Face it, no one on Slashdot has ever validly justified music piracy. They demonize the RIAA to justify thier behavior while ignoring the fact it means the artist doesn't get paid for their work.
What about the piracy of music by authors who have been dead for quite some time? I don't hear them complaining about not getting their royalties and I don't think the highest law of the land that allows copyright payments "for the advancement of science and useful arts" applies to them since it is unlikely they will produce much music while dead. Their is no legal nor ethical justification for those works being restricted under copyright at all.
Aside from works by dead authors, there is plenty of work that is no longer available for sale. Since the law has been twisted to use copyright to prevent the duplication of songs and other works that are not being sold, it has become a tool to remove works from availability to the public. And, since reference copies are no longer collected, remove works from availability to those who come after us. That works not only against the intention of copyright as written by the authors of the constitution, but also directly against the best interests of the people. I'd say that is some pretty good justification for refusing to obey a law. I don't normally obey any unjust laws.
You're right that most copyright violation does not fall into either of these two categories, but I'd say that which does is not only justified but should be lauded. And, given the broken nature of the laws regarding copyright, the corruption of the government, and the ridiculously greedy and unethical behaviors of both the large copyright holders and politicians I'd have to say the social contract whereby was copyright enacted has been broken. It is obvious that the best interests of the people are not being balanced with the best interests of artists. Artists, I might mention, who are also largely victimized by the situation gaining neither profit nor control of their own art. (Obviously there are a few exceptions to this rule.) By and large what is balanced (or not) is the interests of a few greedy middlemen versus the interests of the people and most artists.
Contrary to your post, I'd say copyright violation is wholly justified. I'd like to encourage everyone to violate all the copyrights they want, as well as kick and RIAA representative in the shins and take a dump on the expensive car owned by the politicians who sold us out. While you are at it, go ahead and release a few hundred cockroaches in the houses of every disney executive you can find.
Give us back our public domain or we'll take it back!
Communism is more head-in-the-clouds theoretical nonsense that doesn't actually work in the real world.
That is not exactly true. Communism is superior to capitalism in small economies as it reduces duplication of effort. In larger economies it generally fails because it does not motivate improvement via competition and because the consolidation of effort simplifies totalitarianism unless checked by an outside force.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is ridiculously wasteful in small economies and, leads to a very slow, but unstoppable consolidation of power. It also ends in totalitarianism unless checked by an outside force.
Communism itself is very hard to study, since there are few large examples of it that are not paired with a totalitarian form of government. The ideal economy would probably be a series of communist collectives that competed with one another economically. No one knows what the optimal size for such communes would be. In the U.S. it has traditionally been family or extended family units, which is probably far smaller than is optimal. In the former Soviet Union collectives were broken up by activity, often monopolizing entire industries. They were far larger than is optimal.
I'd like to see something in the middle, but such a system is very hard to form. Power and wealth both tend to consolidate and until we reach a revolutionary point, I don't see any economies willing to share or divide their power for the good of humanity. The U.S. for example has so much wealth and power consolidated into so few hands that the upward mobility which was the hallmark of the American dream has become just that; a dream. The poor don't get rich anymore, and certainly not by working hard and being smart. It is really too bad, because without that motivation, the innovation that has fueled the U.S. as a poster child for financial success as a capitalist country is gone and hard times are ahead for most people.
The only thing this copy protection does is piss off people who legitimately bought the cd... it does absolutely NOTHING to stop piracy.
You're right that this pisses off consumers and it certainly does little to stop piracy. The purpose of this DRM is threefold. First, inhibit casual ripping so that it is hard for the owner of the disc to play it at home, in their car, and on their portable player without buying multiple copies. Two, get people used to DRM so that it is less objectionable when stricter DRM systems are introduced. Third, make it hard for users to move their music onto the next most popular format, whether that is the hard drive, flash drive, or some new kind of removable disk. If it is easy to take a record, cassette, CD, etc. and copy the music to a new format, why would consumers pay for a new copy? Already the music industry is steamed about the ipod and playing music from computers. Most digital music players are full of songs ripped from CDs, DRM'd files are in the minority. Regular CD's are too easy to rip and the RIAA is not getting paid again for every song. moving to DRM will ensure the average user will soon have to throw away their old CD's and buy a new copy via the network for every device they wish to use.
It makes sense form a ruthless marketing point of view and thus far they have managed to keep the mainstream media reporting on how their "anti-piracy" software is occasionally causing problems for users, rather than on how their "make your music not work unless you pay again" software is working.
Reading about violence and participating in its emulation are two different things.
I suppose you'd like to see chess regulated, with laws to keep minors from purchasing sets then? After all, it is a simulation of violence. Also, "cowboys and indians" that is much more direct simulation of violence than any video game. And yet we don't hear anyone trying to stop or regulate it. You know why that is? It is is because no one cares about violence in games, or books, or movies. Nope, in order to get public action and media attention you need to have sex involved. That is exactly what this law is going to be used for, to increasingly remove sex and swear words from mainstream games. It will be just like television in another 10 years.
I fundamentally disagree that reading about violence and playing video games are qualitatively different in their influence on people. Books and movies have had a profound influence on people for many years and there are cases of people who could not tell the difference between a book and reality and who caused themselves or others harm. People are prompted to act in a violent way by books that glorify war and violence, or books that preach hate and intolerance. Plenty of neo-nazi propaganda has convinced gullible men and adolescents to act violently. Does that mean it should be banned? In my opinion, no. Responsibility is a requirement for freedom.
The difference? The increasingly real emulation/simulation of the actual experience.... these are two different media, two different experiences. When a book is read, it's finished, to be remembered. Games are designed to be played over and over again.
This is a load of bull. First, playing a game is nothing like actually driving a car, running, firing a gun, etc. and anyone who can't tell the cartoons on a computer screen, with it's two dimensions, pixilation, and weak rendering from the really, real world which is experienced with all the senses, not confined to a screen, and without all the pixels and cartoons is someone already insane. Second, their are plenty of books designed to be read over and over again. Third, maybe you're not very creative, but a book combined with a good imagination can be much more realistic than any video game I've ever seen.
The copy of Halo II here is over-used here, but all the players are of age.
So you already have a violent video game there, which you successfully prevent your child from playing. How would the proposed law make the situation any different for you? Obviously the other adults there can still purchase it and it will be available. You still have to be a parent and prevent your kid from playing it. What benefit does this law bring to you? Or is it just that you are concerned about controlling what other children besides your own do? Maybe you're interested in legislating how other people should raise their children.
Butt out. It is none of your business. If your child is mentally unstable and can't tell a game from reality, well fine, go ahead and stop him or her from playing video games. That, however, is where your parental responsibility ends. Censorship is a dangerous thing and it has been misused to control or restrict people more often than to actually prevent harm. This is just one more tool for pushing puritan values upon as much of society as possible.
You think games with violence are dangerous, well other people think books with sex are dangerous. Other people think games with digital nipples will corrupt your soul. Show me some real, peer reviewed, evidence that either is a real danger to the average person and then you have a leg to stand upon. But it damn well better be some pretty serious harm to society to justify restricting free speech, one of the single most important freedoms guaranteed to the people. Useless legislation like this is all about getting votes, sensationalizing things, and "won't you please think of the children." all it does in the end is try to turn our culture in
I let them read what they want... I do believe it's a parent's essential right to determine appropriate materials for their children, and excessively violent games are one of those items.
You have not answered my question. Let me state it more simply. If you fear that playing a video game (classified as "mature" by the U.S. government) "teaches the wrong message" why is it that you don't fear that reading a given book (classified as "mature" by the U.S. government) will also teach the wrong message? What is the fundamental difference between the two mediums that in one case makes you crave government branding and purchase restrictions and on the other hand does not?
strong civil libertarian. But I'm also well keenly aware of the protections needed by the citizenry from other citizens, and sometimes, themselves.
