First, the title is "Windows Nag Windows to Counter Piracy." What does that even mean?
Perhaps it would be clearer if I wrote it like this: Windows' "Nag Windows" to Counter Piracy.
Re:Don't care. Don't want to care.
on
How Vista Disappoints
·
· Score: 3, Informative
and yes I have tried Open Office, but I got too many complaints from people who still use office and complain about OO screwing up doc conversions... plus OO is resource hog and takes ages to load.
Many of the complaints I hear along these lines are usually referring to the 1.x versions of OOo, and were true at that time. However, the 2.x versions of OpenOffice are very stable, not as resource intensive, and much more mature than their 1.x counterparts (Sun had a big hand in that). Document conversion from MS Office is a problem still, but even Microsoft has problems converting between various versions of MS Office, so it's hardly a showstopper.
Bottom line: employees are usually retrained when an office upgrades to a new version of MS Office anyway, so why would this be any different? And because the native format of OpenOffice is OpenDocument, once you make the costly conversion from MS Office formats, you will not have to worry about conversion again (not necessarily because OpenDocument is the end-all of formats, but because it is open and documented, so that third parties can easily write batch converters for whatever new formats might pop up).
Admittedly, third party Windows-only software can be a problem. But just work that $200-a-seat savings into a contract with some software firm to get electronics or drafting software ported to Linux. Many CAD programs exist for UNIX and can be easily ported, and the Windows-only programs could run through an emulation layer such as Wine. The long-term cost savings would be quite high.
The bottom line is that there are absolutely no technical barriers to switching to Linux/OpenOffice on a workstation computer. There are only human resources challenges such as training, fear of change, and complacency, and perhaps budgetary concerns during the initial switch.
Windows Vista will promote a slew of new visual bells and whistles that many might enjoy and others will want to turn off. But basically Microsoft will bring Flash like GUI programming for real programs, not little applets on the web.
Oh goody, a new crop of incredibly crappy single-function programs that nag until you send them $30, all with craptastic animated and horribly obtuse and confusing user interfaces, just like all the Flash design on the web.
I'm going to keep XP on that machine for as long as it runs, or until I replace it with an open OS.
So why haven't you replaced it now?
You can get Ubuntu up and running in minutes, with full functionality. If you're more of a tinkerer type, set aside a weekend and take the plunge with Gentoo.
A news article cites findings and exclaims proof only to instigate an argument with the other side. More flock to it.
There is likely some truth to this.
I have also noticed that as protrayed in the media, the "evolutionist" camp has been put on the defensive; a good percentage of the articles I read in the mainstream press pertaining to evolution seem to steer the conversation away from "look at this neat bit of evidence we found that fits into some previously discovered evidence in a cool way" and closer to "look at this bit of evidence we found which *absolutely proves*, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the intelligent design people are fundamentalist loonies who would betray their own mothers if it meant the permanent banning of Origin of Species." The first statement is science. The second statement is politics.
Why are we even having this discussion anymore? Is the general public so out of touch with logic and reason that they have to listen to slick marketers with agendas to decide what is rational and what is belief?
But even with those there are ways to mitigate the effects. If nothing else, requiring a password before installing an app will solve most of the "naked pictures of celebrity" emails. There will always be a few idiots.
Rule Number One of Computer Security: People will install anything if it promises naked pictures.
Email, where you surf, and im messages are not considered protected private communications.
Why not? Is it because they are transmitted in cleartext?
Unlike a letter or phone call there isn't any expectation of privacy on network communications.
Letter, perhaps, because it is sealed. But a phone call? A phone call is also transmitted in the clear over an analog wire. There is nothing stopping someone from tapping a line and eavesdropping on your telephone conversation, other than a law saying they cannot. Why would it not be the same for email and IM messages?
But he would still have that chance. He can still have Honda sign a NDA, he can still outsource manufacturing, he can still sell the idea to someone who'll take it further... None of those options actually depend on patents. People still invented and got rich off their inventions before patents were invented and people still get rich off non-patented inventions today.
This is true, but just because an alternate workable system exists does not invalidate the first system. NDAs, trade secrets, and patents are all valid ways to profit from inventions. The difference is that patents force publication, allowing people to build upon the knowledge before the expiration of the patent. Even though people cannot profit from the information, they can learn from it to produce their own work. This would not happen with trade secrets or NDAs.
