We want to keep the letters DRM. You just want to post-face it with an explination of the letters. I.E. BMG has intruduced a new DRM (Data Removal Method) into their new CD's. This way every time the Media Barons use the term DRM, they are spreading the word that they are doing something wrong. Lets just call it embracing and extending. I don't know if Data Removal Method is the best words for DRM, but I'm sure we could come up with something that actaully sounds like a no joke industry term.
My 6th grade teacher broke me of this. After catching me being the only one to raise my hand on a yes or no question, and then quickly put it down, he called me out. He made me put my hand back up. He then made a big deal about how I thought I knew better than every single person in the class. He really rubbed it in.
Then he did the work, and...I was the only one that got the answer right. I don't know if it made the impact on everyone else that it did on me, but it was definitly one of those defining moments. Of course, ever since, I have had to deal with people thinking I am arrogent if I don't just go along with the herd.
Emulation is cool to people who know how it works. To people that don't, it looks like magic. The perverbial lead into gold. They see Super Nintendo and Playstation games run on their PC, and think that this can be done from any system to any system. It only took the 2 minutes to install Snes9x, why would'nt someone be able to write a Windows Emulator for Linus in 15 days!
You all imply that the can opener is the least likely to be associated with sex. The parent did say "Gets You Sex". I have no doubt that when the electric can opener was introduced to the public, there were plenty of men who bought one because the knew that bringing it home to their wife was going to get them some hot nasty sex. Same goes for the microwave oven, the automatic dish washer, and the automatic clothes washer.
Ok, I'm more than happy to change my stance on the Ring around the Rosies if I'm am given a better explination, as I do understand that most of what we think we know about history is just hear say. The snoops article, just isn't convincing.
"Ring Around the Rosie" is simply a nursery rhyme of indefinite origin and no specific meaning
The author doesn't know where the rhyme came from, and claims that it has no meaning, but says with confidence that it isn't about the plauge? Questionable at best.
He then cites reworded versions that were published a few years later as evidence that the original wasn't the original.
Later after stating that the rhyme had no meaning, he quotes Folklorist Philip Hiscock putting forth:
The rings referred to in the rhymes are literally the rings formed by the playing children. "Ashes, ashes" probably comes from something like "Husha, husha" (another common variant) which refers to stopping the ring and falling silent. And the falling down refers to the jumble of bodies in that ring when they let go of each other and throw themselves into the circle.
The author clearly understands his logical fallicy as he states:
Either "ashes" was a corruption of an earlier form or a deliberate use; it can't be both.
Which is the same kind of logicl fallicy.
The author keeps on about how the original MUST have been created in mid 1300s for the plauge story to be true. This is an obvious Straw Man argument. While the original might be that old, the author clearly acknowledges that the rhyme has been attributed to the reoccurance of the plauge in 1665. Of course that date delutes his inflamitory remarks of:
Children were apparently reciting this plague-inspired nursery rhyme for over six hundred years before someone finally figured out what they were talking about
Besides, given the straight forward wording of the rhyme, it is entirly plausible that no one ever bothered to remark upon it. It would be easy to come up with hundreds of examples of subjects not critiqued because they are considered obvious. Perticularly in a time of less prolific writting.
Then there is the authors claim:
The explanations of the rhyme's "true" meaning are inconsistent, and they seem to be contrived to match whichever version of "Ring Around the Rosie" the teller is familar with. For example, the purpose of the "pocket full of posies" is said to by any one of the following:
* Something carried to ward off the disease.
* A way of masking the "stench of death."
* An item the dead were commonly buried with.
* Flowers to place "on a grave or funeral pyre."
* A representation of the "pus or infection under the skin in the sores" of plague victims.
The first four examples are basically the same thing. Posies are all over the place, so you say you have a pocket full of them. Which specifically is right. One, multiple, maybe all of them. Asking when the posies were administered is like asking when the rash is being described. Before death? After Death? In the grave? During the funeral? In a four line rhyme, it is obsurd to expect a detailed time line. Suffice it to say that people stricken by the plauge also had posies around them.