You profess to be a civil libertarian and in the next sentence claim to be aware of how the government needs to protect us from ourselves? Perhaps you should re-learn what the term "civil libertarian" means.
It is not the job of the government to protect us from ourselves, nor is it their job to raise our children. Even public education of children is somewhat opposed to the concept of libertarianism.
You see this law and think, "great the government is restricting what my kids can do, so I can have more control over them, and thus protect them from themselves and the world." Here's a news flash for you. The government is not only telling your kids they can't do something, they're telling everyone's kids they can't do something. They're telling the kids themselves they can't do something.
Tell me why the government should have any role in telling a parent that their kids can't buy certain video games. What's next books? I suppose you think it is a good idea for children to not be able to buy certain or all books until they are 18 too? After all those books may contain sex, racism, fascism, propaganda, lies, etc. that will skew their world views. Surely you will support the government restricting your children from buying those books and allowing you to control what they can and can't read? For that matter, they might buy a hammer or a saw at the local hardware store and then hurt themselves. Their are too many items to blacklist that might be dangerous. Surely you support a whitelist of items children can buy that includes only healthy foods and plush toys. After all, if you want them to have paper or candy bars you can buy them for them, right? It just gives more power to you as a parent to raise your kids the way you want. And why should we stop at buying things, surely their are other ways the government can restrict your children for you, to make your job as a parent easier. Why not pass a law that says children cannot use public transportation or ride bicycles without a signed statement from their parents?
Are you getting the point yet? I challenge you to provide one strong argument in favor of banning children from buying certain video games that does not apply equally to books.
Otherwise, if you don't want your kids to buy certain video games, don't let them. Legally, you have almost total control over their lives. If you can't handle it, fine, put them up for adoption, but don't go passing laws that tell everyone else what is and is not appropriate for their children.
... they also are unable to take responsibility for their actions until they have the values to do so. Those values are best instilled by parents.
So having the government pass laws about what your children can and can't do will help them develop personal responsibility? Laws like this are worse than useless. They are just telling kids they don't have to take responsibility for themselves because the government will. That is an attitude far too many adults seem to share. So your kid will shoplift this game, or buy it from someone who did, or an older guy, or play it at a friend's house. The law can't stop any of those things. And all the while, it won't be your kid's fault or your fault because the government is responsible for keeping your kid from playing that game.
Here's a novel idea; tell your kids not to play the game and tell them why you think they should not do so. If they agree with you, great. If not, ask them to respect your judgement over theirs as a favor to you and ask them to promise to do so. Don't threaten them with consequences or treat them like they have no rights, just ask them to make a promise.
Kids take that sort of thing very seriously. If you give them a responsibility, they will learn to be responsible. If you and the government and schools constantly tell them they can't do things and try to take responsibility for them in all things, then they will learn to be irresponsible, because that is what you are teaching them.
Maybe you don't want your kids to have matches. Should the government pass another law? What if you don't think your kids should be out after dark... another law. What if you don't think your kids should wear pants with holes in them... another law?
It is not the government's job to raise your kids or restrict their actions. That is your job as a parent. Children have a lot of responsibilities whether you like it or not. Trying to take those away is very counter productive for their development and is what will cause them to be irresponsible and give them targets to rebel against.
...it's all a question of values. I don't want someone skewing that value set
I hope you're joking. Kids usually spend most of their time with people other than you. They will encounter all manner of people and influences. They will almost certainly have the opportunity to view porn, handle weapons, try drugs, drink themselves stupid, have underage sex, and, yes, even play video games. There is no practical way for you to stop that.
If you really think laws will limit the values to which your children are exposed, you haven't been paying attention. Underage sex, porn, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. are all illegal for children, but most children still have access to all of them at some point. Books, Movies, Video games, etc. are currently regulated by their respective industries, and guess what, your kids will still probably be able to get them.
Either you are the government trying to take responsibility for every aspect of your children's lives is useless and even harmful. Teach them values and ethics and responsibility and trust them to do the right thing. Otherwise, all you are really teaching them to do is lie to you and hide things from you because you've taught them they are not responsible for their own actions and thus they aren't doing anything wrong if they can get away with something.
I don't think we can agree in most any way. Sorry. Your sense of juvenile liberty is alien to me.
Here's a starting point for understanding my position. Juvenile people are still people, just like you and me. They may not have as much experience or knowledge and they are dealing with rapid changes both within themselves and in their environment. It does not change the fact that they are people. Just like black people or women, children are people and are deserving of the same basic rights as anyone else. Try to understand that taking those rights away will cause them to react in the same way any other people would, and guess what, they are in the right. If you tell black people they can't drink, vote, or own guns, they are right to rebel and take those rights. If you tell a 17 year old, or a 15 year old who already has as good of an understanding of the world as you do that they have to submit completely to the authority of another and that they are to be denied basic human rights, well they are right to rebel against that too.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that children are people. Don't you remember what it was like?
The populace, under 18, needs to be prevented from pr0n, booze, weapons, and in this particular case, violent video games or those video games with adult images in them.
Nope.
The populace under 18, needs to protected from authoritarians like you who would take away their basic human rights under the umbrella of "protecting them." People under the age of 18 have had pretty much everything except the video games for hundreds of years. Who are you to say all that needs to change. Who are you to actually think such a thing is possible or desirable?
Kids will always get booze and porn because they want them and they have the means. If it is illegal they will pay a bit more and buy it from some guy who is also willing to sell them heroin. After being told booze will ruin their lives and then finding out it doesn't, why should they believe the propaganda about heroin. Great way to cry wolf, genius.
As for weapons, what are those? Will you make it illegal for them to own guns? What about knives? Clubs? Chains? Chairs? Belts? You can strangle a man with your boot laces. How about instead of locking everyone under the age of 18 into a padded room for their entire adolescent life, we just teach them personal responsibility and ethics? I fired a shotgun at the age of 9, under the watchful eye of my grandfather. I know how to use weapons and when to use them. I've never shot anyone, even though I kept a gun in the trunk of my car all through high school to use hunting afterwards.
Did I need to be protected when I was a kid? Sure, but kids are not helpless, or idiots, or without personal responsibility. Teach them properly and they can take care of themselves. If I wanted to snort cocaine when I was a kid it would have been nearly impossible for my parents to stop me from doing so. Instead they taught me why it was a bad idea and did not lie to me constantly or try to keep me from hurting myself with booze and guns and video games. As a result I respected their opinions and listened to them. I also made a lot of good and a few bad choices. I was and am responsible for what I do. Trying to take that away is one of the least "American" things I can think of and trying to tell parents how to raise their children is another. So sit the hell down and mind your own business.
Windows doesn't make it much more impossible to copy apps around than any other OS. Developers might choose to use things like the registry instead of config files which make it considerably harder, but it's wrong to say that the OS doesn't allow it. With many apps, you *can* just copy them somewhere else and have them work.
As far as I know this only works for java and very simple programs. The truth of the matter is, windows does not allow for the practical encapsulation of resources within a program executable, nor for the easy saving of preferences and configuration on a per user basis. You could probably create some sort of weird hack to encapsulate all the resources needed by a program, but then those resources would be very difficult to get to for users.
The upshot of this is I drag MS Word.app for the mac onto a network drive and run it from a different machine. I can't do that with Windows.
I still think that as long as the underlying OS is "good enough" to allow the required apps to run, most people will be happy enough. After all, what would you rather have - a limited OS which has enough apps to allow you to do what you want, or a perfect OS with no practical application?
I'd rather have the perfect OS, since then I would not need applications. But pipe dreams aside, The OS is the base and the facilitator. The user experience relies heavily upon the security, stability, and functionality of the OS. If the OS does not allow apps to share functionality, does not enable them to search the filesystem quickly, does not allocate resource to them properly then the end user experience suffers.
