Is history "forcefed" too? Any reading of history will indicate that man has had a very violent past. Would you not teach your children the bloody history of man? and is that the same as advocating violence? I hope you understand what I am getting at.
The Bible does include an account of history (you can dispute that if you want, but that claim is not entirely without substance) and history includes the good and the bad parts. Also, history unlike games, are not read for entertainment but for awareness. So from that point of view, it makes very little sense and it may even cause harm to hide those aspects of history which are not very palatable. But that is again not to mean that violence is advocated or encouraged.
As a guide to moral behavior, on the other hand, it is allegedly the gold standard. Why should it not be evaluated as such?
Let me repeat what I said:
The Bible is not a single book - it is a collection of books. To illustrate this better - lets say a few hundred years from now, someone decides to put together various books, writings and sayings (the constitution of the US, a few of the major poetry of the time, a few writings by the major personalities of the time, words of wisdom utterred by many of these same people, and then a compilation of historical documents of our current age), and then decides to call it a "Bible2", would you then look at the historical account of Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky and state that this Bible2 advocates that as the standard of behaviour?
The Bible is comprised of history, poems, words of wisdom, moral instructions, prophesy etc. So when you do evaluate the Bible against, say another book which lists moral instructions, you must look at the part of the Bible which lays down moral instructions and use that for the comparison. You wouldn't compare it with portions of the Bible which refers to prophesy for instance, or history, or poetry.
Consider the book of Revelation - it is a prophetic book, not an account of history. One the other hand, the book of Exodus, Numbers, Kings etc are historical texts for the most part. The Book of Proverbs, the Book of James etc are more into moral instructions. The Song of Songs is a romantic, erotic book written by a man about/and to his lover.
I don't know why people keep bringing up these comparisons:
a) "???? Movie" and the Bible b) "???? Music lyric" and the Bible c) "???? Game" and the Bible
Bible is not a work meant for entertainment. Bible is a collection of books - a mix of history/biography, song, teachings, sayings, words of wisdom etc. When history is written down, the ugly parts will also get written. The Bible is not advocating that Lot's actions be considered appropriate. Your assertion that the Bible glorifies rape and violence doesn't quite hold up.
Comparing a Bible to a game/any work of entertainment makes no sense. Its as absurd as comparing the Bible to a building.
No body says that the Bible is for entertainment. Bible is a mix of history, sayings / teachings of men considered great in their time, songs/poetry etc. Bible is a religious texts, if you must compare it, compare it to other religious texts.
Comparing GTA to the Bible is like comparing apples to carts.
I have serious problems with the QT licensing model. I perfectly understand that they want to charge commercial developers for using their products. Heck, I won't even mind if they don't have a free version. But what I find absolutely intolerable are the terms of their commercial license.
The commercial license is tied to a named developer. That is, if I have a developer Dave who needs a QT license, I must buy a named license for Dave. It does not matter if I have unused licenses of QT lying around (which other developers don't need and are not even installed), I must still buy a license for Dave.
If Dave needs to go on a holiday or just dies and if I need Bill to complete the project using Dave's license, then the terms of the license prevents me from doing that. The license must be transferred over to Bill's name and this can be done only after 6 months! This is completely insane! Why would a company purchase a several-thousand-dollar license for a developer and face the prospect of having to purchase yet another license if the developer leaves the company / is unable to work on the project / is promoted to a non-coding role etc?
QT's commercial license fees are very high, and separate licenses are needed for each platform - that is, I need to buy QT license separately for Linux, Windows etc. Now, I perfectly understand that Trolltech can charge what they want as it is their product, but I do feel that they have made the product as unattractive an option as possible and this has resulted in huge losses to them. But again, that is their problem not mine.
I had the opportunity to review cross platform GUI toolkits for a huge project we were working on - the project was a very large public transportation project for Scandinavia and we needed a lot of licenses; I opted against QT (thereby denying them a huge order) because of these very unattractive terms in their licenses. I have had similar experiences with another project for a Finnish client as well. In both cases, I felt that QT was definitely the best framework for the job, but the licensing terms completely wiped out any of the technical advantages.
