Taking together the parent and the great-grandparent post (which I assume are by the the same author), he answers himself why DRM is a bad idea: even if there weren't nothing wrong morally (restriction of legitimate fair use) or technically (no capability to permanently disable a device) with it, yet DRM *may* be poorly implemented. It becomes one more point of failure in every design that includes it, thus an unfair burden on a consumer who has to pay more for a more restrictive and failure-prone product.
Google last year successfully fought a U.S. Justice Department subpoena demanding to review millions of search requests. Very nice, but how long until either Google loses some legal fight, or it simply decides not to fight?
One solution to the privacy problem, in my oppinion, would be granting users, besides the ability of not surrendering more information than necessary for a given transaction, some effective way of deleting their personal data once done with Google, Yahoo, Amazon or whoever else.
Look the other way: would you feel safe to do your shopping and banking online, because there are all sorts of laws and regulations to protect your data, yet find out that the merchant's database was hacked or some clerk in your bank lost a notebook will all your account information? They will not really fix their security because of some law, but only if people perceive the problem and demand a solution or otherwise take their business elsewhere. Laws usually come later, when some legislator adopts the cause for political gain.
Some form of neutrality and fair competition enforcement is necessary indeed, given the big ISP oligopoly that currently exists. But it wasn't big business that made the Internet popular, rather, they encroached and grew alongside it. Proprietary services like Compuserve and others died or, like AOL, were forced to open to the "free" Internet in order to survive. If big ISPs try to go back to walled gardens, they will wither and die like their predecessors, so in that sense we don't really need legislation to curb their greed: let them try to charge more & in new ways, and fail it.
Keep any form of legislation out of it. Let it self-regulate. Sounds radical and utopian, but the opposite seems even worse, ineffective and ultimately pointless.
Despite what we all like to think of RIAA, they have on staff some of the best lawyers money can buy. Surely they have contingency plan layout just for this?
Maybe not. Unchecked exercise of power breeds arrogance and carelessness.
What if Microsoft wrote a new OS, and no one bothered writing applications for it, not even malware? Despite all ineffective security and bad design decisions, the prevalence of viruses, trojans and spyware on previous Windows versions were (and are) in part due to their sizable market share. If Vista Me II isn't being attacked like old Windows, is it because it's so more secure, or is it because no one cares? Only time will tell, but I can't take of my mind the image of a mighty tree falling in the middle of a forest, with no one to hear it.
Thanks for the information, I wasn't aware that there isn't a monthly fee. Nevertheless they are keeping some information then, at least to (re-)activate the games, and perhaps to sell you additional stuff. Do you have to log on the service each time you want to play, or just to reinstall? In any case, as another poster said, it feels a lot like WGA.
...but I never liked the concept behind "Steam", "X-Box Live", or any other "service" you have to subscribe (i.e., submit your credit card information and pay over and over) in order to enjoy the games (or any other software) you have already purchased.
Charlie Demerjian from the Inquirer has named Vista "Windows ME II",
While we may hope Vista eventually suffers the same fate as ME, there is one problem: ME was a stopgap before XP, but they already had a solid foundation ready in the form of Windows 2000. What could be a viable basis for Vista's successor? Could they emulate Apple once again and do a OSX, that is, port all that is worth to salvage from their current technology over to a decent foundation?
As the Sith Lord himself said:
"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force." Historical curiosity
>> 10.4 is a good OS and there's no rush to upgrade > XP is a good (enough) OS and there's no rush to upgrade
No that is such bullshit. Nobody was saying it was "good enough" until Vista shipped. Before Vista shipped, XP was on fire, consuming computing and IT staff resources. XP pissed in the pool to such a degree that it is hard to remind people that the pool is not supposed to have piss in it. The core OS on a 21st century PC has to have at least the quality of a free Unix from 1990. If it does not then it is not surprising that you can fuck with it over the network.
Look, I am not comparing XP to OSX (or Linux, or any other *nix) in absolute quality terms. No current OS is perfect, and MS ones are indeed below average. What I said is that, from a user perspective, at least for now it is perfectly reasonable to hang on XP instead of "upgrading" (yes, I'm being sarcastic) to Vista.
> if 10.5 does ship with new features that really benefit the end-user, all is well and they are forgiven.
No features have been pulled from Leopard, and there are already announced features that will truly benefit the user. For example, Time Machine asks the user to provide a big external disk (cheap these days) and it does the rest to provide them with a complete backup and versioning system. That alone is plenty enough reason to recommend Leopard to any Mac user with a clear conscience. Time Machine recovers the computer automatically after a disk failure.
