exactly...like the two previous posters i have over a terabyte of music and video that i legally own. i have purchased well over 1000 cds in my lifetime and i do remember when cds first came out in 1983. i was working in a record store and we had three titles to choose from.
but the problem that i see is navigation and sync times on these devices are going to get longer and longer unless they start using gigabit networking.
Geeks installing Windows 3.1 and 3.11 on their work computers on top of DOS, is the flagship operating system/GUI made its initial foothold. Wordperfect was originally the dominant tool for word processing and when people started pirating MS Word in the same offices, it gave MS an addition line into each office.
Finally...look at the MP3 device industry. There wouldn't be a demand for Ipods and other MP3 players if it weren't for piracy.
Piracy helps more than it hurts.
But copyright holders issue these exaggerated claims about how much piracy hurts them and how much money it costs them. The truth is those claims are exaggerated because many of the installations of pirated software or music are things that most would never buy anyway.
So piracy does have its plusses. It's just that intellectual property rights holders know that if they do not actively protect their intellectual assets, US law will not be on their side.
Only in this country, censorship is not done in the name of the government. It's done almost solely to "protect" children or those with weak sensativities.
I don't necessarily agree with the idea but I am saying that it does exist here.
what you say it's pretty much 100% accurate. what i was trying to do was make a very quick, down-and-dirty, argument to show that i wasn't being a troll and provide some evidence to back that up.
it's true that congress cares less about our ability to keep our information private than i do about who wins american karaoke...err...idol.
the GOP has spent a lot of time and effort enforcing the idea that there is no right to privacy guaranteed in the Constitution.
from Scalia's speeches to select groups, to recent SCOTUS decisions, they are slowly making it clear the the individual has no constitutional right to privacy.
so it stands to reason that business and political interest can garner whatever information they deem necessary without your permission.
this is not a trollish post..it's the truth. please reference these pieces for more information:
and then there is this from the People for the American Way
"On the broader constitutional issue of privacy, Scalia's and Thomas' views are so extreme that their rulings would also do widespread damage by reaching beyond the specific issue of abortion to threaten access to contraception and reproductive health services. In opinions such as Casey and Scalia's concurring 1990 opinion in Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health,33 they contend that the Constitution does not protect any right of privacy concerning reproduction or bodily integrity whatsoever. If this view comes to command a majority of the Supreme Court, it would threaten landmark decisions like the 1965 ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, 196534 and could permit state laws banning the sale or use of contraceptives or similar steps to violate privacy rights long taken for granted by all Americans. Such an outcome may seem highly unlikely, but the ongoing controversy over approval of RU-486, for example, is a reminder that laws are sometimes more responsive to pressure groups than to broad public opinion."
that once tivo feels threatened by opensource/proprietary solutions/workarounds to their product, that they will find a way to stop this movement.
let's see...they can go get a patent from the patent office which is so vague it'll allow them to blanket the entire market (lest we forget the gif, click, and one-click shopping patent disputes).
they can approach the content providers and use an encryption algorithm that only their boxes and the boxes of those licensed to redistribute their feed (cable/satellite operators) can decipher.
and finally...they can just approach the ftc for a more restrictive broadcast flag that the providers and the other box manufacturers would gladly approve.
so before y'all get comfy...remember...Tivo pushed for the year contract stipulation to entrench folks into their service. do you really think they'll let this go by without a fight?
most marketing companies don't believe that there is such a thing as ethics and any method used to deliver your message is good so long as the ends justifies the means...ie..the message gets delivered.
spammers know how to deliver messages and are thus very hireable. plus...while we know who these vermin are...and the marketing companies/employers know who they are...john q. public doesn't know.
so what preventative is there to not hiring spammers?
and don't get me wrong...i detest spammers and report/fight them as hard as i can but i'm being realistic.
if the motivation to hire a spammer exceeds the potential downsides, a company trying to market a product or message would hire them in a heartbeat.
can't someone create a program to tell a user every program/service that is running on his/her pc (including those that like to remain hidden) and let the user decide if they want that piece of software in the first place?
you give up any right to privacy by using any communications device.
that's the purpose of these things...to communicate in a public arena.
while the individual may have some notion of privacy because there is a one to one or one to many conversation going on, the truth is that you are using proprietary software to do this.
the maker of the software can, by law, impose any restriction they wish for its use.
i'm not saying it's right...that's just how it is.
if an individual wishes secure private communications, they are more than welcome to build their own tool or use encryption.
whatever happened to conservative values? you know the ones that let market forces decide what stays and what goes?
if people are willing to pay for what the gentleman has termed "indecent" and there are enough people paying for it, then that's what should drive the market.
you don't see government saying that other items are succeeding so we must stop their sale.
