A closer analogy would be if you blindfolded yourself and then randomly selected kitchen drawers putting whatever you found to your own throat. If you go looking for trouble assuming everything is safe then you will get burned. That goes for everything in life. If you go around running code you can't understand (obfuscated or not) then you will end up getting what you deserver.
First hit of many on google. I'm still trying to figure out why you need a language to protect your self agianst yourself. If you write the code then you have no worries, if you run obfuscated code without checking to make sure it is safe then you get what you deserve. If you ever just run strange software (code or compiled) without being sure of the source then you have a chance of getting into trouble. http://p-nand-q.com/python/obfuscated_py thon.html
"refuses to even let you think bad thoughts".... just what I need, a language that thinks it knows what I want or need better then I do. No Thanks.
If you can't trust yourself not to run random code then you probably shouldn't use a computer.
I certainly doubt that it is impossible to obfuscate code in any language. Perl might make it easier than some but I've never thrown away a knife because it was too sharp.
You realize I'm sure that he never said "that everyone hates tradition." What he did say was "People hate tradition these days." Its quite possible also that those following these traditions (in the traditional manor) are the minority and that "You, personally, are probably deeply embedded in this minority and see it as the whole world. It's not."
It would be quite obvious that he is not refereing to 100% of the people, because everyone has different traditions. It would make more sense then to read his post as meaning that many people are starting to ignore their traditions. 'Many' being defined as more people than in the past. I would be interseted in seeing the 'facts' to back up your claim that those who aren't following tradition are "a definite minority."
INDUCTIVE INFERENCE AFFECTIVE LANGUAGE ANALYZER SIMULATING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE http://www.ethicalvalues.com/
in english...ish
An analyzer that based on reasoning from logic based on premises known to be true about emotionaly influenced language takes on the appearance of imitating something resembling natural intelligence.
(all translations made librealy with the use of dictionary.com)
Is it me or does it mean, "kinda sorta emotional, with a fake artificial intellegence?"
This sounds pretty crack pot, and where do the ethics come in?
Also is he patenting "ethics in AI" or "emotions in AI" and since the whole goal of AI's been to provide those, wouldn't that be alot of prior art?
Seems like you can patent anthying these days. I wonder if i could get a patent for "open fire roasted herbivores of the species cattle, topped with prossed curd of milk" (hmmm doesn't sound very good that way.
Ah. Yea I heard about those a while back. Frensel lenses basicaly. Yea I suppose that would fool it. Thats why I also included thermal imageing. (maybe a different post.) Either way any system is foolable. Its just a question of how bad it is.:-)
Heres an idea that just occured to me. Use two cameras in tandem, spaced a couple inches apart to give you a depth analysis as well. Harder to fool, and you can't just use a picture. It would have to be a full blown model.
Or even better. Dual Cameras with Optical and Infared Capabilities (and audio) captureing the person saying a pass phrase "I am joe." One-way Hash all the data into the system and use that.
You could even hash the audio and video seperate so that a head injury or a cold wouldn't lock you out, or just have a guard to let those people pass.
Actualy its saying that if you have access to the template (unencrypted) then you can reconstruct the image from that. Its also saying that if the system gives a % of how close you are then that can be used to average out an initial picture until it provides a close enough match. Both of these could be handled by one-way hashing the stored template and then only giving a yes/no answer. Though then the hash of a template generated by a persons image must be consitently perfect, so that everytime it id's you it recreates the template, hashes it, and searches for that in the dbase.
I think some sort of video/infrared system would work better. Of course it would be much harder. Then you could weight there movement/facial expresions/temperature match. Much harder to fool than a simple image. After all you can't hold a picture up to an infared camera and expect it to work too well. Of course it should also be noted that any system can be broken, includeing ALL current identification systems. So its realy a matter of is this better or worse than our current methods.
