I have to point out a few things. First, while it is necessary to have accurate data to get good ad rates, people are getting more and more fed up with online ads. Yes, even Joe Sixpack. The reasons have already been discussed to death here and elsewhere. IMHO, it's only a matter of time before the ad agencies realize this and take it to heart. Further, the marginal cost of filling out the surveys may be delta, but the marginal cost of obtaining good information on the internet (for those who know how to look) is only epsilon.
The problem is that individuals want to keep their personal information private.
[shocked disbelief] Even in context, this comment is unbelievable. [/shocked disbelief]
Only an idiot would give a real or a regularly used email address.
Ah yes, but as you well know, 99% of people online today are idiots. Which is why 99% of online reg sites are slimy.
My problem of late with reg sites is that more and more are getting away with privacy-invasive crap, not because of me, but because they can afford to lose my business since everyone else is an idiot.
DSL works unregulated for the same reason the telephone companies are now (mostly) unregulated: competition. The local phone company is required, by law, to give access to the lines to any Mom & Pop ISP that comes along. Sure, the phone company's ISP (they all own ISPs now) can charge less because they don't have to pay for access onto the data lines, but they're stuck with paying maintenance of those lines, regardless of whether the bandwidth gets used or not. The local ISPs have no incentives to regulate the bandwidth or services since their main cost is what the data company charges them for bandwidth sent into/out of their network, and the ISP can pass that charge through to their customers at a profit (pay-for-bandwidth, pay-for-data-transferred, etc). Heck, they want you to use as much b/w as possible under some scenarios.
On the other hand, the cable situation is totally different, since the cable company has been granted a local monopoly, much like Ma Bell had before the telephone breakup. The cost of this monopoly is total FCC regulation. This isn't suprising, considering that cable technology is more recent than phones. Anyway, the cable companies started offering cable modem service (usually through @Home) back in the mid '90s. The problem was, @Home had a 7-year exclusive contract to be the ISP on each cable company, in exchange for spending the $billions to roll out the networks. There was no way the FCC could regulate internet access (on a regulated cable!) unless they invalidated the @Home contracts in court (not that they wanted to regulate anyway). Well, they didn't have to worry about it because the cable companies fscked up the marketing (they wanted to use internet access as an upsell for more cable TV subscriptions, when what people really wanted was the internet by itself), and @Home went under.
So, the issue facing the FCC is whether or not to regulate internet access over cable. As I said before, they don't want to regulate it. They want the cable companies to pretend there's competition, and "play nice". The problem is, they won't, and the FCC is going to have to step in. Their options aren't pretty:
Start regulating cable internet. This sucks, because they aren't regulating phone internet (DSL), and the cable companies are gonna cry foul and raise a big stink.
Break up the local cable monopolies. This sucks just as bad, because the same thing that happened with the phone rates rising after the Ma Bell breakup would happen with cable. Raise your hand if you wanna pay $150-200 a month for cable TV.
It gets even more interesting when you consider that the satellite TV companies are starting to offer internet access. Note that, in theory, there is competition in the satellite space, so the FCC doesn't have to regulate. (It's not quite that simple, but that's another story.) So there are companies out there offering bundled TV and internet already, but in a (mostly) unregulated fashion. Of course, the FCC is fscked here too, because the only way they can avoid regulating satellite systems is if they can guarantee competition, and they only way they can do that is by regulating the frequency space!
My solution: if the owners of the medium (phone copper, cable coax, airwaves, etc) have been granted a local monopoly, then all services offered over that medium must be regulated. In other words, regulation based on medium, not service. I'm in favor of option #1.
I'm sick and tired of the volume of technical hypocrisy on/., and this article is just the latest example. Most of the rants go something like "I'm a doctor or a tech, I NEED to get my pages and phone calls". Well, Poindexter, let's play a little Socratic logic game:
I need to get my pages
I can no longer get pages at the movies; therefore
I may no longer go to the movies (or, by extension, anywhere else I can't get pages)
Notice the use of the word "may". That's right, you can still go to the movies, but your job doesn't permit you to any more.
What's usually added to the 'argument', and what pisses me off, is:
I'm a whiny bitch who thinks I have a God-given right to play with my toys, any time, anywhere
You made a life decision to be in that career, you signed the contract, now SUCK IT UP. It's your fault for getting yourself involved in something that you can't deal with. Lawsuits based on the "whiny bitch" premise will get thrown out. Entertainment is NOT a right you possess. It's a priviledge that you now may no longer enjoy. If the movie theatres want to throw away doctor and tech business, that's their choice. They're private businesses, they are not required to cater to you.
