As was explained, the point is that the 2nd ledger allows one to change the votes INVISIBLY. You could go in and completely alter the results in #2, but the real administrator would see no difference because the program uses #1 for all user reports.
It's like the system was *designed* to facilitate falsification, if only you know the trick. And the idea of security-through-misdirection is laughable in this case because the rest of the security is so poor.
(note: this is NOT a "Funny") A few years ago, I discovered I had been dealing with ADD all my life. It was some Reader's Digest article talking about how to diagnose it in children, and sure enough, every single thing I remember dealing with as a child was listed there. The thing, though, is that multitasking is how I *DEALT* with it. And still do, now that I recognize what I'm doing. It's virtually impossible for me to sit still and do just one thing, and one thing only. (unless I'm meditating - Alpha State is a highly nice thing) So, *as my way of concentrating* I do multiple things at once. At this moment, for example, I am typing this message, listening to the radio, and rocking back and forth in my spinny chair. This post is my primary objective, but the two "distractions" are how I keep my brain occupied enough to focus on it. (and I developed all this instinctively as a kid - discovering I was unable to concentrate on studying unless I had music playing, for example)
And needless to say, the Internet is a joy for me. I'll have multiple windows open, be chatting with a couple other people, doing various other things, and my attention is *completely* occupied. This isn't a lack of attention span - I'm doing more things simultaneously than anyone with an exclusive focus could dream of pulling off. This isn't a disease - it's a boon.
I suspect that in all these "information addict" examples, if they were to dig into their childhood and psychology, they'd find these people are naturally ADD. Or, as I prefer to put it, naturally able to multitask. God help them if the psychiatrists ever "cure" their "disease" - they'd lose one of the greatest skills they have.
eBaying? Unless they let it go on for a LONG time so they can find a statistical mean, it's just going to represent the upper-echelon of prices paid. Judging the value of things by their auction price, unless you're talking about one-of-a-kinds, is going to result in hideous inflation. No matter how useless something is, there will be someone, somewhere, who's willing to shell out big money for it.
Are there many industries doing WELL right now? (well, I suppose porn is, but porn always does well) The overall economy is in a slump. You could virtually reword that article with any product type \ related chain stores and keep it pretty accurate.
That being said, I see little way that the music industry will do better unless they bite the bullet and lower CD prices significantly. I'm not trolling or trying to be a freeloader; I just don't see any other plausible way they can compete.
As long as the band chooses to release their music, why not?
Except, that's the problem. Current record label politics being what they are (and with little to indicate they're going to change sometime soon) a system where a band can choose whether or not their files are traded is not likely to come about. Pragmatically, you are pretty much forced to either say A)file-sharing should exist even if it means some bands lose out, for the sake of the greater good, or B)file-sharing should be snuffed out because allowing any theivery is wrong.
An ideal in the middle would certainly be nice, but I'm not seeing it as a practical solution at this point. (for that matter, had the RIAA and certain bands realized its potential back when Napster first came out, this wouldn't be an issue. We would have that middle ground now. Instead, it's become a War, with a truce unlikely to be declared.)
But anyway, I'm going away from the comp. Nice chatting with you.
I do not buy the 'mp3s encourage sales' BS, I was in school at the time and _know_ that most folks were stealing with no intention to buy.
MP3 trading is something along the lines of a progressive tax. The more obscure a band is, the more it helps them. In the end, it probably does hurt the top couple percent of huge, incredibly popular acts - but it does good for everyone else who is even moderately talented. (since even mediocre bands can amass profitable followings)
And this is why I (and, I'm guessing, many/.ers) oppose attempts to destroy online file-sharing. I think the many unknown acts have far more claim to make use of file-sharing as a marketing scheme, than do the few huge groups and organizations who want to shut it down with a large hammer.
(snicker) Yeah. I listened to a friend's copy. (which is fundamentally no different than downloading MP3s and then deleting them, but that's beside the point) That's why I said I might think about picking it up *for the concert tracks*:-)
Did you download (non-concert studio) Metallica songs from Napster? Did YOU apologize?
