Combine a G5 type thing with a Wacom Cinteq so that we can have some seriously scary tablet computer stuff for artists? I mean, the G5 is almost completely a Tablet computer, it just lacks a way to point directly at the screen. So why not do overkill? The only problem is that if you straight out combine the prices, it gets pretty sick.
Re:The Monitor is for the new iMac!
on
iMac G5 Porn Roundup
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I suspect most PC owners here would not buy a machine from a manufacturer that prohibited the opening of the case.
Actually at least -some- PC manufacturers definitely void the warranty based on opening the case. Anything from those funky self-destructing stickers to case intrusion switches can detect this, and they make way too much use of them.
I'm looking at this computer here at work. Not sure what brand it is, as that information has all been removed *Grr*. Might be an off brand. But it has a big sticker on the back of it that reads: "WARNING: All guarentees and warranties are void if case is opened or main BIOS settings are modified in any way. This system contains modification-detection technology. NO USER SERVICABLE PARTS INSIDE. Please contact your dealer for service." This sticker has not one, but THREE little holographic self-detsructing fingers sealing the main siade of the case up, and there are two on the backside side of the case, and two on each side of the case between the front cover and the sides.
Admittedly, this is a system bought by the US Federal Government, but still. I've done work on computers in private homes that had the same deal. It's scary to think about.
At the same time, it makes sense. Most PC Owners honestly wouldn't know a DIMM from a CF card, let alone how to safely change even a PCI card. The vast majority of them are more likely to break something in trying. They just want a computer that works for what they want it to do, and not have to worry. Plus, if the manufacturer can convince people that they -must- return it to their service shops for service, then they can make a killing on labor.
Honestly, it's VERY nice to see a computer of any type that ENCOURAGES ease of opening and meddling even for the people who are not completely tech savvy.
People want to take their music everywhere, and get it fast. So they want portability, internet downloads, etc. But the folks with the product want a business model that makes a lot of money, so any way they can enforce anything that complicates copying, porting, or anything else will be on their To Do List.
So I end up wondering... With the business they want, and with self-destructing DVD's already a common thing, plus time-limited DRM's, how long until we are reduced to the age of "renting" everything... even that which we purchase fully?
And then, on another front, how long before people start realizing that if people just want to hear the music, Digital-Analog-Digital conversion completely strips DRM... Then how long before some crazy laws come out that make that illegal, and anything that can "Facilitate" such functions illegal... so no computers will have line in anymore, and posession of microphones will result in a still fine and jail term?
Sooo... what if we throw the information through a simple (weak) encryption method, then scatter it throughout ID3v2 tags in not-normally-used frames. Depending on the size of complete chunks of information, you may be able to fit relevant things in a single tag (U:P combos), or even have some songs with index tags for combining the information chunks.
With this method, it doesn't matter if the OS sees the entire disk, because it still just contains MP3's. That happen to have some weird stuff in the ID3v2 tags. Not foolproof, but it would definitely pass cursory inspection.
However, like I said, I am more interested in white-hat ideas for introducing new stuff. Like device to device stuff as mentioned a few comments down.:)
I'm not certain how that would work out. After all, the player shows up as a USB Disk device to computers. Does it have a way to gets its own IP Address and have a network stack?
About all I could think of maybe working similar is to throw the web server software on the drive and run it on the machine it is connected to.
Hmmm... Weather Balloon, tank of helium, good tie line, a good rig, and a clear day (Or a stormy one if you're feeling like Ben). Seems much less dangerous for the camera than a kite, honestly (Unless some neighborhood twerp has a pellet rifle).
I also noticed that one poster was pointing out that high altitude photography sucks, and everything looks boring from a plane. Well, yeah, it does. That's because of the extreme elevation. But get something up there without being at the altitude that a plane is at, and you can get some pretty cool shots.
With custom coded firmware being made for a device that looks like Just Another Hard Drive to your computer when plugged in, how long will it be before we end up with some odd - and possibly not-good - tweaks to the system?
Obviously, some tweaks could be useful, depending on what the firmware can do with the onboard hardware. I'd love to hear some ideas on those... How to make a media device into something more than a media device, from odd screen displays to any number of other things.
But then what about possible tweaks that could be harmful? Put an autorun file on the drive, have it search the computer it is connected to for something, copy it to the device, and then have the device hide the info in some way?
"Oh, no, sir, I was just hooking it up to the computer so I could listen to MP3's over the better speakers. More relaxing work environment makes for better productivity."
I skimmed this post Translation: I didn't bother to read what you wrote.
but two points stick out and basically nullify anything else you're saying. Translation: And because I disagree with 0.3% of it, you are wrong.
Do you work for the RIAA? You're using the same double-talk that the people who work for them tend to: The post referred to royalty money collected in the past year, not the financial status of record labels. However, you point out that this has nothing to do with the record companies.
CD sales might be down (they're not, but let's just run with it) How's about we don't run with it? Let's stop quoting fables and touting them as facts. Even with little inline disclaimers.