I personally think that the theatres are well within their rights to do this. They're trying to provide a service, they make money based on people's experience of that service. I don't like that they're considering it, I would much rather have all the 'whiny bitches' exhibit a little self-restraint, but I've already resigned myself to the fact that hoping for this to spontaneously occur is a lost cause. Look for movie theatres to plaster this stuff up at the earliest possible moment.
Re:how to avoid getting on The Map
on
Mapping the Spam
·
· Score: 2
how can a regular joe like me prevent [my email address being co-opted by a spammer] from happening in the future
Never send anyone, anywhere, an email. Other than that, it's hopeless. Read RFC 822. Welcome to the Internet.
Good point, for their primary product, you are correct. For the most part, their costs have been due to marketing their primary product. However, Coke still does R&D (their recent entry into the "flavored water" and juice markets, for example).
Nevertheless, I fail to see how the process of software development is any different, in broad business strokes, from developing any other product, save that the cost of goods in software production is much, much lower than manufacture (as a relative percentage of overall outlay). The reason being that there are no raw material purchases. Coke spent over $6 billion on raw materials, plant upkeep, actually making their product. That's a full third of their gross receipts. It costs the UL companies maybe some electricity for code compiles and a few other, incidental charges. Consequently, the relative percentage of marketing expense for UL should be a higher percentage of the overall expense.
I agree with a statement I assume you were making but didn't state: that a higher percentage of money than 20% should be spent on development in a startup. Nevertheless, it can't be too much higher than that, or UL will fall into the classic trap of great product that no one knows about. As I'm sure you know, this is a large contributing factor in the failure of a majority of companies run by techies.
As far as Coke's games in the market, I agree that they are in trouble, which is why they're branching out into the aforementioned flavored water and juice markets.
[Love]
The actual development cost of producing a product is only about 20-30%; marketing, sales and support constitute the majority.
[/Love]
[ivan256]
If marketing and sales are that high a percentage of your costs, you're doomed.
[/ivan256]
Sir, have you ever run a corporation? I have, and I support Mr Love's numbers. Furthermore, so you don't think I'm blowing smoke, I will give you an example.
From the EDGAR report under Consolidated Statements of Income (p 57):
Gross receipts: $ 20,092 M (1) Cost of goods: 6,044 M (2) Gross profits: 14,048 M (3) [(1)-(2)] Operating expenses: 8,696 M (4) Operating income: 5,352 M (5) [(3)-(4)]
Line (4) can be further broken down into Selling Expenses and Administrative/General Expenses, which is done in the text of the Management's Discussion and Analysis of Operations (p 48):
Operating expenses: $ 8,696 M (4) Selling expenses: 6,930 M Admin/gen expenses: 1,766 M
For Coke in year ended 12/31/01, they spent almost $7 billion on selling their product. That works out to 80% of their total operating expenditure for the year. Since Coke ended up with income of more than $5.3B last year, I'd hardly say they're "doomed".
If you explain to them that their pet feature will make the project take twice as long, or three times as long, will they really still want you to do it? Or will they say, "Oh shit, well in that case forget it."
They'll say, "Find a way to make it work, on time and within budget, and laws of physics be damned". This is the primary problem with most bad PMs; they don't listen. OTOH, this is also the primary problem with most bad (i.e., non-business-knowledgable) coders. In my experience, the proper action is to communicate with the PM, find out why the feature is so important, ask if it's OK that 5 other features won't get done for this one, etc. It may be that the PM isn't clearly communicating, or it may be that the coder doesn't want to do boring work. Which do you think is the case?
If they really don't know what they are doing, then they will probably fear a paper trail that documents that you warned them the pet feature would double the time to implement.
You assume they care about the product, and that they have ethics. No, what'll probably happen is they'll either bury the report or play politics. Remember, like everthing else, shit flows downhill.
If your boss is an asshole, and says something like, "If you can't do it I will get someone who can!" Or, "If you can't do it within this time constraint I will get someone who can!" Call his or her bluff.
Yeah, that'll make you real popular. Let's play dick-swinging, chest-beating games with our boss. They'll love you after you prove them an idiot to everyone in the office and shove it in their face! Heaven forbid, maybe your boss is having a family crisis, find out what is going on before jumping to conclusions. If they're being unreasonable, then there are things you can do (talk to HR, let them know you're having problems working, see if there's an ombuds, use an employee feedback mechanism...)
Re:Wondering why NPR might do this?
on
Blogspace vs. NPR
·
· Score: 2
The linking policy has an intent, and I'm certain that the wording of it will be changed - within a week at most - to match that intent.