Anyone who has tried to use a Windows system for heavy multitasking, or who just wanted their spellchecker to be available in every bit of text they can see is aware of how much the OS affects them. On a Linux box I can rapidly move and intelligently rename a thousand files with a one line regular expression. On OS X I can lookup any word I can highlight in a thesaurus. On Windows I can find applications designed for certain specialty tasks. All of those are things I want to do regularly and as a result I use multiple OS's. I guess I would argue that I don't think most OS's are "good enough" to be ignored most of the time. I often have to try to think of a way to do something in one OS that is trivially simple in another. Until I stop having to worry about what OS I'm using and what it makes it hard or impossible for me to do, I'm not willing to to call it "good enough" and I think it a a very poor and irresponsible view for others.
You're apartment may come with hardwood floors that you love. They may have been the deciding factor in your decision to sign a lease. Unless your lease specifically covers the inclusion of hardwood floors in the apartment the landlord would be free at anytime to cover said floors with wall to wall carpeting and you have no recourse.
At least in this state, the landlord substantially modifying a dwelling by, say, replacing the flooring, is grounds for a penalty-free re-negotiation of the lease. That is to say, they have to give you your deposit back and any rent you have paid in advance and you can walk.
I imagine their are plenty of customer protection laws on the books that will cover Tivo changing the nature service after it is paid for and misrepresenting said service in their advertisements. I think you're making the mistake of assuming all clauses in a contract are necessarily enforceable. That is not so, there are many laws that restrict what can and cannot be specified in a contract and I'd bet dollars to donuts a clause that says they can change the service at any time in the future would run afoul of more than one of them.
I'm sure there are some great doctors out there, and some good and responsible ones who have been slandered and had to but up with libelous remarks. Ignorant people will blame them for anything that goes wrong or for simply not being right 100% of the time. Doctors certainly have the right to sue for libel, get these remarks stricken, and get compensation for their legal fees.
On the other hand, most doctors make pretty good money. A large number of them are wealthy before they become doctors, and go into the profession because it is prestigious and because they have the money to pay for the schooling. Anyone who has not noticed how much money makes a difference in a legal battle has been deaf, dumb, and blind for a while now. The danger is that doctors will have enough money to win court cases, whether or not the statements really are libelous.
In addition to that, there are a lot of bad doctors out there. I realize that my experiences are not necessarily representative, but as a fairly intelligent guy, who is willing to research any medical condition with which I am diagnosed it seems most doctors are wrong, a lot. Having been misdiagnosed and generally on the receiving end of very poor treatment from some fairly prestigious medical institutions, I have little faith in the medical profession in the U.S. I've met too many medical students and residents who are among the least competent people I've ever met. We're talking people who admit to going into the field because they "want to make a lot of money" and "see women naked." People who don't understand basic procedures to maintain a sterile environment or why that might be important in a research lab. Grown men who not only don't know how to change a tire, but don't know enough to call a tow-truck, but instead call their parent's to ask what to do.
Basically, I have no faith in the medical profession in general and I avoid doctor's unless I have a problem that is an emergency, I need medication for, or is very, very common.
The internet, in general, is not the most reliable place to get information and I'd be skeptical of any website proclaiming the competence or incompetence of any given physician. It seems, however, that there should be a public forum for discussions about physicians including a post-treatment rating for each doctor as to whether or not they solved the medical problem. If a regulatory body does not provide this information, rest assured someone will, because patients want to know which physician to choose and people want to let others know about their bad experiences.
...an OS when the current one I have (Windows 2000) isn't broken.
You don't think Win2K is broken?...and you use it? Now listen, I have used Win2K plenty and let me tell you, it is pretty broken. Maybe you're just so used to using a broken OS you don't really notice how broken it is. Like one of those people who has only ever driven a 1985 Ford Escort, with no muffler, ruined suspension, bald tires, and a rabid raccoon in the back seat. "Shucks mister, it got me all the way here from my paw's place. It works just fine. Do you have any of those rabies shots or not?"
I'm not saying it's necessarily good, but... legally Tivo isn't doing anything that the subscriber hasn't agreed to let them do.
...and how many people read that agreement or any of the other hundreds of multi-page pseudo-legal documents they are required to sign every year? Did they include on the outside of the box a disclaimer under where it says, "allows you to watch your favorite programs when you want" something along the lines of, "unless we decide to delete it after a while because the network asked us to" ???
If not then they misled their customers with false advertising. Maybe they can get away with it, legally, although I think that is very questionable. You see companies put all sorts of unenforceable clauses in their contracts all the time and they often lose in court regardless.
Common sense and consumer protection acts say that if you sell a service you can't change the terms later on without compensating the other party, even if your contract says you can. Ethically, we all know this is crap and what Tivo is doing is screwing their customers in order to get big contracts from the cable companies for a few years until they get bought out or replaced. It is sad, but that is the way it is.
Who knows what the courts will decide, or even if it will ever go to court. Most likely Tivo will settle with a few upset people and the majority will just deal with it. The important thing is, Tivo, you suck.
It's all about the apps, sometimes people seem forget that. If all the apps that a given person needs are available, and are easy enough to use, they'll probably be entirely happy on whatever OS they end up with.
I'm going to have to disagree with you. I run many apps on many OS's. Sometimes I run the same app on several OS's and sometimes I run different applications to do the same thing on different OS's. Saying it is all about the apps, however, is discounting all the functionality included in OS's. Technically copying a file from one place to another is a function that is usually handled by the OS (although you could argue that is an application on that OS). The thing is, OS's provide a base level of functionality including managing other applications, the basic UI, the filesystem, networking, user accounts, allowing apps to interact with one another, etc., etc.
These functions are often some of the most used on a computer. There is a great deal of difference between OS's as to how well they provide this functionality and what it entails.
Managing networking, for example is very different on different OS's. On Windows multiple network services that are not intended to be accessed remotely are required to run at all times. This is one of the reasons Windows is so subject to attacks by internet worms. It has some poorly designed networking. Other OS's not only have better networking security, but implement newer networking protocols for auto-discovery of network services. This is why when you plug in a newer network printer some OS's automatically find it and add it to your available printers while others do not.
Searching is big right now. On some OS's you can search for a term not only in filenames, but also within the text of documents in myriad formats. In some OS's searching is very fast because everything is pre-indexed by the filesystem, while others it is glacially slow.
Then there is how well the OS allows apps to work with on another. If one application includes a grammar checker, can other apps use that functionality? Can they do so without copying and pasting text back and forth? Without having to run the whole application that has grammar checking? What about bug fixes? Does fixing a bug in a library used by one application fix it in others as well, or do you need to get a new copy of every application that relies upon that library?
What about downloading, installing, uninstalling, copying, and upgrading applications? Some OS's make all that easy and make sensible choices to prevent trojans from masquerading as data, while others make some or all of these tasks impossible. Windows, for example, makes it nearly impossible to copy an app from one machine to another, or one volume to another. With other OS's you just copy and paste.
To summarize, it is not "all about the apps." It is all about the functionality as a whole. Which combination of OS(es) and apps is best to accomplish that tasks you want to get done. For some of us, that is a fairly large number of OS's and apps. The problem is there is no one OS that is best for everything, and every OS has serious limitations. After using multiple OS's most people develop a favorite base OS and often wish they could run particular applications from another OS on it to simplify things. Having run dozens of OS's I can say there are few things more annoying than needing to use an OS for a task it is unsuited.
So if you purchase your cable modem from your cable provider, you shouldn't have to pay for monthly cable service? It is, after all, your cable modem. You should not have to pay to keep using something that you already own.
You're muddying the waters here. There are two items being sold a Tivo and a subscription, just like a cable modem and a subscription to cable internet. Your analogy breaks, however, because if I buy a cable modem I can do whatever I want to it, and the cable company cannot. They can't come over and fill the USB port with glue and they can't remotely turn that USB port off.
