Just compile a DNA database of all US citizens. As an extra bonus, it will shortly end up in the hands of homeland security, the CIA, marketers, "health" "insurance" companies, and Nazis.
Netflix and gamefly are rental companies. As far as I know, they have nothing to do with the big media companies. In fact, I seem to recall a news story about how hollywood tries to block netflix from getting movies. Then again, maybe I was getting them mixed up with some of the vending machine companies (I am certain RedBox was one which had to have people go out in disguise, just so they could buy the DVDs they needed.)
Under the situation the poster proposed (game companies keeping the program on their servers and just streaming video), Netflix / Gamefly, Walmart and their kind would be edged out, allowing the media companies to charge whatever they want.
Fuck you cuntrag. Where was I saying to copy hollywood's shitty-assed games? I was just commenting on the erroneous assumption that if the gaming companies costs went down or they solved the problem of copyright infringement, they would lower their prices. It is bullshit.
The real reasons they are interested in things like DRM (real DRM, what ubisoft did wasn't actual DRM), the DMCA, and "piracy" is because they want to eliminate competition, not so much to eliminate copyright infringement. DRM and the DMCA are censorship systems which help eliminate smaller competition. It is little wonder Microsoft has latched onto DRM so swiftly.
It is illegal when they claim it is against "national security" to take pictures. "National security" is a vague enough concept that they can claim just about anything is in the interest of "national security."
Or maybe there is no point in using long filenames if you just need to uniquely identify something with a number. 8 digits gives you 100,000,000 possible combinations. Unless they expect someone to take more than 100 million pictures in one session, it probably isn't worth the effort to program "long filenames" into their systems.
If Microsoft wasn't broken up and its leaders put in prison for its obscene anti-trust violations and "questionable practices", I don't see how the government could possibly prosecute Google with a straight face.
You won't buy from Sony because they used a rootkit and disabled linux on their machines, yet you have no problem with Microsoft? Microsoft also disables Linux on their machines.
Microsoft has put most of their effort into making sure you won't be able to use linux or any other alternative OS. The antitrust trials where just the tip of the iceburg. If it wasn't for MS, we'd probably have OS/2, BeOS and many others on the market today.
Their OS is a rootkit on the entire software market. It is designed with so much cruft and has so many bugs which application developers tune their products to use, it is nearly impossible to reliably run a program designed for MSWin on a different OS. Defective by design.
I'm not saying sony is a good company, but at least they allowed people to run linux on their console. Yeah, it is probably because they don't have a competing OS like MS, but how does this make them worse?
What does psychology have to do with 3D glasses? Unless you are talking about people being afraid of glasses (ocuphobia?), you probably meant to say neurological.
Neurological means a physical or chemical problem with the brain (among other things). You can have a neurological problem which causes psychological issues, but they are different things. Something which causes seizures is most certainly neurological.
To use a crappy computer analogy, think of psychological as a problem with the software, and neurological as a problem with the hardware. Flashing lights triggering a wave pattern of data in the eye, which in turn triggers a defect in the brain is most certainly hardware.
Why would they need to drop Theora to support H.264? The situation isn't either or. They don't support H.264 because they are concerned about potential legalities or licensing costs (not just now, but in the future).
You should check out the discussions on the SSSCA around 2000. They not only wanted spyware on your computer, they wanted every computer manufacturer to install chips which wouldn't allow any OS unless it was "secure." "Secure" in media cartel terms means it "Manages Rights" (as in DRM). You wouldn't even be able to copy an email unless the person who wrote it gave explicit permission. Would make it easy to cover up crimes.
Though, in those discussions I mentioned how I saw in some of the big media's material, they also wanted a censorship system which would seek out "offending" material and delete it. Most people insisted I was making it up. Clearly I was not.
Just imagine the implications of this. They would be able to delete any file on your hard drive they don't like. No program would be able to tell if there request was against a file they created, or something they want silenced. It is totalitarian to the extreme. It just shows how Hollywood is full of communist assholes and why California is screwed up.
This isn't just the US. There are plenty of "rights holders" organizations in other countries. This is more of rich trying to control the poor, because the poor are supposedly "stealing" the rich guy's profits.
When you don't buy their product, you are "stealing."
When you buy a used product, you are "stealing."
When you don't throw away a perfectly good product and buy the newest latest and greatest thing, you are "stealing."
When you make your own product instead of buying one manufactured by one company, and marked up by several middlemen, you are "stealing."
I don't think the militia types would start shooting up RIAA or MPAA headquarters. Most of them probably aren't anywhere near understanding these issues.