PDA's give you the ability to read most, if not all book formats. If price is the only reason to avoid them, then I would suggest searching EBay for an older model. Heres the current EBay listing for Palms IIIc (a nice unit i've used for this in the past.) Currently there are many that are 90$ and less for the 8mb color units.:-)
No. Thats not what I said. I said the speed of light does not make it impossible to have global communications wirelessly. Since its already done with other wireless solutions (satelites) I would assume its safe to bet its possible with others.
As far as missing points go i don't think i'm the one with the problem.
You act as what we percieve as limitations now always will be. What i keep trying to point out is that we have overcome numerous "limitations" in the past. Why assume we wont in the future?
This isn't an excerise in do we have the technology hardware/software/design wise now, its do we have the technology to bulid towards such a system.
You haven't provided a single reason that it can't be done. Except that it hasn't been done now so it must be impossible.
Give me a reason.
Like the speed of light limits communications so its not possbile to communicate around the globe.
or
Wireless has reached it physical limits and it just wont make it.
or
There is no way to build a Mesh network.
The fact is. None of those are true. Now it may be hard to see a world were people might be able to share an infastructure like a wireless network, but that doesn't make it impossible.
Also, suppose that the network does exists. I know its a streach and proboly at best 50 years in the future. Now tell me why in a situation where every device can talk to any other (threw magical routing tables, and directional anteneas, or some other solution), why wouldn't it be a free system?
Now i may be wrong here but realy you could say that we are damaging the ozone/atmosphere if we ever take more than we replace (of hydrogen) or give more that we take (of water.) Of course with that assumption there is nothing we can ever do that wont harm the atmosphere, so my question is:
Does anyone know of any studies showing the effects of extra water (the by product of fuel cells) on the atmosphere?
Then agian if we use stations that then convert water back into hydgrogen.....we have a nice tidy cycle i suppose, depending on quantities etc.
>Think ahead into the land of make believe, is >what you're saying.
Nope. I'm saying try to think out side the box. Stop thinking can't unless you have legitimate reasons.
>> remember 28k modems when they were fast and >>56k when they were as fast as you'd ever need. >What does this have to do with anything? It's a >completely out of context statement. Not to >mention the root question here isn't how FAST it >would be using P2P garbage, rather how pratical >it is. The point was not about speed. Think of the bigger picture. The point was about advances in technology. When we had 28k modems we didn't even think there were going to be DSL, CABLE, and fiber to the home, because at the time it wasn't cost effective. Now it is. So take a little jump forward and see were we go next.
>But, to go with the speed point.. Land lines >provide a huge amount of bandwidth. I know of no >other (non physical) technology that can >provitde the insane speeds of fibre. (and I mean >pratically speaking.) These speeds will only get >faster, and they are here now. The problem with land lines isn't speed. Its this need for owner ship and maintenance. The same thing that makes them expensive is the reason we might want to abandon them in the future.
>Clouds won't make a buried fibre line slow down. And Clouds don't make cell phones stop working either, Your point?
>P2P has it's place, but not as the basis of a >sophisticated network that people depend on. For >wireless wide-scale networking, it won't work >for anything more then a nitche market of >perhaps something like text messaging in metro >areas. The P2P example is just that. An Example. Technology that wasn't thought of before working when people said it couldn't. File sharing programs aren't the only ones out there. There are many focused on content sharing that are not big farms of pirated music.
>The concept of a "network" won't change. Central >services (backbones) with nodes connected to >that, not each other. It just works. The nodes >can talk to each other, but they do it via the >backbone, server, whatever. Once upon a time not so long ago we thought there would always be a main frame and terminals,personal computers where unheard of, no such thing as cell phones and who would need or even want a computer that fit in your poket. The point: things do change, even basic ideas like "network." btw: network: A system of computers interconnected by telephone wires or other means in order to share information. (scavanged from dictionary.com. Did i mess the backbone part of that?)
>Even the so-called P2P networks work this way. >Napster had central servers everyone connected >to. Same with Kazaa. Gnutella is a little more >distributed (and a lot more inneficient). Opps your right. No chance for any change in the future. I just mailed in my check for a typewriter. Give me a break.
