Intent is very nebulous and tricky concept. How do you divine the intent of the creator of a particular object at the time that he or she invented it and does that realistically matter? What differentiates a hunting rifle ("good"--people need food) from an assault rifle (killing = "evil")? And what about knives? Tactical knives are intended for injuring or killing others but pocket knives are intended to be used as tools, and yet, the actual realistic differences between the two are fairly ambiguous and ultimately (even among experts) a matter of opinion. In the case of assault rifles and hunting rifles, the differences are even more subjective given that the firing mechanisms are identical.
"The path to hell is paved with good intentions." You might be surprised to find out that the creator of the modern machine gun (Richard J. Gatling) actually had good intentions. He thought (mistakenly) that his invention would make the concept of war so terrible and unimaginable that countries would be forced to resolve their differences peacefully. The same could be said for many of the scientists that created the first atomic bombs.
if you can articulate a reason why rocket launchers, weaponized anthrax, and suitcase nukes are something people should NOT have easy, unmonitored access to, then in you exists the seed for understanding why guns are subject to the same logic"
I think you're jumping to conclusions when you make comparisons between things like weaponized anthrax and personal firearms. It's not inconsistent to believe that somewhere a line can be drawn separating some weapons that the general populace can and should have and weapons that they can/should not have. Furthermore, it's not unreasonable to believe that conflicting values (Ex. freedoms vs. safety) are gained or lost depending upon where that line is drawn. For instance, a society where access to machine guns and rocket launchers is relatively unrestricted, might actually have some benefits over one where such weapons are restricted. For instance, a tyranny might be much harder to establish in such a country than one where people are unarmed. And yet, these benefits would not, in my mind, make up for the equivalent decrease safety and stability.
Personally, I don't feel that people need access to things like machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades or silencers. At the same time, I wouldn't want to live in a society where I or anyone else lived in constant fear with no means to realistically protect themselves and their loved ones from violence and crime. Is there a cost to such a position? Absolutely, but the increased quality of life and peace of mind, in my opinion, makes up for it. That being said, I can totally understand why others may differ and freely concede that my valuation--since it is an opinion--may be wrong (in one direction or the other). I just wish more people would be willing to submit to analyzing their beliefs along such a spectrum instead of pushing for one extreme or the other.
Yes, because I'm sure they'll take the money they get from content providers and pour it into upgrading their network. You know, so that they can handle enough bandwidth that they don't have to charge the content providers anymore.
Oh, wait. That would cut off a source of income. Without net neutrality, they'd have a distinct profit motive to never upgrade.
Yeah, until a few homegrown ISPs come along and offer unrestricted access and properly upgrade their networks to keep up with demand. Sure, such a company's profit margin may be smaller, but they'd make up for it in the hordes of customers switching.
This honestly has nothing to do with net neutrality. I personally pay $65.00 per month per for premium cable-modem internet from Comcast (internet access is important to me). It's quite a stretch say that they are unable to turn a profit and need to resort to blackmailing content providers in order to upgrade their service.
There *is* a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. In macroevolution, an organism gains new features, such as wings. In microevolution an organism gets stronger arms.
But by which criteria do we define when macroevolution has occurred? In the case of transitional fossils, for instance, at what point does a fin become a leg or an arm a wing? And how would one be able to make the distinction between micro and macro evolution in an organism if it were occurring today?
It seems to me that the macroevolution is a distinction based upon convenience. Macroevolution is simply any evolutionary change for which there is no concrete model--a "God in the gaps." As soon as the transitional fossil is found or a biochemical process discovered, the definition will change. In that sense, yes, macroevolution is impossible. But one shouldn't use this linguistic impossibility to infer that the evolutionary changes one ascribes to macroevolution are similarly impossible. They aren't.
A "feature" is in the eye of the beholder. Ultimately, there is no difference between a wing and antibiotic resistance. Both traits are derived from genes which are subject to to selection. The only difference is that disappearing prerequisites make the wing look impossible or implausible upon a cursory examination.
An example I like to use is modern industry and technology. Industries arise depending upon other industries which are ultimately replaced. If our civilization was to be observed by alien anthropologists lacking knowledge of our exact history (a similar situation we are in in examining the history of life on this planet), they might be shocked. We use computers to create computers. This might lead some of our less astute aliens to think that one computer was simply dropped from the sky or spontaneously created at one point and that that first computer was what led to the creation all of the others. And yet *we* know, by virtue of our knowledge of history, that this isn't true. The same could be said for almost any industry. There is no bronze industry today but it was certainly necessary to extract ore used in other metals. The only unfortunate thing is that we don't have a history of biology in the same way we do about industry.
Simply because we don't *see* a disappearing prerequisite today has no bearing upon the fact that it did, at one point exist. Similarly, one shouldn't draw the false conclusion that circularly dependent biochemical structures (like Patrick Behe's biochemical mousetrap example) are evidence that evolution is not the cause of said change.
Also, it is about the reduced cost to society in pap smears, colposcopy, and everything else involved in cervical cancer surveillance.
From what I've read, there is no intention on the part of obstetricians to discontinue regular pap smears. In fact, it'd be irresponsible for them to stop, because doing so would be a virtual death sentence (in the form of a late diagnosis) to those affected by all the cervical cancer unabated by this vaccine.
Do you want to actually improve the health of people? If yes, then you need to favor this vaccine, no matter what your primitive superstitions say. Or your evidence-lacking vaccine fears are.
Of course everyone wants a healthier, cancer-free populace. That's not really an issue. Medicine is about balance. Balancing risks and benefits to different treatments. Otherwise, we'd all have our appendices removed and be injected with every vaccine available from birth.
"First do no harm" in the world of evidence-based medicine is tricky business. For one must not only demonstrate that a particular treatment works but also that it doesn't cause more harm (both in an individual patient and in aggregate) than good. And this includes all the risks and benefits be assessed. For instance, a vaccine, even if it does save, 100 lives, effectively does no good if it causes fatal allergic reactions in 1:10,000 and is administered to a population of 1,000,000 people.
Unfortunately, risk-management pieces don't sell newspapers. Once it's mentioned that the vaccine in question prevents cancer the discussion is over. And that's unfortunate because we'd do well to practice caution with any newly developed drug intended to be administered to an entire populace if only for the lack of longitudinal studies.
Please, don't provide any encouragement or validation to this flawed line of reasoning. As a free and open society with limited resources, we have to be prepared to accept a certain amount of risk. "Erring on the side of caution," (i.e. maximum panic-mode) for such an obviously low-risk situation is irresponsible, expensive, and counterproductive.
Rather than live in a fantasy world where Bostonians are applauded as heroes because they disarm lite brites filled with imaginary explosives, we need to rationally think about this. Otherwise, there's no end to this madness.
Anything could be a bomb. Can you ever rule out the possibility of "the terrorists" surgically implanting bombs within their abdominal cavities? Or what if evil terrorist surgeons implanted bombs into unknowing patients? In which case... maybe YOU could be a bomb! Maybe I'm a bomb! What if they've been at work since we were all born. Maybe... we're all bombs! So, in light of this, what should we do now? Surgically operate on everyone--just to be sure? My God! We'd be heroes, the saviors of a very thankful nation if we were right!
So, the question is then: why should we discard my obviously silly possibility but still consider the similarly ridiculous killer lite-brite scenario?