The fourth example, which I have never heard of before, doesn't sound as plausible, but then I've never examined someone with the plauge. Either way though, giving four consistant examples and one inconsistant example at the end is certainly not a convincing argument. If four people tell you the sky is blue, and one says it is purple, that doesn't mean all five are wrong.
So, while I can't guarantee that the rhyme is about the plauge, I can tell you that the snoops article is contradictory, logically fallacious, and not belivable. That means, until better information comes along, I will have to go with the most probable argument, which is that the rhyme is about the plauge.
(Wow, that was a much longer post than I expected!)
Well since it is not uncommon for my wife to watch shows upstairs on the bedroom ReplayTV that are stored on the living room ReplayTV, while at the same time I am watching shows in the living room that are stored on the bedroom ReplayTV. Add to that I might be downloading a linux distro to try, and copying TV shows from my ReplayTV server to my laptop to watch while I am away for the weekend.
Honestly, sometimes the 100Mbs wired network really isn't up to snuff.
The fact is, YOUR standards are not MY standards. Kids are growing retarded. It isn't some genetic problem, or lead in the water. It is that most of the population is either ignoring their kids, or like you, trying to "protect" them to the point of retarding them.
If the only parent that would buy Grand Theft Auto for thier child is either a psychopath, or woefully ignorant, then the government SHOULD step in. In fact, there are parents that are good parents, and have tought their kids what is real and what is not. Heck some parents even teach their kids that the things in GTA DO happen, but that you don't want any part of it in real life, just as you might teach your kid that whale hunting isn't a good idea, even though you let them read Moby Dick.
I will absolutly let my child play games like GTA, although GTA likely won't be around by the time he wants to play games that complicated. I won't do it because I'm not paying attention. I will let him play because I am. And I'll play WITH him.
My wife uses it all the time. (ReplayTV) She watches SG-1, but will do it in 4 or 5 our batches when she has the time. By son has been watching the same episodes of Blues Clues for 6 months.
Quite frankly I'm supprised at the number of people that sound like battered housewifes. "Yes, he hits me, but it's only because he loves me. And he promised he wouldn't do it again."
Wrong. The current legal climate may not agree, but the rights recognized in the constitution are inalienable. They are not "granted" to us by the constitution, they are just voiced in it. That means that you simply have those rights, irrelivent who it is that is trying to infringe upon them.
Besides, since the "civil" courts are actually government entities, it is the government that is the agent of suppression. All the doctors can do is petition the government to suppress your speech.
This attitude that seems to be in fashion, that only government needs to obey the constituion is a very dangerous thing. You see, all the government needs to do is contract out their civil rights violations to be performed by private companies, and they can do anything they want to you. Very dangerous.
Just don't get a dog at all. Stick to the ones in software. That vast majority of dog owners are ass-holes about it. I can't count the number of times I've heard a dog owner rationize leaving their dog unleashed because "my dog doesn't bite". Every dog owner tells the same story. "But I treat my dog right". Well, unless your a duck hunter or a seeing eye dog trainer, you are problably one of the ass-holes.
Dogs are pack animals that work off of an alpha-male system. Dogs WANT to be commanded. This tells them their place in the pecking order. When you treat a dog like a person, you confuse it. You let it believe that it is the alpha, and that means your excuse of "my dog doesn't bite" is just guess work.
"Also, I'm kind of miffed that this keeps getting called an "intellectual property struggle". G'fuh? I remember back in the old days, we used to call them "trademark disputes"."
That was back when copyright infringment was a "copyright dispute", and patant infringement was a "patent dispute". The problem with those terms is that they imply that you might not OWN the information, and if you don't own the information, then people migth start believeing that you have only been granted a limited time monopoly on it for your service of bring the information to the public.
Me and my tester crank out ~3 large scale applications a year. Just the two of us. I haven't seen an application development environment that can match it. As with any project, just make sure the tools fit the project.
Not that I support a flame war, but I'm supprised this doesn't happen more often. It always amazes me that companies will allow employees to actaully steal from each other. Every company that my wife has worked for, and many that I have worked for has faced the problem of stolen lunches.
It may sound petty, but it is a real problem. While I can go without lunch, and have it be no big deal, many people just physically cannot handle it. Besides the fact that it is STEALING. If the company cought you stealing their stuff, most would come down like a hammer, yet stealing from other employees is ok?