No, and therefore, no.
(and yes, by deduction you can therefore realize I am an ex-Metallica fan who feels their actions in the Napster incident were entire inappropriate, even though I was in no way targetted by them)
Otherwise, see my posts in the replies above this. The end point - While Metallica may have been legally permitted to do what they did, in the end, they SUED their own fans for being overly enthusiastic. It was overkill, and bullying.
The connection? They were bullies. They blustered and yelled and even sued their own fans. *Regardless* of whether this was legally permissable, from a public relations standpoint it was insane, and incredibly stupid. They might have gotten a few pirated copies of their works offline, sure - but at the loss of how many album sales from ex-fans who were disgusted by their behavior?
There is still a wide gap between what is permitted (given that ours is a permissive society) and what is generally acceptible. What they did went way over the line of acceptibility, but they're now asking us to "forgive and forget" and start buying their albums again, without apologizing for demolishing the bond that is supposed to exist between artists and their fans.
I'm reminded of my bad old school days. Back in Elmementary and Jr High, I was the official Smart Kid. There was this one big guy who, almost daily, would make fun of me, push me around, threaten to beat me up (never actually DID), etc etc. But then whenever there was a difficult assignment, he'd come running to me for help - and be utterly shocked and confused by my refusal to help him.
I might actually check out St. Anger to get at the concert recordings, IF Metallica first apologizes for all the crap they pulled over Napster a few years ago. Otherwise, this is pure hypocracy, and a rather sad attempt at pulling back in fans who are deservedly quite angry with them.
Of course, this is far from the first time a band has tried something like this. David Bowie has a huge load of rare material available on his website through subscription.
Did you not see the FOTR extended edition? He didn't just add scenes in ala Cameron, he extensively reedited huge chunks of the movie. (often quite subtlely) Seamless branching wouldn't work; your player would be hopping back and forth between versions every 10 seconds.
Ok. So, Publishing House X decides to print up a million copies of "A Floozy's Guide to Widgets," and distribute it out nationwide. The bookstores buy it, put up the displays, but it flops. Only 10% of the books get sold. After a few weeks, it becomes apparent they've got hundreds of thousands of books (probably amounting to a couple physical tons of garbage) that will never sell and be have to be disposed of. Logically, this problem belongs either to A)the publisher, or B)each bookstore. Instead of having the bookstores ship them back at great expense, the publisher says "Just send us the covers, and trash the books." So those 900,000 books go into the dumpsters.
In most US cities, the trash service is paid for with tax dollars. Therefore, they have just taken a PRIVATE mess and disposed of it with PUBLIC funds. Yet, despite this, they continue to claim private ownership of the book up to the point it's destroyed, even as they make John Q. Taxpayer cough up the money to get rid of it?
I don't think so. One or the other, not both.
If they don't want citizens fishing the book out of dumpsters, then they have to dispose of it themselves. And if the bookstore was supposed to do that, and slacked off, then the BOOKSTORE is at fault for the loss. Not the dumpster-diver.
But then, I suppose I'm yet again illustrating the futility of trying to apply logic or consistency to B-law.
Has Powell, at ANY point, actually outlined how he thinks that allowing for further broadcast television consolidation will help it compete with cable? I could have SWORN the main reason people get cable was for the diversity of the programming.
So the more experienced users should be shaking down newbies for gold if they don't want to get spammed? Form a gang and charge local businesses a tithe as "insurance"? Basically do everything possible to make sure all wealth flows to the top and the little guy has nothing?
I thought games were supposed to give us a break from reality...
I've personally made a DC CD with NesterDC and approx. 500 games. Based on that, I think I can definatively say you could fit every NES game ever made onto a single CD. (and that's including Japanese imports that never made it over here, but probably excluding localized variants (like "Probotector" instead of "Contra")
Scary, isn't it? Of course, you could likely fit every 2600 game made onto a single floppy. (ironically, FAT limitations would make that difficult.)