The only thing on my iPod is the soothing sounds of Crispin Hellion Glover. What does that say about me?
It's interesting that you should bring that up, because the results show that you have latent beastality tendencies... and you touch yourself at night.
Just kidding. As other people have mentioned, this study doesn't mean much at all. People just talk about music because it's an ice-breaker. It prevents dreaded conversational deadspace that can make even the most extroverted of us akward. Can you tell something about a person by the music he or she prefers? Sure. But certainly not enough to make proper dating decision. Notice how none of the traits they bring up are bad. They all indicate positive traits like emotionally stable, extroverted, or intellectual, not bad attributes like violent, ignorant, or divisive which, honestly, would be far more informative.
Just another pop-psychology study to be discarded with the rest. Move along, nothing to see here.
There is no impartial scientist to be found. As earth is a closed system -- we're all here for the duration -- we all have a vested interest in the future. It makes little difference whether a study is financed by a corporation like ExxonMobil or by a green group with deep pockets; both have agendas, and in the final analysis, either the scientific methods are sound, or they're not, regardless of who is funding.
Sure, in the strictest sense, there can be no completely disinterested person on this issue because we're all stakeholders of this rock we call Earth. That being said, there are some people who are far more invested in a particular outcome being true (or at least publicly believed) than others. You're kidding yourself if you think that "scientists" funded/employed by the most profitable industry in history (which has everything to lose, if anthropogenic climate change is real/accepted) are just as objective or impartial on this matter as regular scientists working off federal grants or university funding.
Secondly, the philosophy of science isn't as objective as you might think. Sometimes your methods can be right, your experiments verified and repeatable, but your conclsions dead wrong. This happens frequently and is what makes scientific progress so difficult. However, ill-intentioned people can devise experiments that intentionally lead to false or misleading conclusions. This is the essence of bad science.
The big hint, for laymen that this is taking place, is when such studies ignore the highly supported, well-documented claims of opposing theories and tend to focus on minor (often neglible) discrepancies or areas where there just isn't enough data to know for sure. Take Intelligent Design (ID), for example. Proponents of ID make no effort to debunk sequence homology studies or the fossil record, because doing so is extremely difficult if not impossible. Instead, ID supporters focus on a few select cases where the exact nature of biomolecular events is unknown (for now) and from that draw sweeping, and unsupported, conclusions about the entire theory of evolution.
You'll note that global warming opponents do the same thing. You'll see their papers study carbon sinks (which, even if true, might be neglible in the scheme of things) or how variations in solar output (something that isn't well understood at this point) might fit the data. But what you don't see are papers denying the fact that increased cabon dioxide in the air is anthropogenic or disputing the basic science behind greenhouse gases in general.
And let us not forget that we are still unable to reliably predict the weather more than a few days in advance, yet we have sufficient hubris to believe we can predict 100 years forward.
That's like saying that because its impossible to know which direction an individual atom in a solution might go from instant to instant that net diffusion isn't predictable. And yet, diffusion is practically a mathematical law, in practice.
Sometimes, things are far easier to predict in aggregate than they are individually. Take lifespan, for instance. Just because I can't predict, to the day, when an indvidual squirrel might die, that fact has no bearing upon my ability to make stunningly accurate predictions on the average lifespan of a group of squirrels. Furthermore, I'll remind you that the data for global climate change extends into thousands of years. It's not unreasonable to expect an accurate extrapolation for the next fifty or one-hundred years from that.
There's no need to be a pedantic prick. It was blatantly obvious from the context of my post that I was talking about anthropological global warming. The major point of my post (if you bothered reading past the first sentence) was that we need to address, in general, how we as a civilization plan to organize our industries with respect to the environment. The fact is that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is already at an unprecedented level because of us. And, by all accounts, the trend is only going to increase. The question is then: what are we going to do about it? To answer "nothing," is hardly a conservative response.
Even IF you don't "believe" in global warming, at some point you have to address the impact that our civilization's industries are having upon this world. The problem is that conservatives get so wrapped up in fighting against "the hippies" that they never even stop to think about this much larger issue.
Even if you don't subscribe to the basic scientific inference from trend (more of a greenhouse gas --> greater heat from the sun retained), you must realize that this trend is leading to a major departure from the atmospheric gas concentrations of the past. By all accounts, we're entering into uncharted territory and it's, ironically, the "conservatives" who are urging us onward--that the worst "probably" won't happen. It's bizarre. Is profit and industry really so important that we should risk the fate of humanity against the best advice of the vast majority of our scientific experts?
The first step is admitting you have a problem: We have a problem with our carbon emissions. Wouldn't it make much more sense to start the debate and discussion from there?
There are games where I felt the writing was very good, like Fire Emblem, or God of War, or to reach back abit, the original Myst, but the writing has to serve to the game, which is to say it has to be there and not make you notice it rather than stand out for being awesome.
True story: My computer didn't have quicktime installed (or had some problem with QT) when I played the first Myst game. So, all the puzzles worked, but none of the story full-motion videos did. I was, of course, none-the-wiser to this and played through the entire game without ever knowing what the heck was going on--I thought that was part of the "mystique." Every time I would encounter one of those books with the movies in it, I just saw a black square, which at the time I had assumed was some kind of puzzle I just hadn't figured out yet. You can only imagine how confused I was when I got the the end of the game and there's a bunch of text regarding all these characters and their conflict which I had apparently been participating in all along.
For what it's worth, though, I still liked the game. What others are saying here is probably true. A good storyline always takes backseat to good gameplay.
I agree. Churches shouldn't be threated into feeling like they're walking on eggshells to avoid possibly political statements. Furthermore, the line between religious philosophy and politics isn't as clearcut as most people would like to think. Whether you believe it or not, religion (and being religious) is about more than just talking on Sundays about a big invisible man in the sky; it's a way of life (which is inextricable from politics). Provided that a church's rhetoric doesn't directly advocate violence or clearly illegal acts, I see no reason why their doctrine should be scrutinized any further.
That being said, I think you're being unfair when you say that liberals are the ones advocating censorship and conservatives are defenders of free speech. That may be true in the example you bring up, but not for many others. Conservatives are just as bad (if not worse) with regard to censorship when it doesn't suite them. Take, for instance, the issue of nudity in the mass media. Viewing of nudity by itself is not psychologically harmful. It's not. Psychological study after psychological study have shown this. And yet, conservatives fight very hard against keeping movies, images, and art containing nudity from being broadcast all in the name of "protecting the children," which is really just a cover for their real goal: protecting us from our own sinful bodies.
And art isn't the only place where conservatives let free speech die by the wayside of a political agenda. It's conservatives who see nothing wrong with the DMCA and other copyright laws being used to suppress embarrassing internal memos or letters. It's conservatives who want to pass laws making it illegal to "desecrate" an American flag.
The grim reality of American politics is that neither party, despite what they'd like to to believe, is a defender of the people's rights. The saddest thing of all is that because of this, the concept of individual rights has degraded from the philosophical view of human dignity and justice into an argument about what IS or ISN'T written on a piece of paper.
My attitudes toward moderates: if I say 2 + 2 = 4, and you say it's 6, does the truth "lie in the middle?"
Of course, the quintessential problem with both this analogy and your brand of thinking is that you assume your subjective analysis is absolutely correct to the point of a mathematical proof such that anyone who disagrees, even slightly, is simply wrong.