>I dunno. p2p is not the answer. And it will >never be free (what is free besides air >anyways?). Real people have to come up with this >stuff, manufacture hardware, deploy it, and >maintain it. They need to get paid too, and the >money has to come from somewhere. One last point. Linux. Free and people had to come up with it. I could name a dozen more but theres no need. While it might not be a physical good, it was produced. It did take time to design, build, and distribute. I know it doesn't need manufactured and it doesn't require resources to make.
The poster didn't say you could get the hardware for free. They just thought that after buying it, you could use it to tie into a large net of other peoples wireless network and all share it.
>There's a difference between "thinking ahead" >and dreaming of Star Trek world. Yep there is. Its the difference between
thinking the worlds flat because you can't imagine living on a sphere and
thinking its a sphere even though you can't imagine living on a sphere.
Who said it would take more than 5 hopes to get to japan?
I remember 28k modems when they were fast and 56k when they were as fast as you'd ever need.
Wake up. Your the one not getting the point. At one point there was no such thing as Voice & Video over IP and in the future there will be something different so think ahead instead of now.
People said the same thing about Distributed Computing models, and yet they work. They work realy well in fact. They are young and growing but thats the point. If we can make software networks like that now what is possible in the future?
Two other technologies leading in this direction:
* Directional Cell Phone towers that broadcast in the direction of the cell phone (without have to move BTW)
* Mesh Networks - combining multiple wireless cards together in a network (sound familiar?)
I think the reason most people don't like paying for alot of things is that they are over priced. For example music. Now when they had to put it on CD,Cassete or Record its easy to see that they have costs, but when reproduction becomes free you can't expect to still charge the same amount. As an example look at a movie in DVD and VHS form. In most cases the difference will be something like $5 for a VHS and $20 for a DVD. Is it because a DVD costs more to make? no. they are cheaper. Is it because of improved content? maybe, but not likely. So why should we pay that much more. Now take the same example with DVD vr. Internet distribution. You can't possible expect people to pay as much for something thats completely free to reproduce.
Now i know i've gotten off topic a little here so lets tie it back in. If we can (as the poster suggests) cover the globe in a wireless network that is supported not by backbones or any expensive infastructure what is stopping us? At that point the distribution become free or at least covered each indivual so its fair to assume that in such a network where everyone supplies a part of the network everyone would recieve free access to it.
Now I understand that this is something we don't have the technology for yet, but its certainly not unforseable.
BTW: whats wrong with free stuff? Ever seen any money in Star Trek?
It used to take many months for a letter to get to Japan, now you can send stuff there overnight.
Why should we believe wireless tech has reached its limit and can do no more? and can't be any faster?
I remember when cell phones weighed a ton and had no range, now they are tiny and have pretty good range, not to mention the advances in walkie talkies, and other wireless tech that have grown smaller and better threw the years.
Its amazing that the tech crowd is giving this guy a hard time. He phrased his question very well to counter many of the arguments used against him and still all he gets is crap.
Wake up. At one point you couldn't even travel between continents and now your saying a few millesecoonds is an insermountable barrier? Give me a break.
I've never had any problems with advertisments from NetFlix or from delayed rentals. I almost always get vidoes withen 4 days of droping the old ones in the box. Now if i could just remember to send them back the old ones sooner:-)
I general go through 10 DVD's a month and pay $20, so $2 per DVD versus $3-$5 at BlockBuster or Hollywood seems pretty good. Especialy since i normaly forget to take those back to and have to pay late fee's ($10+ dollars in late fees sucks. Shoulda just bought the damn thing.):-)
Just because you don't know what the value of a production is (virtual or not) does not mean it has no value. Some books are not worth the paper they are written on, specificaly because the paper is usless unless you need a fire.
Argueing that because things have no material value that then they are worthless is ridiculus. You do not buy a house for its wood you buy it for its style and utility. If it has a use to anyone then it has a value.
BTW: The whole idea of laws in a virtual world is absurd at best. How do you impose such laws, who makes them? At very least you then need a virtual government and a virtual election, virtual constiuents, or at least a virtual tyrant to make decisions. NO current government has any business in the virtual realm.