Regardless of the failures in your response, there were a few VALID points that I was trying to make, that you in your infinite wisdom decided to completely overlook.
1: You calculated the "Each artist gets" as an average. Gads, don't I wish that the world worked that way! The total amount of income in the US divided by the number of people capable of earning it is $36,764/year. I know a LOT of people wish they were making that much right now. And according to your logic, everybody is. There's not some people making 19 billion a year, and others making diddly. Unfortunately, that logic doesn't work, because there ARE people making millions per year, while others make $5.25/hour. The ame goes for the artists who are registered with BMI. SOme make a lot, some don't. You can't just divide it evenly.
2: The original post was pointing out that RIAA is saying "The music industry is hurting because of P2P!" and that even though there are claims the industry is hurting, the BMI royalties (Which is probably a better indicator of the industry than other sources, since it doesn't have random cuts) are going up. You yourself pointed out that the industry is not just CD sales, but also radio plays, jukebox plays, etc. I then pointed out that the reason the music industry may be hurting for CD sales (Which, as you pointed out, they are not) is due to the decline in the economy and the fact that more people have less money for things such as CD's.
3: I pointed out that getting the money into the hands of the people who made the product needs to happen. You naturally assumed (incorrectly) that I was saying that EVERYBODY had this problem, including BMI. You know what they say about the word "Assume". Just take out the "me" part in this case, because it's all "u". The fact that somebody does it right does not take away the fact that others do it wrong, so to speak. And it's the ones that do it wrong that are hurting everybody.
There are quite a few other valid points that I make, for the people who RTFC. Please consider this in the future before you decide that disagreeing with 0.3% of a comment invalidates the whole thing.
Soooo... Your original post actually had nothing whatsoever to do with anything? *confused*.
The post that you were responding to was pointing out that even though the music industry claims that they are hurting because of P2P, they are reporting increases in various numbers that indicate the opposite. Nobody ever said that artists were making millions per year. They just pointed out that the dollar amount going to artists was going up (By 7.5% in fact), and that makes it more difficult to say "The music industry is hurting because of P2P!"
Unfortunately, their quantification of "The music industry is hurting" seems to be based on "Well, we sold this much, but we THINK we should have sold THIS much more." and "Everybody who has a copy of this song/album that didn't pay for it is (insert price of CD here) lost revenue!"
Now, I guess one could say that more artists are coming on the bandwagon, and so that number should be going up much faster to accomodate them. Thus implying that there is less for everybody. But forgive me when I don't have a bleeding heart for this issue either. Did we mention that the economy, at least in the US, stinks worse than a roadkill skunk in Florida after 2 weeks in the sun and humidity?
As such, summary and from personal experience, which is likely to be duplicated:
1) "There are fewer CD sales! (It must be because of P2P!)"... Well, I used to buy CD's. When I had money, I'd buy an average of 5-6 CD's per month. Now I don't have much money, thank you US economy, and what I do have is going towards more important things like housing and food and utilities. CD's are the last thing on my mind.
2) "Every P2P download is a lost sale." Uh, no. I listen to obscure music that doesn't play on the radio. Not to mention that I don't want to invest hours listening to the radio mindlessly hoping that the song I want to check will come on. So I download it to see how it is. And well over 99% of the time, I delete it shortly thereafter. But according to them, I'm a lost sale!! $17.99 lost to them for each song that I downloaded (And no longer have). As if I'd spend $17.99 to find out that I want to throw the CD away. ("But that under 1% of the time, you're stealing!!" I still wouldn't buy the record for $17.99. I suppose I could download it from something online like iTunes, but then it's not worth the cost, hassle, and cost of my time. But fine, I'll concede that anyway. (Counts) So the record companies have lost $15 in iTunes downloads on me. Oh, and Apple has lost hundreds on an iPod on me, because I burned the 15 MP3s to an MP3 CD so I could listen to them in my car. Riiiiight.)
I don't think the current system works. I don't think the theft is a good thing. But honestly, if I could pay $0.50 for a song, and know that $0.25 is going to the artist, and $0.25 is going to infrastructure, and it's not bogged down in DRM, then that would be a hell of a lot easier, and finally worth my time as compared to P2P. Heck, at that point, I'd STILL P2P and delete 99%, but I'd get the paid-for versions of the songs that I keep.
So, what did your math actually accomplish? I mean, even it's not accurate, because it's not a matter of $xxxx per artist, it's more a matter of "These 5% of artists get $xxx,xxx and the rest get $xx or $0, since they are still busy waiting for their sales to exceed baseline limits." And it fails to mention that with that royalties value, hundreds times more than that was actually transferred in media sales. A tiny chunk of that went to materials cost. A tiny chunk went to distribution and retail salespeople, advertisements, etc. A tiny chunk went to royalties (Sent to the actual artists). And a huge chunk went into the pockets of the multimillionaires who run the label companies. Find me any artist who makes a lot of money, and I can almost guarentee their label makes more off them then they make of themself.
