That would interfere with people quietly using their phones (e.g. for text messages) and wouldn't prevent me from hearing non-phone conversations. On the train or plane, I usually want to concentrate on my reading without being distracted by other people's voices (whether they are on the phone or not).
There's going to be a big market for noise-canceling headphones.
I already wear earplugs on the train: they block the noise from the train itself quite effectively but don't muffle voices as effectively as I'd like.
(I think they are designed to attenuate low frequencies.)
Has anyone seen earplugs designed specifically to block human voices as well as low-frequency noise?
The analogy of a computer program to a player piano seems apt, since both are basically sets of instructions for a machine.
Hmm---that's debatable. I would argue that a player piano roll is analogous to a strict data file rather than an executable. The player piano contains the executable code in hardware and just reads the roll and plays the notes verbatim.
my opinion, morally it's quite wrong to try to watch something somebody produced (a movie), which he has not allowed you to watch (by using an un-authorized decoder).
I completely disagree---as long as we are talking about something produced for publication.
If you produce something purely for private viewing, that's one thing.
But if you publish it, everyone should be able to watch/read/hear it. The only justification for copyright is to promote the public good by encouraging authors (artists, etc.) to produce more work for publication and in the long term to augment the public domain and our culture. Those who are not willing to let anyone view or study the work---with fair use rights, without DRM and on the platform of choice---do not deserve to benefit from copyright and it should be revoked when they attempt to impose such restrictions.
It is not your RIGHT to reverse the technology that makes it OS-specific and distribute those means to others.
Morally it is your right to do so. Legally it may not be---because the big software and media companies have corrupted governments to extend copyright and patent law beyond what is in the public interest.
I agree that ll that other stuff (thinking "off-line", reading, etc.) is an important part of programming. I should have said If you don't end up typing, you're not programming.
BTW, I don't disparage graphic design and related work---only the Visual Basic nonsense.
To get a replacement copy of Windows XP, PC users will need to send off their receipt and complete a witness statement, revealing where they bought their knock-off software.
So the real purpose of this programme is to get consumers to shaft their friendly, local computer stores.
But, the thing is, if it turned out that Monet hadn't painted that painting after all, I'd still be prepared to pay the same amount of money, because it doesn't really matter to me whether it was painted by Monet or by some unknown artist - I still like the painting and that's what it's worth to me as a piece of art.
That could well be true at the lower end of the price range for art, but I doubt it would apply at the high end (e.g. Monet)---where art prices are based mainly on speculation. If you bought a fake Monet for the price of a real Monet, you would never be able to get a similar price for it if you sold it later (for example, if you needed the money or your tastes changed).
But the prices are going down and they will eventually become reasonable things to have at home. And then traceability will be built in, so governments and corporations will be able to identify the source of anonymous printouts.
Slashdot Mirror
That link returns "Error 500 HTTP Web Server: Unknown Command Exception".
That would interfere with people quietly using their phones (e.g. for text messages) and wouldn't prevent me from hearing non-phone conversations. On the train or plane, I usually want to concentrate on my reading without being distracted by other people's voices (whether they are on the phone or not).
That's too broad an attack. It interferes with quiet texters as well as noisy talkers, and with passengers as well as other drivers.
I hardly ever use my mobile, but on a plane I imagine it would be really useful (Hi Honey - I'll be in late, or booking rooms or whatever)
True: I use mine regularly to advise my wife of my train time---by text message, not by talking.
I already wear earplugs on the train: they block the noise from the train itself quite effectively but don't muffle voices as effectively as I'd like. (I think they are designed to attenuate low frequencies.)
Has anyone seen earplugs designed specifically to block human voices as well as low-frequency noise?
So much of that $0.66 per track difference would have gone to the artists!
Hmm---that's debatable. I would argue that a player piano roll is analogous to a strict data file rather than an executable. The player piano contains the executable code in hardware and just reads the roll and plays the notes verbatim.
I completely disagree---as long as we are talking about something produced for publication. If you produce something purely for private viewing, that's one thing.
But if you publish it, everyone should be able to watch/read/hear it. The only justification for copyright is to promote the public good by encouraging authors (artists, etc.) to produce more work for publication and in the long term to augment the public domain and our culture. Those who are not willing to let anyone view or study the work---with fair use rights, without DRM and on the platform of choice---do not deserve to benefit from copyright and it should be revoked when they attempt to impose such restrictions.
There was a big fracas in the 19th century about player piano rolls.
I'm only pointing out that the /. powers that be have already thought about it and made a decision. I'm not saying it's right or wrong.
What would happen to the internet?
Morally it is your right to do so. Legally it may not be---because the big software and media companies have corrupted governments to extend copyright and patent law beyond what is in the public interest.
Why would you want an encoder? It's bad enough that proprietary algorithms and DRM exist---we shouldn't promote them by encoding to them.
This is covered in the Slashdot FAQ under Slashdot should cache pages to prevent the Slashdot Effect!.
BTW, I don't disparage graphic design and related work---only the Visual Basic nonsense.
That would require actually working hard.
To get a replacement copy of Windows XP, PC users will need to send off their receipt and complete a witness statement, revealing where they bought their knock-off software.
So the real purpose of this programme is to get consumers to shaft their friendly, local computer stores.
Unless you pour it in someone's nose.
You'd need to write drivers for /dev/paintbrush!
That could well be true at the lower end of the price range for art, but I doubt it would apply at the high end (e.g. Monet)---where art prices are based mainly on speculation. If you bought a fake Monet for the price of a real Monet, you would never be able to get a similar price for it if you sold it later (for example, if you needed the money or your tastes changed).
But the prices are going down and they will eventually become reasonable things to have at home. And then traceability will be built in, so governments and corporations will be able to identify the source of anonymous printouts.
(cliché) Lightning never hits the same place twice.
Tracing a printout to a specific printer (e.g. yours at home) can often be practically the same as tracing it to an individual.
No, I'm considering it too.
Maybe you did it on purpose, but that's a funny typo: represen-tit-ives.