The primary problem with the QT commercial license is the fact that it makes it very difficult to bring in developers on a contract into a project for a short assignment. It becomes very difficult to reuse this license with yet another developer once the first developer's contract ends or if the first developer chooses to go elsewhere.
IMHO, Trolltech has an excellent product, but their legal and marketing departments needs to be overhauled.
Well, he is asking a bunch of guys who might just know the answer to his question. That is what research is about in anycase - asking the right questions to the right people. Why should his professors mind?
What I hate more than DRM are the other stupid things the content producers have inflicted on us:
1. The stupid system of region coding on DVDs. 2. Taxes or surcharges on media such as CDs and DVDs under the faulty assumption that all media is used for pirating 3. Advertising which cannot be skipped in DVDs
t seems to me that you are of the mind that it is acceptable for these companies to enforce DRM in order to make sure that the public upholds their end of the copyright bargain, while at the same time reneging on their end ot the bargain.
How did you arrive at this bit of reasoning?
There are many problems with the current DRM implementations; all of them place unreasonable restrictions on fair use; also they don't honour the legal requirement that content past a certain age passes into the public domain. These are faults of the system and must be corrected. Of that there is no doubt.
And I certainly don't think it is acceptable for companies to renege on any of the legal requirements. What I am against is this general perception on slashdot that it is perfectly acceptable behaviour to use content which one is not *legally* entitled to and anything that can prevent this *illegal* use is painted as the handiwork of the devil himself.
There is a reason why DRM exists - it exists because there aren't enough honest people on this sorry planet. If DRM was done right, those who purchase content should be able to do pretty much anything they want with the content short of pirating it for others and at the same time, the system should prevent pirated copies from being used. I think that is fair.
That is a separate discussion altogether. You are talking about copywrited content lapsing into the public domain after a particular period. There are existing laws for that. If the DRM implementations are trying to circumvent those laws, then the content producers who use such implementation must be taken to court and made to pay. I am sure a DRM implementation can be developed which adequately addresses this requirement for lapsing the content into public domain.
Whether the suits at Time Warner / Disney / Sony make money or not.. and whether they own a maybach or not is irrelevant. If they sell a product, they have the freedom to charge whatever they want for their product and you as a customer have the right NOT to buy their product. What part of this is confusing? Do you need statistics for this?
Why do people assume that DRM is a mechanism to ensure that artists don't starve? DRM is not an anti-starvation mechanism.
To repeat what I stated in another post - if you as a customer have purchased music from a company/artist then you should have the right to do what the hell you want to do with it. That I agree with completely. But I cannot see the point about being allowed to pirate music / content.
If you choose to use someone else's product / creation, and if the seller asks you to agree to a contract that you won't resell / redestribute that product, then you have the option of saying yes or no to that contract and if you choose to say no, you automatically loose the right to use that product. If you don't agree to the price quoted by the seller and if negotiation is not an option, then you can opt not to purchase that product.
But having said no to the contract and having decided not to purchase that product, you have no legal right to use that product without the seller's consent. DRM is a mechanism which uses technology in an attempt to ensure compliance to this contract. The seller does have the right to ensure that his products don't get used without his consent. I consider this perfectly valid.
What I completely dislike about current DRM implementations is that it places unreasonable restrictions on even fair use. And therefore I am opposed to *current* implementations of DRM.
Talking of Asian and Russian superstars, yes, there are many such people. But what is your point exactly? Is it that you can make a lot of money without clamping down on piracy or are you trying to claim that piracy is not bad because some people can still get rich?
My arguements were not about that at all. It is just about the principle of paying what the seller asks. if you don't agree with the seller's price, you are welcome not to purchase from them. You are under no obligation to buy overpriced products, there are other artists willing to give you their music for much less.
You cannot hold the hypocritical view, in the name of Freedom (Libre), that it is ok to use someone else's work without their consent just because you don't think you can't afford to or don't want to pay for their consent.
Simply put, DRM is a draconian system in place to increase the difficulty of using an artist/someone else's work without their consent in a manner which they didn't consent to.
DRM is a contract on the usage of a product enforced by a mechanism which includes technology. You can opt to not use that product, if you don't agree to the contract. But you cannot both use the product and not agree to the contract.