THAT is what needs fixing. Getting the money into the hands of the people who actually PRODUCED the product.
But if the games are targeting "Quantity sales at lower volume" in the low income countries, then they should be affordable to everybody. Even the people who work at Mccy D's in China. (Note: I actually work as a contractor for the DHS. Still broke, but not as bad as could be.)
They want to make sure that more people are ingrained with the "need" for Windows, so that they will keep using it. Almost like a drug addiction. So they came out with Windows XP Starter Edition, in an effort to target the low end markets. However, as a Google News Search shows, XP Starter Edition is a bust... Sure, they are selling it "cheap", but honestly, according to reviews of features, it's worse than crippled shareware that is given away for free.
Overall, I'm happy that people in those countries will not be starting life addicted to the drug Microsoft sells, and start with a clean slate. And when 2 billion users in China are using Linux, maybe we'll get more games that run under it.;)
That FAQ lists several "Alternative" Free Email providers with at least one GB of data storage that "Don't invade your privacy like GMail does".
So I poked at two of them.
Aventure-Mail: No longer accepting free accounts.
Walla!: This one scares me. From the Walla TOS: To enable an upgrade to a 1 gigabyte account, Walla! may require additional information from individuals who already subscribe to a Walla! account.
Okay... So I'm giving them more personal information.. Not too bad. They want to "Target their marketing to what I am interested in." Fine. Then I reach the next scary thing:
Walla!Mail does not use or analyze the actual text in an e-mail message to select which ads to distribute to users, nor does any human read your email to target ads or related information to you without your consent. (Okay, so none of the ads they show me are at all related to the content of the email.) In addition, our automatic link creator highlights predetermined keywords within an e-mail. These words are not personalized and you have the option, at your discretion, to follow these links to paid content. (Wait... I thought you just said you didn't look in the email to target ads... But it looks like not only do you look in the email, but you actually CHANGE THE CONTENT of the email to put inline ads in the email.)
Now, maybe I'm missing something here... GMail "analyzes" content. Yep. means if it sees "new car" and "ford" in the message, and doesn't see "sucks" in the message, it might show an advert for Ford cars on the right side, and maybe car loans. If the word "sucks" or "horrible" or various other negative words are in the message, they won't even put in ads.
Walla, instead of putting those advertisements inobtrusively on the righthand side, apparently reserves the right to turn every incident of the string " Ford " into a hyperlink to www.ford.com, or various other things. You could be getting an email about "Ford sucks. Ford makes nothing but lemons. Ford transmissions fall apart so quickly, and Ford's paint jobs peel like crazy." and every single mention of the word Ford would be converted to a link by Walla saying "Come buy our wonderful Fords!"... And this is BETTER?!
So how come everybody is screaming bloody murder about intelligent keyword checking that puts unobtrusive advertisements on the far right of the page (And mind you, I HATE HATE HATE spam, and I ignore 99.9% of all banner ads on pages, but the Ads in GMail have actually led to interesting and useful stuff sometimes), and the "official solution" is to have -the actual content of the incoming mail changed by adding hyperlinks to advertisements-?! It may SOUND scary, but it's because this world seems to suffer from Panic Syndrome.
I consider GMail's advertisements to be the least intrusive and most user-friendly of every single free email site I have seen. "But they can see if I'm sending a gmail user something about bombs!" Um... Sure... heard of Carnivore? Think they can't do that elsewhere? And why the heck are you sending something about bombs anyway?? Are you sending things to anybody that you don't want automated systems to use keywords in your email to show the recipient advertisements? Then don't send it to Walla either. They'll change the keywords in your email into advert links.
Honestly, it's all a ruddy witch hunt. And if anybody sends me one of those pre-made replies, I'll send right back to them the facts about those "other solutions" that the reply speaks so highly of. And then I will remove them from my address book. Nobody means so much to me that I -HAVE- to get in touch with them, and if they are that paranoid about what they are writing, then why am I receiving it?
I'm halfway wondering if there is a good way to combine this with floating data storage in such a way that we could claim 3 GB of data on the GMFS. The main downside that I can see if the likelihood of severe delays in getting the data back when you want it. But hey, we have FDS (Floating Data System), and GMFS (GMail File System)... Why Not FDGMFS (Um, yeah)? Like I said before, it probably COULD be done. Doesn't mean that it SHOULD be done. But it won't stop somebody from trying. (Heads off to try.)
Somebody will do it... Doesn't mean it SHOULD be done. But still, does it accomodate the recent change in the login proceedure and possible future changes well?
The BSA is a bunch of bull shit attorneys akin to the RIAA...
...who are Really Idiotic A**hole Attorneys, and also similar to the Mega Putz Attorney's Association? I think they may also be related to Masters of In^H^Hexpensive Crud with Really Obsolete Security and Oversized Feature Traits.
