Hey, those same people saw right throught the original divx scheme. Also, as you mention best buy, I see a couple of scenerios for the return of the stuff that doesn't work because of DRM.
1) they will tell them that the device is fine, you just need to trash your current thousand dollar TV and buy a new thousand dollar tv. 2) they will try to sell them whatever settop box they need to make the device work (probably costing as much the DVD player) 3) they'll fess up and show them the less DRM encumbered players
While 3 is highly unlikely. Options 1 and 2 both have the customer leaving the store really pissed.
People will ignore this stuff until they bring home yet another component that won't work right with their Thousand dollar TV. Then they'll be really really pissed.
I predict that if the industry gets its way with DRM , then when HDTV finally gets to almost everyone there will be a bloodbath at the polls as people run against incumbents with lines line "Senator X took away your TV, I'll give it back."
DRM is out of hand, its never worked, but the entertainment industry will never learn.
But the point is that there is a monoculture where basically every system has the same vulnerability to attacks, and attacks targeted at that system can be effective.
Eliminating the monoculture will require the need for the viruses to adapt to the other systems in the environment. Widespread use of Linux (or OS X) would make widespread infection of PCs much harder.
Agruing that if the situation were reversed is irrevalent, the situation is not reversed. Also, early adopters of alternate systems from a monoculture will naturally encounter the longest timeframe between the attacks against the monoculture and the switch by attackers to heterogeneous environments.
Basically it comes down to this. Sure, if everyone switched to Linux, it would get attacked more (I still think its less vulnerable), but if YOU switched and everyone else didn't you wouldn't get attacked as much.
Good for you! More people need to do this. But it should be easier for you to do this.
I do understand where installing updates should be an admin task, but windows needs better mechanisms for this. And their mechanisms are getting better, but you can still see the signs of being built from a single user system.
C'mon thats a lame excuse. Also it really dosen't address the Monoculture commet above. Until the monoculture is addressed using Linux IS statistically safer.
Also people don't normally surf the net logged into their Linux boxes as root, but do surf as administrator almost all of the time in Windows. The user handling in Windows has always been a vulnerablitity. Windows is only now staring to move past its multi user bolted onto a single operating system design. And in so many of their operating systems Administrator rights are required to do even the simplest things. I remember when NT first came out that administrator access was required to change the desktop wallpaper, and that was just ridiculous. Run as root gets closer, but its still not quite right.
That's the scaries thing about this type of logic. The more degrees of separation from your initial statement to your final decision the more you're just making things up.
The Supreme Court was specifically designed to rule on whether things fit within the constitution or not, not to "create" law based on other countries or tying toghether things that can be legislated to things that cannot with loose logic.
The eminent domain decision was one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in recent history. In my opinion, it absoulutely needs to be reversed, and now it will be very hard to do so.
That decision shows how enourmously more important personal property rights are than intellectual property rights. At least when IP is violated you don't lose your house.
You've got to be kidding. Most non-technical people equate the PC with Dell. The last time Dell even hinted about going with AMD, they started backpedaling immediately. You just have to believe the Intel called with an updated price list in order to convince Dell to change their minds.
I'm pretty sure that AMD will call witnesses from Dell in this case.
Oh and your comment is so far fetched that I'd almost guess you work for Intel. Of course then it goes without saying that your company wouldn't buy AMD.
That really depends on the stroke. Breastroke is a whole lot of kick, alas its also a slow stroke then the crawl. But kicking does provide a reasonable amount of power, otherwise you'd never get anywhere with a kickboard.
As for the dolplin kick, its really one of the weakest kicks out there, and one of the hardest. Its use with the butterfly has more to do with the execution of the stroke than anything else, no other kick would really work since timing is so key to doing the butterfly.
You make a good point about how these people may be richer than others who have been affected by immenent domain before, but the people trying to get them off their land are even richer and more than they are.
Don't cheer for the super rich just because they're going after the moderately rich. Emminent domain property being handed out to private parties, is unbelievably bad. How long will it be before personal vendettas are used by city or county commissions to take away the land of some one they just don't like, or from a political enemy.
You should be expecte to install updates on your system, as the basic precaution.
To follow along with this analogy. But with my house when I install a new deadbolt I'm done. With a PC users need to install a new "lock" every month.