I would consider the virtual realm more a book as its being written, there are no laws or rules except those imposed by the authors.
Yea numbers that agreed with that would be nice. On the other hand wouldn't the music industries own claim that they are loosing business be supportive of the idea. It seems obvious to me that the only reason people don't buy they music is because they don't beleive they get there value out of it. I mean you don't go steal $.99 cheeseburgers. You don't even try and scam them free it would be rediculous. Another point would be that i happily pay $10 per DVD with no qualms at all. I might even pay $20 per DVD for new release but with movie prices on the rise i'm more likely not to.
Any one have ideas where you would get those kind of numbers? or even how to do a sort of survey?
do these industries continue to alienate there target audience?
I mean software companies would rather sell you a product every year than once for life. (Not including M$ wich wants to sell you 1 product for life.....every year.) Why don't the music and movie companies see this?
I am not a real music person but there are several songs I would enjoy owning, but only if i can get them for a reasonable price. I mean I would be happy to pay a couple bucks to download a song, so long as i can then do whatever i want with it.
My VCR's whole function is to record, TV's, music, etc. So why suddenly do they expect us to pay for everything, every time we want to use it, and to pay more. This whole fight has been had before and its obvious who one, since we all own VCR's (well the majority do), and tape decks. Most of us even have photocopiers at work etc. In all those cases, tape, cassete, book/magazine, if it is something we want and we can purchase it for a reasonable price then we do so. We don't photocopy a 5$ paper back because that would be stupid. You go buy the book.
When record and movie companies remember that then they can drop this whole scam. Until then pirates/hackers/everybody will do what gives us the best return for our investment.
So the real question becomes, not will they learn, but when will they learn, and more importantly how do we help them learn?
Slashdot Mirror
A closer analogy would be if you blindfolded yourself and then randomly selected kitchen drawers putting whatever you found to your own throat. If you go looking for trouble assuming everything is safe then you will get burned. That goes for everything in life. If you go around running code you can't understand (obfuscated or not) then you will end up getting what you deserver.
First hit of many on google. I'm still trying to figure out why you need a language to protect your self agianst yourself. If you write the code then you have no worries, if you run obfuscated code without checking to make sure it is safe then you get what you deserve. If you ever just run strange software (code or compiled) without being sure of the source then you have a chance of getting into trouble.y thon.html
http://p-nand-q.com/python/obfuscated_p
"refuses to even let you think bad thoughts".... just what I need, a language that thinks it knows what I want or need better then I do. No Thanks.
If you can't trust yourself not to run random code then you probably shouldn't use a computer.
I certainly doubt that it is impossible to obfuscate code in any language. Perl might make it easier than some but I've never thrown away a knife because it was too sharp.
You realize I'm sure that he never said "that everyone hates tradition." What he did say was "People hate tradition these days." Its quite possible also that those following these traditions (in the traditional manor) are the minority and that "You, personally, are probably deeply embedded in this minority and see it as the whole world. It's not."
It would be quite obvious that he is not refereing to 100% of the people, because everyone has different traditions. It would make more sense then to read his post as meaning that many people are starting to ignore their traditions. 'Many' being defined as more people than in the past. I would be interseted in seeing the 'facts' to back up your claim that those who aren't following tradition are "a definite minority."
INDUCTIVE INFERENCE AFFECTIVE LANGUAGE ANALYZER SIMULATING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
http://www.ethicalvalues.com/
in english...ish
An analyzer that based on reasoning from logic based on premises known to be true about emotionaly influenced language takes on the appearance of imitating something resembling natural intelligence.
(all translations made librealy with the use of dictionary.com)
Is it me or does it mean, "kinda sorta emotional, with a fake artificial intellegence?"
This sounds pretty crack pot, and where do the ethics come in?
Also is he patenting "ethics in AI" or "emotions in AI" and since the whole goal of AI's been to provide those, wouldn't that be alot of prior art?
Seems like you can patent anthying these days. I wonder if i could get a patent for "open fire roasted herbivores of the species cattle, topped with prossed curd of milk" (hmmm doesn't sound very good that way.