(Sorry, it's 3 am, I'm at work with nothing to do, and I didn't get any sleep recently. *sheepish grin*)
The article based this on a BSA survey of installed software
That right there is probably the best indicator of an issue. I remember taking surveys online that were "Grab bag" surveys (With places like Synovate, NPD and such) which asked "What software packages do you have installed?". It occurs to me that a lot of the people who sign up to take these surveys are the folks who actually have the money to have time to take them, and thus had the money to buy the software. So, if the sample group for the survey had a high concentration of people who actually DID buy Photoshop (Say, 250/1000), and then they interpolate that to "The whole PC Population", that could come up with some really inflated numbers.
The entire issue simply reinforces that the numbers have no way whatsoever to be accurate, and should really be stated as "Estimates with a margin of error of +/- 500%". There is absolutely no accurate method for getting those numbers..
Please speak up if you have another formula to suggest, because while it may not be perfect, it certainly does reflect the situation.
I can't suggest another formula, but I can point out a problem with the above one.
(software installed - software shipped)*price of software = revenue lost
Two basic problems I see. First, large site licenses mean "Software shipped = 50" and "Software installed = 5000"... So does that mean 4950 * $xxx in losses?
Secondly, unless the software reports back without user permission/request, or the illegal-copy user decides to go register the software, how do they know how many copies are installed? And even if 1 'pirate' registers, there are likely 20 legit users who don't, so that means "Software installed = 1" and "Software Shipped = 20". Does that mean that the losses are suddenly gains because 19 people just gave money for nothing?
Honestly, without some foolproof phone home system (Make it work even on non-networked computers with no modem!!), I see no way whatsoever to get accurate numbers to plug into any method whatsoever of calculating this, meaning that any statistic put forward in this situation is really "An Estimate with margin of error of +/- 500%".
June 201x, In recent news, software manufacturers have quadrupled their losses over last year. The BSA is blaming Open Source Software for this catastrophic loss. "As everybody knows, within the past year we have perfected absolute copy protection control and wiped out piracy completely, however our losses have only increased," stated Sum Guy, a public affairs officer for the BSA. "The threat of Open Source Software that does what our products do but doesn't cost anything is a serious problem." In response to this problem, congress is drafting a bill to make Open Source and other free software illegal, to fine and imprison the creators of such, and create massive penalties for the use of the software. "We feel that by removing this last threat to our business model, we can definitely increase our profits."
Nothing is really guarenteed to be perfect. The fact that there are factors that are beyond our control and completely unpredictable means that there is always a chance that something will go wrong. Fixing it and trying to make sure it doesn't go wrong again is all fine and everything, but there is always that probability factor that we cannot detect, calculate, or control.
I am just quite glad that they had the backup system, because that is what prevented a catastrophy. If there is a x% chance that the primary system will fail, and x% that the backup will fail, combined it makes the chances of a catastrophy much lower.
I believe that if we are going to be successful at a private space race, or even any other high-risk things (Even lacking risk to human life), then redundancy and backup is definitely critical. If a few failed heat tiles can destroy a space craft and kill people, and there is no contingency plan for failed heat tiles, that is a problem. If a computer miscalculation in Metric vs English measurements can completely throw off a multibillion-dollar space probe, and there is no way to recover when the error is first detected and has not yet caused problems, then that is just not right.
I look forward to seeing if they win the prize, and I applaud them for having contingencies. If more systems had contigencies for the most critical failures, we'd possibly be much further ahead in various technologies. Let's see how this space race goes.
Glass can be coated with a "transparent" (ok not really transparent but it looks like window tinting) conductive material that will block various ranges of em radiation.
Okay, I do agree with you there, as my wife just pointed out an excellent example: She was working to set up direct microwave communications between two buildings across the Los Angeles bay, and discovered the hard way that the windows on the buildings had "tint" on them that quite effectively blocked microwave completely.
But you take situations like yourself: setting up a gauss cage; or the room across the hall, which has the same thing effectively, and you are looking at "Professionally secured environments". And the cost of setting up things like that can be quite high.
But in this case, what happens if the product becomes inexpensive, and somebody can go in and say, "Put this on your walls and it blocks Wi-Fi! Instant security from evesdropping!". How many smaller companies who don't want the expense of hiring a security specialist will end up buying into a false sense of security from having (just) their walls absorbing the signal?
As long as it takes some brains and forthought to secure something, and people KNOW this, then things will be more secure, because they know they do not have the necessary knowledge to do it themselves, and hire somebody who does. When it gets to the point where any security system is "Easy to install yourself! Just add wallpaper!", and cheap enough for anybody to do, then you suddenly have potential for unrecognized holes in the system, and thus no real security.
What about the windows and doors? RF goes through them too. I could just see somebody wallpapering their ceiling also. (It's such a lovely print though!)
It really strikes me as a product for the "Security-Concerned-But-Uninformed", because I really wonder how many companies that want to use this will block other means of RF egress. And those that don't will simply have a false sense of security and a big hole in their "defenses".