From a philosophical standpoint, that is a bad (if not ridiculous) assumption. From a political point of view, however, that is the worst assumption you can ever make because doing so shuts down discussion and any chance of compromise. The result is the divisive, polarized political atmosphere that goes beyond mere partisanship to the point of what could best be described as tribalism.
Don't think for a second that the problems of this country are the result of moderates. Moderates are only ones stopping the idiotic blue tribe and the primitive red tribe from resorting to bloodshed over relatively trivial shit like abortion, the death penalty, and "intelligent" design. Truth be told, self-labeled liberals and conservatives share more in common with each other in their types of thinking than they do with moderates.
I firmly believe that if more people started humbling themselves enough to seriously ask the basic and fundamental question "Could I be wrong?," we'd be much better off than if either progressives or conservatives single-handedly achieved their vision of utopia.
Once a work is public domain the DRM would obviously stop restricting "illegal copies" as there would no longer BE any illegal copies (all are now legal).
Obviously. Because clearly the media distributors are going to spend their time making sure that it works out that way.
So, would you still object?
Yes. Even if this mythical DRM solution existed, yes, I would still object.
The perfectionist side of me recoils at the sheer inelegance of modern DRM methods. Between the decryption, the authorization, and the dependency issues, it just seems like the entire process is an inconvenient, inefficient, and one-sided affair. And for what? What do I, as a consumer, get out of all this? A movie? A song? I could buy those things before! Furthermore, it simply doesn't make sense to me to encrypt and lock up a piece of art. Art is meant to be experienced, enjoyed, and--yes--copied. What's so hard to understand about that?
The suspicious side of me wonders what they're up to. Even if your DRM scheme was dropped from the heavens perfect as baby Jesus, it is nevertheless is still a form of control. Why should they have that control over devices I've bought and paid for? Even if they aren't abusing it now, who's to say that won't in the future? Why should I expose myself (even it is only my music collection at risk) when I am getting nothing out of the deal in return?
But most of all, I think the American (for lack of a better word) side of me hates the arbitrary restrictions of DRM. Rules for good reasons I respect. Rules out of tradition I can tolerate. But rules for no good reason I absolutely cannot stand, and, no, artificially propping up an ancient business model based on conditions that don't exist anymore is NOT a good reason. But more than that, it's the type of restriction that DRM imposes that's most grating of all. It's worse than being treated like a criminal, it's being treated like a child; as if I can't be trusted with the awesome and terrible power of my own tape deck. The very idea irks me. So, yes, I would still object to DRM, even as you describe it.
I couldn't disagree more. The rich don't drive the economy any more than any other consumer does. How is a single mother buying baby formula any less connected to the economy than Paris Hilton buying a new purse? You might be tempted into an argument of scale (that the purse costs thousands more), but this point is moot because there are far more single mothers than Paris Hiltons. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the rich, as a result of their savings accounts, contribute less to the economy, per capita, than an individual forced to live paycheck to paycheck. Therefore, measures aimed at reducing the wage gap would probably help the economy more than hurt it and would certainly provide greater incentive to produce products that people need and not spurious things like yachts.
This entire line of logic that the rich drive the economy by buying yachts is the modern equivalent of Broken Windows Fallacy.
So? The recent nuclear test proves otherwise. They achieved a nuclear 'event', but no-where near what's required to produce a nuclear bomb. It was a fizzle. And the article wasn't talking about nuclear weapons. It was spreading unsubstantiated crap about chemical and biological weapons, and then neglecting to put these allegations in the context of the US's chemical and biological weapons programs.
So, what's the plan? Do we hold off on diplomatically confronting them until North Korea has a nuclear weapon small enough to fit on their missile platforms or until a "nuclear fizzle" happens on Seoul?
Welcome to the world of diplomacy. As I argued in my original post, this is required by North Korea, to fend of continual threats from the US. They are merely reacting. Do you expect them to sit and take it?
So, we aren't supposed to believe North Korea's statements when it comes to their illegal nuclear weapons program and explicit threats against South Korea, but we are supposed to believe their ridiculous claims that U.S. aggression is the cause of... their nuclear weapons program, that we aren't supposed to believe exists. Right...
But back to the facts: there was NO chance that the United States was going to do any aggressive military action in the immediate future against the DPRK when it decided to do its nuclear test. NONE. So why did they do it knowing the international condemnation that would surely follow?
This line that the United States is the bully that's left the poor DPRK no choice but to respond needs to stop. It's utter bullshit. If North Korea were truly trying to prevent conflict, why would they make provocative statements and aggressive actions at times when they are being, by and large, diplomatically ignored--not threated--by the US?
More bullshit. North Korea is threatening no-one. They have no expansionist agenda, unlike the US. When is the last time North Korea invaded someone? And when was the last time the US invaded someone? North Korea's weapons are a joke compared to their neighbours', hence the current push to get nuclear weapons. They are seeking weapons as deterrence.... You need to get some context into your analysis.
If you're going to try to play the DPRK's champion, you should at least abandon your willful ignorance of their country first.
North Korea has the fifth largest military in the world in an area slightly smaller than Mississippi. It spends about 25% of its GNP on its military, by proportion, the most in the world. It has a standing army of just over one million men, most of whom are, incidentally, black-belts in TaeKwonDo.
Quoth a military assessment of the North Korean situation: "Seoul, the South Korean capitol, lies within range of North Korean long-range artillery. Five hundred 170mm Koksan guns and 200 multiple-launch rocket systems could hit Seoul with artillery shells and chemical weapons, causing panic and massive civilian casualties. North Korea has between 500 and 600 Scud missiles that could strike targets throughout South Korea with conventional warheads or chemical weapons. North Korea could hit Japan with its 100 No-dong missiles. Seventy percent of North Korean army ground units are located within 100 miles of the demilitarized zone separating North and South Korea, positioned to undertake offensive ground operations. These units could fire up to 500,000 artillery rounds per hour against South Korean defenses for several hours." In short: they not to be fucked with. [Source, Source, Source]
Those facts say nothing, of course, about their well-documented kidnapping campaign against South Koreans and the innumerable paramil
Please, take a look any day of the week at how even the most stupid and ignorant posts are modded "Informative" or "Insightful" if they follow the group-think.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but individual, scientific "thought" is the last thing you'll find here. What you really should be worried about is why you haven't already been able to observe this yourself.
Where did I say that every post on here was informed? It's a public forum, what do you expect? Would you similarly judge the quality of a theater by its peanut gallery?
Accuracy. Depth. Breadth. Most discussion websites struggle to attain two. Slashdot manages to get a bit of all three and still stay interesting. Is it perfect? No. But it's a great compromise. In my opinion, the level and quality of discussion that occurs on the variety of topics here is much better than anywhere else on the internet. And this is coming from someone who's been known to argued blue in the face against the "groupthink" bias that you mention.
And regardless of whatever you may think, experts and professionals DO read and participate in these forums. I can personally attest to this because I was once contacted by John Dvorak regarding one of my posts. Lastly, take this for what it's worth, but once I finish medical school I fully intend to offer my expertise when relevant.
Yes it's called "Engineer's Disease." People are experts on one topic, so they think they're experts on all topics.
To be fair, though, the scientific disciplines aren't completely insular and unrelated as many people would like to think. Believe it or not, but my Biology classes taught me a lot (even if only tangentially, at times) about law, computer science, politics, and even philosophy.