Ah. Yea I heard about those a while back. Frensel lenses basicaly. Yea I suppose that would fool it. Thats why I also included thermal imageing. (maybe a different post.) Either way any system is foolable. Its just a question of how bad it is. :-)
3 dimensional print?? like a hologram. I don't understand. Do you have more info? a link?
Heres an idea that just occured to me. Use two cameras in tandem, spaced a couple inches apart to give you a depth analysis as well. Harder to fool, and you can't just use a picture. It would have to be a full blown model.
Or even better. Dual Cameras with Optical and Infared Capabilities (and audio) captureing the person saying a pass phrase "I am joe." One-way Hash all the data into the system and use that.
You could even hash the audio and video seperate so that a head injury or a cold wouldn't lock you out, or just have a guard to let those people pass.
Well you get the idea. Any thoughts?
Actualy its saying that if you have access to the template (unencrypted) then you can reconstruct the image from that. Its also saying that if the system gives a % of how close you are then that can be used to average out an initial picture until it provides a close enough match. Both of these could be handled by one-way hashing the stored template and then only giving a yes/no answer. Though then the hash of a template generated by a persons image must be consitently perfect, so that everytime it id's you it recreates the template, hashes it, and searches for that in the dbase.
I think some sort of video/infrared system would work better. Of course it would be much harder. Then you could weight there movement/facial expresions/temperature match. Much harder to fool than a simple image. After all you can't hold a picture up to an infared camera and expect it to work too well.
Of course it should also be noted that any system can be broken, includeing ALL current identification systems. So its realy a matter of is this better or worse than our current methods.
Just my thoughts.
PDA's give you the ability to read most, if not all book formats. If price is the only reason to avoid them, then I would suggest searching EBay for an older model. :-)
Heres the current EBay listing for Palms IIIc (a nice unit i've used for this in the past.) Currently there are many that are 90$ and less for the 8mb color units.
No. Thats not what I said. I said the speed of light does not make it impossible to have global communications wirelessly. Since its already done with other wireless solutions (satelites) I would assume its safe to bet its possible with others.
As far as missing points go i don't think i'm the one with the problem.
You act as what we percieve as limitations now always will be. What i keep trying to point out is that we have overcome numerous "limitations" in the past. Why assume we wont in the future?
This isn't an excerise in do we have the technology hardware/software/design wise now, its do we have the technology to bulid towards such a system.
You haven't provided a single reason that it can't be done. Except that it hasn't been done now so it must be impossible.
Give me a reason.
Like the speed of light limits communications so its not possbile to communicate around the globe.
or
Wireless has reached it physical limits and it just wont make it.
or
There is no way to build a Mesh network.
The fact is. None of those are true. Now it may be hard to see a world were people might be able to share an infastructure like a wireless network, but that doesn't make it impossible.
Also, suppose that the network does exists. I know its a streach and proboly at best 50 years in the future. Now tell me why in a situation where every device can talk to any other (threw magical routing tables, and directional anteneas, or some other solution), why wouldn't it be a free system?
Now i may be wrong here but realy you could say that we are damaging the ozone/atmosphere if we ever take more than we replace (of hydrogen) or give more that we take (of water.) Of course with that assumption there is nothing we can ever do that wont harm the atmosphere, so my question is:
Does anyone know of any studies showing the effects of extra water (the by product of fuel cells) on the atmosphere?
Then agian if we use stations that then convert water back into hydgrogen.....we have a nice tidy cycle i suppose, depending on quantities etc.
>Think ahead into the land of make believe, is
>what you're saying.
Nope. I'm saying try to think out side the box. Stop thinking can't unless you have legitimate reasons.
>> remember 28k modems when they were fast and
>>56k when they were as fast as you'd ever need.
>What does this have to do with anything? It's a
>completely out of context statement. Not to
>mention the root question here isn't how FAST it
>would be using P2P garbage, rather how pratical
>it is.