Believe me, I'm literally right across the hall from a "RF-Secure" room at times, and that has EVERYTHING covered in every direction, windows, doors, floor and ceiling.
Slashdot Mirror
Combine a G5 type thing with a Wacom Cinteq so that we can have some seriously scary tablet computer stuff for artists? I mean, the G5 is almost completely a Tablet computer, it just lacks a way to point directly at the screen. So why not do overkill? The only problem is that if you straight out combine the prices, it gets pretty sick.
Actually at least -some- PC manufacturers definitely void the warranty based on opening the case. Anything from those funky self-destructing stickers to case intrusion switches can detect this, and they make way too much use of them.
I'm looking at this computer here at work. Not sure what brand it is, as that information has all been removed *Grr*. Might be an off brand. But it has a big sticker on the back of it that reads: "WARNING: All guarentees and warranties are void if case is opened or main BIOS settings are modified in any way. This system contains modification-detection technology. NO USER SERVICABLE PARTS INSIDE. Please contact your dealer for service." This sticker has not one, but THREE little holographic self-detsructing fingers sealing the main siade of the case up, and there are two on the backside side of the case, and two on each side of the case between the front cover and the sides.
Admittedly, this is a system bought by the US Federal Government, but still. I've done work on computers in private homes that had the same deal. It's scary to think about.
At the same time, it makes sense. Most PC Owners honestly wouldn't know a DIMM from a CF card, let alone how to safely change even a PCI card. The vast majority of them are more likely to break something in trying. They just want a computer that works for what they want it to do, and not have to worry. Plus, if the manufacturer can convince people that they -must- return it to their service shops for service, then they can make a killing on labor.
Honestly, it's VERY nice to see a computer of any type that ENCOURAGES ease of opening and meddling even for the people who are not completely tech savvy.
OOoooooo!! I never knew that!! Hey Joe!! Your Tinfoil hat will protect you up to 935 F! Let's try that out!
Two hours later
Well, good news!! The tinfoil hat survived! Joe, on the other hand, was not rated that high.
So I end up wondering... With the business they want, and with self-destructing DVD's already a common thing, plus time-limited DRM's, how long until we are reduced to the age of "renting" everything... even that which we purchase fully?
And then, on another front, how long before people start realizing that if people just want to hear the music, Digital-Analog-Digital conversion completely strips DRM... Then how long before some crazy laws come out that make that illegal, and anything that can "Facilitate" such functions illegal... so no computers will have line in anymore, and posession of microphones will result in a still fine and jail term?
So? See comment posted by next thread about Workboy. :) Keyboard for your Gameboy! YAY!! *Feeds the kitten*
Nethack GBA! *Runsaway and feeds a kitten!*
With this method, it doesn't matter if the OS sees the entire disk, because it still just contains MP3's. That happen to have some weird stuff in the ID3v2 tags. Not foolproof, but it would definitely pass cursory inspection.
However, like I said, I am more interested in white-hat ideas for introducing new stuff. Like device to device stuff as mentioned a few comments down. :)
About all I could think of maybe working similar is to throw the web server software on the drive and run it on the machine it is connected to.
Hmmm... Weather Balloon, tank of helium, good tie line, a good rig, and a clear day (Or a stormy one if you're feeling like Ben). Seems much less dangerous for the camera than a kite, honestly (Unless some neighborhood twerp has a pellet rifle).
I also noticed that one poster was pointing out that high altitude photography sucks, and everything looks boring from a plane. Well, yeah, it does. That's because of the extreme elevation. But get something up there without being at the altitude that a plane is at, and you can get some pretty cool shots.
Obviously, some tweaks could be useful, depending on what the firmware can do with the onboard hardware. I'd love to hear some ideas on those... How to make a media device into something more than a media device, from odd screen displays to any number of other things.
But then what about possible tweaks that could be harmful? Put an autorun file on the drive, have it search the computer it is connected to for something, copy it to the device, and then have the device hide the info in some way?
"Oh, no, sir, I was just hooking it up to the computer so I could listen to MP3's over the better speakers. More relaxing work environment makes for better productivity."
So, what might be able to be done?
Translation: I didn't bother to read what you wrote.
but two points stick out and basically nullify anything else you're saying.
Translation: And because I disagree with 0.3% of it, you are wrong.
Do you work for the RIAA? You're using the same double-talk that the people who work for them tend to:
The post referred to royalty money collected in the past year, not the financial status of record labels.
However, you point out that this has nothing to do with the record companies.
CD sales might be down (they're not, but let's just run with it)
How's about we don't run with it? Let's stop quoting fables and touting them as facts. Even with little inline disclaimers.
Regardless of the failures in your response, there were a few VALID points that I was trying to make, that you in your infinite wisdom decided to completely overlook.