Your point is about excessive pricing. If you believe that these music companies are making too much profit (you are right), then campaign for lower pricing or stop buying their products.. or support indie artists.
Your arguements are not against DRM, is it? it is just against the obscene profits these music companies make, am I right? Or are you saying that piracy should be allowed (that is DRM should not be allowed) because music companies are making too much money? sort off like diamond theft should be allowed because DeBeers is making too much profit?
Its all fine and great, but this fine DRM alternative called 'Freedom' doesn't pay salaries and also it does not account for the millions who like to get all music / video free (not as in Libre, but as in beer).
The reason we are losing our freedom is because some people cannot be bothered to pay for the content they use, so companies come up with these measures such as DRM (which we all hate) as a knee jerk reaction to combat piracy.
If more people were honest and paid for the stuff they used, we would have more freedom. The same applies to other things as well: our houses / cars / offices need expensive anti-theft systems because people cannot be trusted to be honest. These anti-theft measures just make it so inconvenient, but there is no real alternative.
Those who had the freedom, were not responsible. and hence we have neither the freedom nor the responsibility. Quite sad really.
The ideal alternative to DRM is a technology which ensures that content is not pirated, but yet ensures that those who legally purchased the content can use it anyway they want (Libre).
However, such an alternative does not exist (no 'Freedom' is not that alternaive) and as long as it does not exist, media companies will thrust these unpalatable DRM measures on the rest of us even those of us who prefers to pay for the content we use.
2. Can you still buy CDs and DVDs which you can use on your system and rip without any problems?
3. Can you still play region-restricted DVDs on your system by using easily downloadable apps like VLC on your computer?
4. Can you run applications on your computer which were not 'signed' by a powerful company?
5. Can you run operating systems on your computer which the bios does not recognize as a 'Trusted' system?
6. Can you buy music and other stereo equipment with input and outputs which are not encrypted (other than the speakers, ofcourse)?
If the answer to atleast 2 of these questions is "Yes", then DRM has not yet run its course. If DRM is really running amok, none of this would be possible.
Yes, DRM is becoming more and more widepread, but it is nowhere near as widespread as it can be. One of the reasons why this has not happenned is because of the good work done by organizations such as the FSF. I am deeply grateful.
Having said that, I don't condone piracy and I believe people should learn to pay for the content they use.
In my humble opinion, FSF has a role to play as does DRM.
FSF balances the madness of DRM by limiting the type of restrictions content producers can impose on users. Without FSF, DRM will completely run amok and destroy any bit of freedom out there.
DRM exists because there are too many people out there willing to use music and video they didn't buy. To counter it, we have these drastic and very user-hostile measures (DRM) which makes it difficult for people to pirate content, but has the unhealthy side-effect that it punishes even those who rightfully purchased that content. The ideal alternative would be to have a technology which prevents piracy but yet does not hamper legitimate use of purchased content - unfortunately, at this stage such a technology doesn't exist; IMHO, whoever comes up with such a technology will make loads of money.
I think FSF and DRM are both needed, but I look forward to the day when one can purchase content and use the content without all the limitations DRM places even on legal use. I don't know if such a day will ever come. I am not too optimistic.
You have a real neat product - if you include support for importing and exporting from tools such as Visio, then you are damn near unbeatable. Very cool!
hey, your xenophobia and deep rooted bias is showing!
Godhra was not a "legitimate" reaction at all. How can you consider the brutal rape and murder of approximately 3000 innocent people "legitimate"? Your sense of right and wrong are completely messed up, pal. (NOTE: If you want to dispute the 3000 number, please go ahead, but the best reports filed by the NGOs independently indicate that number)
Also, haven't you been read the investigative reports on the train incident? - there is nothing to indicate that the train was burned by the muslims as you seem so keen to point out. This was proven by multiple teams - by an independent group of engineers as well who stated quite categorically that no liquid inflammable substance was used in the train.
If you would rather believe the "investigative" reports filed by the Gujarat government - a government widely regarded to be extremely sectarian and which has no respect for the fundamental rights of citizens, then that is upto you. Please also remember that the Gujarat government is considered complicit in the massacre that followed even by the Supreme Court of India which indicted it. Also, the court moved cases out of Gujarat for fear of bias - another first in the history of India.