The point was not about speed. Think of the bigger picture. The point was about advances in technology. When we had 28k modems we didn't even think there were going to be DSL, CABLE, and fiber to the home, because at the time it wasn't cost effective. Now it is. So take a little jump forward and see were we go next.
>But, to go with the speed point.. Land lines
>provide a huge amount of bandwidth. I know of no
>other (non physical) technology that can
>provitde the insane speeds of fibre. (and I mean
>pratically speaking.) These speeds will only get
>faster, and they are here now.
The problem with land lines isn't speed. Its this need for owner ship and maintenance. The same thing that makes them expensive is the reason we might want to abandon them in the future.
>Clouds won't make a buried fibre line slow down.
And Clouds don't make cell phones stop working either, Your point?
>P2P has it's place, but not as the basis of a
>sophisticated network that people depend on. For
>wireless wide-scale networking, it won't work
>for anything more then a nitche market of
>perhaps something like text messaging in metro
>areas.
The P2P example is just that. An Example. Technology that wasn't thought of before working when people said it couldn't. File sharing programs aren't the only ones out there. There are many focused on content sharing that are not big farms of pirated music.
>The concept of a "network" won't change. Central
>services (backbones) with nodes connected to
>that, not each other. It just works. The nodes
>can talk to each other, but they do it via the
>backbone, server, whatever.
Once upon a time not so long ago we thought there would always be a main frame and terminals,personal computers where unheard of, no such thing as cell phones and who would need or even want a computer that fit in your poket.
The point: things do change, even basic ideas like "network."
btw: network: A system of computers interconnected by telephone wires or other means in order to share information. (scavanged from dictionary.com. Did i mess the backbone part of that?)
>Even the so-called P2P networks work this way.
>Napster had central servers everyone connected
>to. Same with Kazaa. Gnutella is a little more
>distributed (and a lot more inneficient).
Opps your right. No chance for any change in the future. I just mailed in my check for a typewriter. Give me a break.
>I dunno. p2p is not the answer. And it will
>never be free (what is free besides air
>anyways?). Real people have to come up with this
>stuff, manufacture hardware, deploy it, and
>maintain it. They need to get paid too, and the
>money has to come from somewhere.
One last point. Linux. Free and people had to come up with it. I could name a dozen more but theres no need. While it might not be a physical good, it was produced. It did take time to design, build, and distribute. I know it doesn't need manufactured and it doesn't require resources to make.
The poster didn't say you could get the hardware for free. They just thought that after buying it, you could use it to tie into a large net of other peoples wireless network and all share it.
>There's a difference between "thinking ahead"
>and dreaming of Star Trek world.
Yep there is.
Its the difference between
thinking the worlds flat because you can't imagine living on a sphere
and
thinking its a sphere even though you can't imagine living on a sphere.
In case you didn't know: There is no money in star trek.
That wasn't my point though it was just a little side humor.
Who said it would take more than 5 hopes to get to japan?
I remember 28k modems when they were fast and 56k when they were as fast as you'd ever need.
Wake up. Your the one not getting the point. At one point there was no such thing as Voice & Video over IP and in the future there will be something different so think ahead instead of now.
People said the same thing about Distributed Computing models, and yet they work. They work realy well in fact. They are young and growing but thats the point. If we can make software networks like that now what is possible in the future?
Two other technologies leading in this direction:
* Directional Cell Phone towers that broadcast in the direction of the cell phone (without have to move BTW)
* Mesh Networks - combining multiple wireless cards together in a network (sound familiar?)
I think the reason most people don't like paying for alot of things is that they are over priced. For example music. Now when they had to put it on CD,Cassete or Record its easy to see that they have costs, but when reproduction becomes free you can't expect to still charge the same amount. As an example look at a movie in DVD and VHS form. In most cases the difference will be something like $5 for a VHS and $20 for a DVD. Is it because a DVD costs more to make? no. they are cheaper. Is it because of improved content? maybe, but not likely. So why should we pay that much more. Now take the same example with DVD vr. Internet distribution. You can't possible expect people to pay as much for something thats completely free to reproduce.