The problem is, in addition to changing their service, they are remotely disabling features in the hardware box they sold you. They are stopping you from using a specialty computer you bought by remotely turning off functionality. That is called hacking most of the time.
The second problem is that if you sell a service, especially when you sell a lifetime subscription to that service, it is unethical and probably illegal to remove parts of that service from customers who have already paid.
Of course as soon as Tivo started to introduce this DRM crap and tech-savvy user should have known this crap was coming. When a company starts introducing anti-features that make things harder for their customers (because they want to get an account with big cable company and sell bulk) then they have sold you out. That is one of the main reasons I did not buy a Tivo. The interface was nicer and the guide was easier to use than the EyeTV unit/old computer solution I did go with, but I can still record, store on my hard drive, burn to DVD, or transfer over the network anything I want. I archive my favorite shows to DVD, just like I used to save some on VCR tapes. I bought my hardware and while software updates from the vendor may be useful, I won't install any that remove functionality.
As for a subscription, I get my guide information from TitanTV. It is free (banner ad supported) and if I ever need to I can go with a competing service.
you can use Tivo without the guide.
The question is not whether you can use the Tivo without the guide. The question is can you use the Tivo without the guide and store any program you record indefinitely or will it automatically delete via this DRM software they just loaded onto your bought and paid for machine, without your consent?
Well, aside from the $499 to $2999 hardware dongle that you've already purchased, you are correct.
For all practical purposes, the average consumer cannot buy a PC without paying for a copy of Windows. Current versions of Windows require not only a serial number, but an internet connection, and they call home whenever you change your hardware. That says to me, "We're going to assume you're a criminal and greatly inconvenience you because of that assumption." Apple, on the other hand, works from the assumption that you are a paying customer and they try to make everything as easy and simple as possible. That makes a difference to me. If I upgrade hardware, or am installing or reinstalling the OS, it also saves me a boatload of time and effort.
Both companies make sure you get your OS with your hardware, why does one of them treat you like a criminal and waste your time while the other does not?
Well, what I want to know is: How do I get to this metadata?...Once there's an application which can find all pictures of my dog, or songs with piano in them, and store THAT in the metadata, which I can search somehow, call me.
I take it you have not actually tried to use any of these new filesystems and their metadata. Metadata comes from lots of places. It comes from an internet database of music CD and movie DVDs. It comes from the OS intelligently reading the text contained within various file types (like text, rtf,.doc, PDF, PS, etc. etc.) and extendable by a plug-in type architecture. It comes from applications who assign it based upon given criteria, or from applications that create files which are now starting to assign more and more metadata to those files. It comes from hardware, like when your digital camera or PVR assigns dates to files it creates. It comes from users inputing it by hand, like when they go through their vacation photos and add a description for each picture.
I use this metadata and perform searches on it every day. Why shouldn't I be able to do an easy search on my computer for every document, application, library, etc. that has the string "vpn" in it? Shouldn't I be able to find all references to MPLS in my files, whether or not they are in in text,.doc,.pdf, or some other file format? Shouldn't applications on my system be able to find and edit this data as well? Well, now I can (and they can) and I really, really like it.
For some reason you are looking at the current limitations of metadata, i.e. optical recognition can't reliably identify my dog, instead of the advantages, which is all the information that can be reliably searched. Maybe right now I can't search for all my mp3's with a piano in them, but I can automatically tag all the audio coming in over the mic I have attached to the piano with metadata that says it is piano. Now fast forward 10 years and suddenly all of your files have a wealth of automatically generated data associated with them. In 10 years I will be able to search for all the mp3's that have piano in them, because my audio mixing program labels all the files with input from the piano mic with the proper metadata and why not. For a few seconds work up front I, and everyone using my files, gets additional functionality. Now apply that to all files from all sources and suddenly metadata has greatly improved the computing experience.
Get with the times, metadata in the filesystem is here and it is very useful and it is becoming more and more useful every day.
Re:Oh Snap! Ol'brushed metal is back
on
Office 12 Exposed
·
· Score: 1
I don't know what you think that link is trying to say, but it is useless as a reference. As for brushed metal, do tell me the one color that is as distinct as possible from both black (which is the easiest color on the eyes for the background of an editing window) and white (which is the most common color for window contents, especially given so many documents that end up on paper) and which does not clash with any other color. OK lets see that would be... gray. Yup, that is it.
OK, now that we have picked optimal color for the borders or windows do you think it should be a flat color or a slightly textured one, because personally, I don't care. Brushed metal works for me. As to some of the other UI design choices in OS X, well they seem to be slowly getting better (with some glaring exceptions like the new mail.app buttons).
Why is it that so many people rant about poor UI design, when it is obvious they have never studied UI design? Do you know what works best? Neither does anyone else, that is why they try something then test the hell out of it and go with what works for people. I'm guessing no one at Apple knew why most people liked the brushed metal interface, but it works. Get over it.
Keeping them on the line can be easier than you think. Many telemarketing companies have strict rules about never hanging up without a sale. A friend of mine just puts it on speakerphone and then hands the handset to his six year old. She loves to talk and so long as they remain polite with her he lets them chat for as long as they want. One caller remained on the line for 40 minutes trying to her to give the phone back to her daddy.
I think I can top that. I worked at a software development house. Our products were developed, tested, and only ran on a dozen or so UNIX/Linux flavors and some embedded OS's. Orders were issued from high up in the management chain that we were no longer allowed to run any freeware and also software had to be purchased through the purchasing department. Also, all users were to switch exclusively to Windows 2000 and Outlook. The orders were meant to make our company easy and attractive to acquire. What they really did was send a wake-up call to everyone with a clue that it was time to find a new job.
Hold the little flag button on the bottom left of your keyboard, then push the Pause/Break button faaar up on the right at the same time
Wow, I use Windows all the time and I did not know about that shortcut. You must admit, however, that it is pretty difficult and unintuitive for the average user to figure out. A lot of users have real problems with any key combinations. Compare this to how it is done on OS X. "Click the Apple menu in the far upper-left (or just move you mouse all the way up and left and click. Select the first menu option 'About This Mac'." The average user who starts clicking on menus will find it almost immediately and since it is labeled in normal English (Not right click on my computer and select properties or any of that nonsense) most novice users either know or can easily determine what version of the OS they are running without help. Windows has a long way to go before it is easy to use.
seen the populace that buys these computers? I'm not going to say *all* of them are novices, but I've noticed a fair amount of the people are mom-and-pop types who have zero computer experience.
...and this differs from Windows users how? I'd be willing to bet the skills of five random Apple store users against five random Wal-mart computer purchasers any day. I'm sitting in an office full of computer security experts and programmers who work on security products. About half of the people here are running macs. About 10% are running Windows and those are mostly tech writers and sales. Macs find their way into the hands of novices because they are really easy to use, but they also are the choice of many of the most advanced users because they are also some of the nicest hardware and software available. This mix is part of what makes macs so nice. Security guys pound on them, submit bugs, and demand quality. Novices know nothing, so Apple makes sure they don't need to know anything to have a secure computer to start with. Anyone who needs to run a web server bloody well can figure out how to open up that port and enable that service. Anyone who doesn't, well then they don't have to do anything. Easy and powerful, it's a good place to be.
IPSs will block traffic which may be bad. All of these systems have false positives. All of them will eventually block something really important that shouldn't be blocked. And all will eventually lead you to be fired because of that reason. And none of them will detect an intelligent, targeted attack.