And in all honesty, the most important aspect of a science education is teaching the method through which one should derive his or her information and opinions. Because while our understanding of the world may change, the logic by which we draw those conclusions--by and large--won't. And, once you've trained yourself to rationally analyze things, you can apply that skill to any intellectual pursuit. The same cannot be said for arts, such as, for example, acting. The skill of acting, may make you be able to act like you have an informed opinion, but it doesn't help you actually say anything of worth.
So, if given the choice, I'd be much more open to listen to what an engineer has to say about global warming than Leonardo DiCaprio. And that is why I come to slashdot, instead of something like Leo's "Eco-site" when I'm in search of an informed opinion and not a good laugh.
No, it's not. The reason is that Guttman and others ALWAYS neglect to mention that unprotected content will NEVER suffer from anything they're talking about. Why is that? Why do they neglect to mention this? It's simply, don't want DRM, don't buy protected content.
You act as if software is going to advertise the fact that it has DRMed content in it AND that DRM will be limited to discrete media like movies and songs. What, in this world obsessed with "intellectual property", would ever make you think this?
Once the platform for content protection is established and accepted, there is EVERY reason to believe that DRM will be extended onto other copyrighted works--things like clipart, splash videos, GUI designs, fonts, PDF documents, and so on. And if ANY of this DRM-encumbered media is being (dis)played while non-DRM media is also being (dis)played, the quality of the non-DRMed content will be degraded as well.
Vista is *NOT* more expensive, nor has it been proven to be less reliable, and most independant tests say that Vista is just as fast (sometimes faster) than XP. Finally, your "fundamentally vulnerable to DDOS attacks" claim is paranoid lunacy with nothing backing it up. Pure FUD. That's all you can come up with?
Actually bothering to read the things you quote never hurts. All of those descriptors were in reference to the HARDWARE that will inevitably be designed around Microsoft's asinine specifications, regardless of whether you actually use/own DRMed content or Windows OS at all.
If there's no DRM on the file, Vista DOES NOT MESS WITH IT. Period. End of story. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, quit spreading this FUD.
You see, modern computers have this thing you may have heard of called multitasking. Inevitably, this will lead to non-DRM content being processed while DRMed content is also being processed. The problem with Microsoft's implementation is that, when this happens, Vista will apply the downgrading of quality to ALL of the output--not just the DRMed content. And don't think for a minute that this will be an unlikely scenario either. Once proprietary software starts putting DRM on icons or splash videos, this type of interaction will become all but inevitable.
Here's the relevant part of Dr. Gutman's paper on this:
Alongside the all-or-nothing approach of disabling output, Vista requires that
any interface that provides high-quality output degrade the signal quality
that passes through it if premium content is present. This is done through a
"constrictor" that downgrades the signal to a much lower-quality one, then up-
scales it again back to the original spec, but with a significant loss in
quality. So if you're using an expensive new LCD display fed from a high-
quality DVI signal on your video card and there's protected content present,
the picture you're going to see will be, as the spec puts it, "slightly
fuzzy", a bit like a 10-year-old CRT monitor that you picked up for $2 at a
yard sale...
The same deliberate degrading of playback quality applies to audio, with the
audio being downgraded to sound (from the spec) "fuzzy with less detail"
[Note G]...
Beyond the obvious playback-quality implications of deliberately degraded
output, this measure can have serious repercussions in applications where
high-quality reproduction of content is vital. For example the field of
medical imaging either bans outright or strongly frowns on any form of lossy
compression because artifacts introduced by the compression process can cause
mis-diagnoses and in extreme cases even become life-threatening. Consider a
medical IT worker who's using a medical imaging PC while listening to
audio/video played back by the computer (the CDROM drives installed in
workplace PCs inevitably spend most of their working lives playing music or
MP3 CDs to drown out workplace noise). If there's any premium content present
in there, the image will be subtly altered by Vista's content protection,
potentially creating exactly the life-threatening situation that the medical
industry has worked so hard to avoid. The scary thing is that there's no easy
way around this - Vista will silently modify displayed content under certain
(almost impossible-to-predict in advance) situations discernable only to
Vista's built-in content-protection subsystem [Note H].
Why do people keep insisting that hardware-enforced DRM (like Vista's) is somehow optional, like Active Desktop or ClearType fonts? IT IS NOT.
Now, I don't expect the OP to read the technical documents behind Vista's "premium content protection" methods and I don't even expect him to read the expert analysis he references on the subject, but for God's sakes, I can't believe he's acting as if he's somehow informed on the matter when he says things like:
There's aren't evil DRM gremlins in Vista that are going to try to screw you over and mess with your media... you needn't worry about an evil gremlin applying DRM to your files while you sleep. Gutmann is just one of the many out there that dislike MS and are spreading FUD related to Vista.
This is a complete strawman argument. Nobody knowledgeable on the matter has ever claimed this. I specifically implore anyone to find me where Dr. Gutman ever claimed that DRM would be applied to non-DRM files. This mis-characterization of the opposition is academically dishonest in every sense of the phrase.
Old apps run fine,
This is not true. Not even MICROSOFT is saying that. In fact, here's what they have to say about it: "We have made tremendous investments in Windows Vista to ensure backwards compatibility, but some of the system enhancements, such as User Access Control, changes to the networking stack, and the new graphics model, may require code changes on your part. You should work hard to run as standard user." (emphasis mine)
It may indeed be true that the DRM'd media files will suck and be low quality, however if you just don't use them then you'll never have to care.
The fact that the vast majority of hardware you'll be able to buy (regardless of DRM or OS) will be more expensive, less reliable, slower, and fundamentally vulnerable to DDOS attacks is of no concern to you? Well I guess as long as it looks pretty, why should you care, right?
Commercial speech is fully protected by the First Amendment, at the same level as other forms of speech (e.g. political speech), so long as it does not concern illegal goods or activities, and is not deceptive.
But it is deceptive and, most certainly, irresponsible. You'll never convince me that a thirty second advert is able to reasonably explain the biochemical mechanism, treatments, interactions, contra-indications, and statistical risks of taking a particular drug. It's impossible. We require nurses, pharmacists, and doctors go to school for years on end before allowing them to distribute and educate the public on these potentially dangerous chemicals; only to have the entire process subverted by profiteering vultures in a matter of seconds. It's ridiculous.
First, it can't do that. This is a Fifth Amendment issue; the government can't take a patent from someone without paying just compensation.
First of all, a patent is not property in the sense that you're using it.
Article I section 8 states: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
A patent isn't so much property as it is a limited monopoly. Exactly WHAT limits are never explictly stated. If Congress decided to pass a law that defined those limits like the OP described, I see no reason why that would be unconstitutional so long as it could be reasonably argued that it served the progress of Science.
It's also rational to beleive that MS simply want not to be excluded from digital distribution markets, as they would be (by some if not all of the major content producers) if they included no DRM playback functionality at all.
Oh please. Microsoft could have easily left the state of content protection unchanged from XP to Vista, and none of the distributors would have been able to do squat about it.
Or do you really think that the media companies could afford to ignore over 90% of the desktop user marketshare in a time when online distribution of commercial content is growing by leaps and bounds? Now MAYBE they could jump ship from the Windows Media Player compliance, but how could they EVER exclude Microsoft Windows OS and stay in business?