I disagree. It is just as difficult to encode intent in the common vernacular as it is to just write laws, regulations, and policies; therefore, you don't hear about Congressmen needing to write language to justify their laws. The laws, or in this case policies, speak for themselves, and this is as it should be. Since the guys at NPR didn't bother to write anything about their intent, I suggest that all discussions of intent, by anyone on Slashdot not affiliated with and speaking for NPR, are trolls, and be treated as such.
CRCs don't work, period. As scott1853 has already pointed out, the RIAA will just go after anyone with a file matching the proper CRC. Then the infringers will go off and add a second of (high quality) white noise and release the new file (with a new CRC). Repeat ad nauseum. Now what was the point of the original CRC? To uniquely identify a file that hasn't had its anti-RIAA white noise added yet?
I think this is a really good tactic for the music industry to use in their struggle against P2P piracy. Yes, piracy.... Is it a good law? Doesn't matter. It is the law.
IANAL either, but five minutes of searching finds an excerpt from the actual law on piracy:
Sec. 1651. - Piracy under law of nations
Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.
Sweet Jesus! I hope you're referring to copyright infringement, which carries somewhat less of a penalty for violation.
P.S. If you can't even get the chapter of US code right, you have already lost your legal argument.
I'm sorry, but I must point out a flaw in your argument.
If a car was dangerous enough to possibly cause death, wouldn't the government require a recall?
That argument doesn't really work. Cars do kill people, thousands a year in the US alone. But we keep using them. The point is, that they kill when used improperly, which is, I think, your point.
Going back to your first statement:
If the code is so bad as to be dangerous, shouldn't the government make them recall the code and return a properly functioning version?
Add the words "when used improperly", and your argument falls apart. All software can be dangerous (erase hard drives, destroy financial records, DoS some ISP) when used improperly. And yes, I mean all software. I have yet to see a program that does anything non-trivial that is completely secure. So no, the government shouldn't request a recall.
However, there are regulations about manufacture of automobiles which help to prevent them from doing damage when used improperly, such as seatbelts and crash resistance regs, and so on. I see no reason similar regs shouldn't be enforceable, i.e. give teeth to warranties of merchantability for software. If Microsoft could get sued because their software caused unreasonable downtime (because of the warranty), you'd see security improve. And yes, getting cracked qualifies as unreasonable under the contract between you and Microsoft. If you don't like it, buy something else.
I can make as many copies as I want for my own personal use. I can do whatever the heck I want with my copies. I can NOT, however, redistribute those personal copies unless they ALL go with the original.
I'm sorry, this is wrong. Copyright = "right to copy", and as someone other than the copyright holder, you don't have it. You can quote (for critical purposes), paraphrase, and summarize, but you are generally not allowed to make verbatim copies of the words on the page, even if you do own the paper. There is a difference between the medium and the ideas fixed in that medium.
Not even the Sept. 11 attacks compare to this demonstration of *intent* to use nuclear weapons in battle if necessary. Sorry, but the loss of 5000 people on that day is not enough to justify unleasing the nuclear floodgates on the world. How dare we.
I believe we've had these contingency plans for over 50 years now, and the phrase "finger on the button" demonstrates our intent. How quickly we forget the lessons of history. Sept 11 has reminded us of the reality of the plans' existence, but they were by no means created recently.
This administration has destroyed our credibility and leverage among our neighbors
I disagree. I don't presume to speak for our allies, but I believe a show of strength was called for. Right now, it's Operation Anaconda. I'm sure there are those among the US allies who are afraid of the repercussions, but let's get something straight: we're in this for our very survival. Society (and civilization) only works so long as it can guarantee survival for its citizens. All other rules bow to this one. If these attacks continue, our society will be destroyed, as well as that of our allies.
A show of strength will assure our allies (and our citizens) that we can protect them. I don't think that loses us (or the administration) credibility.
Ob opinion: I am worried, like you, about the long-term future. This kind of terrorism can only be cured through altering the value structure of those who attack us, through generations of in-bred tolerance. Let's not forget how lucky we are to live in a country that allows us to speak out, and to believe in any religion we like. These values brought us to where we are today, and our enemies, those who try to destroy us, don't have the same values. Our society has never had a problem abridging rights temporarily ("for the duration"), but this may take awhile, and how long is it before temporary abridgements become de facto? I'd wager a generation or so, clearly not enough time to solve the problem through diplomacy. Which brings us to violence, and government-toppling. Which is what we've done. And that, while it makes me sad, is what is required to preserve my way of life. And yours.
The classified text, however, is shot through with a worldview transformed by Sept. 11. The NPR coins the phrase "New Triad,"
and later
It calls for improvements in the ability to "exploit" enemy computer networks, and the integration of cyber-warfare into the overall nuclear war database "to enable more effective targeting, weaponeering, and combat assessment essential to the New Triad."
These guys have been playing way too much GTA3.