I just find the amount of crap users are expected to do just to keep their machine usable is amazing. Everyone is expected to be an expert and they're not. In the real world Brinks will outfit your house with a security system, install it, manage it , the whole nine yards. With PCs the user has to do all the maintenance, all the management.
It suprises me that there aren't more ISPs offering a fully blocked and monitored service to customers (wait I should patent that idea;-). This way they could ease the users burden in the defense of their PCs. Of course their users would complain that their really cool (spyware laden) browser toolbar doesn't work anymore, and they'd get angry. Wait, I was defending the users wasn't I? Oops.
What I really find interesting about this Thievs/Hackers analogy is that you never hear people telling the victims of Theives that they should have had three deadbolts on the door, or saying "shame on you you don't have bars on your windows, of course you'll get broken into."
It never ceases to amaze me how much blame is laid at the feet of the users. I know running an email attachment executable is really stupid, but alot of other exploits are the equivalent of using a crowbar to break your windows. Thieves get serious jailtime and the police work to find them and they are considered the only ones to blame. In the PC realm, hackers go largely uncaught and unpersued by the athorities, and the user gets told its their fault.
Except that you can almost count on Avalanche having some form of integrated DRM. This would make it useless for many of the files shared by bittorrent. Of course Linux distributions would still be shared on Avalanche;-)
It is refreshing to see your viewpoint here instead of the I'll be cool and bash Star Wars view.
Still I would have preferred the movies to have been Episode II, Clone Wars to be the second episode, and them III. I thought the Clone Wars series was simply awesome.
You know, I think Dune is the perfect counterpoint to the manifesto. While it only has humans in it an d no alien influence, it violates most of the other rules.
Yet it is regarded as one of the greatest works of Science Fiction of all time.
To quote something that isn't SciFi at all "Rules, We don't need no stinkin rules."
Yep, you've very succinctly explained why I hate prequels, and also why Episode III is by far the best of them. It the one that actually SHOWS us the story we wanted to see. One and Two were filler.
Prequels leave the audience expecting so much that they hardly ever pay off. Enterprise, anyone?
Ok that might be true. In that case its not evil, its sad.
It is just beyond me how software patents have even been allowed to exist. Patenting the algorithm is like patenting the plot of a book. For software I think the choice should be either copyright or patent, it shouldn't be both. Actually it should only be copyright.
The same can be said of Microsoft and their patents.
You're right. Google prides itself on "do no evil".
BUT. Software patents are IMHO evil, Google just got one, therfore, Google did evil. I still like google, but if Microsoft patents are bad so are Google ones.
And one may argue that some of googles gmail terms weren't the most "nice", but I didn't really have a problem with them. I do with this.
South Dakota. Actaully there is always a lot of information and discussion (and advertising) about all of the ballot inititives during an election cycle.
But of course federally, this would never be allowed as it would give too much power (in the politicians opinion) to the people.
Regarding the "Tyranny of them Majority", I wasn't saying that imprisonment or death based on majority decisions should be accepted, I was just saying that things like referrundums on the ballot give the true majority of the people the power to make their own laws. It has worked out very well in my state for over 100 years, without the arresting of people and such that you refer to.
Wouldn't it be great if when over 50% of the people in this country say that the DMCA is crap, if it could just be done away with. Or if 50% could say they didn't want a broadcast flag or say they wanted a balanced budget it would happen. It would change the entire nature of politics in America. Right now all our representatives are being bought buy the coprorations and doing their bidding. I do agree with you that almost universally politicians are slime.
You obviously uniformly hate anyone involved in the current administration, and that's your right. But if I remember correctly, the same kind of accusations were thrown around by the right about members of the Clinton administration. There were even stories about Clinton that made the Lewinsky things look totally lame.
Nowdays, both sides are villifying each other with a vengance. But I didn't agree with Congress about impeachment, it was a witchhunt in many respects.
Your final statement amounts to: my guys are the good guys, your guys are the bad guys so any tactic is ok. Thats a slippery path to follow and a bad argument to use to try and convince those on the other side to change their minds.
