I am trying to represent what I predict would be the popular opinion of DRM in the masses....
If I can download a song, move that song to my favorite playback device (portable, computer, home stereo, car stereo, whatever) and play it, then I don't care any further. If some sort of annoying "security thinggie" prevents this, then i'm super miffed.
If the ability to make "mix tapes for a friend" is lost, many will be sad. If songs are really cheap then trading playlists with an "activate this playlist for $8.95 button" would be not quite as good, but at least some sort of substitute.
My point is to provide perspective. The success of DRM will not be determined by a bunch of red-faced-and-screaming slashdotters who know what DRM stands for: It will be determined by what the lazy-I-don't-have-time-for-this masses think of it.
To say that another way: When would we (the slashdot audience) accept DRMs? Answer: It doesn't matter. Ours is the "educated" opinion (although I use that term somewhat loosely seeing how extreme and uncompromising the opinions posted here are), and thus, the huge minority.
Seems to me that people will generally come in 3 categories.
1) Will always be afraid to mess with it. 2) Will always be gungho about messing with it. 3) Will form an opinion based on a detailed analysis of evidence.
I would guess that less than 1% of people will be in category 3 (for anything really, when was the last time YOU read an academic paper or two before forming an opinion on something not directly related to your job), and probably a lot less than 1%.
So, for public opinion you should ask: Which category is more populous and vocal, 1 or 2.
And for govt. policy you should ask, will the cat 3 people be able to be heard over 1 and 2.
One thing that has always annoyed me about certain open software licenses is the restriction that the software in question can not be used to make money. (Read: included in a product.) If the open-source ideals of free flowing information for the benefit of all are to be fully applied I think that open-sourcers should recognize that a lot of good development happens in a business setting and allow that development model (the commercial one) full access to all open sourced software. Better products would result, benefiting everyone.
Has anyone seen this opinion written up (read: expressed clearly in a paper)?
My problem with newspapers is the same problem that I have with the media at large.
I prefer info sources like slashdot for one main reason. The authors are interested in what they are writing about. I HATE HATE HATE it when I read a story, know that most of it is false, and realize that the newspaper in question is making money by misinforming the public.
1) The stock holders don't like it when the ship date isn't met because it drives the price down.
2)Marketers don't like it when the ship date isn't met because it means the product will not be released when people are most hyped about it.
Would one possible answer be that software companies should be more vague about their ship dates? Announce specific dates later in the project so that you have a better idea of what problems will have to be dealt with.
Though this would probably make marketing's job harder, it may keep the Wall St. boys happier.
I suspect that traffic would not immediately become a problem even if the vehicles were affordable for a few reasons. People wouldn't trust the things. They would be intimidated by the "rigorous training" required and the fact that you die if you screw up. (Even if this isn't true it is a misconception that solotrek will have to overcome for the device to become popular.)
As I don't expect that the air traffic would reach the volume it has on the ground I suspect that one easy way to avoid stupid collisions is to designate the vehicles "VFR only" or "visual flight regs only." If you can't see, say, more than a mile, (smog, clouds, fog, whatever) then you can't go up. I live in Alaska where small planes are very very common. In my home town, pop 307, there are usually at least 25 planes at the airport (a.25 mile strip of flat dirt with no terminal at all.) Alaskan citizens log more flight hours on average than citizens in any other place in the world (though that is an old statistic.) Most of these small planes are VFR and can not fly when it's foggy, but that's about the only law that the bush pilots up here have to deal with (unless they are approaching an airport.)
As for safety, unless those things are heavier than they look I suspect that some of the safety tech developed for ultra-lights and small aircraft could be used. Nifty toys such as CO2 deployed parachutes have been in use in these areas for quite a while now. Make it a standard feature and hook it to the altimeter.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got you covered (just finished writing this two days ago).
http://ultralingua.com/en/klingon.html
Now THERE is a computer geek wet dream. Can't pick up chicks? Just write an IRC script and they will start agreeing to meet you when they are 17...