As many psychologists and historians of technology have shown, innovation does not proceed through major breakthroughs by specific individuals, but rather through the collaboration of different people who, through small and cumulative improvements, yield novel and useful artifacts over time (Basalla, 1988). All of patent law, on the other hand, is based on the assumption that an invention is a discrete and novel entity that can be assigned to the individual who is determined by the courts to be its legitimate creator. [Pierre Desrochers, Johns Hopkins University]
There is nothing in patent law that says multiple creators cannot be listed. And the question of whether an invention is something novel or just a "small and cumulative improvement" is up to the Patent Office to decide. Whether or not the Patent Office has actually been correctly assigning patents to only novel ideas is left as an exercise for the reader.
And how would you enforce that provision?
The same way provisions are enforced now: when someone makes a claim. Company A files a patent for an Invention, and then shelves it for future litigation. Company B creates the same Invention a little later, and files for a patent. Company B's patent is rejected because of the existence of Company A's patent. Company B does a little research and discovers that Company A has been sitting on the patent, doing nothing. Using this evidence, Company B goes to a patent court and overturns Company A's patent on the grounds that they did not use it. If Company A was still intending to use the patent, and was simply amassing capital or other such preperation activity, then that evidence would be presented to the court as well, who would ultimately decide which company is awarded the patent. The same situation could arise if Company B started marketing their Invention without a patent, and Company A came out of the woodwork to file a claim. In this case, "they were not using the patent" would be a viable defense for Company B during the proceedings.
In either case, I think the term of exclusivity on patents should be no longer than 5 years. This would reduce many of the current problems with the patent system, and solve situations like the ones above. Even if Company A wins back the patent, they only have a short time to capitalize on it and establish themselves in the market, and Company B only has a short time to wait. I think a shorter time of exclucivity would greatly cut down on the number of patent squatters.
Like the one where two companies invent the same thing at the same time, but only one can be awarded a patent, effectively "stealing" the work of the other.
Yes, it's true that only one company could claim the patent. But there is nothing stopping the second company from licensing the patent from the first company, or the two companies coming to a mutual agreement. And if the first company doesn't want to share, tough nuts. The patent will expire in a while anyway. However, without patents entirely, there is a very real chance that a company who didn't do any research really would "steal" the idea and profit from it. Since they have no R&D costs, they can p
For many people email is the only way they know of transferring files. How else is some low-level secretary going to send a file - SFTP it to a web server and email a link?
Right. And it's not like Windows makes server use any easier.
Let's say our plucky secretary is told by IT that there are servers available for transferring large files. She is shown how to map a server to a drive, and she can simply drag and drop in Explorer. This is great, she thinks.
Now she finishes that 100MB PowerPoint presentation with music and photos of the company picnic, and wants to send it to her boss for approval to show at the next staff meeting. She drops it on the server, selects the address in the address bar, and pastes the address into an email.
But wait! The address didn't paste as \\server\folder\subfolder! It pasted as H:\subfolder! Now Mr. Boss Man can't find the presentation, because he doesn't know what server it's on, and the clickable link doesn't work because his drive H: is mapped to somewhere else.
There is no way to copy the location of a file to the clipboard, so she ends up having to type it out. And since this is a large company, she has to type out something like \\srv-40ntt002934437xxkdf033\ien23434daf3\subfolde r\File Name With Spaces.ppt, which doesn't fully turn into a link because Outlook thinks the link is finished when it encounters a space.
Let's say some guy develops that mythical 100 MPG gasoline engine. Shouldn't he be able to patent it?
No, he should under no circumstance ever be allowed to patent it.
Why not? I'll bet he sunk $100,000 of his own money and 15 years of his life into inventing that engine. He deserves a chance to try and recoup those R&D costs before the auto manufacturers get their hands on the plans and start undercutting his price. Not an unlimited chance, you understand, but a chance.
Patenting it would virtually guarantee that the patent would be bought by (insert major oil pumping megacorp) and stuffed on a shelf until it's forgotten, 20 years later.
If the purpose of patents is to allow people or companies a chance to make back the money they spent developing a new invention, then shelving the invention is counter to that. Yes, there should be provisions in patent law that say, "if you choose to do nothing with this invention you forfeit your patent rights", but this example does not invalidate patents as a whole.
And, adding inslut to injury, the patent lawyers would make damn sure that the patent isn't actually revealing enough to create said engine, but detailed enough to stop anyone else from independently inventing a similar engine.