I am an Indian and make no bones of the fact that a lot of the terrorism around the world is perpetrated by those who do it in the name of islam - and this is something the muslims must address without hiding under the dubious claims that it is just a minority who is involved in terrorism (this can be disputed because the minority actually carrying out the terrorist attacks are funded by the majority who participate in fund collection drives etc).
But that does not mean that I can look away when Hindus in India behave like animals and people such as yourself who should know better have their heads buried up their ass. What happenned in Gujarat is unforgiveable and it was the work of hindu fundamentalists - there is no question of that, so please stop trying to white wash something we should all be ashamed off.
Carcasses of animals can quite often be found lying in groups in a small area following events such as flooding when animals retreat to whatever high-ground they can find. Also, if carcasses are floated down a river, they can get stuck around rocks or obstacles. So there can be multiple explanations for why bones of animals can be found together.
We do have one piece of evidence that a T-Rex tried this with a duckbill dinosaur; one skeleton was found with partially-healed holes in its backbone, and the holes were exactly the right shape and size for T-Rex teeth. The fact the wound was partially healed proves the bite was made while the duckbill was still alive.
I am familiar with this finding. Some points which you might want to consider: 1. This so-called "evidence" of the duckbill dinosaur is shaky at best. There are numerous problems with the theory that this dinosaur must have been attacked and injured by a T.Rex.
a. The injury, as you have rightly pointed out, was on the backbone. This could have been caused by any number of animals, falling trees, falls from high-ground, fights between other animals from the same species (yes, even herbivorous animals sometimes attack each other) etc. The fact that the bones were roughly the size of a T.Rex tooth could be just a coincidence. It is similar to stating that a scratch seen on your car could have been caused only by a knife wielded by a particular group of people.
b. T.Rex has a mouth brisling with teeth and they are all of different sizes. Also, there is no standard size for a T.Rex - juveniles and full grown adults will all vary in size.
2. Many animals which depend on carrion do have powerful limbs. Case in point is the carrion vulture.
It is just unfortunate that this theory about the duckbill dinosaur has gained such acceptance because honestly there are big problems with it.
About the pack behaviour of animals - it is very difficult to ascertain whether a animal is a solitary hunter or a pack hunter by just looking at fossil remains.
Case in point - consider the panther and the lion. Panthers are shy solitary hunters, while lions typically live in a pride and do hunt in packs. However, the fossil remains won't indicate anything about this.
The brain of T. rex seems to indicate it had an excellent sense of sight. Smell and sense of balance, too.
No soft tissues of T. rex have ever been found. All we know is the average size of the brain of T.rex, and very little about the prominent parts of that brain and its function. So I think it is too much of a stretch to say that the brain of T.rex indicates that it had an excellent sense of sight, smell etc.
No, you do not fight AIDS by education. It must be fought by giving the people on the ground real opportunity to develop their lives - if the prostitutes had opportunities to do something else more profitable or safer, they would do it.
In Africa many men do not wear condoms even though most are aware of AIDS and how it is spread via unsafe sex. There have been numerous accounts of men refusing to wear condoms provided to them by prostitutes despite repeated pleas and despite documentation indicating the dangers of unsafe sex.
Unemployment, limited opportunities for growth etc are some of the primary reasons why AIDS spreads as fast as it does among the world's poor.
The $100 laptop is a silly idea of a naive group of scientists at MIT who know nothing about poverty and have no comprehension of the problems faced by the poor. I think it is perhaps best if those who decide to help the poor using 'innovative' means would first spend a little time living with the poor - they will soon learn that computing power (meaning the ability to speedily solve a algorithm or the ability to store vast sets of data) is not what the poor are looking for or even need.
The poor need basic things - like, for example, better wages, protection from extortionists and thugs, a place to sleep, enough rest, clean surroundings, medicine, schools for their children (yes, I know there are schools for the poor, but it is also true that most of these schools are terribly managed, funded and staffed and do very little to empower the poor).
Slashdot Mirror
Is history "forcefed" too? Any reading of history will indicate that man has had a very violent past.