Is seems pretty obvious that these women were not doing anything out of the ordinary. The problem was that every day behavior for company was exposed. If the company had an ENFORCED policy against robbing other employees, this would have been nipped in the bud. Also, if the company had an ENFORCED policy against personal attacks, one of the two ladies would have likely, very quickly forwarded the email to a manager, and this would have been nipped in the bud.
Clealy the company is not clean on this one, and that embaresses them.
Consider this -- prior to the Internet, law enforcement believed that child porn had been basically wiped out. It was a crime from a previous age, like body snatching. But then came the Web. Between 1996 and 2004, child-porn cases handled by the FBI increased 23 fold.
Only the truly stupid, truly oblivious, and the blindly religious thought this. Everyone else new that at the very least, the Catholic Church was running an international child molestation ring which, yes included pictures. Hell, just look at most childrens beauty pagent. Parents don't dress their daughters like cheap whores because it's good for them. They do it because dressing a 5 year old up like a whore wins prizes!
The research presented in Pornified argues that technology does not merely make it easier to serve an existing desire, it allows deep exposure that for many people results in stronger and more specific versions of the the original demand.
Like people REALLY wanting to villify Porn? (or video games, comic books, TV, or whatever)
Unfortunatly, you don't even have to have an account that uses your fingerprints to loose the fingers. It seems to me that once about half of the people use fingerprints to identify themselves, it becomes easier for a mugger to just cut off your fingers, and check if it works later. It's a lot safer to hit someone over the head, take their wallet and cut off their fingers than it is to hit them over their head, take their wallet, figure out if you need their fingers, THEN cut off their fingers.
That's nothing! I had fraudulent charges made on my card, and when Chase decided to issue me a credit card, there were new fraudulent charges on the card before it was even sent to me. Of course charge dates stared moving around, and new charges appeared on the old card, even though when I tried to use the card, it was declined as invalid. That and Chase mysteriously decided that the one card with the fraud is the one that they would block from being visible on the Internet. They also told me that they couldn't send me an itemized list of all charges, and that I should just pay based on a line entry saying *Charges forwarded*.
Basically, what it comes down to is that sometimes the fraud happens right at the credit card company, and Chase made it quite clear that they were good with that.
At what point did contracts become something that you are just supposed to know what is in it. We are not talking about criminal law, we are talking civil law. Contracts. This move to allowing the details of a contract to be presented AFTER the company makes the agreement is insane. Just ask around to Joe-Six pack. The vast majority of them believe that they are BUYING the music. If the population understood that they were only RENTING the media, the **AA could say they are RENTING it to you. They don't do that because that is not the offer they are making. They offer to SELL you the media, then after you pay them, they say the you sould have known that BUY really means RENT.
The media companies are clearly commiting fraud, and the U.S. government is using their guns to back it up. So, yes, as long the media companies can make up any terms they want after the fact, and the U.S. government is willing to back that up with guns, DRM just might eat your children.
Difficult but not impossible. Take Dan Quale for example. The day before the whole "Potatoe" incident, spelling potatoe with an e was an acceptable form. It may have been falling out of favor, but the day the story broke, something didn't seem right, so I started searching around the internet. I found thousands of references to "Potatoe", and that included sites like 'Dictionary.com'. Within days, all references were striped. Just for a sanity check, I went around looking for old paper dictionaries. Guess what? Many of them listed "Potatoe" as a legitimate spelling. One even stated that while it was legitimate, it's use was falling out of favor.
What do we have today? It is considered fact that the correct spelling is and always had been "potato", and that "potatoe" is and always had been incorrect.
I'll tell you what, it is a mighty strange feeling listening to the entire county...everyone around you...completely conviced of something that you have physical, undeniable evidence sitting right in front of you.
As an experiment, I showed the paper dictionary to several people. Many of them still wouldn't believe it. Their response was that the dictionary must be wrong. Those that did believe it, completely forgot about the evidence within a year or two.
Well really, it's just that mine is the only opinion that matters...Well, mine and some guy in Peru that I've never met. Hence the "an" as opposed to "the".
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds good. I would like it to sound more insidius, but I think I'll go with it.