Also fixable by reworking (not abolishing) the patent system. Yes, the patent system is broken, allowing patents on generic ideas, business models, and software. But throwing up our hands and giving up on it is not the way to solve the problem. There are very real situations when a patent system is beneficial, and we should work on maximizing the benefit during those situations and minimizing the damage in other situations.
An engine like that belongs to humanity, not a single individual or single corporation.
Yes, after a time. But, remember that "humanity" did not develop the engine, the individual or corporation did (you can leave your "they were educated by the society" pinko ideas at home; I do not live in a hive mind). The inventor(s) deserve a *limited* amount of time for exclusivity, to prevent undercutting and market espionage. After that time is up, then society gets the invention back. Exactly how long that time should be is of course up for debate; the current limit of 14 years seems increasingly long in our instantanous Internet Age. But the bottom line is that there are times and places where the patent system is very beneficial, both to the economy and the society, and even though we need to work on fixing the system, abolishing it altogether is not the way to go.
Does this turn out to be the case that it must be closed to be secure? Isn't it really just a key distribution question?
What DRM boils down to is, "someone other than me has control over my content, and is telling me what I can and cannot do with it." Somehow, the DRM system has to lock up the content until I request the key, and in order to be secure, the key must be kept secure until I request it. So, yes, it's just a key distribution question.
However, DRM will never be, and can never be, fair to the consumer, open source or not. This is not like a laser-cut microchip-enabled car key that would prevent someone else from starting my car. This is more like the car has sensors to force the car to stay on the pavement. Is it illegal to drive the car on someone else's lawn? Sure, but I don't need controls in the car to prevent me from doing it.
I guess my point is that DRM is essentially a whitelist system, where everything is blocked except those functions they say are allowed, and this is the wrong way to approach the problem.
The creation of a.xxx TLD is a good idea, but not because of censorship.
If we tried to force all pornographic sites to move to.xxx names, then we would by necessity need to define "porn" to decide who has to move. Is the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition porn? What about the Victoria's Secret or Abercrombie catalogs? What about National Geographic's images of tribes in the Amazon who don't wear much clothing because it's frikkin' hot there, and don't worry about modesty? Is that porn? Defining porn is a difficult task at best, and defining it and moving it to.xxx wouldn't guarantee that suddenly, magically,.com is free of it.
However, internet porn is a very popular vector for the delivery of spyware, malware, and phishing attacks, because of its popularity and taboo nature in our society. If the company that registers.xxx domain names can guarantee that the sites who buy.xxx domain names are reputable and free of [spy|ad|mal|phish]ware, then people would probably be willing to pay a premium for access to that site. (If I recall correctly,.edu does this type of thing already.) It would not take the malware out of porn sites, but it will take reputable porn sites away from the disreputable ones, and generate some trust between merchants and customers. After all, a reputable porn site is just a business, and they don't want to hurt their customer base. Ask yourself, would you be more willing to give your credit card to a.com site, a.biz site, or a.edu site? If that same high level of trust was created for the.xxx domain, everyone would benefit: the reputable porn sites get a good name and distance themselves from the malware-ridden experience that is online porn, the customers get a better porn-browsing experience and don't compromise their computer's security just by looking at naked people, and the registrars get to make money. The.xxx TLD could become a sort of Better Business Bureau for online pornography sites.
If we really wanted to make censorship easy, let's create a.kid TLD, which is porn-free. Block everything but.kid, and maybe a few select whitelisted.com or.edu sites, and let your kids run wild and free on the internet without encountering a single filthy, traumatizing boobie.
Plus, it would really demoralize the insurgency. They know they can scare us off if they keep killing soldures, but you can never kill enough robots.
Obligatory:
Zapp: You see, the killbots have a preset kill limit; knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down. Bender: It was a dark day for robotkind. Ahhhh, we can always build more killbots.
JavaScript, originally named Mocha and then LiveScript, was developed in 1995 by Netscape, and debuted in version 2.0. It was named JavaScript to coincide with Netscape's added Java support, even though the languages are not that similar.
JScript was added by Microsoft to Internet Explorer 3.0 in 1996, in response to Netscape's JavaScript. JScript originally used the Active Scripting engine, also known as ActiveX.
