Yes, the problem many of us have is that ideally, success shouldn't depend on how much PR, market manipulation, govt. lobbying, or abusing-the-legal-system money you have, but how good a product or service you have. Unfortunately, MS & the RIAA clearly operate on the other side of that particular ethical division.
If they also bypass ipsec that could mean real trouble. The organization I work for has told the employees not to upgrade to XP SP2 due to software incompatibility issues (I had to anyway, as I'm running SQL Server 2005 & VS 2005 which required SP2, and I'm not sure just what's supposed to be incompatible with what).
If an organization chose to try to use ipsec to distribute blocking filters as part of their security policy and MS bypassed them, I'd think there'd be some issues with that...
Haven't tried it yet, but may get around to it sooner or later...
Actually, Microsoft wants it because enhancing Windows is no longer very effective at convincing people to upgrade and thereby pay them more money. If they could get their OS on a subscription model, they wouldn't have to constantly invent important new features, yet would still get a yearly fee out of you...
Automatically paid for via bank transfers, automatically collect money for shareware, music or other services, even automatically adapt itself to environmental changes (OS upgrades, etc.). I plan for my website to LIVE ON long after I'm gone, and make a fortune for itself in the process.
If I pick up a surplus computer that has a bad hard drive-- stick in a new drive and install Windows on it-- won't I have an argument that the computer must have been sold with Windows on it originally so it's legal based on the fact it must have come with a license, because you can't buy it any other way?
I don't download copyrighted music from the internet. Mainly because I've collected legal CDs for years and haven't found much new that I care enough about to acquire-- now and then when I do I just buy the CD, though usually used, as they're readily available, cheaper and I don't have to find available disk-space for it, or worry about accidentally deleting it or the possible lack of fidelity of mp3 compression.
What I *do* though, is rip the CD and copy it to my open-source Ipod-like device (an Archos running Rockbox) as mp3 files. I still keep the CD, so I presume I'm entitled to do this legally.
HOWEVER, if a friend comes along some day and says "hey, I've got a 300MB drive, hows about copying your entire library to my drive? Whether or not I'll say yes depends on a couple of things-- how close a friend it is first, and second, how pissed I am at the RIAA at the time. In this regard, at this point just about any yahoo off the street is a "close friend."...
Simple. It'll kill the language off completely. Time to put it out of it's misery I guess.
The process has already started with the latest versions of C++, virtually all the standard functions are being deprecated and replaced with ones that include target buffer size limits, forcing you to either ignore massive lists of complier warnings, to turn off the warnings, or to macro replace the functions with ones that will likely hardcode the limits to possibly inappropriate values, thereby making them behave exactly as the old ones do WRT buffer overflows. Can't trust the developers to write reliable code, let's just make the language more complex and incompatible in an attempt to force them to do it. Yeah, right. And it takes all the fun out of the language...
Hiding malicious code inside an obscure object in just about any modern OO language is so trivial there's no point in having a contest in those languages. Now, most developers on risky platforms don't see most of the code in a project anymore, it being hidden within forms widgets via a GUI IDE.
Most content providers create the content that they create in the expectation that they will be compensated for the use of their creations.
Which for many of us is exactly what's wrong. If what was created wasn't created in the expectation of compensation, less would exist (not a bad thing, IMO) and what would be missing would be that which is motivated by greed (also not a bad thing, IMO).
If he does exist he'll hide his hand so that you can't make him do stuff...
Except for the fact that you CAN make him "do stuff"-- you can make him "hide his hand." Do some statistical analyses on things that happen to Christians vs non-christians, or religious vs non-religious, and find out that every time God "miraculously" does something for a Christian (cures a disease, etc.), he must also do the same for a random heathen, otherwise statisticcal evidence would reveal his influence...
Such a thing makes you wonder, if copyright were to be abolished in such a fashion as Falkvinge is proposing, then would the artist/director/musician have any incentive to pour his time and money into a project?
It doesn't make me wonder at all-- the answer is yes, and for reasons that will produce far superior results.
Actually, those characteristics are those of the managers I've worked for that I've liked the most, but most of those were laid off when things got tight.