1: You calculated the "Each artist gets" as an average. Gads, don't I wish that the world worked that way! The total amount of income in the US divided by the number of people capable of earning it is $36,764/year. I know a LOT of people wish they were making that much right now. And according to your logic, everybody is. There's not some people making 19 billion a year, and others making diddly. Unfortunately, that logic doesn't work, because there ARE people making millions per year, while others make $5.25/hour. The ame goes for the artists who are registered with BMI. SOme make a lot, some don't. You can't just divide it evenly.
2: The original post was pointing out that RIAA is saying "The music industry is hurting because of P2P!" and that even though there are claims the industry is hurting, the BMI royalties (Which is probably a better indicator of the industry than other sources, since it doesn't have random cuts) are going up. You yourself pointed out that the industry is not just CD sales, but also radio plays, jukebox plays, etc. I then pointed out that the reason the music industry may be hurting for CD sales (Which, as you pointed out, they are not) is due to the decline in the economy and the fact that more people have less money for things such as CD's.
3: I pointed out that getting the money into the hands of the people who made the product needs to happen. You naturally assumed (incorrectly) that I was saying that EVERYBODY had this problem, including BMI. You know what they say about the word "Assume". Just take out the "me" part in this case, because it's all "u". The fact that somebody does it right does not take away the fact that others do it wrong, so to speak. And it's the ones that do it wrong that are hurting everybody.
There are quite a few other valid points that I make, for the people who RTFC. Please consider this in the future before you decide that disagreeing with 0.3% of a comment invalidates the whole thing.
Soooo...
Your original post actually had nothing whatsoever to do with anything? *confused*.
The post that you were responding to was pointing out that even though the music industry claims that they are hurting because of P2P, they are reporting increases in various numbers that indicate the opposite. Nobody ever said that artists were making millions per year. They just pointed out that the dollar amount going to artists was going up (By 7.5% in fact), and that makes it more difficult to say "The music industry is hurting because of P2P!"
Unfortunately, their quantification of "The music industry is hurting" seems to be based on "Well, we sold this much, but we THINK we should have sold THIS much more." and "Everybody who has a copy of this song/album that didn't pay for it is (insert price of CD here) lost revenue!"
Now, I guess one could say that more artists are coming on the bandwagon, and so that number should be going up much faster to accomodate them. Thus implying that there is less for everybody. But forgive me when I don't have a bleeding heart for this issue either. Did we mention that the economy, at least in the US, stinks worse than a roadkill skunk in Florida after 2 weeks in the sun and humidity?
As such, summary and from personal experience, which is likely to be duplicated:
1) "There are fewer CD sales! (It must be because of P2P!)"... Well, I used to buy CD's. When I had money, I'd buy an average of 5-6 CD's per month. Now I don't have much money, thank you US economy, and what I do have is going towards more important things like housing and food and utilities. CD's are the last thing on my mind.
2) "Every P2P download is a lost sale." Uh, no. I listen to obscure music that doesn't play on the radio. Not to mention that I don't want to invest hours listening to the radio mindlessly hoping that the song I want to check will come on. So I download it to see how it is. And well over 99% of the time, I delete it shortly thereafter. But according to them, I'm a lost sale!! $17.99 lost to them for each song that I downloaded (And no longer have). As if I'd spend $17.99 to find out that I want to throw the CD away. ("But that under 1% of the time, you're stealing!!" I still wouldn't buy the record for $17.99. I suppose I could download it from something online like iTunes, but then it's not worth the cost, hassle, and cost of my time. But fine, I'll concede that anyway. (Counts) So the record companies have lost $15 in iTunes downloads on me. Oh, and Apple has lost hundreds on an iPod on me, because I burned the 15 MP3s to an MP3 CD so I could listen to them in my car. Riiiiight.)
I don't think the current system works. I don't think the theft is a good thing. But honestly, if I could pay $0.50 for a song, and know that $0.25 is going to the artist, and $0.25 is going to infrastructure, and it's not bogged down in DRM, then that would be a hell of a lot easier, and finally worth my time as compared to P2P. Heck, at that point, I'd STILL P2P and delete 99%, but I'd get the paid-for versions of the songs that I keep.
So, what did your math actually accomplish? I mean, even it's not accurate, because it's not a matter of $xxxx per artist, it's more a matter of "These 5% of artists get $xxx,xxx and the rest get $xx or $0, since they are still busy waiting for their sales to exceed baseline limits." And it fails to mention that with that royalties value, hundreds times more than that was actually transferred in media sales. A tiny chunk of that went to materials cost. A tiny chunk went to distribution and retail salespeople, advertisements, etc. A tiny chunk went to royalties (Sent to the actual artists). And a huge chunk went into the pockets of the multimillionaires who run the label companies. Find me any artist who makes a lot of money, and I can almost guarentee their label makes more off them then they make of themself.
THAT is what needs fixing. Getting the money into the hands of the people who actually PRODUCED the product.
But if the games are targeting "Quantity sales at lower volume" in the low income countries, then they should be affordable to everybody. Even the people who work at Mccy D's in China. (Note: I actually work as a contractor for the DHS. Still broke, but not as bad as could be.)
