larger files to download.
"Will the Windows Vista content protection board robustness recommendations increase the cost of graphics cards and reduce the number of build options?
Everything was moving to be integrated on the one chip anyway"
Whose ass was this assertion pulled out of?
"Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource consumption?
Yes."
Teh sux.
"However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable, as the PC provides consumers with additional functionality."
This isn't additional functionality, it's reduced functionality against the user's wishes.
"In this case, additional complexity is added to the graphics driver, but that complexity comes with the direct consumer benefit of new scenarios such as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback."
Wouldn't be needed if HD-DVD/Blu-Ray content weren't laden with unnecessary DRM. Should've tried to force (or preferably, break) Hollywood's hand.
We could probably build a few hundred.1c probes for a cost of no more than ten trillion dollars using current technology. Assuming just one of those probes sent us back information from a more advanced alien race, we could well recoup that investment a millionfold.
Wow... ten trillion million dollars... that's a lot! Closing in on a gazillion.
"These guys are actively advertising online and they've got a website they're advertising from; that's where you place your order and that's how the orders are shipped out."
That sentence was presented on its own, as if it were a valid criticism of 'these guys'; thing is, advertising and selling online isn't a crime, and pretty much all RIAA record labels do BOTH of those things (selling as in selling CDs). They clearly want to paint the picture that any non-RIAA approved store selling music should automatically be treated with the utmost suspicion.
It's depressing if people in the US form their opinions based on these retarded kinds of news stories.
Alongside the all-or-nothing approach of disabling output, Vista requires that any interface that provides high-quality output degrade the signal quality that passes through it. This is done through a "constrictor" that downgrades the signal to a much lower-quality one, then up-scales it again back to the original spec, but with a significant loss in quality. So if you're using an expensive new LCD display fed from a high-quality DVI signal on your video card and there's protected content present, the picture you're going to see will be, as the spec puts it, "slightly fuzzy", a bit like a 10-year-old CRT monitor that you picked up for $2 at a yard sale
I can only assume that this article is somewhat misrepresenting the facts. Is it really true that *IT IS NOT POSSIBLE* to play 'premium' content at full quality on a Vista PC? Did the author mean to say that any non-DRM device that provides high-quality output degrades the signal??
'The planet' has no (discernable) sentience, and as such doesn't think of itself as better or worse off under any circumstance. Most humans, however, would think of themselves as worse off if they didn't exist.
Take Gay marriage (which probably put Bush in office the 2nd time). Some [...] say that the government shouldn't be issuing marriage licenses in the first place.
Mmm, wouldn't that fall into the 'against' category? Aren't heterosexual marriage documents still handed out by churches?
Slashdot Mirror
The fact is that if you are an American and you haven't taken the opportunity to call and write your Congressmen/Congresswomen and pitch a huge fit, you are shirking *your* responsibility. After that, it may become necessary to protest in street, even if it's not a right that benefits us personally or reflects our party's position.
Frankly, that's been tried, and the US is still in the hands of, at best, a greedy oligarchy. Shouldn't citizens be doing a bit more than writing letters or peacefully protesting? Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." It's been a while since the tree was refreshed.
Isn't this what those guns are for? Isn't this what the NRA is all about and why it fights so hard to protect that right? Isn't it time for the people of the US to rise up and kick the current administration's ASS out of government, by force if necessary? Isn't the problem that too many people today think that violence is NEVER justified, when in fact it is only SELDOM justified? I'd say self-defence of your liberty and democracy from tyranny is one of those rare cases where violence IS justified.
'Back to your ranch in Texas, or bullet to the head.'
That Perl script really does implement a crude 'licence check' on the system. :-) Are those guys really allowing people to pay out for a licence??
... or that they need to pass a law to make politicians exempt from any new police powers, lest the 'safety of the nation' be compromised. Which is actually a real possibility if they do what Blair wants and create a super-database of people's information.
Yeah! A much better system would be to have an elected House of Lords, which could just automatically pass any legislation passed by the Commons because its makeup would be virtually identical!
"Vote Libertarian - Can there be any issue more important than our ability to have unfettered access to the internet?!"
Right now, you don't have the vaugest idea of what any sort of Net Neutrality legislation would entail, because no sort of legislation has been written up.
;-)
I know it would entail my being able to download stuff nice and quickly from eMule.
Isn't another argument that these private toll roads are probably making a tidy profit for the owner? The idea is that government doesn't turn a profit, so you hopefully end up paying less overall. I don't like the idea of big companies getting a juicy opportunity to profit from content providers by charging extra for priority through their tubes.
Now you fly out to a city; you immediately get stopped because you need to pay for the roads and streets even if you are not native to that city. Now you are told you have to walk slower because your friend that you came to visit didn't pay extra for your trip.
You've been to New York too?
On the other hand, if a movie star came out and said that they believed in fair use rights for consumers and that DRM was a completely unnecessary headache, it might rather backfire for the movie studios, non?