Would you not teach your children the bloody history of man? and is that the same as advocating violence? I hope you understand what I am getting at.
The Bible does include an account of history (you can dispute that if you want, but that claim is not entirely without substance) and history includes the good and the bad parts. Also, history unlike games, are not read for entertainment but for awareness. So from that point of view, it makes very little sense and it may even cause harm to hide those aspects of history which are not very palatable. But that is again not to mean that violence is advocated or encouraged.
As a guide to moral behavior, on the other hand, it is allegedly the gold standard. Why should it not be evaluated as such?
Let me repeat what I said:
The Bible is not a single book - it is a collection of books. To illustrate this better - lets say a few hundred years from now, someone decides to put together various books, writings and sayings (the constitution of the US, a few of the major poetry of the time, a few writings by the major personalities of the time, words of wisdom utterred by many of these same people, and then a compilation of historical documents of our current age), and then decides to call it a "Bible2", would you then look at the historical account of Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky and state that this Bible2 advocates that as the standard of behaviour?
The Bible is comprised of history, poems, words of wisdom, moral instructions, prophesy etc. So when you do evaluate the Bible against, say another book which lists moral instructions, you must look at the part of the Bible which lays down moral instructions and use that for the comparison. You wouldn't compare it with portions of the Bible which refers to prophesy for instance, or history, or poetry.
Consider the book of Revelation - it is a prophetic book, not an account of history. One the other hand, the book of Exodus, Numbers, Kings etc are historical texts for the most part. The Book of Proverbs, the Book of James etc are more into moral instructions. The Song of Songs is a romantic, erotic book written by a man about/and to his lover.
I don't know why people keep bringing up these comparisons:
a) "???? Movie" and the Bible
b) "???? Music lyric" and the Bible
c) "???? Game" and the Bible
Bible is not a work meant for entertainment. Bible is a collection of books - a mix of history/biography, song, teachings, sayings, words of wisdom etc. When history is written down, the ugly parts will also get written. The Bible is not advocating that Lot's actions be considered appropriate. Your assertion that the Bible glorifies rape and violence doesn't quite hold up.
Comparing a Bible to a game/any work of entertainment makes no sense. Its as absurd as comparing the Bible to a building.
No body says that the Bible is for entertainment. Bible is a mix of history, sayings / teachings of men considered great in their time, songs/poetry etc. Bible is a religious texts, if you must compare it, compare it to other religious texts.
Comparing GTA to the Bible is like comparing apples to carts.
I have serious problems with the QT licensing model. I perfectly understand that they want to charge commercial developers for using their products. Heck, I won't even mind if they don't have a free version. But what I find absolutely intolerable are the terms of their commercial license.
The commercial license is tied to a named developer. That is, if I have a developer Dave who needs a QT license, I must buy a named license for Dave. It does not matter if I have unused licenses of QT lying around (which other developers don't need and are not even installed), I must still buy a license for Dave.
If Dave needs to go on a holiday or just dies and if I need Bill to complete the project using Dave's license, then the terms of the license prevents me from doing that. The license must be transferred over to Bill's name and this can be done only after 6 months! This is completely insane! Why would a company purchase a several-thousand-dollar license for a developer and face the prospect of having to purchase yet another license if the developer leaves the company / is unable to work on the project / is promoted to a non-coding role etc?
QT's commercial license fees are very high, and separate licenses are needed for each platform - that is, I need to buy QT license separately for Linux, Windows etc. Now, I perfectly understand that Trolltech can charge what they want as it is their product, but I do feel that they have made the product as unattractive an option as possible and this has resulted in huge losses to them. But again, that is their problem not mine.
I had the opportunity to review cross platform GUI toolkits for a huge project we were working on - the project was a very large public transportation project for Scandinavia and we needed a lot of licenses; I opted against QT (thereby denying them a huge order) because of these very unattractive terms in their licenses. I have had similar experiences with another project for a Finnish client as well. In both cases, I felt that QT was definitely the best framework for the job, but the licensing terms completely wiped out any of the technical advantages.