ECMAScript is the current, formal standardization (ECMA-262) of both JavaScript and JScript into a single unified language. Currently, both JavaScript and JScript are considered extensions of ECMAScript, since they are fully compliant with extra functionality. It is possible (and recommended) that all client-side J(ava)Scripting be written as fully compliant ECMAScript, as it will then be compatible with all browsers.
To this day, all Gecko-based browsers support JavaScript, and IE supports JScript (it is also available as part of.NET). Both are ECMAScript compatible, as are all the various versions used by other browsers.
even for a techie early adopter, somehow the knowledge that there's a war brewing makes these things quite undesirable. i wonder if the people who actually buy it at this point know what's coming...?
Especially since crippling DRM limiting the fair use rights of paying customers for the sake of stopping a phantom piracy threat are included right there in the spec.
What about sites like the Online Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition or the Online Victoria's Secret Catalogue go? They're not porn, but they're definately in that grey area.
The creation of a.xxx TLD is a good idea, but not because of censorship.
If we tried to force all pornographic sites to move to.xxx names, then we would by necessity need to define "porn" to decide who has to move, and that is a difficult task at best, and it wouldn't guarantee that suddenly.com is free of porn.
However, internet porn is a very popular vector for the delivery of spyware, malware, and phishing attacks, because of its popularity and taboo nature in our society. If the company that registers.xxx domain names can guarantee that the sites who buy.xxx domain names are reputable and free of [spy|ad|mal|phish]ware, then people would probably be willing to pay a premium for access to that site. (If I recall correctly,.edu does this type of thing already.) It would not take the malware out of porn sites, but it will take reputable porn sites away from the disreputable ones. Ask yourself, would you be more willing to give your credit card to a.com site or a.biz site? What about a.edu? If that same level of trust was created for the.xxx domain, everyone benefits: the reputable porn sites get a good name, the customers get a better porn-browsing experience, and the registrars get to make money.
If we really wanted to make censorship easy, let's create a.kid TLD, which is porn-free. Block everything but.kid and let your kids run wild and free without seeing a single filthy, traumatizing boobie.
I think people have mixed feelings about sitting through the credits, unless there's reason to suspect some "easter-eggy" type stuff or outtakes there.
Maybe that's the way it was once upon a time, but now...
Yes, the trailers were typically shown after movies back in the day when the credits for a movie were shown right at the beginning.
But, since I'm one of those people who sits through the credits anyway, I would stay for the trailers. For the "but we must advertise all our upcoming movies!" crowd, I would suggest a giant screen in the lobby just showing trailers, right next to the box office line.
I always try to buy a bag of popcorn when I go to an indy film, because my understanding is that that's where the theater itself gets all its money. The ticket price only covers expenses.
Good for you. You're right... concessions are where the money is for theaters. Most managers describe their theaters as "cafeterias which also show movies." Theaters also get an increasing percentage of box office sales the longer a movie stays in the theaters, which is why they want the studios to wait to release the DVD.
As for the expensive nature of going to the theater: it's all about value. We think of theaters as being expensive, but only because we feel that what we get is not worth what we paid for it. Sticky floors, loud audience members, 20 minutes of forced advertisements, poor projection, and grumpy 15-year-old employees are not worth my $8.50+concessions. I would be willing to pay MORE for a ticket if the theater owners made it worthwhile. And by worthwhile, I mean:
- clean theaters - comfortable, well-spaced seats - gigantic screens - professional projectionists - cell phone blocking technology (passive technologies, like wires in the walls, are legal) - considerate, well-paid ushers - great food - no commercials - previews AFTER the movie (they are called trailers for a reason)
Make going to the theater all about *service*, and you will find a lower-volume, higher profit market. The cheapskates can either buy the DVD or put up with the same crap theaters have been force-feeding us for years.
Slashdot Mirror
First, the title is "Windows Nag Windows to Counter Piracy." What does that even mean?
Perhaps it would be clearer if I wrote it like this: Windows' "Nag Windows" to Counter Piracy.
and yes I have tried Open Office, but I got too many complaints from people who still use office and complain about OO screwing up doc conversions... plus OO is resource hog and takes ages to load.
Many of the complaints I hear along these lines are usually referring to the 1.x versions of OOo, and were true at that time. However, the 2.x versions of OpenOffice are very stable, not as resource intensive, and much more mature than their 1.x counterparts (Sun had a big hand in that). Document conversion from MS Office is a problem still, but even Microsoft has problems converting between various versions of MS Office, so it's hardly a showstopper.