They want to make sure that more people are ingrained with the "need" for Windows, so that they will keep using it. Almost like a drug addiction. So they came out with Windows XP Starter Edition, in an effort to target the low end markets. However, as a Google News Search shows, XP Starter Edition is a bust... Sure, they are selling it "cheap", but honestly, according to reviews of features, it's worse than crippled shareware that is given away for free.
;)
Overall, I'm happy that people in those countries will not be starting life addicted to the drug Microsoft sells, and start with a clean slate. And when 2 billion users in China are using Linux, maybe we'll get more games that run under it.
Hmmm...
That FAQ lists several "Alternative" Free Email providers with at least one GB of data storage that "Don't invade your privacy like GMail does".
So I poked at two of them.
Aventure-Mail: No longer accepting free accounts.
Walla!: This one scares me. From the Walla TOS:
To enable an upgrade to a 1 gigabyte account, Walla! may require additional information from individuals who already subscribe to a Walla! account.
Okay... So I'm giving them more personal information.. Not too bad. They want to "Target their marketing to what I am interested in." Fine. Then I reach the next scary thing:
Walla!Mail does not use or analyze the actual text in an e-mail message to select which ads to distribute to users, nor does any human read your email to target ads or related information to you without your consent. (Okay, so none of the ads they show me are at all related to the content of the email.) In addition, our automatic link creator highlights predetermined keywords within an e-mail. These words are not personalized and you have the option, at your discretion, to follow these links to paid content. (Wait... I thought you just said you didn't look in the email to target ads... But it looks like not only do you look in the email, but you actually CHANGE THE CONTENT of the email to put inline ads in the email.)
Now, maybe I'm missing something here... GMail "analyzes" content. Yep. means if it sees "new car" and "ford" in the message, and doesn't see "sucks" in the message, it might show an advert for Ford cars on the right side, and maybe car loans. If the word "sucks" or "horrible" or various other negative words are in the message, they won't even put in ads.
Walla, instead of putting those advertisements inobtrusively on the righthand side, apparently reserves the right to turn every incident of the string " Ford " into a hyperlink to www.ford.com, or various other things. You could be getting an email about "Ford sucks. Ford makes nothing but lemons. Ford transmissions fall apart so quickly, and Ford's paint jobs peel like crazy." and every single mention of the word Ford would be converted to a link by Walla saying "Come buy our wonderful Fords!"... And this is BETTER?!
So how come everybody is screaming bloody murder about intelligent keyword checking that puts unobtrusive advertisements on the far right of the page (And mind you, I HATE HATE HATE spam, and I ignore 99.9% of all banner ads on pages, but the Ads in GMail have actually led to interesting and useful stuff sometimes), and the "official solution" is to have -the actual content of the incoming mail changed by adding hyperlinks to advertisements-?! It may SOUND scary, but it's because this world seems to suffer from Panic Syndrome.
I consider GMail's advertisements to be the least intrusive and most user-friendly of every single free email site I have seen. "But they can see if I'm sending a gmail user something about bombs!" Um... Sure... heard of Carnivore? Think they can't do that elsewhere? And why the heck are you sending something about bombs anyway?? Are you sending things to anybody that you don't want automated systems to use keywords in your email to show the recipient advertisements? Then don't send it to Walla either. They'll change the keywords in your email into advert links.
Honestly, it's all a ruddy witch hunt. And if anybody sends me one of those pre-made replies, I'll send right back to them the facts about those "other solutions" that the reply speaks so highly of. And then I will remove them from my address book. Nobody means so much to me that I -HAVE- to get in touch with them, and if they are that paranoid about what they are writing, then why am I receiving it?
I'm halfway wondering if there is a good way to combine this with floating data storage in such a way that we could claim 3 GB of data on the GMFS. The main downside that I can see if the likelihood of severe delays in getting the data back when you want it. But hey, we have FDS (Floating Data System), and GMFS (GMail File System)... Why Not FDGMFS (Um, yeah)? Like I said before, it probably COULD be done. Doesn't mean that it SHOULD be done. But it won't stop somebody from trying. (Heads off to try.)
Somebody will do it... Doesn't mean it SHOULD be done. But still, does it accomodate the recent change in the login proceedure and possible future changes well?
You mean Metric vs Imperial or American measurements don't you?
Ah, yes.... That's what I get for trying to post at that time of night from work with no sleep prior.
The BSA is a bunch of bull shit attorneys akin to the RIAA...
...who are Really Idiotic A**hole Attorneys, and also similar to the Mega Putz Attorney's Association? I think they may also be related to Masters of In^H^Hexpensive Crud with Really Obsolete Security and Oversized Feature Traits.