If you can't give an explanation of how Vista miraculously triples your download speeds, don't expect me to be impressed any more than I am by Creationism. Sorry.
Right. And there are a few silly things said in that rebuttal that I picked up from even a cursory glance...
"If the policies required protections that Windows Vista couldn't support, then the content would not be able to play at all on Windows Vista PCs."
No, the PCs would display a message along the lines of, 'This media cannot be played by Windows Vista because of the overly-restrictive policies of content providers with millions of dollars, mainly based in Hollywood. If you don't like this, please contact your local senator/representative and tell them you'd like to see this sort of content being released without silly anti-fair use restrictions.' See how much that would sting.
"In fact, much of the functionality discussed in the paper has been part of previous versions of Windows, and hasn't resulted in significant consumer problems"
The existing 'functionality' for restriction of content playback is chickenfeed compared to the 'encryption-all-the-way' attitude taken by Vista's premium content protection mechanism.
"In the case of HD optical media formats such as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, the constraint requirement is 520K pixels per frame (i.e., roughly 960x540), which is still higher than the native resolution of content distributed in the DVD-Video format. We feel that this is still yields a great user experience, even when using a high definition screen."
So, pirated content will still deliver a 'great user experience'! Just not-quite-as-great as HD. I think people who are pirating stuff will generally be happy with that, especially given that ultra-high quality content would require way larger files to download.
"Will the Windows Vista content protection board robustness recommendations increase the cost of graphics cards and reduce the number of build options?
Everything was moving to be integrated on the one chip anyway"
Whose ass was this assertion pulled out of?
"Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource consumption?
Yes."
Teh sux.
"However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable, as the PC provides consumers with additional functionality."
This isn't additional functionality, it's reduced functionality against the user's wishes.
"In this case, additional complexity is added to the graphics driver, but that complexity comes with the direct consumer benefit of new scenarios such as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback."
Wouldn't be needed if HD-DVD/Blu-Ray content weren't laden with unnecessary DRM. Should've tried to force (or preferably, break) Hollywood's hand.
s#^(1\) ).*$#\1s/bahhh/Bahhh/#
:-P
Squirt the bird: To transmit a signal to a satellite.
That's... one interpretation. I doubt it would be seen as such in this country.
We could probably build a few hundred .1c probes for a cost of no more than ten trillion dollars using current technology. Assuming just one of those probes sent us back information from a more advanced alien race, we could well recoup that investment a millionfold.
Wow... ten trillion million dollars... that's a lot! Closing in on a gazillion.
So smoking weed is legal but hash isn't? Weird.
Indeed, quote the RIAA shill:
"These guys are actively advertising online and they've got a website they're advertising from; that's where you place your order and that's how the orders are shipped out."
That sentence was presented on its own, as if it were a valid criticism of 'these guys'; thing is, advertising and selling online isn't a crime, and pretty much all RIAA record labels do BOTH of those things (selling as in selling CDs). They clearly want to paint the picture that any non-RIAA approved store selling music should automatically be treated with the utmost suspicion.
It's depressing if people in the US form their opinions based on these retarded kinds of news stories.
I know it's hard to understand, this is slashdot, where I'm willing to wager most when teens bought computer equipment and not drugs.
I think you'll find most Slashdotters think the War on Drugs is a terrible mistake, or worse.
It's 0.002 per kB sent.
Alongside the all-or-nothing approach of disabling output, Vista
requires that any interface that provides high-quality output degrade
the signal quality that passes through it. This is done through a
"constrictor" that downgrades the signal to a much lower-quality one,
then up-scales it again back to the original spec, but with a
significant loss in quality. So if you're using an expensive new LCD
display fed from a high-quality DVI signal on your video card and
there's protected content present, the picture you're going to see will
be, as the spec puts it, "slightly fuzzy", a bit like a 10-year-old CRT
monitor that you picked up for $2 at a yard sale
I can only assume that this article is somewhat misrepresenting the facts. Is it really true that *IT IS NOT POSSIBLE* to play 'premium' content at full quality on a Vista PC? Did the author mean to say that any non-DRM device that provides high-quality output degrades the signal??
every time I use a sextant for celestial navigation, I believe that the Earth is the center of the Universe and the stars move around it.
What in the fuck are you talking about? Of course you don't.
Post something in an active forum or group, and try to find your post later so that you can read replies. Good luck, you're going to need it!
:-)
Ever tried to find an old story on Slashdot?
(Using google is cheating)
'The planet' has no (discernable) sentience, and as such doesn't think of itself as better or worse off under any circumstance. Most humans, however, would think of themselves as worse off if they didn't exist.
Take Gay marriage (which probably put Bush in office the 2nd time). Some [...] say that the government shouldn't be issuing marriage licenses in the first place.
Mmm, wouldn't that fall into the 'against' category? Aren't heterosexual marriage documents still handed out by churches?
It's not a case of intentional deception
Either that, or it definitely IS.