Bottom line: employees are usually retrained when an office upgrades to a new version of MS Office anyway, so why would this be any different? And because the native format of OpenOffice is OpenDocument, once you make the costly conversion from MS Office formats, you will not have to worry about conversion again (not necessarily because OpenDocument is the end-all of formats, but because it is open and documented, so that third parties can easily write batch converters for whatever new formats might pop up).
Admittedly, third party Windows-only software can be a problem. But just work that $200-a-seat savings into a contract with some software firm to get electronics or drafting software ported to Linux. Many CAD programs exist for UNIX and can be easily ported, and the Windows-only programs could run through an emulation layer such as Wine. The long-term cost savings would be quite high.
The bottom line is that there are absolutely no technical barriers to switching to Linux/OpenOffice on a workstation computer. There are only human resources challenges such as training, fear of change, and complacency, and perhaps budgetary concerns during the initial switch.
Windows Vista will promote a slew of new visual bells and whistles that many might enjoy and others will want to turn off. But basically Microsoft will bring Flash like GUI programming for real programs, not little applets on the web.
Oh goody, a new crop of incredibly crappy single-function programs that nag until you send them $30, all with craptastic animated and horribly obtuse and confusing user interfaces, just like all the Flash design on the web.
Holy hell, I'm excited.
I'm going to keep XP on that machine for as long as it runs, or until I replace it with an open OS.
So why haven't you replaced it now?
You can get Ubuntu up and running in minutes, with full functionality. If you're more of a tinkerer type, set aside a weekend and take the plunge with Gentoo.
What?! Blogs are not news?!
You misspelled 'heresy'.
Hmmm... lets see: Prozac, Ritalin, Celexa, Lexapro, Paxil, Pexeva, Zoloft, Elavil, Norpramin, Tofranil, Aventyl, Pamelor, Wellbutrin, Cymbalta, Effexor...
Don't forget Teamocil, Groupug, and Bondat.
A news article cites findings and exclaims proof only to instigate an argument with the other side. More flock to it.
There is likely some truth to this.
I have also noticed that as protrayed in the media, the "evolutionist" camp has been put on the defensive; a good percentage of the articles I read in the mainstream press pertaining to evolution seem to steer the conversation away from "look at this neat bit of evidence we found that fits into some previously discovered evidence in a cool way" and closer to "look at this bit of evidence we found which *absolutely proves*, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the intelligent design people are fundamentalist loonies who would betray their own mothers if it meant the permanent banning of Origin of Species." The first statement is science. The second statement is politics.
Why are we even having this discussion anymore? Is the general public so out of touch with logic and reason that they have to listen to slick marketers with agendas to decide what is rational and what is belief?
But even with those there are ways to mitigate the effects. If nothing else, requiring a password before installing an app will solve most of the "naked pictures of celebrity" emails. There will always be a few idiots.
Rule Number One of Computer Security:
People will install anything if it promises naked pictures.
I'm definitely *not* saying that all ideas should be patentable. Just that those that are should be respected.
But they are respected, without patents. It's called copyright.
Hardware gets patented. Software gets copyrighted. Giving software BOTH protections does nothing but generate a hostile and litigious marketplace.
Email, where you surf, and im messages are not considered protected private communications.
Why not? Is it because they are transmitted in cleartext?
Unlike a letter or phone call there isn't any expectation of privacy on network communications.
Letter, perhaps, because it is sealed. But a phone call? A phone call is also transmitted in the clear over an analog wire. There is nothing stopping someone from tapping a line and eavesdropping on your telephone conversation, other than a law saying they cannot. Why would it not be the same for email and IM messages?
But he would still have that chance. He can still have Honda sign a NDA, he can still outsource manufacturing, he can still sell the idea to someone who'll take it further... None of those options actually depend on patents. People still invented and got rich off their inventions before patents were invented and people still get rich off non-patented inventions today.
This is true, but just because an alternate workable system exists does not invalidate the first system. NDAs, trade secrets, and patents are all valid ways to profit from inventions. The difference is that patents force publication, allowing people to build upon the knowledge before the expiration of the patent. Even though people cannot profit from the information, they can learn from it to produce their own work. This would not happen with trade secrets or NDAs.