The most successfull managers I've seen (moved up the ladder to become directors/vp's etc..) were ones with the following characteristics:
1. Sucked up to upper management big time
2. Acted like they were listening but mostly ignored the concerns of the people they managed.
3. Learned how to tell both upper management and the people they managed what they wanted to hear.
4. Sucked up to upper management big time.
--
Sync
And will contribute further to the unreliability of email. False positives are much worse than spam, but just try to convince spamfiltering ISPs of that...
In my area there are hundreds of theaters to choose from within convenient distance.
However, they're all showing the same 12 movies, none of which I have any interest in going to see.
The local video store has thousands of movies, so the chances I can find something I want to watch there is generally pretty good.
The reason the studios are having problems with this is they can't understand that the American populace is no longer so narrowly undiversified that 12 movies is be enough to interest most people.
Yes, I've been using Linux for about 15 years now, and my/lib directory now has just about every lib file I've ever encountered in it. If I didn't do this, half my stuff wouldn't work. The idea of recompiling everything ever time you upgrade the OS is completely ridiculous, and disk and memory space is not so expensive that shared libraries buy you anything except dependency grief...
Gives them an excuse to impose BREW2 or similar signing technology to keep independent applications out. Such signing methods are of no real benefit to the user, but of significant benefit to the carriers, so they have to come up with a flimsy excuse to force it on you...
Their loss of market dominance *is* what is causing their problems, but they either don't realize it or do realize it and also that they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of avoiding it-- the best they can do is slow it down a bit with FUD campaigns, similar to what SCO tried with Linux, merely postponing the inevitable...
The MPAA figure the only way it has any chance of winning the battle over control is if they can control what you can do with the media. That is why even the UOP features are important. However, the sort of control they actually need in order to preserve the status-quo profit margins they've become addicted to, is to control the channel, they're just thrashing around trying to control the media thinking that's the control they've lost. But it's not control over the media that's their big problem, control over the channel is, and DRM snd UOP and DMCA are just pathetic attempts to get the horses to go back into the barn. That's where their revenue stream went, and even if they could figure out how to keep stuff encrypted 'til it gets to your eyeballs, that isn't going to get it back for them.
If you can produce content that is more desirable than other content, you can still make the system pay. And money can help you do that. What you can't do anymore is make the system pay you unfairly because your competition doesn't have the access to the marketplace that you have. That is all that is different with the internet, otherwise standard anarcho-capitalistic principles apply.
Quality is what it now requires to make money, not simple restraint of trade.
What some people apparently don't realize is that the new internet distribution channels remove old restrictions on the supply of intellectual content. The big moneyed interests garnered an inflated share in the past based primarily on control over supply. So we're seeing their futile attempt to artificially restrict the supply, that restriction being the actual source of their wealth. Problem is, the various DRM methods don't really give you control over the independent supply, only of your own, unless you can force all content to have to have it and make it prohibitively expensive to supply it-- which ultimately, isn't going to happen. In the old days, independents just didn't have much access to the market. But now, the rules of supply and demand get to operate unencumbered. The big businesses who survived in the past because they controlled the supply are losing out because in fact, there is far more supply than there is demand.
The independent content producer who previously couldn't connect with their market because the big factories controlled the channel, can now choose to give away content for free or for very low cost until they find a better paying channel or gain enough exposure for the small amounts to add up. The rule operating here is if you can't find someone who will pay you for it, give it away, which has two effects-- it can get you exposure, AND it presents downward price-pressure on the mainstream competition. It works to bring them down to your level which in a free market (free to compete, not free as in beer), is the way it should be.
I saw the Exploratorium thing myself, and it was REALLY cool. I still want one. In fact, I've since built a rearscreen device that uses infrared reflection to accomplish multi-point interaction using a modified version of some of the techniques used in the Holowall.
Also working on a new version due to make an appearance in an art show in March.
--
Sync
In addition, the right evidence could prove evolution wrong. Creationists apparently realize this when they offer things like polonium haloes, "out of place" fossils, coincident human and dinosaur tracks, etc. On the other hand, here isn't any possible evidence that could exist that would prove creationism wrong, and that is why it is not science. ID has the same problem-- an invisible superpowerful superintelligence could potentially have created anything one might find, no matter how complex or simple or whatever. Thus, there is nothing we could find that would prove ID wrong-- consequently, it has no scientific explanatory power whatsoever. It is mere apologetics.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the problem many of us have is that ideally, success shouldn't depend on how much PR, market manipulation, govt. lobbying, or abusing-the-legal-system money you have, but how good a product or service you have. Unfortunately, MS & the RIAA clearly operate on the other side of that particular ethical division.