We want to keep the letters DRM. You just want to post-face it with an explination of the letters. I.E. BMG has intruduced a new DRM (Data Removal Method) into their new CD's. This way every time the Media Barons use the term DRM, they are spreading the word that they are doing something wrong. Lets just call it embracing and extending. I don't know if Data Removal Method is the best words for DRM, but I'm sure we could come up with something that actaully sounds like a no joke industry term.
My 6th grade teacher broke me of this. After catching me being the only one to raise my hand on a yes or no question, and then quickly put it down, he called me out. He made me put my hand back up. He then made a big deal about how I thought I knew better than every single person in the class. He really rubbed it in.
Then he did the work, and...I was the only one that got the answer right. I don't know if it made the impact on everyone else that it did on me, but it was definitly one of those defining moments. Of course, ever since, I have had to deal with people thinking I am arrogent if I don't just go along with the herd.
Emulation is cool to people who know how it works. To people that don't, it looks like magic. The perverbial lead into gold. They see Super Nintendo and Playstation games run on their PC, and think that this can be done from any system to any system. It only took the 2 minutes to install Snes9x, why would'nt someone be able to write a Windows Emulator for Linus in 15 days!
It's the stuff with the word Nucular that REALLY messes up the environment!
The albums I buy are generally good from beginning to end. It just goes to show the quality of the artists producing the works.
You all imply that the can opener is the least likely to be associated with sex. The parent did say "Gets You Sex". I have no doubt that when the electric can opener was introduced to the public, there were plenty of men who bought one because the knew that bringing it home to their wife was going to get them some hot nasty sex. Same goes for the microwave oven, the automatic dish washer, and the automatic clothes washer.
Ok, I'm more than happy to change my stance on the Ring around the Rosies if I'm am given a better explination, as I do understand that most of what we think we know about history is just hear say. The snoops article, just isn't convincing.
"Ring Around the Rosie" is simply a nursery rhyme of indefinite origin and no specific meaning
The author doesn't know where the rhyme came from, and claims that it has no meaning, but says with confidence that it isn't about the plauge? Questionable at best.
He then cites reworded versions that were published a few years later as evidence that the original wasn't the original.
Later after stating that the rhyme had no meaning, he quotes Folklorist Philip Hiscock putting forth:
The rings referred to in the rhymes are literally the rings formed by the playing children. "Ashes, ashes" probably comes from something like "Husha, husha" (another common variant) which refers to stopping the ring and falling silent. And the falling down refers to the jumble of bodies in that ring when they let go of each other and throw themselves into the circle.
The author clearly understands his logical fallicy as he states:
Either "ashes" was a corruption of an earlier form or a deliberate use; it can't be both.
Which is the same kind of logicl fallicy.
The author keeps on about how the original MUST have been created in mid 1300s for the plauge story to be true. This is an obvious Straw Man argument. While the original might be that old, the author clearly acknowledges that the rhyme has been attributed to the reoccurance of the plauge in 1665. Of course that date delutes his inflamitory remarks of:
Children were apparently reciting this plague-inspired nursery rhyme for over six hundred years before someone finally figured out what they were talking about Besides, given the straight forward wording of the rhyme, it is entirly plausible that no one ever bothered to remark upon it. It would be easy to come up with hundreds of examples of subjects not critiqued because they are considered obvious. Perticularly in a time of less prolific writting.
Then there is the authors claim: The explanations of the rhyme's "true" meaning are inconsistent, and they seem to be contrived to match whichever version of "Ring Around the Rosie" the teller is familar with. For example, the purpose of the "pocket full of posies" is said to by any one of the following:
* Something carried to ward off the disease.
* A way of masking the "stench of death."
* An item the dead were commonly buried with.
* Flowers to place "on a grave or funeral pyre."
* A representation of the "pus or infection under the skin in the sores" of plague victims.
The first four examples are basically the same thing. Posies are all over the place, so you say you have a pocket full of them. Which specifically is right. One, multiple, maybe all of them. Asking when the posies were administered is like asking when the rash is being described. Before death? After Death? In the grave? During the funeral? In a four line rhyme, it is obsurd to expect a detailed time line. Suffice it to say that people stricken by the plauge also had posies around them.