Once again, I am not making any direct comparison here. Had Vista shipped with all features that were promised (database file system, better security, etc), it would have been a good thing for its users. MS failed them, taking too long to ship, dropping several good features and including nasty ones (user-hostile drm). I think Apple is in better position to ship OSX with the features it promised, and that is a good thing for its users.
How could you argue against that for every user?
???
> But if it is late because of the iPhone, and the iPhone turns out not to be a truly revolutionary product for the consumer,
All they have to do is ship a working iPhone and it is revolutionary. There is no such thing as a pocket Web browser right now and iPhone is about to fix this. It is also the first phone that is a real computer (first with significant storage, first with state-of-the-art computer OS, first with desktop-class developer frameworks and applications). It just has to work and it will be revolutionary.
A revolutionary product has to (1) work as intended and (2) be accepted by the market. Now, the iPhone hasn't shipped yet, so all we have are demonstration units and promises. It may well work as intended, but I will not judge it before it ships. Then we have the problem of market acceptance. The iPod was embraced by the market even though it wasn't the first MP3 player, because it was revolutionary. The Newton had some interesting technology, yet it failed to be.
> then they are no better than MS.
Almost every company in the tech industry is much better than MS just by virtue of having corporate officers who are not convicted felons.
I have no sympathy for BillG and friends. Some of them do belong in jail. But the industry is full of people and corporations with questionable morals, even because the justice and regulatory systems are not perfect (not even good enough). Risking the wrath of a thousand fanboys, I dare say even "saint" Jobs is not perfect (even though BillG cheated more and became wealthier).
If Vista had only been delayed by three months due to an XBox release, it would have been considered a major victory for Microsoft. I doubt people would have even had the heart to call Vista late if it was late by only 3 months. That would have had it shipping in 2003-2004 by the way, not 2007. A
Really? Perhaps Orkut's idea and/or implementation was flawed from the beginning, and abuse/misuse just exposed that? (Disclaimer: I have never accessed Orkut - I have no sympathy for "invitation-only" special clubs.)
XP is a good (enough) OS and there's no rush to upgrade
I believe MS failed its costumers by delaying Vista not because of the delay itself (it would be acceptable if they did ship all the new technology that was promised, not just the eye candy), but because the lateness seems due to incompetence and the inclusion of all sort of technology worthless to the end-user (read anti-consumer drm.)
Now let's look at Apple: if 10.5 does ship with new features that really benefit the end-user, all is well and they are forgiven. But if it is late because of the iPhone, and the iPhone turns out not to be a truly revolutionary product for the consumer, then they are no better than MS.
Sometimes "trolls" are insightful, even if accidentally. More so some "funny" posts. Sometimes "insightful" or "informative" posts are inane. Last April 1st,/. was broken - not even remotely funny. I am my own moderator, the official moderation scheme is only a measure of how a post is aligned or not with the groupthink of the moment. I am not against the system per se, when I do get mod points I try to do a fair job, but I believe if one relies only on the opinion of others and not on his/her own critical judgment, all opportunity of meaningful discussion is lost.
Or update some firmware, perhaps by disc? In any case, while updating a software player is trivial, therefore low cost, I'm really curious about how the manufacturers will deal with the logistical nightmare of updating thousands of hardware players.
Slashdot Mirror
Taking together the parent and the great-grandparent post (which I assume are by the the same author), he answers himself why DRM is a bad idea: even if there weren't nothing wrong morally (restriction of legitimate fair use) or technically (no capability to permanently disable a device) with it, yet DRM *may* be poorly implemented. It becomes one more point of failure in every design that includes it, thus an unfair burden on a consumer who has to pay more for a more restrictive and failure-prone product.
One solution to the privacy problem, in my oppinion, would be granting users, besides the ability of not surrendering more information than necessary for a given transaction, some effective way of deleting their personal data once done with Google, Yahoo, Amazon or whoever else.
Look the other way: would you feel safe to do your shopping and banking online, because there are all sorts of laws and regulations to protect your data, yet find out that the merchant's database was hacked or some clerk in your bank lost a notebook will all your account information? They will not really fix their security because of some law, but only if people perceive the problem and demand a solution or otherwise take their business elsewhere. Laws usually come later, when some legislator adopts the cause for political gain.
Some form of neutrality and fair competition enforcement is necessary indeed, given the big ISP oligopoly that currently exists. But it wasn't big business that made the Internet popular, rather, they encroached and grew alongside it. Proprietary services like Compuserve and others died or, like AOL, were forced to open to the "free" Internet in order to survive. If big ISPs try to go back to walled gardens, they will wither and die like their predecessors, so in that sense we don't really need legislation to curb their greed: let them try to charge more & in new ways, and fail it.
Keep any form of legislation out of it. Let it self-regulate. Sounds radical and utopian, but the opposite seems even worse, ineffective and ultimately pointless.