Democrats are prone lately to spouting off about fiscal responsiblity for the government. I would vote for them and wholeheartely support them in making this so except for the fact that what they mean by fiscal responsiblity is raise taxes and raise spending. Hell, if instead of wanting to "tax the rich" they instead fought for tax cuts for the poor, I'd consider backing them.
Also, just because someone votes for one party doesn't mean they're putting party before country. Maybe they have different beliefs than you do. Your goal should be to affect their beliefs, not belittle tnem.
As for the Tyranny of the Majority, I just don't agree with you there. I would like nothing more than to have a true national refferendum ablitiy that would enable the people to amend the constitution or pass laws with their votes. My state has this and I believe it is truly democratic practice. As for tyranny, we haven't had any recent ballot inititives that I would classify as tyrannical (no my state hasn't had any refferendums on gay marriage). But it appears that this is something you wouldn't want to allow. The only problem is that as part of your defense of majority tyranny, you require an elected elite "minority" who by definition aren't doing what the people what. I think that is bad too (ie. currently coporoate "minorities" get a vastly disporportinate representaion, from both parties no less).
I'm the one actually trying to debate the issue, and even conceeded to your point that if the Democrats got a majority in the Senate the Republicans shouldn't be able to complain.
I am NOT and never have in this entire thread said ONE thing about you or made any personal attacks whatsoever.
Reviewing your link presents some interesting facts. But the fact that I didn't know that the Republicans fillibustered ONE judge doesn't actaully change the fact that it is WRONG. It also ties in with my argument that what's good for one party should be good for both. BUT whats bad for the country shouldn't be done by EITHER.
The fillibuster rules have to change. The minority party must not be able to force confirmation of judges to now reqiure 60 votes versus a simple majority.
See wasn't that easy, I didn't have to resort to personal attacks, I even conceeded a point to you, but stil held my ground on my beliefs and outlined why.
If in response to this the best you can do is call me names and spout personal attacks, don't bother. What you've got to do next is explain why BOTH parties need this power when in the minority.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, those same people saw right throught the original divx scheme. Also, as you mention best buy, I see a couple of scenerios for the return of the stuff that doesn't work because of DRM.
1) they will tell them that the device is fine, you just need to trash your current thousand dollar TV and buy a new thousand dollar tv.
2) they will try to sell them whatever settop box they need to make the device work (probably costing as much the DVD player)
3) they'll fess up and show them the less DRM encumbered players
While 3 is highly unlikely. Options 1 and 2 both have the customer leaving the store really pissed.
Your right, people will ignore this ... until.
People will ignore this stuff until they bring home yet another component that won't work right with their Thousand dollar TV. Then they'll be really really pissed.
I predict that if the industry gets its way with DRM , then when HDTV finally gets to almost everyone there will be a bloodbath at the polls as people run against incumbents with lines line "Senator X took away your TV, I'll give it back."
DRM is out of hand, its never worked, but the entertainment industry will never learn.
If they were truly skilled at this would they be a dungeon master????
No, its easy.
Step 1, put in Linux install disk...
But the point is that there is a monoculture where basically every system has the same vulnerability to attacks, and attacks targeted at that system can be effective.
Eliminating the monoculture will require the need for the viruses to adapt to the other systems in the environment. Widespread use of Linux (or OS X) would make widespread infection of PCs much harder.
Agruing that if the situation were reversed is irrevalent, the situation is not reversed. Also, early adopters of alternate systems from a monoculture will naturally encounter the longest timeframe between the attacks against the monoculture and the switch by attackers to heterogeneous environments.
Basically it comes down to this. Sure, if everyone switched to Linux, it would get attacked more (I still think its less vulnerable), but if YOU switched and everyone else didn't you wouldn't get attacked as much.
Good for you! More people need to do this. But it should be easier for you to do this.
I do understand where installing updates should be an admin task, but windows needs better mechanisms for this. And their mechanisms are getting better, but you can still see the signs of being built from a single user system.
C'mon thats a lame excuse. Also it really dosen't address the Monoculture commet above. Until the monoculture is addressed using Linux IS statistically safer.
Also people don't normally surf the net logged into their Linux boxes as root, but do surf as administrator almost all of the time in Windows. The user handling in Windows has always been a vulnerablitity. Windows is only now staring to move past its multi user bolted onto a single operating system design. And in so many of their operating systems Administrator rights are required to do even the simplest things. I remember when NT first came out that administrator access was required to change the desktop wallpaper, and that was just ridiculous. Run as root gets closer, but its still not quite right.