I am trying to represent what I predict would be the popular opinion of DRM in the masses....
If I can download a song, move that song to my favorite playback device (portable, computer, home stereo, car stereo, whatever) and play it, then I don't care any further. If some sort of annoying "security thinggie" prevents this, then i'm super miffed.
If the ability to make "mix tapes for a friend" is lost, many will be sad. If songs are really cheap then trading playlists with an "activate this playlist for $8.95 button" would be not quite as good, but at least some sort of substitute.
My point is to provide perspective. The success of DRM will not be determined by a bunch of red-faced-and-screaming slashdotters who know what DRM stands for: It will be determined by what the lazy-I-don't-have-time-for-this masses think of it.
To say that another way: When would we (the slashdot audience) accept DRMs? Answer: It doesn't matter. Ours is the "educated" opinion (although I use that term somewhat loosely seeing how extreme and uncompromising the opinions posted here are), and thus, the huge minority.
Seems to me that people will generally come in 3 categories.
1) Will always be afraid to mess with it.
2) Will always be gungho about messing with it.
3) Will form an opinion based on a detailed analysis of evidence.
I would guess that less than 1% of people will be in category 3 (for anything really, when was the last time YOU read an academic paper or two before forming an opinion on something not directly related to your job), and probably a lot less than 1%.
So, for public opinion you should ask: Which category is more populous and vocal, 1 or 2.
And for govt. policy you should ask, will the cat 3 people be able to be heard over 1 and 2.
Same old problem really.
I think I remember reading somewhere that the no-needle injection was invented after someone with a fear of needles saw the hypo on startrek.
One thing that has always annoyed me about certain open software licenses is the restriction that the software in question can not be used to make money. (Read: included in a product.) If the open-source ideals of free flowing information for the benefit of all are to be fully applied I think that open-sourcers should recognize that a lot of good development happens in a business setting and allow that development model (the commercial one) full access to all open sourced software. Better products would result, benefiting everyone.
Has anyone seen this opinion written up (read: expressed clearly in a paper)?
My problem with newspapers is the same problem that I have with the media at large.
I prefer info sources like slashdot for one main reason. The authors are interested in what they are writing about. I HATE HATE HATE it when I read a story, know that most of it is false, and realize that the newspaper in question is making money by misinforming the public.
1) The stock holders don't like it when the ship date isn't met because it drives the price down.
2)Marketers don't like it when the ship date isn't met because it means the product will not be released when people are most hyped about it.
Would one possible answer be that software companies should be more vague about their ship dates? Announce specific dates later in the project so that you have a better idea of what problems will have to be dealt with.
Though this would probably make marketing's job harder, it may keep the Wall St. boys happier.
I suspect that traffic would not immediately become a problem even if the vehicles were affordable for a few reasons. People wouldn't trust the things. They would be intimidated by the "rigorous training" required and the fact that you die if you screw up. (Even if this isn't true it is a misconception that solotrek will have to overcome for the device to become popular.)
.25 mile strip of flat dirt with no terminal at all.) Alaskan citizens log more flight hours on average than citizens in any other place in the world (though that is an old statistic.) Most of these small planes are VFR and can not fly when it's foggy, but that's about the only law that the bush pilots up here have to deal with (unless they are approaching an airport.)
As I don't expect that the air traffic would reach the volume it has on the ground I suspect that one easy way to avoid stupid collisions is to designate the vehicles "VFR only" or "visual flight regs only." If you can't see, say, more than a mile, (smog, clouds, fog, whatever) then you can't go up. I live in Alaska where small planes are very very common. In my home town, pop 307, there are usually at least 25 planes at the airport (a
As for safety, unless those things are heavier than they look I suspect that some of the safety tech developed for ultra-lights and small aircraft could be used. Nifty toys such as CO2 deployed parachutes have been in use in these areas for quite a while now. Make it a standard feature and hook it to the altimeter.
I sure as hell want one.
-Telemann