And we trust them with Nukes?? What, is the next great post-911 idea to drive around Afghanistan in nuclear Fish vans?
[disclaimer] I am one of a group who represent the Inktomi membership in the ISMA. [/disclaimer]
The article quotes Tom Jacobs on the official ISMA position on the matter, and I can vouch for that position personally. I was at our last meeting in NYC on Feb 4 when he first stated it. I can clarify a few points:
First, that we are unhappy with the MPEG-LA licensing terms, but we are actively pursuing discussion of those terms with them.
ISMA's stated charter is interoperability of rich streaming media over IP networks. It is explicitly stated that we want player-neutral protocols. If MPEG-4 licensing makes it non-player-neutral, well... draw your own conclusions.
We are considering many protocol options. ISMA is composed of two arms, technical and marketing. The tech guys (myself included) are all over using open-source. What remains to be seen is whether or not those solutions can provide the features that our marketing and retail appliance partners are demanding. (Hint to Ogg Tarkin guys: this is your cue to get motivated.)
Furthermore, let's get something straight about MPEG-LA. (N.B. This information comes straight from a presentation Larry Horn gave at the ISMA meeting.)
MPEG-LA is composed of those companies or entities who have critical IP in MPEG-4 video and systems technologies. Two points:
Critical IP. This means MPEG-4 can't be implemented without trampling on these guys' patents. Implementation-specific IP (i.e. a particular vendor's patented player) doesn't cut it.
Video and systems. This doesn't cover audio. Yes, it's stupid, but that's the way it is. (Systems, btw, is all that feature-rich stuff beyond video and audio, like embedded scrolling text, etc etc)
If anyone anywhere wants to implement MPEG-4 video, they're gonna have to talk to MPEG-LA. Go ask the Quicktime guys. Notice how they released the streaming server but not the encoder/decoder retail products? Same goes for open-source implementations of MPEG-4, which, in my opinion, are gonna suffer because people don't wanna pay anything for what should be free encoders/decoders. Yes, the licensing is $0.50 ($0.25 for both encoder and decoder), which is not much, but I don't think people will accept that.
ISMA is in charge of the de-facto standard for streaming media online. It'd be cool if we used open-source, but we have to go with what we can get that meets our requirements. The ball is in your court, Xiph. If you wanna make a name for yourselves, this is the break you've been waiting for.
Yes and no. As a whole, I'd say I like Disney when they do something good, and dislike them when they do something bad. Most often, it's bad, but every once in awhile they suprise you. If this turns out OK, I'll go see it. Maybe multiple times. There's no contradiction here.
For all of you conspiracy theorists out there, Disney is a company just like any other. If they see that their "foreign animation" department is doing good business, they'll shift more resources over that way (and maybe away from the "let's buy politicians" department, because the returns aren't as good there (we can hope!)).
If party A licenses software from Microsoft, and agrees not to hold Microsoft liable for any bugs in their code, than MS may be safe from suit from party A. However, if party A's sevevers start attacking party B's servers, and party B never had a contract with Microsoft, there's nothing legally stopping them from trying to sue Microsoft.
Uh, actually, they get to sue party A, not Microsoft. There's no way party B can prove that Microsoft (and not some malicious cracker from party A) is responsible. At which point party A is pretty much fscked, because they can't turn around and "sue-through" back to M$.
They implement copy protection via a serial number, which is verified online through the battle.net servers.
Please don't confuse the issue. The serial number doesn't prevent any copying. I can dup a CD bit-for-bit and use the new CD with the same key. This act of copying (if not for fair-use, etc) is illegal under pre-DMCA copyright laws. It has nothing to do with the DMCA. AFAIK, Blizzard don't really do anything to prevent copying the disc.
If you have your own server, and modify your hosts file or whatever so that it goes to this new server instead of the battle.net server, their copy protection is circumvented.
No, you've circumvented their serial number verification routine. You haven't copied or facilitated the copying of anything.
Suck it up, and don't buy Warcraft 3. Don't steal it from your friends. Tell them not to buy it or steal it either. And write a letter to Blizzard explaining why you did so. The crowd here contains the most avid fans of the gaming industry. Let's (not) do something about it, and make sure they know they're pissing off their biggest customers.
I fail to see how stripping out add-on middleware from Windows will benefit the consumer in the end.
I've just bought a shiny new combination TV/VCR. I take it home. Three months later the TV (OS) part breaks. If the VCR and TV had been separate, I'd be able to just send in the TV to be repaired. As it is, if I ever want to watch my $5000 tape collection again (add-on software), I have to go out and buy a whole new TV/VCR when all I needed was just the TV (they don't come unbundled, you see).