Three guesses why they are gone and we aren't?
Ummm,
1) ready
2) aim
3) fire
?
That's the scaries thing about this type of logic. The more degrees of separation from your initial statement to your final decision the more you're just making things up.
The Supreme Court was specifically designed to rule on whether things fit within the constitution or not, not to "create" law based on other countries or tying toghether things that can be legislated to things that cannot with loose logic.
The eminent domain decision was one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in recent history. In my opinion, it absoulutely needs to be reversed, and now it will be very hard to do so.
That decision shows how enourmously more important personal property rights are than intellectual property rights. At least when IP is violated you don't lose your house.
You've got to be kidding. Most non-technical people equate the PC with Dell. The last time Dell even hinted about going with AMD, they started backpedaling immediately. You just have to believe the Intel called with an updated price list in order to convince Dell to change their minds.
I'm pretty sure that AMD will call witnesses from Dell in this case.
Oh and your comment is so far fetched that I'd almost guess you work for Intel. Of course then it goes without saying that your company wouldn't buy AMD.
That really depends on the stroke. Breastroke is a whole lot of kick, alas its also a slow stroke then the crawl. But kicking does provide a reasonable amount of power, otherwise you'd never get anywhere with a kickboard.
As for the dolplin kick, its really one of the weakest kicks out there, and one of the hardest. Its use with the butterfly has more to do with the execution of the stroke than anything else, no other kick would really work since timing is so key to doing the butterfly.
Thats a great idea! It would be fantastic nerd tv. Plus they could intersperse the technical shows with wildlife stuff about their cover animals.
You make a good point about how these people may be richer than others who have been affected by immenent domain before, but the people trying to get them off their land are even richer and more than they are.
Don't cheer for the super rich just because they're going after the moderately rich. Emminent domain property being handed out to private parties, is unbelievably bad. How long will it be before personal vendettas are used by city or county commissions to take away the land of some one they just don't like, or from a political enemy.
You should be expecte to install updates on your system, as the basic precaution.
;-). This way they could ease the users burden in the defense of their PCs. Of course their users would complain that their really cool (spyware laden) browser toolbar doesn't work anymore, and they'd get angry. Wait, I was defending the users wasn't I? Oops.
To follow along with this analogy. But with my house when I install a new deadbolt I'm done. With a PC users need to install a new "lock" every month.
I just find the amount of crap users are expected to do just to keep their machine usable is amazing. Everyone is expected to be an expert and they're not. In the real world Brinks will outfit your house with a security system, install it, manage it , the whole nine yards. With PCs the user has to do all the maintenance, all the management.
It suprises me that there aren't more ISPs offering a fully blocked and monitored service to customers (wait I should patent that idea
What I really find interesting about this Thievs/Hackers analogy is that you never hear people telling the victims of Theives that they should have had three deadbolts on the door, or saying "shame on you you don't have bars on your windows, of course you'll get broken into."
It never ceases to amaze me how much blame is laid at the feet of the users. I know running an email attachment executable is really stupid, but alot of other exploits are the equivalent of using a crowbar to break your windows. Thieves get serious jailtime and the police work to find them and they are considered the only ones to blame. In the PC realm, hackers go largely uncaught and unpersued by the athorities, and the user gets told its their fault.
Except that you can almost count on Avalanche having some form of integrated DRM. This would make it useless for many of the files shared by bittorrent. Of course Linux distributions would still be shared on Avalanche ;-)
It is refreshing to see your viewpoint here instead of the I'll be cool and bash Star Wars view.
Still I would have preferred the movies to have been Episode II, Clone Wars to be the second episode, and them III. I thought the Clone Wars series was simply awesome.
You know, I think Dune is the perfect counterpoint to the manifesto. While it only has humans in it an d no alien influence, it violates most of the other rules.
Yet it is regarded as one of the greatest works of Science Fiction of all time.
To quote something that isn't SciFi at all "Rules, We don't need no stinkin rules."