Not all diabetes can be cured with exercise and diet. However, if you are overweight and have a bad diet, then that should be addressed before a doc whips out his prescription pad... Once weight and diet are analyzed and fixed, then, and only then, should a doctor prescribe a drug. Too many people take the drug and never fix the problem.
[In an exam room] Doctor: "Mrs. Johnson, I'd love to put you on a statin to lower your blood cholesterol levels and a beta-blocker for your chronic chest pain and high blood pressure, BUT random-smacktard1337 on slashdot thinks you need to get your fatass to the gym and stop stuffing your face first. So, get to it and check back with me when you're HEALTHY!"
...
Doctor: "What? It's not that simple? Well, that's not MY problem, now is it?"
...
Doctor: 'What will you do in the time between your miraculous transformation from an out-of-shape slob into a disciplined, world-class athlete?' How should do I know?! I only treat knowledgeable, motivated patients; not the vast majority of people--NOW GET OUT OF MY OFFICE!"
....
Doctor: "Hmmph... the nerve of some people...."
[/sarcasm] All kidding aside, it's quite clear that you have never spent a minute in a real-life clinical setting. Is there a place for preventative medicine? Of course. Could preventative medicine and proper lifestyles have prevented most incidents of type-II diabetes. In all likelihood, yes--but what do you do with people who have diabetes NOW? And what if they CAN'T exercise like they should? (You know, believe it or not, some people have more than one disease--go figure.) And even if they aren't compliant and don't exercise, what harm is there is there in doing what YOU (as a health-care provider) CAN do to help? Aren't lazy or [Insert Flaw Here] people entitled to medical care too?
Lastly, I think you're being quite flippant about the effects of diabetes when you associate it with benign diseases like Erectile Dysfunction. I'm positive if you asked the staff of any ward unit at any hospital across the country to tell you about patients who have lost life or limb as a direct or indirect result of diabetes, you would find that between them they could tell you about HUNDREDS of cases.
This article relies on very little facts and pushes FUD with nothing to back it up.
The article is a summary of a paper. A summary is, by definition, shorter and more terse than the original. In the paper, everything he says is referenced; not that you'll probably ever read it. Regardless, being that ignorance has a certain contagious quality, I'll go ahead and address your points.
Vista DOES NOT force anyone to use DRM, it doesn't take your non drm'ed content and suddenly magically add DRM to it, it does not prevent ANY of your existing or any new non DRM'ed content from working exactly as it works now. The ONLY thing Vista does is to ALSO allow you to play DRM content.
You're acting like DRM is some kind of exciting, new software feature that Vista now supports. The truth is that DRM, in order to function in a way that can't be trivially circumvented and implemented in the way that Microsoft has outlined, requires that the actual hardware be 1) more expensive than it otherwise would be 2) less powerful than it should be 3) unable to play ANY content at the its original quality 4) non-backwards compatible with older software 5) less-reliable and 6) open to numerous new security flaws.
And this is even IF you choose NOT to use any of the DRM applications or even have Windows installed at all.
And for what? The only rational explanation why is so that distributors and Microsoft can obtain a monopoly on digital media distribution.
Slashdot Mirror
Intent is very nebulous and tricky concept. How do you divine the intent of the creator of a particular object at the time that he or she invented it and does that realistically matter? What differentiates a hunting rifle ("good"--people need food) from an assault rifle (killing = "evil")? And what about knives? Tactical knives are intended for injuring or killing others but pocket knives are intended to be used as tools, and yet, the actual realistic differences between the two are fairly ambiguous and ultimately (even among experts) a matter of opinion. In the case of assault rifles and hunting rifles, the differences are even more subjective given that the firing mechanisms are identical.
"The path to hell is paved with good intentions." You might be surprised to find out that the creator of the modern machine gun (Richard J. Gatling) actually had good intentions. He thought (mistakenly) that his invention would make the concept of war so terrible and unimaginable that countries would be forced to resolve their differences peacefully. The same could be said for many of the scientists that created the first atomic bombs.
I think you're jumping to conclusions when you make comparisons between things like weaponized anthrax and personal firearms. It's not inconsistent to believe that somewhere a line can be drawn separating some weapons that the general populace can and should have and weapons that they can/should not have. Furthermore, it's not unreasonable to believe that conflicting values (Ex. freedoms vs. safety) are gained or lost depending upon where that line is drawn. For instance, a society where access to machine guns and rocket launchers is relatively unrestricted, might actually have some benefits over one where such weapons are restricted. For instance, a tyranny might be much harder to establish in such a country than one where people are unarmed. And yet, these benefits would not, in my mind, make up for the equivalent decrease safety and stability.
Personally, I don't feel that people need access to things like machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades or silencers. At the same time, I wouldn't want to live in a society where I or anyone else lived in constant fear with no means to realistically protect themselves and their loved ones from violence and crime. Is there a cost to such a position? Absolutely, but the increased quality of life and peace of mind, in my opinion, makes up for it. That being said, I can totally understand why others may differ and freely concede that my valuation--since it is an opinion--may be wrong (in one direction or the other). I just wish more people would be willing to submit to analyzing their beliefs along such a spectrum instead of pushing for one extreme or the other.
-Grym
Yeah, until a few homegrown ISPs come along and offer unrestricted access and properly upgrade their networks to keep up with demand. Sure, such a company's profit margin may be smaller, but they'd make up for it in the hordes of customers switching.
This honestly has nothing to do with net neutrality. I personally pay $65.00 per month per for premium cable-modem internet from Comcast (internet access is important to me). It's quite a stretch say that they are unable to turn a profit and need to resort to blackmailing content providers in order to upgrade their service.
-Grym
But by which criteria do we define when macroevolution has occurred? In the case of transitional fossils, for instance, at what point does a fin become a leg or an arm a wing? And how would one be able to make the distinction between micro and macro evolution in an organism if it were occurring today?
It seems to me that the macroevolution is a distinction based upon convenience. Macroevolution is simply any evolutionary change for which there is no concrete model--a "God in the gaps." As soon as the transitional fossil is found or a biochemical process discovered, the definition will change. In that sense, yes, macroevolution is impossible. But one shouldn't use this linguistic impossibility to infer that the evolutionary changes one ascribes to macroevolution are similarly impossible. They aren't.
A "feature" is in the eye of the beholder. Ultimately, there is no difference between a wing and antibiotic resistance. Both traits are derived from genes which are subject to to selection. The only difference is that disappearing prerequisites make the wing look impossible or implausible upon a cursory examination.
An example I like to use is modern industry and technology. Industries arise depending upon other industries which are ultimately replaced. If our civilization was to be observed by alien anthropologists lacking knowledge of our exact history (a similar situation we are in in examining the history of life on this planet), they might be shocked. We use computers to create computers. This might lead some of our less astute aliens to think that one computer was simply dropped from the sky or spontaneously created at one point and that that first computer was what led to the creation all of the others. And yet *we* know, by virtue of our knowledge of history, that this isn't true. The same could be said for almost any industry. There is no bronze industry today but it was certainly necessary to extract ore used in other metals. The only unfortunate thing is that we don't have a history of biology in the same way we do about industry.
Simply because we don't *see* a disappearing prerequisite today has no bearing upon the fact that it did, at one point exist. Similarly, one shouldn't draw the false conclusion that circularly dependent biochemical structures (like Patrick Behe's biochemical mousetrap example) are evidence that evolution is not the cause of said change.