Aside from, "No", IIRC George Lucas has dismissed doing the later episodes, as they have already been extensively explored in books. If you haven't noticed, the books on the Star Wars movie episodes follow the film to market, not precede it.
Well, if you read interviews starting in the early 80s, Lucas has flip-flopped more times than I can count on whether there'll be a 7-9.
That being said, I'm pretty sure there won't be. The "plan" for awhile was that the books were going to cover the 25-odd years inbetween Ep 6 and Ep 7. Which is why the Bantam novels had a very definiate cutoff point. (once Han and Leia's kids had become Jedi themselves) When Del Rey took over and started making more books continuing on, THAT was considered the death knell for a third trilogy.
Yes. I AM a Star Wars geek.
I was referring to the fact that they used the illegally-obtained Xbox SDK to port it. That makes it illegal, doesn't it?:/
Don't know if they did, either way...
So increasing hardware sales, and getting massive PR points among the technologically literate don't matter? The geeks who despise Microsoft and try to undercut them are the ONLY group who would have any interest in this.
My point is simply they can do *nothing* and almost certainly be better off than if they act. And "acting" for a major corporation involves millions of dollars spent. Imagine the cost of a single high-profile court case. Then imagine that weighed against the amount of money lost to people who suddenly decided to start pirating X-Box games because they discovered they could play PS1 games. I'm guessing the case would cost more.
Ergo, to do nothing and allow it to happen on its own is less costly than any other alternative.
Aside from that, the development, and probably the use, of this emulator is/was illegal.
Nope. If they legitimately reverse-engineered the PS1 hardware, then the emulator itself is completely legal. See the Supreme court Atari\Coleco ruling from '83 or so.
Obviously, playing pirated games is illegal, but we don't need two laws covering the same area. And the provision in the DMCA claiming you can't mod "protected" hardware is clearly ludicrous and almost certainly won't stand up to a Supreme Court challenge. (heaven help us if it did...)
My point is not one of law. It's of strategy. Attempting to sue the pants off their users is almost certainly going to do more harm than good. People will still mod their X-box, and still play pirate games if they're so inclined. Hard-to-enforce laws prohibiting this aren't going to put much of a dent in it. Conversely, however, a long enough track record of Microsoft suing its own customers will likely drive undecided buyers to the open arms of Sony or Nintendo. (just as, it would appear, people and bands are slowly getting fed up with the RIAA labels and moving to independents. Check out the history of the new "Sanctuary" record label sometime - they've become quite profitable solely because of the Big Names acting like jerks)
If we measure the intelligence of a business decision in dollars (and not necessarily PR), then there is really nothing wrong with Microsoft's decision to try and limit XBox modding.
As evidenced by the soaring sales and universal love granted to the RIAA following a similar campaign?
The consequences for Microsoft of people modding their Xboxs outweigh the benefit of people buying an XBox because they can play PS1 titles on it.
Well, that would be their fault for selling below cost and thinking they could sue anyone who attempts to mod the hardware. It's gonna happen, whether they want it to or not, and absolutely regardless of their legal actions. So should they sue everyone they can, to no real effect besides even more bad PR, or should they embrace movements that will potentially get more people to buy their product?
The only people that MS really doesn't want buying X-Boxen are folks who just want to convert it into a spare PC. If you're playing games on it at all, you make MS happy since you're still a potential customer.
Just talking strategy, what's one of the biggest reasons the PS2 is kicking them around in the marketplace? The huge back-library of PS1 titles that can be had for $10. Suddenly, with NO work on Microsoft's part whatsoever, all those PS1 games are playable on X-Box - removing one more reason for people to shell out for a PS2.
Of course, they'll probably just sue everyone anyway.