However, consider the impact on the consumer if these add-ons were removed from the OS? Now, on top of the OS license cost, the user must purchase a CD burner ($50), a browser($30), an archiver($30 for Winzip), an FTP client($40 CuteFTP c4.2), etc etc etc.
Joe User buys these things anyway, they just tack on the price without him seeing it. There's no reason an OEM can't do the same. It's just that right now, they have no choice.
I agree that defending rights of corps to enforce IP rights here is probably futile, but I'll back you up when you say they should. This is absolutely correct. That's the law, and they're entitled. Of course, laws can be changed (bought).
I disagree that Philips loses money to infringing companies. It would be more correct to say that they do not/get money/ from these companies. If it's not money already in your pocket, you can't really lose it, can you? You simply aren't collecting money you are due. Same argument as to why copying isn't stealing, really.
It's obvious that Bernie Shifman is a moron asshole spammer, and on that basis I have no sympathy for him. But what Neil Schwartzman has done goes a little too far IMHO. He's posted Bernie's home address, phone number, aerial pictures of his apartment on his Web site.
True, but no one ever said the Internet was fair. One might say that the rise of Netiquette was an attempt to make online communication fair. It is clearly obvious that Mr Shifman (BS) did not abide by those rules. Hence, Mr Schwartzman (NS) was not bound by them in his response.
The popularity of that site has now given Bernie the dubious honor of "The Most Hated Man on the Internet" (Bill Gates notwithstanding). Shifman is no doubt the recepient of thousands of harassing phone calls, e-mails, people outside his apartment, etc. He will never be able to get a decent job again, and his life is all but ruined.
And yet he has been proved guilty of no crime.
Again, probably true. However, (reciprocal) assault against a virtual person/identity is not a crime (yet). I do agree that the people who have made harassing phone calls, etc should be punished.
Is this the best that the so-called egalitarian culture of the Internet has to offer? I don't see any Jonathan Katz articles standing up for the rights of this guy, who's currently getting the electronic equivalent of a lynching.
It's precisely the egalitarian culture of the Internet that caused this virtual lynching, as you say. NS felt offended at BS mailing him resumes, so he responded by creating a website. Each was free to express themselves precisely how they felt, without worry of censure. Of course, at any time, either of the two could have let the issue drop, but they chose not to. Egalitarianism is not the problem, the problem is that honor and dignity don't really have a change against technology that levels the playing field.
Yes, Bernie's moronic threats and accusations are highly amusing, but it's important to remember that there's a real person behind them. A person of obviously diminished capacity, who honestly thought he was doing the right thing. If Bernie Shifman were to commit suicide tomorrow, how would Neil Schwartzman and everyone else who took part in making this guy's life hell feel?
(And yes, the case can be made that Bernie did include his personal information in his spam, but does that mean he gave up his right to privacy? How many strangers do I have to send my resume to before I can make the assumption it'll be spread all over the Web? 5? 50? 500? 5000? Where's the line?)
He gave up his privacy the moment he sent out the first resume. It was by choice. You give up your privacy every time you use a credit card. Does that stop you from doing so?
In the end, I think this is really a matter between Bernie and Neil, and those are the two that need to settle it. I hate spam just as much as the next guy, but I think people need to be proven guilty (in a court of law) before being condemmed. Let's not all let ourselves be guided by mob rule. The Internet was built for better things than this.
Actually, if I read the site correctly, it's a matter between Bernie and Neil, and Neil's friend, and some guys at the online forum, and and and... The point is, specifically, that BS is a spammer. And as far as being condemned, well, the Internet is a big, lawless place. And with all due respect, if you don't like it, or can't "stand the heat", don't use it. BS chose to use the Internet, and he got burned.
In fact, in most projects, documentation is more important than the code itself! This rule holds for all programs you intend for someone other than yourself to run (or, heaven forbid, debug later). My general rule of thumb for doing projects is:
Do feature reqs (10%)
Do design spec / unit spec (30%)
Do documentation (30%)
Write code (15%)
Beta-test / debug (15%)
Notice that design and documentation take up more than half the time on the project. Implementing the code becomes very easy with good, fleshed-out design and documentation.
As for solving your problem, I generally write documentation in-code using one style of comments and line-by-line comments using another style. Then forming docs from the code is easy: write a little perl script to extract the block comments, and format as you like.
Please don't misunderstand me. I don't object to a national ID card out of some vague distrust of government. Yes, I do realize that the government we have in the US allows its citizens unparalleled freedoms. It is precisely because I cherish those freedoms that I object. In particular, I would feel personally violated by being forced to carry a national ID card. I do not feel violated by a driver's license. There's your reason.