Bzzzzzt! Wrong! Thanks for playing. There are indeed IPS systems that will detect intelligent, targeted attacks. They work by knowing what talks to what on your network and finding anomalous behavior. Sure, they come up with false positives. If someone starts a new server on your network and you don't account for it, a good IPS will notice. That is their job. The right IPS keeps humans in the loop most of the time. It does not just block all the traffic it thinks is out of place, it tells you the traffic is occurring and leaves it up to you to decide if that traffic needs to be stopped.
Automated blocking also has it's place. That place is dealing with a sudden DoS, worm, or other attack that is catastrophic to your network. It is infinitely preferable to get a call at 6AM that says, "we have a huge worm infection. The network is still up, but it is a little slow. The office in New York is quarantined and needs to be cleaned up before we can bring them back online. Right now only their mission critical servers are running and the four new employees workstations are shut down too." Compare that to, "we got hit by a worm and the whole network is down including all of our mission critical servers and e-commerce site." Automated blocking is fine for dealing with an emergency or mitigating the effects of a sudden attack. Sure if you tell you IPS to automatically block any anomalous traffic you might get canned, but then you'd deserve it wouldn't you?
IPS's are not a cure-all, but they are certainly useful and just because you don't know how to use them does not mean they are useless. They won't find every attack, but they will find and stop the majority if properly administrated.
Article: Everyone should use open standards, here's why and how.
LexNaturalis: I read what a "standard" is in the dictionary. Did you know MS.doc is a stanadard?
Slashdot: WTF? We're talking about open standards, not standards. Did you completely miss the entire point of this article and all the comments so far?
To address one or two of your later points:
I work at a government research lab and everything we do has to be compatible with MS Office.
...and you don't see anything wrong with that? So The government collects taxes from me to do research which they then publish in a secret format that changes every few years and requires I buy particular software only available from one company that knows the secret in order to read it. Mind you all of this while both their existing software and other free software can provide that same information in a non-secret format that anyone can read for free. You actually think this is in some way justified?
...does anyone think we can actually get ENOUGH people to stop using Office that *.doc files will cease to be the standard?
Yes, I do. You see MS is collecting boatloads of money for their software mainly because of their lock-in and bundling. All that money is taken from businesses around the world and then MS spends it on half-assed projects that don't pan out and to buy politicians and lawyers to insure they continue to get said money.
Here's their problem. First, they are working in a global economy and have priced themselves out of the low-end market. Nearly half the world is using illegal copies of their software and will likely never pay to use a legitimate copy. It is likely some of those countries will move to legal, free alternatives. Second, there are these large organizations called governments that pass laws for the good of those they represent. Some of them, like the European Union and China have passed and are likely to pass more laws that say everyone has to be able to access the information in a standard format that is actually defined publicly in order to insure that future generations can access that data and so that they are not locked into using only one supplier for all software that can access their data. In fact, only a very foolish or very greedy and bribed country or organization would approve of the current scheme of things and as computing becomes more ubiquitous MS's ability to maintain.doc as a standard will vanish. It is happening in the U.S. with companies, states, and organizations. It is happening in the EU and China which make up a huge portion of population by themselves. The.doc "standard" will soon be a lot less attractive to anyone, since most people will have legislated the use of something else. You can pay to use Word and then somehow convert your documents to the standard required by people you have to do business with, or you can just use any other program all of which support the legally defined standards of those people. It is not really a hard choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Face it, no one on Slashdot has ever validly justified music piracy. They demonize the RIAA to justify thier behavior while ignoring the fact it means the artist doesn't get paid for their work.
What about the piracy of music by authors who have been dead for quite some time? I don't hear them complaining about not getting their royalties and I don't think the highest law of the land that allows copyright payments "for the advancement of science and useful arts" applies to them since it is unlikely they will produce much music while dead. Their is no legal nor ethical justification for those works being restricted under copyright at all.
Aside from works by dead authors, there is plenty of work that is no longer available for sale. Since the law has been twisted to use copyright to prevent the duplication of songs and other works that are not being sold, it has become a tool to remove works from availability to the public. And, since reference copies are no longer collected, remove works from availability to those who come after us. That works not only against the intention of copyright as written by the authors of the constitution, but also directly against the best interests of the people. I'd say that is some pretty good justification for refusing to obey a law. I don't normally obey any unjust laws.
You're right that most copyright violation does not fall into either of these two categories, but I'd say that which does is not only justified but should be lauded. And, given the broken nature of the laws regarding copyright, the corruption of the government, and the ridiculously greedy and unethical behaviors of both the large copyright holders and politicians I'd have to say the social contract whereby was copyright enacted has been broken. It is obvious that the best interests of the people are not being balanced with the best interests of artists. Artists, I might mention, who are also largely victimized by the situation gaining neither profit nor control of their own art. (Obviously there are a few exceptions to this rule.) By and large what is balanced (or not) is the interests of a few greedy middlemen versus the interests of the people and most artists.
Contrary to your post, I'd say copyright violation is wholly justified. I'd like to encourage everyone to violate all the copyrights they want, as well as kick and RIAA representative in the shins and take a dump on the expensive car owned by the politicians who sold us out. While you are at it, go ahead and release a few hundred cockroaches in the houses of every disney executive you can find.
Give us back our public domain or we'll take it back!
Communism is more head-in-the-clouds theoretical nonsense that doesn't actually work in the real world.
That is not exactly true. Communism is superior to capitalism in small economies as it reduces duplication of effort. In larger economies it generally fails because it does not motivate improvement via competition and because the consolidation of effort simplifies totalitarianism unless checked by an outside force.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is ridiculously wasteful in small economies and, leads to a very slow, but unstoppable consolidation of power. It also ends in totalitarianism unless checked by an outside force.
Communism itself is very hard to study, since there are few large examples of it that are not paired with a totalitarian form of government. The ideal economy would probably be a series of communist collectives that competed with one another economically. No one knows what the optimal size for such communes would be. In the U.S. it has traditionally been family or extended family units, which is probably far smaller than is optimal. In the former Soviet Union collectives were broken up by activity, often monopolizing entire industries. They were far larger than is optimal.
I'd like to see something in the middle, but such a system is very hard to form. Power and wealth both tend to consolidate and until we reach a revolutionary point, I don't see any economies willing to share or divide their power for the good of humanity. The U.S. for example has so much wealth and power consolidated into so few hands that the upward mobility which was the hallmark of the American dream has become just that; a dream. The poor don't get rich anymore, and certainly not by working hard and being smart. It is really too bad, because without that motivation, the innovation that has fueled the U.S. as a poster child for financial success as a capitalist country is gone and hard times are ahead for most people.
The only thing this copy protection does is piss off people who legitimately bought the cd... it does absolutely NOTHING to stop piracy.
You're right that this pisses off consumers and it certainly does little to stop piracy. The purpose of this DRM is threefold. First, inhibit casual ripping so that it is hard for the owner of the disc to play it at home, in their car, and on their portable player without buying multiple copies. Two, get people used to DRM so that it is less objectionable when stricter DRM systems are introduced. Third, make it hard for users to move their music onto the next most popular format, whether that is the hard drive, flash drive, or some new kind of removable disk. If it is easy to take a record, cassette, CD, etc. and copy the music to a new format, why would consumers pay for a new copy? Already the music industry is steamed about the ipod and playing music from computers. Most digital music players are full of songs ripped from CDs, DRM'd files are in the minority. Regular CD's are too easy to rip and the RIAA is not getting paid again for every song. moving to DRM will ensure the average user will soon have to throw away their old CD's and buy a new copy via the network for every device they wish to use.
It makes sense form a ruthless marketing point of view and thus far they have managed to keep the mainstream media reporting on how their "anti-piracy" software is occasionally causing problems for users, rather than on how their "make your music not work unless you pay again" software is working.
Reading about violence and participating in its emulation are two different things.