Postal spam is worse. I've gotten to the point that, whenever I move, I *don't* fill out a change of address card because I'm sick of the fliers following me everywhere I go. I usually get 2 or 3 legitimate items of postal mail a week, versus dozens of bulk-mail ads. I'd simply not check my mailbox (which involves a 6-minute hike to the front of the apartment complex and back) but not checking it for more than a couple days causes my box to be crammed full.
So, should I be more annoyed with:
A)E-Spam, which takes me a whole 5 seconds to filter every time I check my e-mail, and is almost certainly mixed in with legitimate e-mails
or
B)A daily 6-minute hike which generally has the sole purpose of emptying my mailbox to physically make room for more bulk mail, with little chance of any practical yeild.
See my\his point?
(and no comments about needing the exercise, I quite enjoy walking - when it's by my choice out of no other obligation)
Slashdot Mirror
As was explained, the point is that the 2nd ledger allows one to change the votes INVISIBLY. You could go in and completely alter the results in #2, but the real administrator would see no difference because the program uses #1 for all user reports.
It's like the system was *designed* to facilitate falsification, if only you know the trick. And the idea of security-through-misdirection is laughable in this case because the rest of the security is so poor.
And needless to say, the Internet is a joy for me. I'll have multiple windows open, be chatting with a couple other people, doing various other things, and my attention is *completely* occupied. This isn't a lack of attention span - I'm doing more things simultaneously than anyone with an exclusive focus could dream of pulling off. This isn't a disease - it's a boon.
I suspect that in all these "information addict" examples, if they were to dig into their childhood and psychology, they'd find these people are naturally ADD. Or, as I prefer to put it, naturally able to multitask. God help them if the psychiatrists ever "cure" their "disease" - they'd lose one of the greatest skills they have.
eBaying? Unless they let it go on for a LONG time so they can find a statistical mean, it's just going to represent the upper-echelon of prices paid. Judging the value of things by their auction price, unless you're talking about one-of-a-kinds, is going to result in hideous inflation. No matter how useless something is, there will be someone, somewhere, who's willing to shell out big money for it.
Are there many industries doing WELL right now? (well, I suppose porn is, but porn always does well) The overall economy is in a slump. You could virtually reword that article with any product type \ related chain stores and keep it pretty accurate. That being said, I see little way that the music industry will do better unless they bite the bullet and lower CD prices significantly. I'm not trolling or trying to be a freeloader; I just don't see any other plausible way they can compete.
Except, that's the problem. Current record label politics being what they are (and with little to indicate they're going to change sometime soon) a system where a band can choose whether or not their files are traded is not likely to come about. Pragmatically, you are pretty much forced to either say A)file-sharing should exist even if it means some bands lose out, for the sake of the greater good, or B)file-sharing should be snuffed out because allowing any theivery is wrong.
An ideal in the middle would certainly be nice, but I'm not seeing it as a practical solution at this point. (for that matter, had the RIAA and certain bands realized its potential back when Napster first came out, this wouldn't be an issue. We would have that middle ground now. Instead, it's become a War, with a truce unlikely to be declared.)
But anyway, I'm going away from the comp. Nice chatting with you.
MP3 trading is something along the lines of a progressive tax. The more obscure a band is, the more it helps them. In the end, it probably does hurt the top couple percent of huge, incredibly popular acts - but it does good for everyone else who is even moderately talented. (since even mediocre bands can amass profitable followings)
And this is why I (and, I'm guessing, many /.ers) oppose attempts to destroy online file-sharing. I think the many unknown acts have far more claim to make use of file-sharing as a marketing scheme, than do the few huge groups and organizations who want to shut it down with a large hammer.
(snicker) Yeah. I listened to a friend's copy. (which is fundamentally no different than downloading MP3s and then deleting them, but that's beside the point) That's why I said I might think about picking it up *for the concert tracks* :-)
Did you download (non-concert studio) Metallica songs from Napster? Did YOU apologize? No, and therefore, no. (and yes, by deduction you can therefore realize I am an ex-Metallica fan who feels their actions in the Napster incident were entire inappropriate, even though I was in no way targetted by them) Otherwise, see my posts in the replies above this. The end point - While Metallica may have been legally permitted to do what they did, in the end, they SUED their own fans for being overly enthusiastic. It was overkill, and bullying.