the gop and conservatives have longed preached "let the market decide" so why can't they stand back and let the market decide what we can and cannot watch.
if they are so gung ho on family styled programming, then watch what's available and turn off the other stuff.
but see...the problem is that few people tune into family programs and more people turn on the provocative fare so now congress wants to squash it.
i just thought of something...maybe there's a component/add-on for firefox that the tester was running that others aren't and that's what triggered the spyware alert?
or maybe the testers tweaked the beta product.
or maybe that's why this is still a beta product.
i'm not defending MS
i am merely providing optional theories for the positive result.
is a legal defininition of adware (for purposed of this argument, let's drop the spy/mal/foist monikers.
the ultimate goal of all these programs is to get advertising in front of you, the enduser.
what is needed (and will never happen under the current administration) is for the ftc and congress to make it illegal to install any piece of software on to a pc, that goes for java applets too, which would devote any cpu cycles for any purpose not explicitly approved of by the owner of the cpu.
this has gotten way off topic but let me just say that every instance you cite is a rental/leased experience.
when i pay cash for my car, i used to own it and the components in it. not any more...now there's a blackbox under the dash that reports on me. it doesn't benefit me and it cannot be removed because it's a part of the car's computer system.
i can go buy a house but i'm limited in the modifications i make to it because of homeowner association rules.
i buy a computer-game...aka an xbox but to open it up and soup it up a little to my liking is violating microsoft's rules regarding its usage. and the same is true for tivo.
and don't worry about how my wife and i exist. that's our business. we give each other space and trust each other and that's all that's important.
i'm not sure where you got your information from but there's little cost involved.
a court ordered subpoena to tivo for the records related to my customer# is all it takes. tivo then either faxes or emails the information back.
we've all seen the RIAA and MPAA do it ad they aren't law enforcement.
but i'm unclear on what part you are confused about. i don't want anyone to know what i'm doing at anytime. period.
that holds for my wife, my parents, my siblings, anyone.
it's a personal preference and it's not because i'm hiding something.
well i've seen enough episodes of law and order and CSI to know that any record you leave behind can be pulled and while I'm not a criminal nor plan to be, i don't want anyone to know what i'm doing.
and you inflammatory approach, suggesting that those who are concerned about their privacy are full of "delusional self-importance" is off-base.
the question is how much authority are you willing to give up.
i, for one, am tired of buying products that i don't own.
if i pay money for something, i have this belief that i should control it and what it does.
I completely see your point however, please let me tell you why I'll never own a Tivo or a Replay or any other system.
I'm a control freak. I like to know what's going on and who's doing it.
Tivo controls the box. They control the size of the drive inside the box, they control the data that's on the box, and they ultimately could control what can and cannot be saved onto the box.
And while it is true that some can "hack" the box, Tivo has not given users permission to do so.
Tivo alone maintains control and can upload updates on it, they upload commercials on to it, and they can monitor what I'm watching/Tivo-ing.
In other words, I'm paying for a machine and a service which I cannot legally control.
It's a funny thing but I really hate the idea of law-enforcement or anyone else out there being able to see how many times I Tivo'd something.
Tivo is not the only company who operates this way. I'm sure most digital cable and satellite recievers operate under similar standards.
But if I build my own box, and use open source software, I am free to see what's going on and thus gain some control.
Tivo nor any other company that I know of, gives the consumer that option.
in retrospect you are right. there are a lot of landmines out there but still, endusers can and should demonstrate some level of intelligence before hitting the enter button or clicking on the Go button on the browser.
misspellings will happen but i know to look up anything i'm not sure of and i know the ramifications.
common sense.
it doesn't matter how many tools joe user has on his pc, if he/she doesn't exercise sound judgement in surfing, no amount of anti-spyware tools will help.
Slashdot Mirror
exactly...like the two previous posters i have over a terabyte of music and video that i legally own. i have purchased well over 1000 cds in my lifetime and i do remember when cds first came out in 1983. i was working in a record store and we had three titles to choose from.
but the problem that i see is navigation and sync times on these devices are going to get longer and longer unless they start using gigabit networking.
Geeks installing Windows 3.1 and 3.11 on their work computers on top of DOS, is the flagship operating system/GUI made its initial foothold. Wordperfect was originally the dominant tool for word processing and when people started pirating MS Word in the same offices, it gave MS an addition line into each office. Finally...look at the MP3 device industry. There wouldn't be a demand for Ipods and other MP3 players if it weren't for piracy. Piracy helps more than it hurts. But copyright holders issue these exaggerated claims about how much piracy hurts them and how much money it costs them. The truth is those claims are exaggerated because many of the installations of pirated software or music are things that most would never buy anyway. So piracy does have its plusses. It's just that intellectual property rights holders know that if they do not actively protect their intellectual assets, US law will not be on their side.