As you noted, I am a strong believer in civil liberties. I am not this way because I blindly follow a crowd. I believe that the system works as long as we have a choice. Being forced to do anything (except for certain safety precautions necessary to conduct a society with any semblance of order) is utterly abhorrant to me. If there is an optional ID card that confers benefits to those who carry it, I'm all for it. As long as it's my choice. I choose not to go to the movies because I don't support the MPAA. I haven't bought a CD in many years. It is the freedom to choose on which this country was formed, and despite what anyone says about me, I plan to see that we never take those freedoms for granted.
I also lived in Washington for several years. I grew up in Rockville, and my family is 3rd generation government service. I personally worked for a three-letter agency which shall remain nameless. I understand that the people in power have the best intentions, I've dealt with them as well. But sometimes good people screw up. If I criticize the government, it's because I think they screwed up. I don't accuse them of being malicious. I do accuse them of group-think (not necessarily their fault), heavy-handed partisan politics (which has nothing to do with the citizens, per se, and which has been getting better recently), and not being able to keep up with technological developments (again, not their fault).
And finally, I didn't elect Bush. Or vote for Gore. I exercised my right to vote for someone else (and no, it wasn't Nader either). I believe, as you do, that we should all have the right to speak out, to make our opinions known. My previous post was, as the sig mentioned, my opinion. Your opinions are, of course, just as valid. It's precisely the freedom we have to differ that makes our country great. I just hope that the government does the right thing with these ID cards, and listens to the people's opinions.
I beleive in Civil Liberties and all, but is a national ID card that bad?
Yes.
Every French and Swiss person legally has to have a national ID card and carry it with them at all times, on pain of arrest. [snip] That's the theory: in practice, no one carries them or is ever asked for them, and if you are, you can just say "I forgot."
That's Europe. I trust the European Government free market more than the US Government monopoly.
The point is, just because they have a possibility to be used for evil, dosen't mean they will be.
Name something with the potential for evil that hasn't been used for evil at some point by some wacko (or well-meaning klutz).
Look at Napster: it (in itself) is not illegal, it just has the possibility of being used for illegal purposes, yet we support it. Now switch the word "illegal" with "bad" and the word "Napster" with the phrase "National ID Card" and instantly our opinion chanages.
I trust Napster with my personal information more than I trust the government with my personal information, because the government has real power. The worst Napster can do is harass me with spam or sell my info to some spammer or other lowlife.
Legislate well, and National IDs (be them in Driver's Licence form or whatnot) can be a Good Thing(tm).
Absolutely. Unfortunately, I don't think many people around here believe in our Congresscritters' abilities to legislate well. Remember: if you don't trust [other political party] or [your successor] not to abuse the law, it's not a good law.
Slashdot Mirror
My problem of late with reg sites is that more and more are getting away with privacy-invasive crap, not because of me, but because they can afford to lose my business since everyone else is an idiot.
On the other hand, the cable situation is totally different, since the cable company has been granted a local monopoly, much like Ma Bell had before the telephone breakup. The cost of this monopoly is total FCC regulation. This isn't suprising, considering that cable technology is more recent than phones. Anyway, the cable companies started offering cable modem service (usually through @Home) back in the mid '90s. The problem was, @Home had a 7-year exclusive contract to be the ISP on each cable company, in exchange for spending the $billions to roll out the networks. There was no way the FCC could regulate internet access (on a regulated cable!) unless they invalidated the @Home contracts in court (not that they wanted to regulate anyway). Well, they didn't have to worry about it because the cable companies fscked up the marketing (they wanted to use internet access as an upsell for more cable TV subscriptions, when what people really wanted was the internet by itself), and @Home went under.
So, the issue facing the FCC is whether or not to regulate internet access over cable. As I said before, they don't want to regulate it. They want the cable companies to pretend there's competition, and "play nice". The problem is, they won't, and the FCC is going to have to step in. Their options aren't pretty:
It gets even more interesting when you consider that the satellite TV companies are starting to offer internet access. Note that, in theory, there is competition in the satellite space, so the FCC doesn't have to regulate. (It's not quite that simple, but that's another story.) So there are companies out there offering bundled TV and internet already, but in a (mostly) unregulated fashion. Of course, the FCC is fscked here too, because the only way they can avoid regulating satellite systems is if they can guarantee competition, and they only way they can do that is by regulating the frequency space!
My solution: if the owners of the medium (phone copper, cable coax, airwaves, etc) have been granted a local monopoly, then all services offered over that medium must be regulated. In other words, regulation based on medium, not service. I'm in favor of option #1.