I suppose you'd like to see chess regulated, with laws to keep minors from purchasing sets then? After all, it is a simulation of violence. Also, "cowboys and indians" that is much more direct simulation of violence than any video game. And yet we don't hear anyone trying to stop or regulate it. You know why that is? It is is because no one cares about violence in games, or books, or movies. Nope, in order to get public action and media attention you need to have sex involved. That is exactly what this law is going to be used for, to increasingly remove sex and swear words from mainstream games. It will be just like television in another 10 years.
I fundamentally disagree that reading about violence and playing video games are qualitatively different in their influence on people. Books and movies have had a profound influence on people for many years and there are cases of people who could not tell the difference between a book and reality and who caused themselves or others harm. People are prompted to act in a violent way by books that glorify war and violence, or books that preach hate and intolerance. Plenty of neo-nazi propaganda has convinced gullible men and adolescents to act violently. Does that mean it should be banned? In my opinion, no. Responsibility is a requirement for freedom.
The difference? The increasingly real emulation/simulation of the actual experience.... these are two different media, two different experiences. When a book is read, it's finished, to be remembered. Games are designed to be played over and over again.
This is a load of bull. First, playing a game is nothing like actually driving a car, running, firing a gun, etc. and anyone who can't tell the cartoons on a computer screen, with it's two dimensions, pixilation, and weak rendering from the really, real world which is experienced with all the senses, not confined to a screen, and without all the pixels and cartoons is someone already insane. Second, their are plenty of books designed to be read over and over again. Third, maybe you're not very creative, but a book combined with a good imagination can be much more realistic than any video game I've ever seen.
The copy of Halo II here is over-used here, but all the players are of age.
So you already have a violent video game there, which you successfully prevent your child from playing. How would the proposed law make the situation any different for you? Obviously the other adults there can still purchase it and it will be available. You still have to be a parent and prevent your kid from playing it. What benefit does this law bring to you? Or is it just that you are concerned about controlling what other children besides your own do? Maybe you're interested in legislating how other people should raise their children.
Butt out. It is none of your business. If your child is mentally unstable and can't tell a game from reality, well fine, go ahead and stop him or her from playing video games. That, however, is where your parental responsibility ends. Censorship is a dangerous thing and it has been misused to control or restrict people more often than to actually prevent harm. This is just one more tool for pushing puritan values upon as much of society as possible.
You think games with violence are dangerous, well other people think books with sex are dangerous. Other people think games with digital nipples will corrupt your soul. Show me some real, peer reviewed, evidence that either is a real danger to the average person and then you have a leg to stand upon. But it damn well better be some pretty serious harm to society to justify restricting free speech, one of the single most important freedoms guaranteed to the people. Useless legislation like this is all about getting votes, sensationalizing things, and "won't you please think of the children." all it does in the end is try to turn our culture in
I let them read what they want... I do believe it's a parent's essential right to determine appropriate materials for their children, and excessively violent games are one of those items.
You have not answered my question. Let me state it more simply. If you fear that playing a video game (classified as "mature" by the U.S. government) "teaches the wrong message" why is it that you don't fear that reading a given book (classified as "mature" by the U.S. government) will also teach the wrong message? What is the fundamental difference between the two mediums that in one case makes you crave government branding and purchase restrictions and on the other hand does not?
strong civil libertarian. But I'm also well keenly aware of the protections needed by the citizenry from other citizens, and sometimes, themselves.
You profess to be a civil libertarian and in the next sentence claim to be aware of how the government needs to protect us from ourselves? Perhaps you should re-learn what the term "civil libertarian" means.
It is not the job of the government to protect us from ourselves, nor is it their job to raise our children. Even public education of children is somewhat opposed to the concept of libertarianism.
You see this law and think, "great the government is restricting what my kids can do, so I can have more control over them, and thus protect them from themselves and the world." Here's a news flash for you. The government is not only telling your kids they can't do something, they're telling everyone's kids they can't do something. They're telling the kids themselves they can't do something.
Tell me why the government should have any role in telling a parent that their kids can't buy certain video games. What's next books? I suppose you think it is a good idea for children to not be able to buy certain or all books until they are 18 too? After all those books may contain sex, racism, fascism, propaganda, lies, etc. that will skew their world views. Surely you will support the government restricting your children from buying those books and allowing you to control what they can and can't read? For that matter, they might buy a hammer or a saw at the local hardware store and then hurt themselves. Their are too many items to blacklist that might be dangerous. Surely you support a whitelist of items children can buy that includes only healthy foods and plush toys. After all, if you want them to have paper or candy bars you can buy them for them, right? It just gives more power to you as a parent to raise your kids the way you want. And why should we stop at buying things, surely their are other ways the government can restrict your children for you, to make your job as a parent easier. Why not pass a law that says children cannot use public transportation or ride bicycles without a signed statement from their parents?
Are you getting the point yet? I challenge you to provide one strong argument in favor of banning children from buying certain video games that does not apply equally to books.
Otherwise, if you don't want your kids to buy certain video games, don't let them. Legally, you have almost total control over their lives. If you can't handle it, fine, put them up for adoption, but don't go passing laws that tell everyone else what is and is not appropriate for their children.
So having the government pass laws about what your children can and can't do will help them develop personal responsibility? Laws like this are worse than useless. They are just telling kids they don't have to take responsibility for themselves because the government will. That is an attitude far too many adults seem to share. So your kid will shoplift this game, or buy it from someone who did, or an older guy, or play it at a friend's house. The law can't stop any of those things. And all the while, it won't be your kid's fault or your fault because the government is responsible for keeping your kid from playing that game.
Here's a novel idea; tell your kids not to play the game and tell them why you think they should not do so. If they agree with you, great. If not, ask them to respect your judgement over theirs as a favor to you and ask them to promise to do so. Don't threaten them with consequences or treat them like they have no rights, just ask them to make a promise.
Kids take that sort of thing very seriously. If you give them a responsibility, they will learn to be responsible. If you and the government and schools constantly tell them they can't do things and try to take responsibility for them in all things, then they will learn to be irresponsible, because that is what you are teaching them.
Maybe you don't want your kids to have matches. Should the government pass another law? What if you don't think your kids should be out after dark... another law. What if you don't think your kids should wear pants with holes in them... another law?
It is not the government's job to raise your kids or restrict their actions. That is your job as a parent. Children have a lot of responsibilities whether you like it or not. Trying to take those away is very counter productive for their development and is what will cause them to be irresponsible and give them targets to rebel against.
I hope you're joking. Kids usually spend most of their time with people other than you. They will encounter all manner of people and influences. They will almost certainly have the opportunity to view porn, handle weapons, try drugs, drink themselves stupid, have underage sex, and, yes, even play video games. There is no practical way for you to stop that.
If you really think laws will limit the values to which your children are exposed, you haven't been paying attention. Underage sex, porn, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. are all illegal for children, but most children still have access to all of them at some point. Books, Movies, Video games, etc. are currently regulated by their respective industries, and guess what, your kids will still probably be able to get them.
Either you are the government trying to take responsibility for every aspect of your children's lives is useless and even harmful. Teach them values and ethics and responsibility and trust them to do the right thing. Otherwise, all you are really teaching them to do is lie to you and hide things from you because you've taught them they are not responsible for their own actions and thus they aren't doing anything wrong if they can get away with something.
I don't think we can agree in most any way. Sorry. Your sense of juvenile liberty is alien to me.
Here's a starting point for understanding my position. Juvenile people are still people, just like you and me. They may not have as much experience or knowledge and they are dealing with rapid changes both within themselves and in their environment. It does not change the fact that they are people. Just like black people or women, children are people and are deserving of the same basic rights as anyone else. Try to understand that taking those rights away will cause them to react in the same way any other people would, and guess what, they are in the right. If you tell black people they can't drink, vote, or own guns, they are right to rebel and take those rights. If you tell a 17 year old, or a 15 year old who already has as good of an understanding of the world as you do that they have to submit completely to the authority of another and that they are to be denied basic human rights, well they are right to rebel against that too.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that children are people. Don't you remember what it was like?