The primary problem with the QT commercial license is the fact that it makes it very difficult to bring in developers on a contract into a project for a short assignment. It becomes very difficult to reuse this license with yet another developer once the first developer's contract ends or if the first developer chooses to go elsewhere.
IMHO, Trolltech has an excellent product, but their legal and marketing departments needs to be overhauled.
Well, he is asking a bunch of guys who might just know the answer to his question. That is what research is about in anycase - asking the right questions to the right people. Why should his professors mind?
What I hate more than DRM are the other stupid things the content producers have inflicted on us:
1. The stupid system of region coding on DVDs.
2. Taxes or surcharges on media such as CDs and DVDs under the faulty assumption that all media is used for pirating
3. Advertising which cannot be skipped in DVDs
How did you arrive at this bit of reasoning?
There are many problems with the current DRM implementations; all of them place unreasonable restrictions on fair use; also they don't honour the legal requirement that content past a certain age passes into the public domain. These are faults of the system and must be corrected. Of that there is no doubt.
And I certainly don't think it is acceptable for companies to renege on any of the legal requirements. What I am against is this general perception on slashdot that it is perfectly acceptable behaviour to use content which one is not *legally* entitled to and anything that can prevent this *illegal* use is painted as the handiwork of the devil himself.
There is a reason why DRM exists - it exists because there aren't enough honest people on this sorry planet. If DRM was done right, those who purchase content should be able to do pretty much anything they want with the content short of pirating it for others and at the same time, the system should prevent pirated copies from being used. I think that is fair.
That is a separate discussion altogether. You are talking about copywrited content lapsing into the public domain after a particular period. There are existing laws for that. If the DRM implementations are trying to circumvent those laws, then the content producers who use such implementation must be taken to court and made to pay. I am sure a DRM implementation can be developed which adequately addresses this requirement for lapsing the content into public domain.
Whether the suits at Time Warner / Disney / Sony make money or not.. and whether they own a maybach or not is irrelevant. If they sell a product, they have the freedom to charge whatever they want for their product and you as a customer have the right NOT to buy their product. What part of this is confusing? Do you need statistics for this?
Why do people assume that DRM is a mechanism to ensure that artists don't starve? DRM is not an anti-starvation mechanism.
To repeat what I stated in another post - if you as a customer have purchased music from a company/artist then you should have the right to do what the hell you want to do with it. That I agree with completely. But I cannot see the point about being allowed to pirate music / content.
If you choose to use someone else's product / creation, and if the seller asks you to agree to a contract that you won't resell / redestribute that product, then you have the option of saying yes or no to that contract and if you choose to say no, you automatically loose the right to use that product. If you don't agree to the price quoted by the seller and if negotiation is not an option, then you can opt not to purchase that product.
But having said no to the contract and having decided not to purchase that product, you have no legal right to use that product without the seller's consent. DRM is a mechanism which uses technology in an attempt to ensure compliance to this contract. The seller does have the right to ensure that his products don't get used without his consent. I consider this perfectly valid.
What I completely dislike about current DRM implementations is that it places unreasonable restrictions on even fair use. And therefore I am opposed to *current* implementations of DRM.
I am not American and I am very well travelled.
Talking of Asian and Russian superstars, yes, there are many such people. But what is your point exactly? Is it that you can make a lot of money without clamping down on piracy or are you trying to claim that piracy is not bad because some people can still get rich?
My arguements were not about that at all. It is just about the principle of paying what the seller asks. if you don't agree with the seller's price, you are welcome not to purchase from them. You are under no obligation to buy overpriced products, there are other artists willing to give you their music for much less.
You cannot hold the hypocritical view, in the name of Freedom (Libre), that it is ok to use someone else's work without their consent just because you don't think you can't afford to or don't want to pay for their consent.
Simply put, DRM is a draconian system in place to increase the difficulty of using an artist/someone else's work without their consent in a manner which they didn't consent to.
DRM is a contract on the usage of a product enforced by a mechanism which includes technology. You can opt to not use that product, if you don't agree to the contract. But you cannot both use the product and not agree to the contract.
Your point is about excessive pricing. If you believe that these music companies are making too much profit (you are right), then campaign for lower pricing or stop buying their products.. or support indie artists.