There is still a wide gap between what is permitted (given that ours is a permissive society) and what is generally acceptible. What they did went way over the line of acceptibility, but they're now asking us to "forgive and forget" and start buying their albums again, without apologizing for demolishing the bond that is supposed to exist between artists and their fans.
I'm reminded of my bad old school days. Back in Elmementary and Jr High, I was the official Smart Kid. There was this one big guy who, almost daily, would make fun of me, push me around, threaten to beat me up (never actually DID), etc etc. But then whenever there was a difficult assignment, he'd come running to me for help - and be utterly shocked and confused by my refusal to help him.
I might actually check out St. Anger to get at the concert recordings, IF Metallica first apologizes for all the crap they pulled over Napster a few years ago. Otherwise, this is pure hypocracy, and a rather sad attempt at pulling back in fans who are deservedly quite angry with them. Of course, this is far from the first time a band has tried something like this. David Bowie has a huge load of rare material available on his website through subscription.
Did you not see the FOTR extended edition? He didn't just add scenes in ala Cameron, he extensively reedited huge chunks of the movie. (often quite subtlely) Seamless branching wouldn't work; your player would be hopping back and forth between versions every 10 seconds.
Ok. So, Publishing House X decides to print up a million copies of "A Floozy's Guide to Widgets," and distribute it out nationwide. The bookstores buy it, put up the displays, but it flops. Only 10% of the books get sold. After a few weeks, it becomes apparent they've got hundreds of thousands of books (probably amounting to a couple physical tons of garbage) that will never sell and be have to be disposed of. Logically, this problem belongs either to A)the publisher, or B)each bookstore. Instead of having the bookstores ship them back at great expense, the publisher says "Just send us the covers, and trash the books." So those 900,000 books go into the dumpsters. In most US cities, the trash service is paid for with tax dollars. Therefore, they have just taken a PRIVATE mess and disposed of it with PUBLIC funds. Yet, despite this, they continue to claim private ownership of the book up to the point it's destroyed, even as they make John Q. Taxpayer cough up the money to get rid of it? I don't think so. One or the other, not both. If they don't want citizens fishing the book out of dumpsters, then they have to dispose of it themselves. And if the bookstore was supposed to do that, and slacked off, then the BOOKSTORE is at fault for the loss. Not the dumpster-diver. But then, I suppose I'm yet again illustrating the futility of trying to apply logic or consistency to B-law.
Has Powell, at ANY point, actually outlined how he thinks that allowing for further broadcast television consolidation will help it compete with cable? I could have SWORN the main reason people get cable was for the diversity of the programming.
So the more experienced users should be shaking down newbies for gold if they don't want to get spammed? Form a gang and charge local businesses a tithe as "insurance"? Basically do everything possible to make sure all wealth flows to the top and the little guy has nothing? I thought games were supposed to give us a break from reality...
I've personally made a DC CD with NesterDC and approx. 500 games. Based on that, I think I can definatively say you could fit every NES game ever made onto a single CD. (and that's including Japanese imports that never made it over here, but probably excluding localized variants (like "Probotector" instead of "Contra")
Scary, isn't it? Of course, you could likely fit every 2600 game made onto a single floppy. (ironically, FAT limitations would make that difficult.)
Aside from, "No", IIRC George Lucas has dismissed doing the later episodes, as they have already been extensively explored in books. If you haven't noticed, the books on the Star Wars movie episodes follow the film to market, not precede it. Well, if you read interviews starting in the early 80s, Lucas has flip-flopped more times than I can count on whether there'll be a 7-9. That being said, I'm pretty sure there won't be. The "plan" for awhile was that the books were going to cover the 25-odd years inbetween Ep 6 and Ep 7. Which is why the Bantam novels had a very definiate cutoff point. (once Han and Leia's kids had become Jedi themselves) When Del Rey took over and started making more books continuing on, THAT was considered the death knell for a third trilogy. Yes. I AM a Star Wars geek.