More likely it will be like the illegal drug trade. Selling, possessing, or even using chips not certified by the SSSCA would be illegal. Being able to write your own programs or use open source would require you to have an expensive license. A license only big businesses would be able to afford.
For those of you who don't understand why Hollywood, the RIAA, software companies, and others want this--this is about restraint of trade. If they can keep out new innovators, their companies are protected from unexpected competition.
It was my understanding the GMO plants were engineered to be resistant to herbicide, so when they contaminate another farmer's field, the plants are difficult / impossible to get rid of.
I am not so sure about food safety. How do you find all the potential allergies for every person? If a person isn't allergic to soybeans their whole life, then when GMO soybeans are introduced, "mysteriously" they become allergic, one has to wonder.
And if said person "coincidently" came down with a rare autoimmune disease called Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura around that time, one has to wonder. There could be other causes, but detecting problems with food safety like this are very difficult, if not impossible. Animal tests won't necessarily show these problems.
The bare minimum, GMO foods should be labeled as such, so people who do not wish to take risks with experimental foods can opt out.
As for patenting lifeforms, that should not be allowed, especially if they didn't design it all themselves....and if they did design it all themselves, the lifeforms should never be allowed outside their labs. Just imagine what unpredictable damage could happen! At the very least, they should required strict testing and very strict liability if the lifeform causes damage.
I thought the problems with genetically modified food were: a) food safety and b) taking over other farmer's crops like weeds (then suing the farmer for "stealing" the company's "IP"--which would be where the patents come in, but this is only a minor part).
I agree patents do not make sense for government paid R&D. The government should contract out research and "own" the patents themselves, which they allow everyone in the country to use freely.
I am not sure where I stand on if they should collect royalties for use in other countries. It would help pay for more research, and balance any deficits, but who are we kidding? The politicians would probably find a way to blow it all...
Wonderful idea...until the product you are trying to sell contains 10 (or more) patents. 10 * 10% = all your income, and if the device is physical, how will you pay for materials? What about labor? Even the Chinese don't work for free.
Slashdot Mirror
Just compile a DNA database of all US citizens. As an extra bonus, it will shortly end up in the hands of homeland security, the CIA, marketers, "health" "insurance" companies, and Nazis.
Just boycott all of California. It works for me!
Netflix and gamefly are rental companies. As far as I know, they have nothing to do with the big media companies. In fact, I seem to recall a news story about how hollywood tries to block netflix from getting movies. Then again, maybe I was getting them mixed up with some of the vending machine companies (I am certain RedBox was one which had to have people go out in disguise, just so they could buy the DVDs they needed.)
These two stories don't seem to be it? Why Netflix Won't Be the HBO of the 21st Century. / Delayed rentals of new DVD releases is possible.
Under the situation the poster proposed (game companies keeping the program on their servers and just streaming video), Netflix / Gamefly, Walmart and their kind would be edged out, allowing the media companies to charge whatever they want.
Fuck you cuntrag. Where was I saying to copy hollywood's shitty-assed games? I was just commenting on the erroneous assumption that if the gaming companies costs went down or they solved the problem of copyright infringement, they would lower their prices. It is bullshit.
The real reasons they are interested in things like DRM (real DRM, what ubisoft did wasn't actual DRM), the DMCA, and "piracy" is because they want to eliminate competition, not so much to eliminate copyright infringement. DRM and the DMCA are censorship systems which help eliminate smaller competition. It is little wonder Microsoft has latched onto DRM so swiftly.
Yes, but when you say magazine, don't most people get confused and think you are talking about pornography?
It is illegal when they claim it is against "national security" to take pictures. "National security" is a vague enough concept that they can claim just about anything is in the interest of "national security."
I don't know. They didn't use a thermal imaging camera.
You think they will drop their prices? Obviously, you don't know anything about the greed of the media companies.
So, why the fuck would you want to play their games if they are total assholes? It is not as if they are the only people who have ever made any games.
Or maybe there is no point in using long filenames if you just need to uniquely identify something with a number. 8 digits gives you 100,000,000 possible combinations. Unless they expect someone to take more than 100 million pictures in one session, it probably isn't worth the effort to program "long filenames" into their systems.
Yes, they've already studied up on STDs.
It's easy to defeat a thermal imaging camera. Just call in Natalie Portman with her hot grits, and every system is overloaded.
If Microsoft wasn't broken up and its leaders put in prison for its obscene anti-trust violations and "questionable practices", I don't see how the government could possibly prosecute Google with a straight face.
You won't buy from Sony because they used a rootkit and disabled linux on their machines, yet you have no problem with Microsoft? Microsoft also disables Linux on their machines.