Your arguements are not against DRM, is it? it is just against the obscene profits these music companies make, am I right? Or are you saying that piracy should be allowed (that is DRM should not be allowed) because music companies are making too much money? sort off like diamond theft should be allowed because DeBeers is making too much profit?
Its all fine and great, but this fine DRM alternative called 'Freedom' doesn't pay salaries and also it does not account for the millions who like to get all music / video free (not as in Libre, but as in beer).
The reason we are losing our freedom is because some people cannot be bothered to pay for the content they use, so companies come up with these measures such as DRM (which we all hate) as a knee jerk reaction to combat piracy.
If more people were honest and paid for the stuff they used, we would have more freedom. The same applies to other things as well: our houses / cars / offices need expensive anti-theft systems because people cannot be trusted to be honest. These anti-theft measures just make it so inconvenient, but there is no real alternative.
Those who had the freedom, were not responsible. and hence we have neither the freedom nor the responsibility. Quite sad really.
The ideal alternative to DRM is a technology which ensures that content is not pirated, but yet ensures that those who legally purchased the content can use it anyway they want (Libre).
However, such an alternative does not exist (no 'Freedom' is not that alternaive) and as long as it does not exist, media companies will thrust these unpalatable DRM measures on the rest of us even those of us who prefers to pay for the content we use.
Some questions to ponder:
1. Are you still able to get pirated content?
2. Can you still buy CDs and DVDs which you can use on your system and rip without any problems?
3. Can you still play region-restricted DVDs on your system by using easily downloadable apps like VLC on your computer?
4. Can you run applications on your computer which were not 'signed' by a powerful company?
5. Can you run operating systems on your computer which the bios does not recognize as a 'Trusted' system?
6. Can you buy music and other stereo equipment with input and outputs which are not encrypted (other than the speakers, ofcourse)?
If the answer to atleast 2 of these questions is "Yes", then DRM has not yet run its course. If DRM is really running amok, none of this would be possible.
Yes, DRM is becoming more and more widepread, but it is nowhere near as widespread as it can be. One of the reasons why this has not happenned is because of the good work done by organizations such as the FSF. I am deeply grateful.
Having said that, I don't condone piracy and I believe people should learn to pay for the content they use.
In my humble opinion, FSF has a role to play as does DRM.
FSF balances the madness of DRM by limiting the type of restrictions content producers can impose on users. Without FSF, DRM will completely run amok and destroy any bit of freedom out there.
DRM exists because there are too many people out there willing to use music and video they didn't buy. To counter it, we have these drastic and very user-hostile measures (DRM) which makes it difficult for people to pirate content, but has the unhealthy side-effect that it punishes even those who rightfully purchased that content. The ideal alternative would be to have a technology which prevents piracy but yet does not hamper legitimate use of purchased content - unfortunately, at this stage such a technology doesn't exist; IMHO, whoever comes up with such a technology will make loads of money.
I think FSF and DRM are both needed, but I look forward to the day when one can purchase content and use the content without all the limitations DRM places even on legal use. I don't know if such a day will ever come. I am not too optimistic.
You have a real neat product - if you include support for importing and exporting from tools such as Visio, then you are damn near unbeatable. Very cool!
Prem
I would prefer to carry on this conversation elsewhere since it is way off topic - email me on pkphilip at yahoo.com if you don't mind.
hey, your xenophobia and deep rooted bias is showing!
Godhra was not a "legitimate" reaction at all. How can you consider the brutal rape and murder of approximately 3000 innocent people "legitimate"? Your sense of right and wrong are completely messed up, pal. (NOTE: If you want to dispute the 3000 number, please go ahead, but the best reports filed by the NGOs independently indicate that number)
Also, haven't you been read the investigative reports on the train incident? - there is nothing to indicate that the train was burned by the muslims as you seem so keen to point out. This was proven by multiple teams - by an independent group of engineers as well who stated quite categorically that no liquid inflammable substance was used in the train.
If you would rather believe the "investigative" reports filed by the Gujarat government - a government widely regarded to be extremely sectarian and which has no respect for the fundamental rights of citizens, then that is upto you. Please also remember that the Gujarat government is considered complicit in the massacre that followed even by the Supreme Court of India which indicted it. Also, the court moved cases out of Gujarat for fear of bias - another first in the history of India.