Yep, you've very succinctly explained why I hate prequels, and also why Episode III is by far the best of them. It the one that actually SHOWS us the story we wanted to see. One and Two were filler.
Prequels leave the audience expecting so much that they hardly ever pay off. Enterprise, anyone?
Ok that might be true. In that case its not evil, its sad.
It is just beyond me how software patents have even been allowed to exist. Patenting the algorithm is like patenting the plot of a book. For software I think the choice should be either copyright or patent, it shouldn't be both. Actually it should only be copyright.
The same can be said of Microsoft and their patents.
You're right. Google prides itself on "do no evil".
BUT. Software patents are IMHO evil, Google just got one, therfore, Google did evil. I still like google, but if Microsoft patents are bad so are Google ones.
And one may argue that some of googles gmail terms weren't the most "nice", but I didn't really have a problem with them. I do with this.
What state is that, by the way?
South Dakota. Actaully there is always a lot of information and discussion (and advertising) about all of the ballot inititives during an election cycle.
But of course federally, this would never be allowed as it would give too much power (in the politicians opinion) to the people.
Regarding the "Tyranny of them Majority", I wasn't saying that imprisonment or death based on majority decisions should be accepted, I was just saying that things like referrundums on the ballot give the true majority of the people the power to make their own laws. It has worked out very well in my state for over 100 years, without the arresting of people and such that you refer to.
Wouldn't it be great if when over 50% of the people in this country say that the DMCA is crap, if it could just be done away with. Or if 50% could say they didn't want a broadcast flag or say they wanted a balanced budget it would happen. It would change the entire nature of politics in America. Right now all our representatives are being bought buy the coprorations and doing their bidding. I do agree with you that almost universally politicians are slime.
You obviously uniformly hate anyone involved in the current administration, and that's your right. But if I remember correctly, the same kind of accusations were thrown around by the right about members of the Clinton administration. There were even stories about Clinton that made the Lewinsky things look totally lame.
Nowdays, both sides are villifying each other with a vengance. But I didn't agree with Congress about impeachment, it was a witchhunt in many respects.
Your final statement amounts to: my guys are the good guys, your guys are the bad guys so any tactic is ok. Thats a slippery path to follow and a bad argument to use to try and convince those on the other side to change their minds.
Democrats are prone lately to spouting off about fiscal responsiblity for the government. I would vote for them and wholeheartely support them in making this so except for the fact that what they mean by fiscal responsiblity is raise taxes and raise spending. Hell, if instead of wanting to "tax the rich" they instead fought for tax cuts for the poor, I'd consider backing them.
Also, just because someone votes for one party doesn't mean they're putting party before country. Maybe they have different beliefs than you do. Your goal should be to affect their beliefs, not belittle tnem.
As for the Tyranny of the Majority, I just don't agree with you there. I would like nothing more than to have a true national refferendum ablitiy that would enable the people to amend the constitution or pass laws with their votes. My state has this and I believe it is truly democratic practice. As for tyranny, we haven't had any recent ballot inititives that I would classify as tyrannical (no my state hasn't had any refferendums on gay marriage). But it appears that this is something you wouldn't want to allow. The only problem is that as part of your defense of majority tyranny, you require an elected elite "minority" who by definition aren't doing what the people what. I think that is bad too (ie. currently coporoate "minorities" get a vastly disporportinate representaion, from both parties no less).
I'm the one actually trying to debate the issue, and even conceeded to your point that if the Democrats got a majority in the Senate the Republicans shouldn't be able to complain.
I am NOT and never have in this entire thread said ONE thing about you or made any personal attacks whatsoever.
Reviewing your link presents some interesting facts. But the fact that I didn't know that the Republicans fillibustered ONE judge doesn't actaully change the fact that it is WRONG. It also ties in with my argument that what's good for one party should be good for both. BUT whats bad for the country shouldn't be done by EITHER.
The fillibuster rules have to change. The minority party must not be able to force confirmation of judges to now reqiure 60 votes versus a simple majority.
See wasn't that easy, I didn't have to resort to personal attacks, I even conceeded a point to you, but stil held my ground on my beliefs and outlined why.
If in response to this the best you can do is call me names and spout personal attacks, don't bother. What you've got to do next is explain why BOTH parties need this power when in the minority.