- I need to get my pages
- I can no longer get pages at the movies; therefore
- I may no longer go to the movies (or, by extension, anywhere else I can't get pages)
Notice the use of the word "may". That's right, you can still go to the movies, but your job doesn't permit you to any more.What's usually added to the 'argument', and what pisses me off, is:
- I'm a whiny bitch who thinks I have a God-given right to play with my toys, any time, anywhere
You made a life decision to be in that career, you signed the contract, now SUCK IT UP. It's your fault for getting yourself involved in something that you can't deal with. Lawsuits based on the "whiny bitch" premise will get thrown out. Entertainment is NOT a right you possess. It's a priviledge that you now may no longer enjoy. If the movie theatres want to throw away doctor and tech business, that's their choice. They're private businesses, they are not required to cater to you.I personally think that the theatres are well within their rights to do this. They're trying to provide a service, they make money based on people's experience of that service. I don't like that they're considering it, I would much rather have all the 'whiny bitches' exhibit a little self-restraint, but I've already resigned myself to the fact that hoping for this to spontaneously occur is a lost cause. Look for movie theatres to plaster this stuff up at the earliest possible moment.
Nevertheless, I fail to see how the process of software development is any different, in broad business strokes, from developing any other product, save that the cost of goods in software production is much, much lower than manufacture (as a relative percentage of overall outlay). The reason being that there are no raw material purchases. Coke spent over $6 billion on raw materials, plant upkeep, actually making their product. That's a full third of their gross receipts. It costs the UL companies maybe some electricity for code compiles and a few other, incidental charges. Consequently, the relative percentage of marketing expense for UL should be a higher percentage of the overall expense.
I agree with a statement I assume you were making but didn't state: that a higher percentage of money than 20% should be spent on development in a startup. Nevertheless, it can't be too much higher than that, or UL will fall into the classic trap of great product that no one knows about. As I'm sure you know, this is a large contributing factor in the failure of a majority of companies run by techies.
As far as Coke's games in the market, I agree that they are in trouble, which is why they're branching out into the aforementioned flavored water and juice markets.
The actual development cost of producing a product is only about 20-30%; marketing, sales and support constitute the majority.
[/Love]
[ivan256]
If marketing and sales are that high a percentage of your costs, you're doomed.
[/ivan256]
Sir, have you ever run a corporation? I have, and I support Mr Love's numbers. Furthermore, so you don't think I'm blowing smoke, I will give you an example.
Example: Coca-Cola (KO), FY 2001
URL: (EDGAR report 10-K, annual summary)
From the EDGAR report under Consolidated Statements of Income (p 57):
Line (4) can be further broken down into Selling Expenses and Administrative/General Expenses, which is done in the text of the Management's Discussion and Analysis of Operations (p 48):
For Coke in year ended 12/31/01, they spent almost $7 billion on selling their product. That works out to 80% of their total operating expenditure for the year. Since Coke ended up with income of more than $5.3B last year, I'd hardly say they're "doomed".
CRCs don't work, period. As scott1853 has already pointed out, the RIAA will just go after anyone with a file matching the proper CRC. Then the infringers will go off and add a second of (high quality) white noise and release the new file (with a new CRC). Repeat ad nauseum. Now what was the point of the original CRC? To uniquely identify a file that hasn't had its anti-RIAA white noise added yet?
P.S. If you can't even get the chapter of US code right, you have already lost your legal argument.
Going back to your first statement:
Add the words "when used improperly", and your argument falls apart. All software can be dangerous (erase hard drives, destroy financial records, DoS some ISP) when used improperly. And yes, I mean all software. I have yet to see a program that does anything non-trivial that is completely secure. So no, the government shouldn't request a recall.However, there are regulations about manufacture of automobiles which help to prevent them from doing damage when used improperly, such as seatbelts and crash resistance regs, and so on. I see no reason similar regs shouldn't be enforceable, i.e. give teeth to warranties of merchantability for software. If Microsoft could get sued because their software caused unreasonable downtime (because of the warranty), you'd see security improve. And yes, getting cracked qualifies as unreasonable under the contract between you and Microsoft. If you don't like it, buy something else.
Ob opinion: I am worried, like you, about the long-term future. This kind of terrorism can only be cured through altering the value structure of those who attack us, through generations of in-bred tolerance. Let's not forget how lucky we are to live in a country that allows us to speak out, and to believe in any religion we like. These values brought us to where we are today, and our enemies, those who try to destroy us, don't have the same values. Our society has never had a problem abridging rights temporarily ("for the duration"), but this may take awhile, and how long is it before temporary abridgements become de facto? I'd wager a generation or so, clearly not enough time to solve the problem through diplomacy. Which brings us to violence, and government-toppling. Which is what we've done. And that, while it makes me sad, is what is required to preserve my way of life. And yours.