The populace, under 18, needs to be prevented from pr0n, booze, weapons, and in this particular case, violent video games or those video games with adult images in them.
Nope.
The populace under 18, needs to protected from authoritarians like you who would take away their basic human rights under the umbrella of "protecting them." People under the age of 18 have had pretty much everything except the video games for hundreds of years. Who are you to say all that needs to change. Who are you to actually think such a thing is possible or desirable?
Kids will always get booze and porn because they want them and they have the means. If it is illegal they will pay a bit more and buy it from some guy who is also willing to sell them heroin. After being told booze will ruin their lives and then finding out it doesn't, why should they believe the propaganda about heroin. Great way to cry wolf, genius.
As for weapons, what are those? Will you make it illegal for them to own guns? What about knives? Clubs? Chains? Chairs? Belts? You can strangle a man with your boot laces. How about instead of locking everyone under the age of 18 into a padded room for their entire adolescent life, we just teach them personal responsibility and ethics? I fired a shotgun at the age of 9, under the watchful eye of my grandfather. I know how to use weapons and when to use them. I've never shot anyone, even though I kept a gun in the trunk of my car all through high school to use hunting afterwards.
Did I need to be protected when I was a kid? Sure, but kids are not helpless, or idiots, or without personal responsibility. Teach them properly and they can take care of themselves. If I wanted to snort cocaine when I was a kid it would have been nearly impossible for my parents to stop me from doing so. Instead they taught me why it was a bad idea and did not lie to me constantly or try to keep me from hurting myself with booze and guns and video games. As a result I respected their opinions and listened to them. I also made a lot of good and a few bad choices. I was and am responsible for what I do. Trying to take that away is one of the least "American" things I can think of and trying to tell parents how to raise their children is another. So sit the hell down and mind your own business.
Windows doesn't make it much more impossible to copy apps around than any other OS. Developers might choose to use things like the registry instead of config files which make it considerably harder, but it's wrong to say that the OS doesn't allow it. With many apps, you *can* just copy them somewhere else and have them work.
As far as I know this only works for java and very simple programs. The truth of the matter is, windows does not allow for the practical encapsulation of resources within a program executable, nor for the easy saving of preferences and configuration on a per user basis. You could probably create some sort of weird hack to encapsulate all the resources needed by a program, but then those resources would be very difficult to get to for users.
The upshot of this is I drag MS Word.app for the mac onto a network drive and run it from a different machine. I can't do that with Windows.
I still think that as long as the underlying OS is "good enough" to allow the required apps to run, most people will be happy enough. After all, what would you rather have - a limited OS which has enough apps to allow you to do what you want, or a perfect OS with no practical application?
I'd rather have the perfect OS, since then I would not need applications. But pipe dreams aside, The OS is the base and the facilitator. The user experience relies heavily upon the security, stability, and functionality of the OS. If the OS does not allow apps to share functionality, does not enable them to search the filesystem quickly, does not allocate resource to them properly then the end user experience suffers.
Anyone who has tried to use a Windows system for heavy multitasking, or who just wanted their spellchecker to be available in every bit of text they can see is aware of how much the OS affects them. On a Linux box I can rapidly move and intelligently rename a thousand files with a one line regular expression. On OS X I can lookup any word I can highlight in a thesaurus. On Windows I can find applications designed for certain specialty tasks. All of those are things I want to do regularly and as a result I use multiple OS's. I guess I would argue that I don't think most OS's are "good enough" to be ignored most of the time. I often have to try to think of a way to do something in one OS that is trivially simple in another. Until I stop having to worry about what OS I'm using and what it makes it hard or impossible for me to do, I'm not willing to to call it "good enough" and I think it a a very poor and irresponsible view for others.
You're apartment may come with hardwood floors that you love. They may have been the deciding factor in your decision to sign a lease. Unless your lease specifically covers the inclusion of hardwood floors in the apartment the landlord would be free at anytime to cover said floors with wall to wall carpeting and you have no recourse.
At least in this state, the landlord substantially modifying a dwelling by, say, replacing the flooring, is grounds for a penalty-free re-negotiation of the lease. That is to say, they have to give you your deposit back and any rent you have paid in advance and you can walk.
I imagine their are plenty of customer protection laws on the books that will cover Tivo changing the nature service after it is paid for and misrepresenting said service in their advertisements. I think you're making the mistake of assuming all clauses in a contract are necessarily enforceable. That is not so, there are many laws that restrict what can and cannot be specified in a contract and I'd bet dollars to donuts a clause that says they can change the service at any time in the future would run afoul of more than one of them.
I'm sure there are some great doctors out there, and some good and responsible ones who have been slandered and had to but up with libelous remarks. Ignorant people will blame them for anything that goes wrong or for simply not being right 100% of the time. Doctors certainly have the right to sue for libel, get these remarks stricken, and get compensation for their legal fees.
On the other hand, most doctors make pretty good money. A large number of them are wealthy before they become doctors, and go into the profession because it is prestigious and because they have the money to pay for the schooling. Anyone who has not noticed how much money makes a difference in a legal battle has been deaf, dumb, and blind for a while now. The danger is that doctors will have enough money to win court cases, whether or not the statements really are libelous.
In addition to that, there are a lot of bad doctors out there. I realize that my experiences are not necessarily representative, but as a fairly intelligent guy, who is willing to research any medical condition with which I am diagnosed it seems most doctors are wrong, a lot. Having been misdiagnosed and generally on the receiving end of very poor treatment from some fairly prestigious medical institutions, I have little faith in the medical profession in the U.S. I've met too many medical students and residents who are among the least competent people I've ever met. We're talking people who admit to going into the field because they "want to make a lot of money" and "see women naked." People who don't understand basic procedures to maintain a sterile environment or why that might be important in a research lab. Grown men who not only don't know how to change a tire, but don't know enough to call a tow-truck, but instead call their parent's to ask what to do.
Basically, I have no faith in the medical profession in general and I avoid doctor's unless I have a problem that is an emergency, I need medication for, or is very, very common.
The internet, in general, is not the most reliable place to get information and I'd be skeptical of any website proclaiming the competence or incompetence of any given physician. It seems, however, that there should be a public forum for discussions about physicians including a post-treatment rating for each doctor as to whether or not they solved the medical problem. If a regulatory body does not provide this information, rest assured someone will, because patients want to know which physician to choose and people want to let others know about their bad experiences.
You don't think Win2K is broken? ...and you use it? Now listen, I have used Win2K plenty and let me tell you, it is pretty broken. Maybe you're just so used to using a broken OS you don't really notice how broken it is. Like one of those people who has only ever driven a 1985 Ford Escort, with no muffler, ruined suspension, bald tires, and a rabid raccoon in the back seat. "Shucks mister, it got me all the way here from my paw's place. It works just fine. Do you have any of those rabies shots or not?"
I'm not saying it's necessarily good, but... legally Tivo isn't doing anything that the subscriber hasn't agreed to let them do.
...and how many people read that agreement or any of the other hundreds of multi-page pseudo-legal documents they are required to sign every year? Did they include on the outside of the box a disclaimer under where it says, "allows you to watch your favorite programs when you want" something along the lines of, "unless we decide to delete it after a while because the network asked us to" ???
If not then they misled their customers with false advertising. Maybe they can get away with it, legally, although I think that is very questionable. You see companies put all sorts of unenforceable clauses in their contracts all the time and they often lose in court regardless.
Common sense and consumer protection acts say that if you sell a service you can't change the terms later on without compensating the other party, even if your contract says you can. Ethically, we all know this is crap and what Tivo is doing is screwing their customers in order to get big contracts from the cable companies for a few years until they get bought out or replaced. It is sad, but that is the way it is.