Microsoft has put most of their effort into making sure you won't be able to use linux or any other alternative OS. The antitrust trials where just the tip of the iceburg. If it wasn't for MS, we'd probably have OS/2, BeOS and many others on the market today.
Their OS is a rootkit on the entire software market. It is designed with so much cruft and has so many bugs which application developers tune their products to use, it is nearly impossible to reliably run a program designed for MSWin on a different OS. Defective by design.
I'm not saying sony is a good company, but at least they allowed people to run linux on their console. Yeah, it is probably because they don't have a competing OS like MS, but how does this make them worse?
What does psychology have to do with 3D glasses? Unless you are talking about people being afraid of glasses (ocuphobia?), you probably meant to say neurological.
Neurological means a physical or chemical problem with the brain (among other things). You can have a neurological problem which causes psychological issues, but they are different things. Something which causes seizures is most certainly neurological.
To use a crappy computer analogy, think of psychological as a problem with the software, and neurological as a problem with the hardware. Flashing lights triggering a wave pattern of data in the eye, which in turn triggers a defect in the brain is most certainly hardware.
Why would they need to drop Theora to support H.264? The situation isn't either or. They don't support H.264 because they are concerned about potential legalities or licensing costs (not just now, but in the future).
How about make your own music? Some people consider it fun.
You should check out the discussions on the SSSCA around 2000. They not only wanted spyware on your computer, they wanted every computer manufacturer to install chips which wouldn't allow any OS unless it was "secure." "Secure" in media cartel terms means it "Manages Rights" (as in DRM). You wouldn't even be able to copy an email unless the person who wrote it gave explicit permission. Would make it easy to cover up crimes.
Though, in those discussions I mentioned how I saw in some of the big media's material, they also wanted a censorship system which would seek out "offending" material and delete it. Most people insisted I was making it up. Clearly I was not.
Just imagine the implications of this. They would be able to delete any file on your hard drive they don't like. No program would be able to tell if there request was against a file they created, or something they want silenced. It is totalitarian to the extreme. It just shows how Hollywood is full of communist assholes and why California is screwed up.
This isn't just the US. There are plenty of "rights holders" organizations in other countries. This is more of rich trying to control the poor, because the poor are supposedly "stealing" the rich guy's profits.
I don't think the militia types would start shooting up RIAA or MPAA headquarters. Most of them probably aren't anywhere near understanding these issues.
More likely it will be like the illegal drug trade. Selling, possessing, or even using chips not certified by the SSSCA would be illegal. Being able to write your own programs or use open source would require you to have an expensive license. A license only big businesses would be able to afford.
For those of you who don't understand why Hollywood, the RIAA, software companies, and others want this--this is about restraint of trade. If they can keep out new innovators, their companies are protected from unexpected competition.
It was my understanding the GMO plants were engineered to be resistant to herbicide, so when they contaminate another farmer's field, the plants are difficult / impossible to get rid of.
I am not so sure about food safety. How do you find all the potential allergies for every person? If a person isn't allergic to soybeans their whole life, then when GMO soybeans are introduced, "mysteriously" they become allergic, one has to wonder.
And if said person "coincidently" came down with a rare autoimmune disease called Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura around that time, one has to wonder. There could be other causes, but detecting problems with food safety like this are very difficult, if not impossible. Animal tests won't necessarily show these problems.
The bare minimum, GMO foods should be labeled as such, so people who do not wish to take risks with experimental foods can opt out.
As for patenting lifeforms, that should not be allowed, especially if they didn't design it all themselves. ...and if they did design it all themselves, the lifeforms should never be allowed outside their labs. Just imagine what unpredictable damage could happen! At the very least, they should required strict testing and very strict liability if the lifeform causes damage.
To make a game as hard as nethack is easy. Here is some pseudocode:
If playeraction and rand(10)==2 then playerdie
Based on my experience anyway. ;-)
I thought the problems with genetically modified food were: a) food safety and b) taking over other farmer's crops like weeds (then suing the farmer for "stealing" the company's "IP"--which would be where the patents come in, but this is only a minor part).
I agree patents do not make sense for government paid R&D. The government should contract out research and "own" the patents themselves, which they allow everyone in the country to use freely.
I am not sure where I stand on if they should collect royalties for use in other countries. It would help pay for more research, and balance any deficits, but who are we kidding? The politicians would probably find a way to blow it all...
Wonderful idea...until the product you are trying to sell contains 10 (or more) patents. 10 * 10% = all your income, and if the device is physical, how will you pay for materials? What about labor? Even the Chinese don't work for free.
So they are exactly like our American news media? So, where is a good place to read British news online? Is the BBC the only place?