1) Attorney sues website that assigned him a low rating. ...
2) Attorney loses, and his rating goes even lower.
3)
4) Profit!
Ok, 3 and 4 aren't really necessary.
Maybe not. Unchecked exercise of power breeds arrogance and carelessness.
Ditto! :-)
That was true for OS/2 but remember, Vista is a single parent's child with no redeeming qualities.
What if Microsoft wrote a new OS, and no one bothered writing applications for it, not even malware? Despite all ineffective security and bad design decisions, the prevalence of viruses, trojans and spyware on previous Windows versions were (and are) in part due to their sizable market share. If Vista Me II isn't being attacked like old Windows, is it because it's so more secure, or is it because no one cares? Only time will tell, but I can't take of my mind the image of a mighty tree falling in the middle of a forest, with no one to hear it.
Well, you can build pipelines of streams (like files!) and programs, right?
Are you suggesting some MS-Linux^H^H^H^H^H "New NT" OS, complete with Mono^H^H^H^H .NET layer? :-)
Thanks for the information, I wasn't aware that there isn't a monthly fee. Nevertheless they are keeping some information then, at least to (re-)activate the games, and perhaps to sell you additional stuff. Do you have to log on the service each time you want to play, or just to reinstall? In any case, as another poster said, it feels a lot like WGA.
...but I never liked the concept behind "Steam", "X-Box Live", or any other "service" you have to subscribe (i.e., submit your credit card information and pay over and over) in order to enjoy the games (or any other software) you have already purchased.
Charlie Demerjian from the Inquirer has named Vista "Windows ME II",
While we may hope Vista eventually suffers the same fate as ME, there is one problem: ME was a stopgap before XP, but they already had a solid foundation ready in the form of Windows 2000. What could be a viable basis for Vista's successor? Could they emulate Apple once again and do a OSX, that is, port all that is worth to salvage from their current technology over to a decent foundation?
As the Sith Lord himself said: "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force." Historical curiosity
Of course! Just use a (N+1)-foot pole and recursion.
Look, I am not comparing XP to OSX (or Linux, or any other *nix) in absolute quality terms. No current OS is perfect, and MS ones are indeed below average. What I said is that, from a user perspective, at least for now it is perfectly reasonable to hang on XP instead of "upgrading" (yes, I'm being sarcastic) to Vista.
Once again, I am not making any direct comparison here. Had Vista shipped with all features that were promised (database file system, better security, etc), it would have been a good thing for its users. MS failed them, taking too long to ship, dropping several good features and including nasty ones (user-hostile drm). I think Apple is in better position to ship OSX with the features it promised, and that is a good thing for its users.
???
A revolutionary product has to (1) work as intended and (2) be accepted by the market. Now, the iPhone hasn't shipped yet, so all we have are demonstration units and promises. It may well work as intended, but I will not judge it before it ships. Then we have the problem of market acceptance. The iPod was embraced by the market even though it wasn't the first MP3 player, because it was revolutionary. The Newton had some interesting technology, yet it failed to be.
I have no sympathy for BillG and friends. Some of them do belong in jail. But the industry is full of people and corporations with questionable morals, even because the justice and regulatory systems are not perfect (not even good enough). Risking the wrath of a thousand fanboys, I dare say even "saint" Jobs is not perfect (even though BillG cheated more and became wealthier).
Really? Perhaps Orkut's idea and/or implementation was flawed from the beginning, and abuse/misuse just exposed that? (Disclaimer: I have never accessed Orkut - I have no sympathy for "invitation-only" special clubs.)
XP is a good (enough) OS and there's no rush to upgrade
I believe MS failed its costumers by delaying Vista not because of the delay itself (it would be acceptable if they did ship all the new technology that was promised, not just the eye candy), but because the lateness seems due to incompetence and the inclusion of all sort of technology worthless to the end-user (read anti-consumer drm.)
Now let's look at Apple: if 10.5 does ship with new features that really benefit the end-user, all is well and they are forgiven. But if it is late because of the iPhone, and the iPhone turns out not to be a truly revolutionary product for the consumer, then they are no better than MS.
Hey, your post is informative. Funny should give people some karma, too, maybe 1/10th of a point or something...
Sometimes "trolls" are insightful, even if accidentally. More so some "funny" posts. Sometimes "insightful" or "informative" posts are inane. Last April 1st,
Or update some firmware, perhaps by disc? In any case, while updating a software player is trivial, therefore low cost, I'm really curious about how the manufacturers will deal with the logistical nightmare of updating thousands of hardware players.
Maybe the OP meant cable modem connection?
Bah, eldritch is way cooler ;-)