-Grym
From what I've read, there is no intention on the part of obstetricians to discontinue regular pap smears. In fact, it'd be irresponsible for them to stop, because doing so would be a virtual death sentence (in the form of a late diagnosis) to those affected by all the cervical cancer unabated by this vaccine.
Of course everyone wants a healthier, cancer-free populace. That's not really an issue. Medicine is about balance. Balancing risks and benefits to different treatments. Otherwise, we'd all have our appendices removed and be injected with every vaccine available from birth.
"First do no harm" in the world of evidence-based medicine is tricky business. For one must not only demonstrate that a particular treatment works but also that it doesn't cause more harm (both in an individual patient and in aggregate) than good. And this includes all the risks and benefits be assessed. For instance, a vaccine, even if it does save, 100 lives, effectively does no good if it causes fatal allergic reactions in 1:10,000 and is administered to a population of 1,000,000 people.
Unfortunately, risk-management pieces don't sell newspapers. Once it's mentioned that the vaccine in question prevents cancer the discussion is over. And that's unfortunate because we'd do well to practice caution with any newly developed drug intended to be administered to an entire populace if only for the lack of longitudinal studies.
-Grym
Please, don't provide any encouragement or validation to this flawed line of reasoning. As a free and open society with limited resources, we have to be prepared to accept a certain amount of risk. "Erring on the side of caution," (i.e. maximum panic-mode) for such an obviously low-risk situation is irresponsible, expensive, and counterproductive.
Rather than live in a fantasy world where Bostonians are applauded as heroes because they disarm lite brites filled with imaginary explosives, we need to rationally think about this. Otherwise, there's no end to this madness.
Anything could be a bomb. Can you ever rule out the possibility of "the terrorists" surgically implanting bombs within their abdominal cavities? Or what if evil terrorist surgeons implanted bombs into unknowing patients? In which case... maybe YOU could be a bomb! Maybe I'm a bomb! What if they've been at work since we were all born. Maybe... we're all bombs! So, in light of this, what should we do now? Surgically operate on everyone--just to be sure? My God! We'd be heroes, the saviors of a very thankful nation if we were right!
So, the question is then: why should we discard my obviously silly possibility but still consider the similarly ridiculous killer lite-brite scenario?
-Grym
It's interesting that you should bring that up, because the results show that you have latent beastality tendencies... and you touch yourself at night.
Just kidding. As other people have mentioned, this study doesn't mean much at all. People just talk about music because it's an ice-breaker. It prevents dreaded conversational deadspace that can make even the most extroverted of us akward. Can you tell something about a person by the music he or she prefers? Sure. But certainly not enough to make proper dating decision. Notice how none of the traits they bring up are bad. They all indicate positive traits like emotionally stable, extroverted, or intellectual, not bad attributes like violent, ignorant, or divisive which, honestly, would be far more informative.
Just another pop-psychology study to be discarded with the rest. Move along, nothing to see here.
-Grym
Sure, in the strictest sense, there can be no completely disinterested person on this issue because we're all stakeholders of this rock we call Earth. That being said, there are some people who are far more invested in a particular outcome being true (or at least publicly believed) than others. You're kidding yourself if you think that "scientists" funded/employed by the most profitable industry in history (which has everything to lose, if anthropogenic climate change is real/accepted) are just as objective or impartial on this matter as regular scientists working off federal grants or university funding.
Secondly, the philosophy of science isn't as objective as you might think. Sometimes your methods can be right, your experiments verified and repeatable, but your conclsions dead wrong. This happens frequently and is what makes scientific progress so difficult. However, ill-intentioned people can devise experiments that intentionally lead to false or misleading conclusions. This is the essence of bad science.
The big hint, for laymen that this is taking place, is when such studies ignore the highly supported, well-documented claims of opposing theories and tend to focus on minor (often neglible) discrepancies or areas where there just isn't enough data to know for sure. Take Intelligent Design (ID), for example. Proponents of ID make no effort to debunk sequence homology studies or the fossil record, because doing so is extremely difficult if not impossible. Instead, ID supporters focus on a few select cases where the exact nature of biomolecular events is unknown (for now) and from that draw sweeping, and unsupported, conclusions about the entire theory of evolution.
You'll note that global warming opponents do the same thing. You'll see their papers study carbon sinks (which, even if true, might be neglible in the scheme of things) or how variations in solar output (something that isn't well understood at this point) might fit the data. But what you don't see are papers denying the fact that increased cabon dioxide in the air is anthropogenic or disputing the basic science behind greenhouse gases in general.
That's like saying that because its impossible to know which direction an individual atom in a solution might go from instant to instant that net diffusion isn't predictable. And yet, diffusion is practically a mathematical law, in practice.
Sometimes, things are far easier to predict in aggregate than they are individually. Take lifespan, for instance. Just because I can't predict, to the day, when an indvidual squirrel might die, that fact has no bearing upon my ability to make stunningly accurate predictions on the average lifespan of a group of squirrels. Furthermore, I'll remind you that the data for global climate change extends into thousands of years. It's not unreasonable to expect an accurate extrapolation for the next fifty or one-hundred years from that.
-Grym
There's no need to be a pedantic prick. It was blatantly obvious from the context of my post that I was talking about anthropological global warming. The major point of my post (if you bothered reading past the first sentence) was that we need to address, in general, how we as a civilization plan to organize our industries with respect to the environment. The fact is that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is already at an unprecedented level because of us. And, by all accounts, the trend is only going to increase. The question is then: what are we going to do about it? To answer "nothing," is hardly a conservative response.
-Grym
Even IF you don't "believe" in global warming, at some point you have to address the impact that our civilization's industries are having upon this world. The problem is that conservatives get so wrapped up in fighting against "the hippies" that they never even stop to think about this much larger issue.
I mean, just look at this plot of Carbon emissions does that look good to you?
Even if you don't subscribe to the basic scientific inference from trend (more of a greenhouse gas --> greater heat from the sun retained), you must realize that this trend is leading to a major departure from the atmospheric gas concentrations of the past. By all accounts, we're entering into uncharted territory and it's, ironically, the "conservatives" who are urging us onward--that the worst "probably" won't happen. It's bizarre. Is profit and industry really so important that we should risk the fate of humanity against the best advice of the vast majority of our scientific experts?
The first step is admitting you have a problem: We have a problem with our carbon emissions. Wouldn't it make much more sense to start the debate and discussion from there?
-Grym
True story: My computer didn't have quicktime installed (or had some problem with QT) when I played the first Myst game. So, all the puzzles worked, but none of the story full-motion videos did. I was, of course, none-the-wiser to this and played through the entire game without ever knowing what the heck was going on--I thought that was part of the "mystique." Every time I would encounter one of those books with the movies in it, I just saw a black square, which at the time I had assumed was some kind of puzzle I just hadn't figured out yet. You can only imagine how confused I was when I got the the end of the game and there's a bunch of text regarding all these characters and their conflict which I had apparently been participating in all along.
For what it's worth, though, I still liked the game. What others are saying here is probably true. A good storyline always takes backseat to good gameplay.