The fourth example, which I have never heard of before, doesn't sound as plausible, but then I've never examined someone with the plauge. Either way though, giving four consistant examples and one inconsistant example at the end is certainly not a convincing argument. If four people tell you the sky is blue, and one says it is purple, that doesn't mean all five are wrong.
So, while I can't guarantee that the rhyme is about the plauge, I can tell you that the snoops article is contradictory, logically fallacious, and not belivable. That means, until better information comes along, I will have to go with the most probable argument, which is that the rhyme is about the plauge. (Wow, that was a much longer post than I expected!)
But don't you mean" Ring around the rosies, Pocket full of posies, Ashes,Ashes, we all fall down!
Well since it is not uncommon for my wife to watch shows upstairs on the bedroom ReplayTV that are stored on the living room ReplayTV, while at the same time I am watching shows in the living room that are stored on the bedroom ReplayTV. Add to that I might be downloading a linux distro to try, and copying TV shows from my ReplayTV server to my laptop to watch while I am away for the weekend.
Honestly, sometimes the 100Mbs wired network really isn't up to snuff.
The fact is, YOUR standards are not MY standards. Kids are growing retarded. It isn't some genetic problem, or lead in the water. It is that most of the population is either ignoring their kids, or like you, trying to "protect" them to the point of retarding them.
If the only parent that would buy Grand Theft Auto for thier child is either a psychopath, or woefully ignorant, then the government SHOULD step in. In fact, there are parents that are good parents, and have tought their kids what is real and what is not. Heck some parents even teach their kids that the things in GTA DO happen, but that you don't want any part of it in real life, just as you might teach your kid that whale hunting isn't a good idea, even though you let them read Moby Dick.
I will absolutly let my child play games like GTA, although GTA likely won't be around by the time he wants to play games that complicated. I won't do it because I'm not paying attention. I will let him play because I am. And I'll play WITH him.
My wife uses it all the time. (ReplayTV) She watches SG-1, but will do it in 4 or 5 our batches when she has the time. By son has been watching the same episodes of Blues Clues for 6 months.
Quite frankly I'm supprised at the number of people that sound like battered housewifes. "Yes, he hits me, but it's only because he loves me. And he promised he wouldn't do it again."
Wrong. The current legal climate may not agree, but the rights recognized in the constitution are inalienable. They are not "granted" to us by the constitution, they are just voiced in it. That means that you simply have those rights, irrelivent who it is that is trying to infringe upon them.
Besides, since the "civil" courts are actually government entities, it is the government that is the agent of suppression. All the doctors can do is petition the government to suppress your speech.
This attitude that seems to be in fashion, that only government needs to obey the constituion is a very dangerous thing. You see, all the government needs to do is contract out their civil rights violations to be performed by private companies, and they can do anything they want to you. Very dangerous.
Just don't get a dog at all. Stick to the ones in software. That vast majority of dog owners are ass-holes about it. I can't count the number of times I've heard a dog owner rationize leaving their dog unleashed because "my dog doesn't bite". Every dog owner tells the same story. "But I treat my dog right". Well, unless your a duck hunter or a seeing eye dog trainer, you are problably one of the ass-holes.
Dogs are pack animals that work off of an alpha-male system. Dogs WANT to be commanded. This tells them their place in the pecking order. When you treat a dog like a person, you confuse it. You let it believe that it is the alpha, and that means your excuse of "my dog doesn't bite" is just guess work.
"Also, I'm kind of miffed that this keeps getting called an "intellectual property struggle". G'fuh? I remember back in the old days, we used to call them "trademark disputes"."
That was back when copyright infringment was a "copyright dispute", and patant infringement was a "patent dispute". The problem with those terms is that they imply that you might not OWN the information, and if you don't own the information, then people migth start believeing that you have only been granted a limited time monopoly on it for your service of bring the information to the public.
Me and my tester crank out ~3 large scale applications a year. Just the two of us. I haven't seen an application development environment that can match it. As with any project, just make sure the tools fit the project.
Not that I support a flame war, but I'm supprised this doesn't happen more often. It always amazes me that companies will allow employees to actaully steal from each other. Every company that my wife has worked for, and many that I have worked for has faced the problem of stolen lunches.