The article quotes Tom Jacobs on the official ISMA position on the matter, and I can vouch for that position personally. I was at our last meeting in NYC on Feb 4 when he first stated it. I can clarify a few points:
- First, that we are unhappy with the MPEG-LA licensing terms, but we are actively pursuing discussion of those terms with them.
- ISMA's stated charter is interoperability of rich streaming media over IP networks. It is explicitly stated that we want player-neutral protocols. If MPEG-4 licensing makes it non-player-neutral, well... draw your own conclusions.
- We are considering many protocol options. ISMA is composed of two arms, technical and marketing. The tech guys (myself included) are all over using open-source. What remains to be seen is whether or not those solutions can provide the features that our marketing and retail appliance partners are demanding. (Hint to Ogg Tarkin guys: this is your cue to get motivated.)
Furthermore, let's get something straight about MPEG-LA. (N.B. This information comes straight from a presentation Larry Horn gave at the ISMA meeting.)MPEG-LA is composed of those companies or entities who have critical IP in MPEG-4 video and systems technologies. Two points:
- Critical IP. This means MPEG-4 can't be implemented without trampling on these guys' patents. Implementation-specific IP (i.e. a particular vendor's patented player) doesn't cut it.
- Video and systems. This doesn't cover audio. Yes, it's stupid, but that's the way it is. (Systems, btw, is all that feature-rich stuff beyond video and audio, like embedded scrolling text, etc etc)
If anyone anywhere wants to implement MPEG-4 video, they're gonna have to talk to MPEG-LA. Go ask the Quicktime guys. Notice how they released the streaming server but not the encoder/decoder retail products? Same goes for open-source implementations of MPEG-4, which, in my opinion, are gonna suffer because people don't wanna pay anything for what should be free encoders/decoders. Yes, the licensing is $0.50 ($0.25 for both encoder and decoder), which is not much, but I don't think people will accept that.ISMA is in charge of the de-facto standard for streaming media online. It'd be cool if we used open-source, but we have to go with what we can get that meets our requirements. The ball is in your court, Xiph. If you wanna make a name for yourselves, this is the break you've been waiting for.
For all of you conspiracy theorists out there, Disney is a company just like any other. If they see that their "foreign animation" department is doing good business, they'll shift more resources over that way (and maybe away from the "let's buy politicians" department, because the returns aren't as good there (we can hope!)).
Suck it up, and don't buy Warcraft 3. Don't steal it from your friends. Tell them not to buy it or steal it either. And write a letter to Blizzard explaining why you did so. The crowd here contains the most avid fans of the gaming industry. Let's (not) do something about it, and make sure they know they're pissing off their biggest customers.
I disagree that Philips loses money to infringing companies. It would be more correct to say that they do not /get money/ from these companies. If it's not money already in your pocket, you can't really lose it, can you? You simply aren't collecting money you are due. Same argument as to why copying isn't stealing, really.
- Do feature reqs (10%)
- Do design spec / unit spec (30%)
- Do documentation (30%)
- Write code (15%)
- Beta-test / debug (15%)
Notice that design and documentation take up more than half the time on the project. Implementing the code becomes very easy with good, fleshed-out design and documentation.As for solving your problem, I generally write documentation in-code using one style of comments and line-by-line comments using another style. Then forming docs from the code is easy: write a little perl script to extract the block comments, and format as you like.
As you noted, I am a strong believer in civil liberties. I am not this way because I blindly follow a crowd. I believe that the system works as long as we have a choice. Being forced to do anything (except for certain safety precautions necessary to conduct a society with any semblance of order) is utterly abhorrant to me. If there is an optional ID card that confers benefits to those who carry it, I'm all for it. As long as it's my choice. I choose not to go to the movies because I don't support the MPAA. I haven't bought a CD in many years. It is the freedom to choose on which this country was formed, and despite what anyone says about me, I plan to see that we never take those freedoms for granted.
I also lived in Washington for several years. I grew up in Rockville, and my family is 3rd generation government service. I personally worked for a three-letter agency which shall remain nameless. I understand that the people in power have the best intentions, I've dealt with them as well. But sometimes good people screw up. If I criticize the government, it's because I think they screwed up. I don't accuse them of being malicious. I do accuse them of group-think (not necessarily their fault), heavy-handed partisan politics (which has nothing to do with the citizens, per se, and which has been getting better recently), and not being able to keep up with technological developments (again, not their fault).
And finally, I didn't elect Bush. Or vote for Gore. I exercised my right to vote for someone else (and no, it wasn't Nader either). I believe, as you do, that we should all have the right to speak out, to make our opinions known. My previous post was, as the sig mentioned, my opinion. Your opinions are, of course, just as valid. It's precisely the freedom we have to differ that makes our country great. I just hope that the government does the right thing with these ID cards, and listens to the people's opinions.