I considered (as I'm sure many did) this exact same digital watermarking idea a couple of years ago for movies, images and audio files. Thought it might make a decent idea for a startup. However, within a few hours of researching the topic, it became pretty clear that it wouldn't work without additional DRM. The watermark is destroyed the moment you re-encode the file into a different format format. The DRM was required to prevent the re-encoding, and let's face it, once you introduce DRM, the watermarking becomes a bit pointless.
Bjarnason and Co.'s argument seems to be that this is too much hassle. Since people have proven they are more than willing to spend the time ripping and compressing DVDs, or even sneaking into cinemas with video cameras, I don't think a little re-encoding is going to do much to prevent piracy. It only takes one person to create the non-watermarked version, and then this copy becomes the one which is distributed to thousands on P2P networks.
So unless this new company has found some incredible new way to create non-destructable watermarks, I can't see what they're offering.
Actually, I'm disagreeing with 2 points, although I apologise if this isn't clear.
Incredulous: a person who finds something hard to believe.
I briefly covered this in another reply, but for the sake of clarity, this isn't a correct definition. The use of "a person who..." always implies a noun. If (s)he'd said "describes the feeling a person has...", it would have been ok. The key word here is describes.
My second point of contention was the line:
what he was doing was incredulous to everyone else....adverb.
Firstly, incredulous is an adjective (the adverb is incredulously). Secondly, what he was doing was incredible to everyone else. Thus, regardless of whether or not you believe his definition to be correct, he still exhibited incorrect usage.
Incredulous is not a noun. Thus, it is more correct to put it as:
Incredulous: a person finding something hard to believe
This would still make it a noun by all accounts. An adjective describes something. It can't be a thing. A person is a thing (or in other words, a noun).
What I've never understood about this restriction of consumers rights, is what the fuck makes music and movies so different from any other product you can buy?
If I buy a cucumber from Wal-Mart, it's probably expected that I'm going to use it in a sandwich or a nice salad. But if I decide I want to stick it up my ass and waggle it about for cheap thrills, I don't have to pay extra for it. It's my vegetable, and I can do what I want with it.
But if I download a music track, they want me to pay to be able to use it in any other way than was intended. Why does the entertainment industry have special status and a perceived right (in their view) to be paid 5 different ways for the same day's work?
What he was doing was incredible to everyone else. Not incredulous. And it's an adjective, not an adverb.
It's true to say that due to years of misuse a number of dictionaries have lately introduced this definition, but historically speaking 'incredulous' was not intended for the usage you described, and it's best to avoid it if you don't want to appear a little ignorant. You could also say, what he was doing caused 'incredulity' to everyone else.
(IANALBIAAET - I am not a lawyer, but I am an English teacher)
I was about to make the same point and had to search almost to the end to find someone who had come to the same conclusion. Last time I checked the RIAA were an industry body representing the voice of the slugs^H^H^H^H^Hpeople who run the record industry. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that the current administration had passed a law granting them powers of arrest, but I don't think it's happened so far.
I kick myself for not paying any attention to that damned site, because of it's sheer obnoxiousness and ugly designs.
In case she wants to become a web designer in the future? Nice to see that someone is so concerned about the impact poorly laid out sites can have on the young mind. I, for one, salute you sir.
No he isn't. However, you sir have just made his case all the stronger. If that's the best response you can come up with as the first line of your reply, he's already won the argument.
The url alone says it all - there's hardly even any need to click it. I think my point (although clearly not one grasped by the aforementioned fanboys who modded me a troll) is that it just beggars belief that someone can stand in front of an audience (albeit comprised of similar Apple worshipping fanatics) and claim that what their company is delivering is 5 years ahead of the competition without being laughed off the stage.
I own a Mac Pro and an iPod. Apple make some sweet products. But this phone is the greatest example of style over substance that they've produced yet.
With the Declaration, you are required to file a copy of a label or other packaging showing the trademark in use.
Whether or not anyone thinks it's acceptable, possibly (IANAL) the label stating "iPhone" on the packaging is a "copy of a label" as stated in the requirements to prove use of a trademark. Just because it's Apple (and let's face it, there are few companies that create such fanatical fanboyism) it doesn't mean they have an automatic right to own the world. Or should everyone just roll over and give them everything they want, whenever they want?
Disclaimer: I live in Japan. Fuck... we've had 90% of the "5 years ahead of anything else" iPhone features for ages now.
I work in Japan. Today is the first day I've ever worked on Christmas Day. However, the winter bonus is reasonable (1.8 x monthly salary). We also get 1.4 x in the summer too. But practically anyone in a professional job gets a bonus here.
you can trust sweatshop workers not to be tempted to take advantage of anything they read.
Ironically I would trust the sweatshop workers' honesty more than I would the CEOs of the companies that own the sweatshops. But that's for a different debate...
Hmm. Animated GIFs? Check. Blink? Check. Scrolling status bar? Check. Background MIDI files? Check. Pop-ups? Check. Flash ads with full video and sound? Check. Garish color schemes? Double-check.
It's the same with everything. I teach high school kids but I used to teach adult education. The games and fun activities I used in adult ed. to brighten up the classes, the kids hate because they say they're too childish. But the adults used to love 'em.
I've tried explaining to my kids before that they're being even more childish by having tantrums about being 'grown up' but it's a waste of time.
For the same reason people started to love web forums when usenet had existed for years and was better - they don't buy what's best, but what is marketed.
Sorry, but I think you're way off the mark on that one. People started to prefer web forums for any number of reasons - you're not comparing like for like. The fact that usenet was better is your subjective opinion (and you're probably someone who had already been using it for years when the web first came on the scene) and has no reflection on what the general populace think.
Man, you should see the cable box/DVR combo machine I have at home. It's a case of hit the power button, go make a coffee and come back just in time to see the menu come up.