As many psychologists and historians of technology have shown, innovation does not proceed through major breakthroughs by specific individuals, but rather through the collaboration of different people who, through small and cumulative improvements, yield novel and useful artifacts over time (Basalla, 1988). All of patent law, on the other hand, is based on the assumption that an invention is a discrete and novel entity that can be assigned to the individual who is determined by the courts to be its legitimate creator. [Pierre Desrochers, Johns Hopkins University]
There is nothing in patent law that says multiple creators cannot be listed. And the question of whether an invention is something novel or just a "small and cumulative improvement" is up to the Patent Office to decide. Whether or not the Patent Office has actually been correctly assigning patents to only novel ideas is left as an exercise for the reader.
And how would you enforce that provision?
The same way provisions are enforced now: when someone makes a claim. Company A files a patent for an Invention, and then shelves it for future litigation. Company B creates the same Invention a little later, and files for a patent. Company B's patent is rejected because of the existence of Company A's patent. Company B does a little research and discovers that Company A has been sitting on the patent, doing nothing. Using this evidence, Company B goes to a patent court and overturns Company A's patent on the grounds that they did not use it. If Company A was still intending to use the patent, and was simply amassing capital or other such preperation activity, then that evidence would be presented to the court as well, who would ultimately decide which company is awarded the patent. The same situation could arise if Company B started marketing their Invention without a patent, and Company A came out of the woodwork to file a claim. In this case, "they were not using the patent" would be a viable defense for Company B during the proceedings.
In either case, I think the term of exclusivity on patents should be no longer than 5 years. This would reduce many of the current problems with the patent system, and solve situations like the ones above. Even if Company A wins back the patent, they only have a short time to capitalize on it and establish themselves in the market, and Company B only has a short time to wait. I think a shorter time of exclucivity would greatly cut down on the number of patent squatters.
Like the one where two companies invent the same thing at the same time, but only one can be awarded a patent, effectively "stealing" the work of the other.
Yes, it's true that only one company could claim the patent. But there is nothing stopping the second company from licensing the patent from the first company, or the two companies coming to a mutual agreement. And if the first company doesn't want to share, tough nuts. The patent will expire in a while anyway. However, without patents entirely, there is a very real chance that a company who didn't do any research really would "steal" the idea and profit from it. Since they have no R&D costs, they can p
For many people email is the only way they know of transferring files. How else is some low-level secretary going to send a file - SFTP it to a web server and email a link?
e r\File Name With Spaces.ppt, which doesn't fully turn into a link because Outlook thinks the link is finished when it encounters a space.
Right. And it's not like Windows makes server use any easier.
Let's say our plucky secretary is told by IT that there are servers available for transferring large files. She is shown how to map a server to a drive, and she can simply drag and drop in Explorer. This is great, she thinks.
Now she finishes that 100MB PowerPoint presentation with music and photos of the company picnic, and wants to send it to her boss for approval to show at the next staff meeting. She drops it on the server, selects the address in the address bar, and pastes the address into an email.
But wait! The address didn't paste as \\server\folder\subfolder! It pasted as H:\subfolder! Now Mr. Boss Man can't find the presentation, because he doesn't know what server it's on, and the clickable link doesn't work because his drive H: is mapped to somewhere else.
There is no way to copy the location of a file to the clipboard, so she ends up having to type it out. And since this is a large company, she has to type out something like \\srv-40ntt002934437xxkdf033\ien23434daf3\subfold
Good going, Microsoft.
Let's say some guy develops that mythical 100 MPG gasoline engine. Shouldn't he be able to patent it?
No, he should under no circumstance ever be allowed to patent it.
Why not? I'll bet he sunk $100,000 of his own money and 15 years of his life into inventing that engine. He deserves a chance to try and recoup those R&D costs before the auto manufacturers get their hands on the plans and start undercutting his price. Not an unlimited chance, you understand, but a chance.
Patenting it would virtually guarantee that the patent would be bought by (insert major oil pumping megacorp) and stuffed on a shelf until it's forgotten, 20 years later.
If the purpose of patents is to allow people or companies a chance to make back the money they spent developing a new invention, then shelving the invention is counter to that. Yes, there should be provisions in patent law that say, "if you choose to do nothing with this invention you forfeit your patent rights", but this example does not invalidate patents as a whole.
And, adding inslut to injury, the patent lawyers would make damn sure that the patent isn't actually revealing enough to create said engine, but detailed enough to stop anyone else from independently inventing a similar engine.