It may sound petty, but it is a real problem. While I can go without lunch, and have it be no big deal, many people just physically cannot handle it. Besides the fact that it is STEALING. If the company cought you stealing their stuff, most would come down like a hammer, yet stealing from other employees is ok?
Is seems pretty obvious that these women were not doing anything out of the ordinary. The problem was that every day behavior for company was exposed. If the company had an ENFORCED policy against robbing other employees, this would have been nipped in the bud. Also, if the company had an ENFORCED policy against personal attacks, one of the two ladies would have likely, very quickly forwarded the email to a manager, and this would have been nipped in the bud.
Clealy the company is not clean on this one, and that embaresses them.
Only the truly stupid, truly oblivious, and the blindly religious thought this. Everyone else new that at the very least, the Catholic Church was running an international child molestation ring which, yes included pictures. Hell, just look at most childrens beauty pagent. Parents don't dress their daughters like cheap whores because it's good for them. They do it because dressing a 5 year old up like a whore wins prizes!
Like people REALLY wanting to villify Porn? (or video games, comic books, TV, or whatever)
Unfortunatly, you don't even have to have an account that uses your fingerprints to loose the fingers. It seems to me that once about half of the people use fingerprints to identify themselves, it becomes easier for a mugger to just cut off your fingers, and check if it works later. It's a lot safer to hit someone over the head, take their wallet and cut off their fingers than it is to hit them over their head, take their wallet, figure out if you need their fingers, THEN cut off their fingers.
That's nothing! I had fraudulent charges made on my card, and when Chase decided to issue me a credit card, there were new fraudulent charges on the card before it was even sent to me. Of course charge dates stared moving around, and new charges appeared on the old card, even though when I tried to use the card, it was declined as invalid. That and Chase mysteriously decided that the one card with the fraud is the one that they would block from being visible on the Internet. They also told me that they couldn't send me an itemized list of all charges, and that I should just pay based on a line entry saying *Charges forwarded*.
Basically, what it comes down to is that sometimes the fraud happens right at the credit card company, and Chase made it quite clear that they were good with that.
At what point did contracts become something that you are just supposed to know what is in it. We are not talking about criminal law, we are talking civil law. Contracts. This move to allowing the details of a contract to be presented AFTER the company makes the agreement is insane. Just ask around to Joe-Six pack. The vast majority of them believe that they are BUYING the music. If the population understood that they were only RENTING the media, the **AA could say they are RENTING it to you. They don't do that because that is not the offer they are making. They offer to SELL you the media, then after you pay them, they say the you sould have known that BUY really means RENT.
The media companies are clearly commiting fraud, and the U.S. government is using their guns to back it up. So, yes, as long the media companies can make up any terms they want after the fact, and the U.S. government is willing to back that up with guns, DRM just might eat your children.
Difficult but not impossible. Take Dan Quale for example. The day before the whole "Potatoe" incident, spelling potatoe with an e was an acceptable form. It may have been falling out of favor, but the day the story broke, something didn't seem right, so I started searching around the internet. I found thousands of references to "Potatoe", and that included sites like 'Dictionary.com'. Within days, all references were striped. Just for a sanity check, I went around looking for old paper dictionaries. Guess what? Many of them listed "Potatoe" as a legitimate spelling. One even stated that while it was legitimate, it's use was falling out of favor.
What do we have today? It is considered fact that the correct spelling is and always had been "potato", and that "potatoe" is and always had been incorrect.
I'll tell you what, it is a mighty strange feeling listening to the entire county...everyone around you...completely conviced of something that you have physical, undeniable evidence sitting right in front of you.
As an experiment, I showed the paper dictionary to several people. Many of them still wouldn't believe it. Their response was that the dictionary must be wrong. Those that did believe it, completely forgot about the evidence within a year or two.
Well really, it's just that mine is the only opinion that matters...Well, mine and some guy in Peru that I've never met. Hence the "an" as opposed to "the".
As an America, I'd love to see this bill come into effect too. The fewer havens for spammers the better.
"The children who played more violent video games had more arguments with authority figures"
Yeah, because obeying authority figures without question is a good thing.
It seems the very premise of the study was flawed. They didn't even know the right questions to ask.