I am an Indian and make no bones of the fact that a lot of the terrorism around the world is perpetrated by those who do it in the name of islam - and this is something the muslims must address without hiding under the dubious claims that it is just a minority who is involved in terrorism (this can be disputed because the minority actually carrying out the terrorist attacks are funded by the majority who participate in fund collection drives etc).
But that does not mean that I can look away when Hindus in India behave like animals and people such as yourself who should know better have their heads buried up their ass. What happenned in Gujarat is unforgiveable and it was the work of hindu fundamentalists - there is no question of that, so please stop trying to white wash something we should all be ashamed off.
Carcasses of animals can quite often be found lying in groups in a small area following events such as flooding when animals retreat to whatever high-ground they can find. Also, if carcasses are floated down a river, they can get stuck around rocks or obstacles. So there can be multiple explanations for why bones of animals can be found together.
We do have one piece of evidence that a T-Rex tried this with a duckbill dinosaur; one skeleton was found with partially-healed holes in its backbone, and the holes were exactly the right shape and size for T-Rex teeth. The fact the wound was partially healed proves the bite was made while the duckbill was still alive.
I am familiar with this finding. Some points which you might want to consider:
1. This so-called "evidence" of the duckbill dinosaur is shaky at best. There are numerous problems with the theory that this dinosaur must have been attacked and injured by a T.Rex.
a. The injury, as you have rightly pointed out, was on the backbone. This could have been caused by any number of animals, falling trees, falls from high-ground, fights between other animals from the same species (yes, even herbivorous animals sometimes attack each other) etc. The fact that the bones were roughly the size of a T.Rex tooth could be just a coincidence. It is similar to stating that a scratch seen on your car could have been caused only by a knife wielded by a particular group of people.
b. T.Rex has a mouth brisling with teeth and they are all of different sizes. Also, there is no standard size for a T.Rex - juveniles and full grown adults will all vary in size.
2. Many animals which depend on carrion do have powerful limbs. Case in point is the carrion vulture.
It is just unfortunate that this theory about the duckbill dinosaur has gained such acceptance because honestly there are big problems with it.
About the pack behaviour of animals - it is very difficult to ascertain whether a animal is a solitary hunter or a pack hunter by just looking at fossil remains.
Case in point - consider the panther and the lion. Panthers are shy solitary hunters, while lions typically live in a pride and do hunt in packs. However, the fossil remains won't indicate anything about this.
The brain of T. rex seems to indicate it had an excellent sense of sight. Smell and sense of balance, too.
No soft tissues of T. rex have ever been found. All we know is the average size of the brain of T.rex, and very little about the prominent parts of that brain and its function. So I think it is too much of a stretch to say that the brain of T.rex indicates that it had an excellent sense of sight, smell etc.
Glad to know that you post the exact same comment twice in two threads:
/ 1310255/
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/06
No, you do not fight AIDS by education. It must be fought by giving the people on the ground real opportunity to develop their lives - if the prostitutes had opportunities to do something else more profitable or safer, they would do it.
In Africa many men do not wear condoms even though most are aware of AIDS and how it is spread via unsafe sex. There have been numerous accounts of men refusing to wear condoms provided to them by prostitutes despite repeated pleas and despite documentation indicating the dangers of unsafe sex.
Unemployment, limited opportunities for growth etc are some of the primary reasons why AIDS spreads as fast as it does among the world's poor.
The $100 laptop is a silly idea of a naive group of scientists at MIT who know nothing about poverty and have no comprehension of the problems faced by the poor. I think it is perhaps best if those who decide to help the poor using 'innovative' means would first spend a little time living with the poor - they will soon learn that computing power (meaning the ability to speedily solve a algorithm or the ability to store vast sets of data) is not what the poor are looking for or even need.
The poor need basic things - like, for example, better wages, protection from extortionists and thugs, a place to sleep, enough rest, clean surroundings, medicine, schools for their children (yes, I know there are schools for the poor, but it is also true that most of these schools are terribly managed, funded and staffed and do very little to empower the poor).