Also fixable by reworking (not abolishing) the patent system. Yes, the patent system is broken, allowing patents on generic ideas, business models, and software. But throwing up our hands and giving up on it is not the way to solve the problem. There are very real situations when a patent system is beneficial, and we should work on maximizing the benefit during those situations and minimizing the damage in other situations.
An engine like that belongs to humanity, not a single individual or single corporation.
Yes, after a time. But, remember that "humanity" did not develop the engine, the individual or corporation did (you can leave your "they were educated by the society" pinko ideas at home; I do not live in a hive mind). The inventor(s) deserve a *limited* amount of time for exclusivity, to prevent undercutting and market espionage. After that time is up, then society gets the invention back. Exactly how long that time should be is of course up for debate; the current limit of 14 years seems increasingly long in our instantanous Internet Age. But the bottom line is that there are times and places where the patent system is very beneficial, both to the economy and the society, and even though we need to work on fixing the system, abolishing it altogether is not the way to go.
Does this turn out to be the case that it must be closed to be secure? Isn't it really just a key distribution question?
What DRM boils down to is, "someone other than me has control over my content, and is telling me what I can and cannot do with it." Somehow, the DRM system has to lock up the content until I request the key, and in order to be secure, the key must be kept secure until I request it. So, yes, it's just a key distribution question.
However, DRM will never be, and can never be, fair to the consumer, open source or not. This is not like a laser-cut microchip-enabled car key that would prevent someone else from starting my car. This is more like the car has sensors to force the car to stay on the pavement. Is it illegal to drive the car on someone else's lawn? Sure, but I don't need controls in the car to prevent me from doing it.
I guess my point is that DRM is essentially a whitelist system, where everything is blocked except those functions they say are allowed, and this is the wrong way to approach the problem.
The creation of a .xxx TLD is a good idea, but not because of censorship.
.xxx names, then we would by necessity need to define "porn" to decide who has to move. Is the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition porn? What about the Victoria's Secret or Abercrombie catalogs? What about National Geographic's images of tribes in the Amazon who don't wear much clothing because it's frikkin' hot there, and don't worry about modesty? Is that porn? Defining porn is a difficult task at best, and defining it and moving it to .xxx wouldn't guarantee that suddenly, magically, .com is free of it.
.xxx domain names can guarantee that the sites who buy .xxx domain names are reputable and free of [spy|ad|mal|phish]ware, then people would probably be willing to pay a premium for access to that site. (If I recall correctly, .edu does this type of thing already.) It would not take the malware out of porn sites, but it will take reputable porn sites away from the disreputable ones, and generate some trust between merchants and customers. After all, a reputable porn site is just a business, and they don't want to hurt their customer base. Ask yourself, would you be more willing to give your credit card to a .com site, a .biz site, or a .edu site? If that same high level of trust was created for the .xxx domain, everyone would benefit: the reputable porn sites get a good name and distance themselves from the malware-ridden experience that is online porn, the customers get a better porn-browsing experience and don't compromise their computer's security just by looking at naked people, and the registrars get to make money. The .xxx TLD could become a sort of Better Business Bureau for online pornography sites.
.kid TLD, which is porn-free. Block everything but .kid, and maybe a few select whitelisted .com or .edu sites, and let your kids run wild and free on the internet without encountering a single filthy, traumatizing boobie.
If we tried to force all pornographic sites to move to
However, internet porn is a very popular vector for the delivery of spyware, malware, and phishing attacks, because of its popularity and taboo nature in our society. If the company that registers
If we really wanted to make censorship easy, let's create a
Plus, it would really demoralize the insurgency. They know they can scare us off if they keep killing soldures, but you can never kill enough robots.
Obligatory:
Zapp: You see, the killbots have a preset kill limit; knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down.
Bender: It was a dark day for robotkind. Ahhhh, we can always build more killbots.
does it hurt that much to say "Java", M$?!?!
.NET). Both are ECMAScript compatible, as are all the various versions used by other browsers.
Someone needs a history lesson.
JavaScript, originally named Mocha and then LiveScript, was developed in 1995 by Netscape, and debuted in version 2.0. It was named JavaScript to coincide with Netscape's added Java support, even though the languages are not that similar.
JScript was added by Microsoft to Internet Explorer 3.0 in 1996, in response to Netscape's JavaScript. JScript originally used the Active Scripting engine, also known as ActiveX.