-Grym
I agree. Churches shouldn't be threated into feeling like they're walking on eggshells to avoid possibly political statements. Furthermore, the line between religious philosophy and politics isn't as clearcut as most people would like to think. Whether you believe it or not, religion (and being religious) is about more than just talking on Sundays about a big invisible man in the sky; it's a way of life (which is inextricable from politics). Provided that a church's rhetoric doesn't directly advocate violence or clearly illegal acts, I see no reason why their doctrine should be scrutinized any further.
That being said, I think you're being unfair when you say that liberals are the ones advocating censorship and conservatives are defenders of free speech. That may be true in the example you bring up, but not for many others. Conservatives are just as bad (if not worse) with regard to censorship when it doesn't suite them. Take, for instance, the issue of nudity in the mass media. Viewing of nudity by itself is not psychologically harmful. It's not. Psychological study after psychological study have shown this. And yet, conservatives fight very hard against keeping movies, images, and art containing nudity from being broadcast all in the name of "protecting the children," which is really just a cover for their real goal: protecting us from our own sinful bodies.
And art isn't the only place where conservatives let free speech die by the wayside of a political agenda. It's conservatives who see nothing wrong with the DMCA and other copyright laws being used to suppress embarrassing internal memos or letters. It's conservatives who want to pass laws making it illegal to "desecrate" an American flag.
The grim reality of American politics is that neither party, despite what they'd like to to believe, is a defender of the people's rights. The saddest thing of all is that because of this, the concept of individual rights has degraded from the philosophical view of human dignity and justice into an argument about what IS or ISN'T written on a piece of paper.
-Grym
Of course, the quintessential problem with both this analogy and your brand of thinking is that you assume your subjective analysis is absolutely correct to the point of a mathematical proof such that anyone who disagrees, even slightly, is simply wrong.
From a philosophical standpoint, that is a bad (if not ridiculous) assumption. From a political point of view, however, that is the worst assumption you can ever make because doing so shuts down discussion and any chance of compromise. The result is the divisive, polarized political atmosphere that goes beyond mere partisanship to the point of what could best be described as tribalism.
Don't think for a second that the problems of this country are the result of moderates. Moderates are only ones stopping the idiotic blue tribe and the primitive red tribe from resorting to bloodshed over relatively trivial shit like abortion, the death penalty, and "intelligent" design. Truth be told, self-labeled liberals and conservatives share more in common with each other in their types of thinking than they do with moderates.
I firmly believe that if more people started humbling themselves enough to seriously ask the basic and fundamental question "Could I be wrong?," we'd be much better off than if either progressives or conservatives single-handedly achieved their vision of utopia.
-Grym
Obviously. Because clearly the media distributors are going to spend their time making sure that it works out that way.
Yes. Even if this mythical DRM solution existed, yes, I would still object.
The perfectionist side of me recoils at the sheer inelegance of modern DRM methods. Between the decryption, the authorization, and the dependency issues, it just seems like the entire process is an inconvenient, inefficient, and one-sided affair. And for what? What do I, as a consumer, get out of all this? A movie? A song? I could buy those things before! Furthermore, it simply doesn't make sense to me to encrypt and lock up a piece of art. Art is meant to be experienced, enjoyed, and--yes--copied. What's so hard to understand about that?
The suspicious side of me wonders what they're up to. Even if your DRM scheme was dropped from the heavens perfect as baby Jesus, it is nevertheless is still a form of control. Why should they have that control over devices I've bought and paid for? Even if they aren't abusing it now, who's to say that won't in the future? Why should I expose myself (even it is only my music collection at risk) when I am getting nothing out of the deal in return?
But most of all, I think the American (for lack of a better word) side of me hates the arbitrary restrictions of DRM. Rules for good reasons I respect. Rules out of tradition I can tolerate. But rules for no good reason I absolutely cannot stand, and, no, artificially propping up an ancient business model based on conditions that don't exist anymore is NOT a good reason. But more than that, it's the type of restriction that DRM imposes that's most grating of all. It's worse than being treated like a criminal, it's being treated like a child; as if I can't be trusted with the awesome and terrible power of my own tape deck. The very idea irks me. So, yes, I would still object to DRM, even as you describe it.
-Grym
I couldn't disagree more. The rich don't drive the economy any more than any other consumer does. How is a single mother buying baby formula any less connected to the economy than Paris Hilton buying a new purse? You might be tempted into an argument of scale (that the purse costs thousands more), but this point is moot because there are far more single mothers than Paris Hiltons. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the rich, as a result of their savings accounts, contribute less to the economy, per capita, than an individual forced to live paycheck to paycheck. Therefore, measures aimed at reducing the wage gap would probably help the economy more than hurt it and would certainly provide greater incentive to produce products that people need and not spurious things like yachts.
This entire line of logic that the rich drive the economy by buying yachts is the modern equivalent of Broken Windows Fallacy.
-Grym
Clearly, the Alliance... everybody knows that.
For the horde!
So, what's the plan? Do we hold off on diplomatically confronting them until North Korea has a nuclear weapon small enough to fit on their missile platforms or until a "nuclear fizzle" happens on Seoul?
So, we aren't supposed to believe North Korea's statements when it comes to their illegal nuclear weapons program and explicit threats against South Korea, but we are supposed to believe their ridiculous claims that U.S. aggression is the cause of... their nuclear weapons program, that we aren't supposed to believe exists. Right...
But back to the facts: there was NO chance that the United States was going to do any aggressive military action in the immediate future against the DPRK when it decided to do its nuclear test. NONE. So why did they do it knowing the international condemnation that would surely follow?
This line that the United States is the bully that's left the poor DPRK no choice but to respond needs to stop. It's utter bullshit. If North Korea were truly trying to prevent conflict, why would they make provocative statements and aggressive actions at times when they are being, by and large, diplomatically ignored--not threated--by the US?
If you're going to try to play the DPRK's champion, you should at least abandon your willful ignorance of their country first.
North Korea has the fifth largest military in the world in an area slightly smaller than Mississippi. It spends about 25% of its GNP on its military, by proportion, the most in the world. It has a standing army of just over one million men, most of whom are, incidentally, black-belts in TaeKwonDo.
Quoth a military assessment of the North Korean situation: "Seoul, the South Korean capitol, lies within range of North Korean long-range artillery. Five hundred 170mm Koksan guns and 200 multiple-launch rocket systems could hit Seoul with artillery shells and chemical weapons, causing panic and massive civilian casualties. North Korea has between 500 and 600 Scud missiles that could strike targets throughout South Korea with conventional warheads or chemical weapons. North Korea could hit Japan with its 100 No-dong missiles. Seventy percent of North Korean army ground units are located within 100 miles of the demilitarized zone separating North and South Korea, positioned to undertake offensive ground operations. These units could fire up to 500,000 artillery rounds per hour against South Korean defenses for several hours." In short: they not to be fucked with. [Source, Source, Source]
Those facts say nothing, of course, about their well-documented kidnapping campaign against South Koreans and the innumerable paramil
Where did I say that every post on here was informed? It's a public forum, what do you expect? Would you similarly judge the quality of a theater by its peanut gallery?
Accuracy. Depth. Breadth. Most discussion websites struggle to attain two. Slashdot manages to get a bit of all three and still stay interesting. Is it perfect? No. But it's a great compromise. In my opinion, the level and quality of discussion that occurs on the variety of topics here is much better than anywhere else on the internet. And this is coming from someone who's been known to argued blue in the face against the "groupthink" bias that you mention.