Now i know i've gotten off topic a little here so lets tie it back in. If we can (as the poster suggests) cover the globe in a wireless network that is supported not by backbones or any expensive infastructure what is stopping us? At that point the distribution become free or at least covered each indivual so its fair to assume that in such a network where everyone supplies a part of the network everyone would recieve free access to it.
Now I understand that this is something we don't have the technology for yet, but its certainly not unforseable.
BTW: whats wrong with free stuff? Ever seen any money in Star Trek?
About the delay,
It used to take many months for a letter to get to Japan, now you can send stuff there overnight.
Why should we believe wireless tech has reached its limit and can do no more? and can't be any faster?
I remember when cell phones weighed a ton and had no range, now they are tiny and have pretty good range, not to mention the advances in walkie talkies, and other wireless tech that have grown smaller and better threw the years.
Its amazing that the tech crowd is giving this guy a hard time. He phrased his question very well to counter many of the arguments used against him and still all he gets is crap.
Wake up. At one point you couldn't even travel between continents and now your saying a few millesecoonds is an insermountable barrier? Give me a break.
How about putting these in the review mirrors and having them show extra info, night vision, radar vision, something like that.
:-)
Its a mirror, its a display, its a mirror agian.
Sounds Cool. Needs to be cheaper though
I've never had any problems with advertisments from NetFlix or from delayed rentals. I almost always get vidoes withen 4 days of droping the old ones in the box. Now if i could just remember to send them back the old ones sooner :-)
:-)
I general go through 10 DVD's a month and pay $20, so $2 per DVD versus $3-$5 at BlockBuster or Hollywood seems pretty good. Especialy since i normaly forget to take those back to and have to pay late fee's ($10+ dollars in late fees sucks. Shoulda just bought the damn thing.)
Just because you don't know what the value of a production is (virtual or not) does not mean it has no value. Some books are not worth the paper they are written on, specificaly because the paper is usless unless you need a fire.
Argueing that because things have no material value that then they are worthless is ridiculus. You do not buy a house for its wood you buy it for its style and utility. If it has a use to anyone then it has a value.
BTW: The whole idea of laws in a virtual world is absurd at best. How do you impose such laws, who makes them? At very least you then need a virtual government and a virtual election, virtual constiuents, or at least a virtual tyrant to make decisions. NO current government has any business in the virtual realm.
I would consider the virtual realm more a book as its being written, there are no laws or rules except those imposed by the authors.
Yea numbers that agreed with that would be nice. On the other hand wouldn't the music industries own claim that they are loosing business be supportive of the idea. It seems obvious to me that the only reason people don't buy they music is because they don't beleive they get there value out of it. I mean you don't go steal $.99 cheeseburgers. You don't even try and scam them free it would be rediculous. Another point would be that i happily pay $10 per DVD with no qualms at all. I might even pay $20 per DVD for new release but with movie prices on the rise i'm more likely not to. Any one have ideas where you would get those kind of numbers? or even how to do a sort of survey?
I mean software companies would rather sell you a product every year than once for life. (Not including M$ wich wants to sell you 1 product for life.....every year.) Why don't the music and movie companies see this?
I am not a real music person but there are several songs I would enjoy owning, but only if i can get them for a reasonable price. I mean I would be happy to pay a couple bucks to download a song, so long as i can then do whatever i want with it.
My VCR's whole function is to record, TV's, music, etc. So why suddenly do they expect us to pay for everything, every time we want to use it, and to pay more. This whole fight has been had before and its obvious who one, since we all own VCR's (well the majority do), and tape decks. Most of us even have photocopiers at work etc. In all those cases, tape, cassete, book/magazine, if it is something we want and we can purchase it for a reasonable price then we do so. We don't photocopy a 5$ paper back because that would be stupid. You go buy the book.
When record and movie companies remember that then they can drop this whole scam. Until then pirates/hackers/everybody will do what gives us the best return for our investment.
So the real question becomes, not will they learn, but when will they learn, and more importantly how do we help them learn?