If they also bypass ipsec that could mean real trouble. The organization I work for has told the employees not to upgrade to XP SP2 due to software incompatibility issues (I had to anyway, as I'm running SQL Server 2005 & VS 2005 which required SP2, and I'm not sure just what's supposed to be incompatible with what).
If an organization chose to try to use ipsec to distribute blocking filters as part of their security policy and MS bypassed them, I'd think there'd be some issues with that...
Haven't tried it yet, but may get around to it sooner or later...
Actually, Microsoft wants it because enhancing Windows is no longer very effective at convincing people to upgrade and thereby pay them more money. If they could get their OS on a subscription model, they wouldn't have to constantly invent important new features, yet would still get a yearly fee out of you...
Automatically paid for via bank transfers, automatically collect money for shareware, music or other services, even automatically adapt itself to environmental changes (OS upgrades, etc.). I plan for my website to LIVE ON long after I'm gone, and make a fortune for itself in the process.
If I pick up a surplus computer that has a bad hard drive-- stick in a new drive and install Windows on it-- won't I have an argument that the computer must have been sold with Windows on it originally so it's legal based on the fact it must have come with a license, because you can't buy it any other way?
Here's perhaps a more interesting example.
I don't download copyrighted music from the internet. Mainly because I've collected legal CDs for years and haven't found much new that I care enough about to acquire-- now and then when I do I just buy the CD, though usually used, as they're readily available, cheaper and I don't have to find available disk-space for it, or worry about accidentally deleting it or the possible lack of fidelity of mp3 compression.
What I *do* though, is rip the CD and copy it to my open-source Ipod-like device (an Archos running Rockbox) as mp3 files. I still keep the CD, so I presume I'm entitled to do this legally.
HOWEVER, if a friend comes along some day and says "hey, I've got a 300MB drive, hows about copying your entire library to my drive? Whether or not I'll say yes depends on a couple of things-- how close a friend it is first, and second, how pissed I am at the RIAA at the time. In this regard, at this point just about any yahoo off the street is a "close friend."...
Simple. It'll kill the language off completely. Time to put it out of it's misery I guess.
The process has already started with the latest versions of C++, virtually all the standard functions are being deprecated and replaced with ones that include target buffer size limits, forcing you to either ignore massive lists of complier warnings, to turn off the warnings, or to macro replace the functions with ones that will likely hardcode the limits to possibly inappropriate values, thereby making them behave exactly as the old ones do WRT buffer overflows. Can't trust the developers to write reliable code, let's just make the language more complex and incompatible in an attempt to force them to do it. Yeah, right. And it takes all the fun out of the language...
Hiding malicious code inside an obscure object in just about any modern OO language is so trivial there's no point in having a contest in those languages. Now, most developers on risky platforms don't see most of the code in a project anymore, it being hidden within forms widgets via a GUI IDE.
Most content providers create the content that they create in the expectation that they will be compensated for the use of their creations.
Which for many of us is exactly what's wrong. If what was created wasn't created in the expectation of compensation, less would exist (not a bad thing, IMO) and what would be missing would be that which is motivated by greed (also not a bad thing, IMO).
"The hands that help are better than the lips that pray."
A sentiment that remains unaffected by the outcome of such a study, IMO...
If he does exist he'll hide his hand so that you can't make him do stuff...
Except for the fact that you CAN make him "do stuff"-- you can make him "hide his hand." Do some statistical analyses on things that happen to Christians vs non-christians, or religious vs non-religious, and find out that every time God "miraculously" does something for a Christian (cures a disease, etc.), he must also do the same for a random heathen, otherwise statisticcal evidence would reveal his influence...
Such a thing makes you wonder, if copyright were to be abolished in such a fashion as Falkvinge is proposing, then would the artist/director/musician have any incentive to pour his time and money into a project?
It doesn't make me wonder at all-- the answer is yes, and for reasons that will produce far superior results.
-- SyncActually, those characteristics are those of the managers I've worked for that I've liked the most, but most of those were laid off when things got tight. The most successfull managers I've seen (moved up the ladder to become directors/vp's etc..) were ones with the following characteristics: 1. Sucked up to upper management big time 2. Acted like they were listening but mostly ignored the concerns of the people they managed. 3. Learned how to tell both upper management and the people they managed what they wanted to hear. 4. Sucked up to upper management big time. -- Sync
And will contribute further to the unreliability of email. False positives are much worse than spam, but just try to convince spamfiltering ISPs of that...