Only in this country, censorship is not done in the name of the government. It's done almost solely to "protect" children or those with weak sensativities. I don't necessarily agree with the idea but I am saying that it does exist here.
styrofoam is a dish best served cold.
i cannot argue with that.
what you say it's pretty much 100% accurate. what i was trying to do was make a very quick, down-and-dirty, argument to show that i wasn't being a troll and provide some evidence to back that up.
it's true that congress cares less about our ability to keep our information private than i do about who wins american karaoke...err...idol.
you folks don't get it.
i slation/
1 040953/k.522/Press_Release__So_Called_Right_of_Pri vacy.htm
the GOP has spent a lot of time and effort enforcing the idea that there is no right to privacy guaranteed in the Constitution.
from Scalia's speeches to select groups, to recent SCOTUS decisions, they are slowly making it clear the the individual has no constitutional right to privacy.
so it stands to reason that business and political interest can garner whatever information they deem necessary without your permission.
this is not a trollish post..it's the truth. please reference these pieces for more information:
http://txfx.net/2005/03/15/scalia-on-judicial-leg
http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.
and then there is this from the People for the American Way
"On the broader constitutional issue of privacy, Scalia's and Thomas' views are so extreme that their rulings would also do widespread damage by reaching beyond the specific issue of abortion to threaten access to contraception and reproductive health services. In opinions such as Casey and Scalia's concurring 1990 opinion in Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health,33 they contend that the Constitution does not protect any right of privacy concerning reproduction or bodily integrity whatsoever. If this view comes to command a majority of the Supreme Court, it would threaten landmark decisions like the 1965 ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, 196534 and could permit state laws banning the sale or use of contraceptives or similar steps to violate privacy rights long taken for granted by all Americans. Such an outcome may seem highly unlikely, but the ongoing controversy over approval of RU-486, for example, is a reminder that laws are sometimes more responsive to pressure groups than to broad public opinion."
uhm...not quite.
you are susceptible if you do nothing more than do a good deed.
try helping an infant or child who is bleeding profusely.
you don't normally carry rubber gloves with you so...
are you going to let the child bleed to death or are you going to help?
if you help...you could contract HIV because children can carry it.
but yes..if you do nothing but watch...you're safe from contracting it but then again...how alive are you really if you'll let a child bleed out?
that once tivo feels threatened by opensource/proprietary solutions/workarounds to their product, that they will find a way to stop this movement. let's see...they can go get a patent from the patent office which is so vague it'll allow them to blanket the entire market (lest we forget the gif, click, and one-click shopping patent disputes). they can approach the content providers and use an encryption algorithm that only their boxes and the boxes of those licensed to redistribute their feed (cable/satellite operators) can decipher. and finally...they can just approach the ftc for a more restrictive broadcast flag that the providers and the other box manufacturers would gladly approve. so before y'all get comfy...remember...Tivo pushed for the year contract stipulation to entrench folks into their service. do you really think they'll let this go by without a fight?
like Doubleclick, Advertising.com, and Bfast
I don't block Google ads (yet) and I don't block ads from local companies that I know.
But I have a hostfile and I also use a firewall and block entire IP ranges from other unethical companies.
Anyhow...I'm sure they'll find a way around that. Yahoo has created one with text only ads that are fed via a JavaScript.
most marketing companies don't believe that there is such a thing as ethics and any method used to deliver your message is good so long as the ends justifies the means...ie..the message gets delivered.
spammers know how to deliver messages and are thus very hireable. plus...while we know who these vermin are...and the marketing companies/employers know who they are...john q. public doesn't know.
so what preventative is there to not hiring spammers?
and don't get me wrong...i detest spammers and report/fight them as hard as i can but i'm being realistic.
if the motivation to hire a spammer exceeds the potential downsides, a company trying to market a product or message would hire them in a heartbeat.
in all fairness, i've also used it for years without a hitch as well.
can't someone create a program to tell a user every program/service that is running on his/her pc (including those that like to remain hidden) and let the user decide if they want that piece of software in the first place?
i think that this is actually an old feature. i know that i've used the numeric stuff before.
a -search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=f irefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
like for instance if you type in the word "pi" the first thing returned is the value of pi
http://www.google.com/search?q=pi&sourceid=mozill
i've also used it to find out information about cars via the VIN number.
you give up any right to privacy by using any communications device. that's the purpose of these things...to communicate in a public arena. while the individual may have some notion of privacy because there is a one to one or one to many conversation going on, the truth is that you are using proprietary software to do this. the maker of the software can, by law, impose any restriction they wish for its use. i'm not saying it's right...that's just how it is. if an individual wishes secure private communications, they are more than welcome to build their own tool or use encryption.