And regardless of whatever you may think, experts and professionals DO read and participate in these forums. I can personally attest to this because I was once contacted by John Dvorak regarding one of my posts. Lastly, take this for what it's worth, but once I finish medical school I fully intend to offer my expertise when relevant.
-Grym
To be fair, though, the scientific disciplines aren't completely insular and unrelated as many people would like to think. Believe it or not, but my Biology classes taught me a lot (even if only tangentially, at times) about law, computer science, politics, and even philosophy.
And in all honesty, the most important aspect of a science education is teaching the method through which one should derive his or her information and opinions. Because while our understanding of the world may change, the logic by which we draw those conclusions--by and large--won't. And, once you've trained yourself to rationally analyze things, you can apply that skill to any intellectual pursuit. The same cannot be said for arts, such as, for example, acting. The skill of acting, may make you be able to act like you have an informed opinion, but it doesn't help you actually say anything of worth.
So, if given the choice, I'd be much more open to listen to what an engineer has to say about global warming than Leonardo DiCaprio. And that is why I come to slashdot, instead of something like Leo's "Eco-site" when I'm in search of an informed opinion and not a good laugh.
-Grym
You act as if software is going to advertise the fact that it has DRMed content in it AND that DRM will be limited to discrete media like movies and songs. What, in this world obsessed with "intellectual property", would ever make you think this?
Once the platform for content protection is established and accepted, there is EVERY reason to believe that DRM will be extended onto other copyrighted works--things like clipart, splash videos, GUI designs, fonts, PDF documents, and so on. And if ANY of this DRM-encumbered media is being (dis)played while non-DRM media is also being (dis)played, the quality of the non-DRMed content will be degraded as well.
Actually bothering to read the things you quote never hurts. All of those descriptors were in reference to the HARDWARE that will inevitably be designed around Microsoft's asinine specifications, regardless of whether you actually use/own DRMed content or Windows OS at all.
-Grym
You see, modern computers have this thing you may have heard of called multitasking. Inevitably, this will lead to non-DRM content being processed while DRMed content is also being processed. The problem with Microsoft's implementation is that, when this happens, Vista will apply the downgrading of quality to ALL of the output--not just the DRMed content. And don't think for a minute that this will be an unlikely scenario either. Once proprietary software starts putting DRM on icons or splash videos, this type of interaction will become all but inevitable.
Here's the relevant part of Dr. Gutman's paper on this:
-Grym
Why do people keep insisting that hardware-enforced DRM (like Vista's) is somehow optional, like Active Desktop or ClearType fonts? IT IS NOT.
Now, I don't expect the OP to read the technical documents behind Vista's "premium content protection" methods and I don't even expect him to read the expert analysis he references on the subject, but for God's sakes, I can't believe he's acting as if he's somehow informed on the matter when he says things like:
This is a complete strawman argument. Nobody knowledgeable on the matter has ever claimed this. I specifically implore anyone to find me where Dr. Gutman ever claimed that DRM would be applied to non-DRM files. This mis-characterization of the opposition is academically dishonest in every sense of the phrase.
This is not true. Not even MICROSOFT is saying that. In fact, here's what they have to say about it: "We have made tremendous investments in Windows Vista to ensure backwards compatibility, but some of the system enhancements, such as User Access Control, changes to the networking stack, and the new graphics model, may require code changes on your part. You should work hard to run as standard user." (emphasis mine)
The fact that the vast majority of hardware you'll be able to buy (regardless of DRM or OS) will be more expensive, less reliable, slower, and fundamentally vulnerable to DDOS attacks is of no concern to you? Well I guess as long as it looks pretty, why should you care, right?
-Grym
But it is deceptive and, most certainly, irresponsible. You'll never convince me that a thirty second advert is able to reasonably explain the biochemical mechanism, treatments, interactions, contra-indications, and statistical risks of taking a particular drug. It's impossible. We require nurses, pharmacists, and doctors go to school for years on end before allowing them to distribute and educate the public on these potentially dangerous chemicals; only to have the entire process subverted by profiteering vultures in a matter of seconds. It's ridiculous.
First of all, a patent is not property in the sense that you're using it.
Article I section 8 states: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
A patent isn't so much property as it is a limited monopoly. Exactly WHAT limits are never explictly stated. If Congress decided to pass a law that defined those limits like the OP described, I see no reason why that would be unconstitutional so long as it could be reasonably argued that it served the progress of Science.
-Grym
Oh please. Microsoft could have easily left the state of content protection unchanged from XP to Vista, and none of the distributors would have been able to do squat about it.
Or do you really think that the media companies could afford to ignore over 90% of the desktop user marketshare in a time when online distribution of commercial content is growing by leaps and bounds? Now MAYBE they could jump ship from the Windows Media Player compliance, but how could they EVER exclude Microsoft Windows OS and stay in business?
-Grym
[In an exam room] Doctor: "Mrs. Johnson, I'd love to put you on a statin to lower your blood cholesterol levels and a beta-blocker for your chronic chest pain and high blood pressure, BUT random-smacktard1337 on slashdot thinks you need to get your fatass to the gym and stop stuffing your face first. So, get to it and check back with me when you're HEALTHY!"
Doctor: "What? It's not that simple? Well, that's not MY problem, now is it?"
...
Doctor: 'What will you do in the time between your miraculous transformation from an out-of-shape slob into a disciplined, world-class athlete?' How should do I know?! I only treat knowledgeable, motivated patients; not the vast majority of people--NOW GET OUT OF MY OFFICE!"
....
Doctor: "Hmmph... the nerve of some people...."
[/sarcasm] All kidding aside, it's quite clear that you have never spent a minute in a real-life clinical setting. Is there a place for preventative medicine? Of course. Could preventative medicine and proper lifestyles have prevented most incidents of type-II diabetes. In all likelihood, yes--but what do you do with people who have diabetes NOW? And what if they CAN'T exercise like they should? (You know, believe it or not, some people have more than one disease--go figure.) And even if they aren't compliant and don't exercise, what harm is there is there in doing what YOU (as a health-care provider) CAN do to help? Aren't lazy or [Insert Flaw Here] people entitled to medical care too?
Lastly, I think you're being quite flippant about the effects of diabetes when you associate it with benign diseases like Erectile Dysfunction. I'm positive if you asked the staff of any ward unit at any hospital across the country to tell you about patients who have lost life or limb as a direct or indirect result of diabetes, you would find that between them they could tell you about HUNDREDS of cases.
-Grym
The article is a summary of a paper. A summary is, by definition, shorter and more terse than the original. In the paper, everything he says is referenced; not that you'll probably ever read it. Regardless, being that ignorance has a certain contagious quality, I'll go ahead and address your points.
You're acting like DRM is some kind of exciting, new software feature that Vista now supports. The truth is that DRM, in order to function in a way that can't be trivially circumvented and implemented in the way that Microsoft has outlined, requires that the actual hardware be 1) more expensive than it otherwise would be 2) less powerful than it should be 3) unable to play ANY content at the its original quality 4) non-backwards compatible with older software 5) less-reliable and 6) open to numerous new security flaws.
And this is even IF you choose NOT to use any of the DRM applications or even have Windows installed at all.
And for what? The only rational explanation why is so that distributors and Microsoft can obtain a monopoly on digital media distribution.
-Grym