ECMAScript is the current, formal standardization (ECMA-262) of both JavaScript and JScript into a single unified language. Currently, both JavaScript and JScript are considered extensions of ECMAScript, since they are fully compliant with extra functionality. It is possible (and recommended) that all client-side J(ava)Scripting be written as fully compliant ECMAScript, as it will then be compatible with all browsers.
To this day, all Gecko-based browsers support JavaScript, and IE supports JScript (it is also available as part of
Security Alert!
The MD5 hash of the above message is: fb8590bd8172b9c1cfd44cb934fe2806
Joke Alert!
The MD5 has featured in my sig is that of the null string, "".
even for a techie early adopter, somehow the knowledge that there's a war brewing makes these things quite undesirable. i wonder if the people who actually buy it at this point know what's coming...?
Especially since crippling DRM limiting the fair use rights of paying customers for the sake of stopping a phantom piracy threat are included right there in the spec.
Yeah, this should go well.
Curse that Preview button!
My post, with the correct characters:
The player will sell for 110,000 yen (US$936) in Japan, which is less than the $800 price tag it will carry in North America.
$936 < $800.
Smooth.
The player will sell for 110,000 yen (US$936) in Japan, which is less than the $800 price tag it will carry in North America.
$936 $800.
Smooth.
What about sites like the Online Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition or the Online Victoria's Secret Catalogue go? They're not porn, but they're definately in that grey area.
.xxx TLD is a good idea, but not because of censorship.
.xxx names, then we would by necessity need to define "porn" to decide who has to move, and that is a difficult task at best, and it wouldn't guarantee that suddenly .com is free of porn.
.xxx domain names can guarantee that the sites who buy .xxx domain names are reputable and free of [spy|ad|mal|phish]ware, then people would probably be willing to pay a premium for access to that site. (If I recall correctly, .edu does this type of thing already.) It would not take the malware out of porn sites, but it will take reputable porn sites away from the disreputable ones. Ask yourself, would you be more willing to give your credit card to a .com site or a .biz site? What about a .edu? If that same level of trust was created for the .xxx domain, everyone benefits: the reputable porn sites get a good name, the customers get a better porn-browsing experience, and the registrars get to make money.
.kid TLD, which is porn-free. Block everything but .kid and let your kids run wild and free without seeing a single filthy, traumatizing boobie.
The creation of a
If we tried to force all pornographic sites to move to
However, internet porn is a very popular vector for the delivery of spyware, malware, and phishing attacks, because of its popularity and taboo nature in our society. If the company that registers
If we really wanted to make censorship easy, let's create a
I think people have mixed feelings about sitting through the credits, unless there's reason to suspect some "easter-eggy" type stuff or outtakes there.
Maybe that's the way it was once upon a time, but now...
Yes, the trailers were typically shown after movies back in the day when the credits for a movie were shown right at the beginning.
But, since I'm one of those people who sits through the credits anyway, I would stay for the trailers. For the "but we must advertise all our upcoming movies!" crowd, I would suggest a giant screen in the lobby just showing trailers, right next to the box office line.
I always try to buy a bag of popcorn when I go to an indy film, because my understanding is that that's where the theater itself gets all its money. The ticket price only covers expenses.
... concessions are where the money is for theaters. Most managers describe their theaters as "cafeterias which also show movies." Theaters also get an increasing percentage of box office sales the longer a movie stays in the theaters, which is why they want the studios to wait to release the DVD.
Good for you. You're right
As for the expensive nature of going to the theater: it's all about value. We think of theaters as being expensive, but only because we feel that what we get is not worth what we paid for it. Sticky floors, loud audience members, 20 minutes of forced advertisements, poor projection, and grumpy 15-year-old employees are not worth my $8.50+concessions. I would be willing to pay MORE for a ticket if the theater owners made it worthwhile. And by worthwhile, I mean:
- clean theaters
- comfortable, well-spaced seats
- gigantic screens
- professional projectionists
- cell phone blocking technology (passive technologies, like wires in the walls, are legal)
- considerate, well-paid ushers
- great food
- no commercials
- previews AFTER the movie (they are called trailers for a reason)
Make going to the theater all about *service*, and you will find a lower-volume, higher profit market. The cheapskates can either buy the DVD or put up with the same crap theaters have been force-feeding us for years.
"Later in the movie you find out that 'Rosebud' is his sled. But this is the part where..."
Auuuugh! You just ruined the movie for me!
So much for 65 years of suspense.