whatever happened to conservative values? you know the ones that let market forces decide what stays and what goes?
if people are willing to pay for what the gentleman has termed "indecent" and there are enough people paying for it, then that's what should drive the market.
you don't see government saying that other items are succeeding so we must stop their sale.
the gop and conservatives have longed preached "let the market decide" so why can't they stand back and let the market decide what we can and cannot watch.
if they are so gung ho on family styled programming, then watch what's available and turn off the other stuff.
but see...the problem is that few people tune into family programs and more people turn on the provocative fare so now congress wants to squash it.
i just thought of something...maybe there's a component/add-on for firefox that the tester was running that others aren't and that's what triggered the spyware alert?
or maybe the testers tweaked the beta product.
or maybe that's why this is still a beta product.
i'm not defending MS
i am merely providing optional theories for the positive result.
Since my first computer class, that binary systems will never be completely secure.
There's some myth that is out there, that it's possible to secure our data.
The truth is that everything is down to a question of bits. Either it's a 1 or a 0.
and so it's not really out of the realm of possibility to find and break encryption.
And anyone who suggests otherwise is trying to sell you a Yugo.
This must be how companies will be able to figure out exactly who we are and our available credit line the moment we walk through the door.
Can you imagine?
Walking through a store and no employee wants to wait on you.
Then when you go to make a purchase, the cashier immediately asks you for cash when you go to offer your credit card.
is a legal defininition of adware (for purposed of this argument, let's drop the spy/mal/foist monikers. the ultimate goal of all these programs is to get advertising in front of you, the enduser. what is needed (and will never happen under the current administration) is for the ftc and congress to make it illegal to install any piece of software on to a pc, that goes for java applets too, which would devote any cpu cycles for any purpose not explicitly approved of by the owner of the cpu.
this has gotten way off topic but let me just say that every instance you cite is a rental/leased experience.
when i pay cash for my car, i used to own it and the components in it. not any more...now there's a blackbox under the dash that reports on me. it doesn't benefit me and it cannot be removed because it's a part of the car's computer system.
i can go buy a house but i'm limited in the modifications i make to it because of homeowner association rules.
i buy a computer-game...aka an xbox but to open it up and soup it up a little to my liking is violating microsoft's rules regarding its usage. and the same is true for tivo.
and don't worry about how my wife and i exist. that's our business. we give each other space and trust each other and that's all that's important.
i'm not sure where you got your information from but there's little cost involved. a court ordered subpoena to tivo for the records related to my customer# is all it takes. tivo then either faxes or emails the information back. we've all seen the RIAA and MPAA do it ad they aren't law enforcement. but i'm unclear on what part you are confused about. i don't want anyone to know what i'm doing at anytime. period. that holds for my wife, my parents, my siblings, anyone. it's a personal preference and it's not because i'm hiding something.
well i've seen enough episodes of law and order and CSI to know that any record you leave behind can be pulled and while I'm not a criminal nor plan to be, i don't want anyone to know what i'm doing.
and you inflammatory approach, suggesting that those who are concerned about their privacy are full of "delusional self-importance" is off-base.
the question is how much authority are you willing to give up.
i, for one, am tired of buying products that i don't own.
if i pay money for something, i have this belief that i should control it and what it does.
I completely see your point however, please let me tell you why I'll never own a Tivo or a Replay or any other system.
I'm a control freak. I like to know what's going on and who's doing it.
Tivo controls the box. They control the size of the drive inside the box, they control the data that's on the box, and they ultimately could control what can and cannot be saved onto the box.
And while it is true that some can "hack" the box, Tivo has not given users permission to do so.
Tivo alone maintains control and can upload updates on it, they upload commercials on to it, and they can monitor what I'm watching/Tivo-ing.
In other words, I'm paying for a machine and a service which I cannot legally control.
It's a funny thing but I really hate the idea of law-enforcement or anyone else out there being able to see how many times I Tivo'd something.
Tivo is not the only company who operates this way. I'm sure most digital cable and satellite recievers operate under similar standards.
But if I build my own box, and use open source software, I am free to see what's going on and thus gain some control.
Tivo nor any other company that I know of, gives the consumer that option.
in retrospect you are right. there are a lot of landmines out there but still, endusers can and should demonstrate some level of intelligence before hitting the enter button or clicking on the Go button on the browser. misspellings will happen but i know to look up anything i'm not sure of and i know the ramifications.
common sense. it doesn't matter how many tools joe user has on his pc, if he/she doesn't exercise sound judgement in surfing, no amount of anti-spyware tools will help.