(Sorry, it's 3 am, I'm at work with nothing to do, and I didn't get any sleep recently. *sheepish grin*)
The article based this on a BSA survey of installed software
That right there is probably the best indicator of an issue. I remember taking surveys online that were "Grab bag" surveys (With places like Synovate, NPD and such) which asked "What software packages do you have installed?". It occurs to me that a lot of the people who sign up to take these surveys are the folks who actually have the money to have time to take them, and thus had the money to buy the software. So, if the sample group for the survey had a high concentration of people who actually DID buy Photoshop (Say, 250/1000), and then they interpolate that to "The whole PC Population", that could come up with some really inflated numbers.
The entire issue simply reinforces that the numbers have no way whatsoever to be accurate, and should really be stated as "Estimates with a margin of error of +/- 500%". There is absolutely no accurate method for getting those numbers..
Please speak up if you have another formula to suggest, because while it may not be perfect, it certainly does reflect the situation.
I can't suggest another formula, but I can point out a problem with the above one.
(software installed - software shipped)*price of software = revenue lost
Two basic problems I see. First, large site licenses mean "Software shipped = 50" and "Software installed = 5000"... So does that mean 4950 * $xxx in losses?
Secondly, unless the software reports back without user permission/request, or the illegal-copy user decides to go register the software, how do they know how many copies are installed? And even if 1 'pirate' registers, there are likely 20 legit users who don't, so that means "Software installed = 1" and "Software Shipped = 20". Does that mean that the losses are suddenly gains because 19 people just gave money for nothing?
Honestly, without some foolproof phone home system (Make it work even on non-networked computers with no modem!!), I see no way whatsoever to get accurate numbers to plug into any method whatsoever of calculating this, meaning that any statistic put forward in this situation is really "An Estimate with margin of error of +/- 500%".
June 201x, In recent news, software manufacturers have quadrupled their losses over last year. The BSA is blaming Open Source Software for this catastrophic loss. "As everybody knows, within the past year we have perfected absolute copy protection control and wiped out piracy completely, however our losses have only increased," stated Sum Guy, a public affairs officer for the BSA. "The threat of Open Source Software that does what our products do but doesn't cost anything is a serious problem." In response to this problem, congress is drafting a bill to make Open Source and other free software illegal, to fine and imprison the creators of such, and create massive penalties for the use of the software. "We feel that by removing this last threat to our business model, we can definitely increase our profits."
Unrealistic? Perhaps not...
Nothing is really guarenteed to be perfect. The fact that there are factors that are beyond our control and completely unpredictable means that there is always a chance that something will go wrong. Fixing it and trying to make sure it doesn't go wrong again is all fine and everything, but there is always that probability factor that we cannot detect, calculate, or control.
I am just quite glad that they had the backup system, because that is what prevented a catastrophy. If there is a x% chance that the primary system will fail, and x% that the backup will fail, combined it makes the chances of a catastrophy much lower.
I believe that if we are going to be successful at a private space race, or even any other high-risk things (Even lacking risk to human life), then redundancy and backup is definitely critical. If a few failed heat tiles can destroy a space craft and kill people, and there is no contingency plan for failed heat tiles, that is a problem. If a computer miscalculation in Metric vs English measurements can completely throw off a multibillion-dollar space probe, and there is no way to recover when the error is first detected and has not yet caused problems, then that is just not right.
I look forward to seeing if they win the prize, and I applaud them for having contingencies. If more systems had contigencies for the most critical failures, we'd possibly be much further ahead in various technologies. Let's see how this space race goes.
Glass can be coated with a "transparent" (ok not really transparent but it looks like window tinting) conductive material that will block various ranges of em radiation.
Okay, I do agree with you there, as my wife just pointed out an excellent example:
She was working to set up direct microwave communications between two buildings across the Los Angeles bay, and discovered the hard way that the windows on the buildings had "tint" on them that quite effectively blocked microwave completely.
But you take situations like yourself: setting up a gauss cage; or the room across the hall, which has the same thing effectively, and you are looking at "Professionally secured environments". And the cost of setting up things like that can be quite high.
But in this case, what happens if the product becomes inexpensive, and somebody can go in and say, "Put this on your walls and it blocks Wi-Fi! Instant security from evesdropping!". How many smaller companies who don't want the expense of hiring a security specialist will end up buying into a false sense of security from having (just) their walls absorbing the signal?
As long as it takes some brains and forthought to secure something, and people KNOW this, then things will be more secure, because they know they do not have the necessary knowledge to do it themselves, and hire somebody who does. When it gets to the point where any security system is "Easy to install yourself! Just add wallpaper!", and cheap enough for anybody to do, then you suddenly have potential for unrecognized holes in the system, and thus no real security.
What about the windows and doors? RF goes through them too. I could just see somebody wallpapering their ceiling also. (It's such a lovely print though!)
It really strikes me as a product for the "Security-Concerned-But-Uninformed", because I really wonder how many companies that want to use this will block other means of RF egress. And those that don't will simply have a false sense of security and a big hole in their "defenses".
Believe me, I'm literally right across the hall from a "RF-Secure" room at times, and that has EVERYTHING covered in every direction, windows, doors, floor and ceiling.