I was referring to the fact that they used the illegally-obtained Xbox SDK to port it. That makes it illegal, doesn't it? :/
Don't know if they did, either way...
So increasing hardware sales, and getting massive PR points among the technologically literate don't matter? The geeks who despise Microsoft and try to undercut them are the ONLY group who would have any interest in this. My point is simply they can do *nothing* and almost certainly be better off than if they act. And "acting" for a major corporation involves millions of dollars spent. Imagine the cost of a single high-profile court case. Then imagine that weighed against the amount of money lost to people who suddenly decided to start pirating X-Box games because they discovered they could play PS1 games. I'm guessing the case would cost more. Ergo, to do nothing and allow it to happen on its own is less costly than any other alternative.
Obviously, playing pirated games is illegal, but we don't need two laws covering the same area. And the provision in the DMCA claiming you can't mod "protected" hardware is clearly ludicrous and almost certainly won't stand up to a Supreme Court challenge. (heaven help us if it did...) My point is not one of law. It's of strategy. Attempting to sue the pants off their users is almost certainly going to do more harm than good. People will still mod their X-box, and still play pirate games if they're so inclined. Hard-to-enforce laws prohibiting this aren't going to put much of a dent in it. Conversely, however, a long enough track record of Microsoft suing its own customers will likely drive undecided buyers to the open arms of Sony or Nintendo. (just as, it would appear, people and bands are slowly getting fed up with the RIAA labels and moving to independents. Check out the history of the new "Sanctuary" record label sometime - they've become quite profitable solely because of the Big Names acting like jerks)
If we measure the intelligence of a business decision in dollars (and not necessarily PR), then there is really nothing wrong with Microsoft's decision to try and limit XBox modding. As evidenced by the soaring sales and universal love granted to the RIAA following a similar campaign?
The consequences for Microsoft of people modding their Xboxs outweigh the benefit of people buying an XBox because they can play PS1 titles on it. Well, that would be their fault for selling below cost and thinking they could sue anyone who attempts to mod the hardware. It's gonna happen, whether they want it to or not, and absolutely regardless of their legal actions. So should they sue everyone they can, to no real effect besides even more bad PR, or should they embrace movements that will potentially get more people to buy their product? The only people that MS really doesn't want buying X-Boxen are folks who just want to convert it into a spare PC. If you're playing games on it at all, you make MS happy since you're still a potential customer.
Just talking strategy, what's one of the biggest reasons the PS2 is kicking them around in the marketplace? The huge back-library of PS1 titles that can be had for $10. Suddenly, with NO work on Microsoft's part whatsoever, all those PS1 games are playable on X-Box - removing one more reason for people to shell out for a PS2. Of course, they'll probably just sue everyone anyway.
Postal spam is worse. I've gotten to the point that, whenever I move, I *don't* fill out a change of address card because I'm sick of the fliers following me everywhere I go. I usually get 2 or 3 legitimate items of postal mail a week, versus dozens of bulk-mail ads. I'd simply not check my mailbox (which involves a 6-minute hike to the front of the apartment complex and back) but not checking it for more than a couple days causes my box to be crammed full. So, should I be more annoyed with: A)E-Spam, which takes me a whole 5 seconds to filter every time I check my e-mail, and is almost certainly mixed in with legitimate e-mails or B)A daily 6-minute hike which generally has the sole purpose of emptying my mailbox to physically make room for more bulk mail, with little chance of any practical yeild. See my\his point? (and no comments about needing the exercise, I quite enjoy walking - when it's by my choice out of no other obligation)
Truthfully, does any of this actually make you feel any safer?
Yes. Or, to be more precise, it doesn't make me feel any LESS safe, whereas I feel that the children of parents who own guns are far safer.