In my area there are hundreds of theaters to choose from within convenient distance.
However, they're all showing the same 12 movies, none of which I have any interest in going to see.
The local video store has thousands of movies, so the chances I can find something I want to watch there is generally pretty good.
The reason the studios are having problems with this is they can't understand that the American populace is no longer so narrowly undiversified that 12 movies is be enough to interest most people.
Simple, really.
Yes, I've been using Linux for about 15 years now, and my /lib directory now has just about every lib file I've ever encountered in it. If I didn't do this, half my stuff wouldn't work. The idea of recompiling everything ever time you upgrade the OS is completely ridiculous, and disk and memory space is not so expensive that shared libraries buy you anything except dependency grief...
...it's open source...
Gives them an excuse to impose BREW2 or similar signing technology to keep independent applications out. Such signing methods are of no real benefit to the user, but of significant benefit to the carriers, so they have to come up with a flimsy excuse to force it on you...
Their loss of market dominance *is* what is causing their problems, but they either don't realize it or do realize it and also that they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of avoiding it-- the best they can do is slow it down a bit with FUD campaigns, similar to what SCO tried with Linux, merely postponing the inevitable...
The MPAA figure the only way it has any chance of winning the battle over control is if they can control what you can do with the media. That is why even the UOP features are important. However, the sort of control they actually need in order to preserve the status-quo profit margins they've become addicted to, is to control the channel, they're just thrashing around trying to control the media thinking that's the control they've lost. But it's not control over the media that's their big problem, control over the channel is, and DRM snd UOP and DMCA are just pathetic attempts to get the horses to go back into the barn. That's where their revenue stream went, and even if they could figure out how to keep stuff encrypted 'til it gets to your eyeballs, that isn't going to get it back for them.
If you can produce content that is more desirable than other content, you can still make the system pay. And money can help you do that. What you can't do anymore is make the system pay you unfairly because your competition doesn't have the access to the marketplace that you have. That is all that is different with the internet, otherwise standard anarcho-capitalistic principles apply.
Quality is what it now requires to make money, not simple restraint of trade.
What some people apparently don't realize is that the new internet distribution channels remove old restrictions on the supply of intellectual content. The big moneyed interests garnered an inflated share in the past based primarily on control over supply. So we're seeing their futile attempt to artificially restrict the supply, that restriction being the actual source of their wealth. Problem is, the various DRM methods don't really give you control over the independent supply, only of your own, unless you can force all content to have to have it and make it prohibitively expensive to supply it-- which ultimately, isn't going to happen. In the old days, independents just didn't have much access to the market. But now, the rules of supply and demand get to operate unencumbered. The big businesses who survived in the past because they controlled the supply are losing out because in fact, there is far more supply than there is demand.
The independent content producer who previously couldn't connect with their market because the big factories controlled the channel, can now choose to give away content for free or for very low cost until they find a better paying channel or gain enough exposure for the small amounts to add up. The rule operating here is if you can't find someone who will pay you for it, give it away, which has two effects-- it can get you exposure, AND it presents downward price-pressure on the mainstream competition. It works to bring them down to your level which in a free market (free to compete, not free as in beer), is the way it should be.
Nuff said.
This guy hit the nail on the head. Though it might be simply because these guys bought the party line that you have to use X.
I saw the Exploratorium thing myself, and it was REALLY cool. I still want one. In fact, I've since built a rearscreen device that uses infrared reflection to accomplish multi-point interaction using a modified version of some of the techniques used in the Holowall.
Also working on a new version due to make an appearance in an art show in March. -- Sync
In addition, the right evidence could prove evolution wrong. Creationists apparently realize this when they offer things like polonium haloes, "out of place" fossils, coincident human and dinosaur tracks, etc. On the other hand, here isn't any possible evidence that could exist that would prove creationism wrong, and that is why it is not science. ID has the same problem-- an invisible superpowerful superintelligence could potentially have created anything one might find, no matter how complex or simple or whatever. Thus, there is nothing we could find that would prove ID wrong-- consequently, it has no scientific explanatory power whatsoever. It is mere apologetics.