I think the point is, if the defendant is could suffer health damage as a result of being dragged through the courts, then to lie about the presence of evidence in order to continue the case, when no such evidence exists is morally repugnant. Even for the RIAA it's a new low.
Slashdot Mirror
Or just remove the bits altogether.
I considered (as I'm sure many did) this exact same digital watermarking idea a couple of years ago for movies, images and audio files. Thought it might make a decent idea for a startup. However, within a few hours of researching the topic, it became pretty clear that it wouldn't work without additional DRM. The watermark is destroyed the moment you re-encode the file into a different format format. The DRM was required to prevent the re-encoding, and let's face it, once you introduce DRM, the watermarking becomes a bit pointless.
Bjarnason and Co.'s argument seems to be that this is too much hassle. Since people have proven they are more than willing to spend the time ripping and compressing DVDs, or even sneaking into cinemas with video cameras, I don't think a little re-encoding is going to do much to prevent piracy. It only takes one person to create the non-watermarked version, and then this copy becomes the one which is distributed to thousands on P2P networks.
So unless this new company has found some incredible new way to create non-destructable watermarks, I can't see what they're offering.
I briefly covered this in another reply, but for the sake of clarity, this isn't a correct definition. The use of "a person who..." always implies a noun. If (s)he'd said "describes the feeling a person has...", it would have been ok. The key word here is describes.
My second point of contention was the line:
Firstly, incredulous is an adjective (the adverb is incredulously). Secondly, what he was doing was incredible to everyone else. Thus, regardless of whether or not you believe his definition to be correct, he still exhibited incorrect usage.
What I've never understood about this restriction of consumers rights, is what the fuck makes music and movies so different from any other product you can buy?
If I buy a cucumber from Wal-Mart, it's probably expected that I'm going to use it in a sandwich or a nice salad. But if I decide I want to stick it up my ass and waggle it about for cheap thrills, I don't have to pay extra for it. It's my vegetable, and I can do what I want with it.
But if I download a music track, they want me to pay to be able to use it in any other way than was intended. Why does the entertainment industry have special status and a perceived right (in their view) to be paid 5 different ways for the same day's work?
According to a recent study, the jokes in the parent and grandparent post can take at least two years off your life.
What he was doing was incredible to everyone else. Not incredulous. And it's an adjective, not an adverb.
It's true to say that due to years of misuse a number of dictionaries have lately introduced this definition, but historically speaking 'incredulous' was not intended for the usage you described, and it's best to avoid it if you don't want to appear a little ignorant. You could also say, what he was doing caused 'incredulity' to everyone else.
(IANALBIAAET - I am not a lawyer, but I am an English teacher)
I appreciate I'm not the funniest guy on slashdot, but do you really think I'm that stupid?
I was about to make the same point and had to search almost to the end to find someone who had come to the same conclusion. Last time I checked the RIAA were an industry body representing the voice of the slugs^H^H^H^H^Hpeople who run the record industry. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that the current administration had passed a law granting them powers of arrest, but I don't think it's happened so far.
In case she wants to become a web designer in the future? Nice to see that someone is so concerned about the impact poorly laid out sites can have on the young mind. I, for one, salute you sir.
I'm sure Apple's accountants spent literally minutes trying to think of how they could avoid making more money from their customers.
No he isn't. However, you sir have just made his case all the stronger. If that's the best response you can come up with as the first line of your reply, he's already won the argument.
Although presumably not an iMac with 3 Gig of RAM. With the 24" model you get a choice of nVidia or nVidia for the graphics card option.
Even close? Sure, I'd be delighted:
http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/11/iphone-an d-lg-ke850-separated-at-birth/
The url alone says it all - there's hardly even any need to click it. I think my point (although clearly not one grasped by the aforementioned fanboys who modded me a troll) is that it just beggars belief that someone can stand in front of an audience (albeit comprised of similar Apple worshipping fanatics) and claim that what their company is delivering is 5 years ahead of the competition without being laughed off the stage.
I own a Mac Pro and an iPod. Apple make some sweet products. But this phone is the greatest example of style over substance that they've produced yet.
Whether or not anyone thinks it's acceptable, possibly (IANAL) the label stating "iPhone" on the packaging is a "copy of a label" as stated in the requirements to prove use of a trademark. Just because it's Apple (and let's face it, there are few companies that create such fanatical fanboyism) it doesn't mean they have an automatic right to own the world. Or should everyone just roll over and give them everything they want, whenever they want?
Disclaimer: I live in Japan. Fuck... we've had 90% of the "5 years ahead of anything else" iPhone features for ages now.
I work in Japan. Today is the first day I've ever worked on Christmas Day. However, the winter bonus is reasonable (1.8 x monthly salary). We also get 1.4 x in the summer too. But practically anyone in a professional job gets a bonus here.
That was largely what I was trying to say, but didn't quite word it as well as you. Thank you for putting it a hell of a lot better than I did.
Seriously... Enough about myspace...
It's the same with everything. I teach high school kids but I used to teach adult education. The games and fun activities I used in adult ed. to brighten up the classes, the kids hate because they say they're too childish. But the adults used to love 'em.
I've tried explaining to my kids before that they're being even more childish by having tantrums about being 'grown up' but it's a waste of time.
Man, you should see the cable box/DVR combo machine I have at home. It's a case of hit the power button, go make a coffee and come back just in time to see the menu come up.
I think the point is, if the defendant is could suffer health damage as a result of being dragged through the courts, then to lie about the presence of evidence in order to continue the case, when no such evidence exists is morally repugnant. Even for the RIAA it's a new low.
That's weird. I'd always thought that Wikipedia was part of the err... Internet!
It's not. That's why there is already a Wikipedia with all the cruft you want. It's called The Google.