Who knows what the courts will decide, or even if it will ever go to court. Most likely Tivo will settle with a few upset people and the majority will just deal with it. The important thing is, Tivo, you suck.
It's all about the apps, sometimes people seem forget that. If all the apps that a given person needs are available, and are easy enough to use, they'll probably be entirely happy on whatever OS they end up with.
I'm going to have to disagree with you. I run many apps on many OS's. Sometimes I run the same app on several OS's and sometimes I run different applications to do the same thing on different OS's. Saying it is all about the apps, however, is discounting all the functionality included in OS's. Technically copying a file from one place to another is a function that is usually handled by the OS (although you could argue that is an application on that OS). The thing is, OS's provide a base level of functionality including managing other applications, the basic UI, the filesystem, networking, user accounts, allowing apps to interact with one another, etc., etc.
These functions are often some of the most used on a computer. There is a great deal of difference between OS's as to how well they provide this functionality and what it entails.
Managing networking, for example is very different on different OS's. On Windows multiple network services that are not intended to be accessed remotely are required to run at all times. This is one of the reasons Windows is so subject to attacks by internet worms. It has some poorly designed networking. Other OS's not only have better networking security, but implement newer networking protocols for auto-discovery of network services. This is why when you plug in a newer network printer some OS's automatically find it and add it to your available printers while others do not.
Searching is big right now. On some OS's you can search for a term not only in filenames, but also within the text of documents in myriad formats. In some OS's searching is very fast because everything is pre-indexed by the filesystem, while others it is glacially slow.
Then there is how well the OS allows apps to work with on another. If one application includes a grammar checker, can other apps use that functionality? Can they do so without copying and pasting text back and forth? Without having to run the whole application that has grammar checking? What about bug fixes? Does fixing a bug in a library used by one application fix it in others as well, or do you need to get a new copy of every application that relies upon that library?
What about downloading, installing, uninstalling, copying, and upgrading applications? Some OS's make all that easy and make sensible choices to prevent trojans from masquerading as data, while others make some or all of these tasks impossible. Windows, for example, makes it nearly impossible to copy an app from one machine to another, or one volume to another. With other OS's you just copy and paste.
To summarize, it is not "all about the apps." It is all about the functionality as a whole. Which combination of OS(es) and apps is best to accomplish that tasks you want to get done. For some of us, that is a fairly large number of OS's and apps. The problem is there is no one OS that is best for everything, and every OS has serious limitations. After using multiple OS's most people develop a favorite base OS and often wish they could run particular applications from another OS on it to simplify things. Having run dozens of OS's I can say there are few things more annoying than needing to use an OS for a task it is unsuited.
So if you purchase your cable modem from your cable provider, you shouldn't have to pay for monthly cable service? It is, after all, your cable modem. You should not have to pay to keep using something that you already own.
You're muddying the waters here. There are two items being sold a Tivo and a subscription, just like a cable modem and a subscription to cable internet. Your analogy breaks, however, because if I buy a cable modem I can do whatever I want to it, and the cable company cannot. They can't come over and fill the USB port with glue and they can't remotely turn that USB port off.
The problem is, in addition to changing their service, they are remotely disabling features in the hardware box they sold you. They are stopping you from using a specialty computer you bought by remotely turning off functionality. That is called hacking most of the time.
The second problem is that if you sell a service, especially when you sell a lifetime subscription to that service, it is unethical and probably illegal to remove parts of that service from customers who have already paid.
Of course as soon as Tivo started to introduce this DRM crap and tech-savvy user should have known this crap was coming. When a company starts introducing anti-features that make things harder for their customers (because they want to get an account with big cable company and sell bulk) then they have sold you out. That is one of the main reasons I did not buy a Tivo. The interface was nicer and the guide was easier to use than the EyeTV unit/old computer solution I did go with, but I can still record, store on my hard drive, burn to DVD, or transfer over the network anything I want. I archive my favorite shows to DVD, just like I used to save some on VCR tapes. I bought my hardware and while software updates from the vendor may be useful, I won't install any that remove functionality.
As for a subscription, I get my guide information from TitanTV. It is free (banner ad supported) and if I ever need to I can go with a competing service.
you can use Tivo without the guide.
The question is not whether you can use the Tivo without the guide. The question is can you use the Tivo without the guide and store any program you record indefinitely or will it automatically delete via this DRM software they just loaded onto your bought and paid for machine, without your consent?
Well, aside from the $499 to $2999 hardware dongle that you've already purchased, you are correct.
For all practical purposes, the average consumer cannot buy a PC without paying for a copy of Windows. Current versions of Windows require not only a serial number, but an internet connection, and they call home whenever you change your hardware. That says to me, "We're going to assume you're a criminal and greatly inconvenience you because of that assumption." Apple, on the other hand, works from the assumption that you are a paying customer and they try to make everything as easy and simple as possible. That makes a difference to me. If I upgrade hardware, or am installing or reinstalling the OS, it also saves me a boatload of time and effort.
Both companies make sure you get your OS with your hardware, why does one of them treat you like a criminal and waste your time while the other does not?
Well, what I want to know is: How do I get to this metadata? ...Once there's an application which can find all pictures of my dog, or songs with piano in them, and store THAT in the metadata, which I can search somehow, call me.
I take it you have not actually tried to use any of these new filesystems and their metadata. Metadata comes from lots of places. It comes from an internet database of music CD and movie DVDs. It comes from the OS intelligently reading the text contained within various file types (like text, rtf, .doc, PDF, PS, etc. etc.) and extendable by a plug-in type architecture. It comes from applications who assign it based upon given criteria, or from applications that create files which are now starting to assign more and more metadata to those files. It comes from hardware, like when your digital camera or PVR assigns dates to files it creates. It comes from users inputing it by hand, like when they go through their vacation photos and add a description for each picture.
I use this metadata and perform searches on it every day. Why shouldn't I be able to do an easy search on my computer for every document, application, library, etc. that has the string "vpn" in it? Shouldn't I be able to find all references to MPLS in my files, whether or not they are in in text, .doc, .pdf, or some other file format? Shouldn't applications on my system be able to find and edit this data as well? Well, now I can (and they can) and I really, really like it.
For some reason you are looking at the current limitations of metadata, i.e. optical recognition can't reliably identify my dog, instead of the advantages, which is all the information that can be reliably searched. Maybe right now I can't search for all my mp3's with a piano in them, but I can automatically tag all the audio coming in over the mic I have attached to the piano with metadata that says it is piano. Now fast forward 10 years and suddenly all of your files have a wealth of automatically generated data associated with them. In 10 years I will be able to search for all the mp3's that have piano in them, because my audio mixing program labels all the files with input from the piano mic with the proper metadata and why not. For a few seconds work up front I, and everyone using my files, gets additional functionality. Now apply that to all files from all sources and suddenly metadata has greatly improved the computing experience.
Get with the times, metadata in the filesystem is here and it is very useful and it is becoming more and more useful every day.
I don't know what you think that link is trying to say, but it is useless as a reference. As for brushed metal, do tell me the one color that is as distinct as possible from both black (which is the easiest color on the eyes for the background of an editing window) and white (which is the most common color for window contents, especially given so many documents that end up on paper) and which does not clash with any other color. OK lets see that would be... gray. Yup, that is it.
OK, now that we have picked optimal color for the borders or windows do you think it should be a flat color or a slightly textured one, because personally, I don't care. Brushed metal works for me. As to some of the other UI design choices in OS X, well they seem to be slowly getting better (with some glaring exceptions like the new mail.app buttons).
Why is it that so many people rant about poor UI design, when it is obvious they have never studied UI design? Do you know what works best? Neither does anyone else, that is why they try something then test the hell out of it and go with what works for people. I'm guessing no one at Apple knew why most people liked the brushed metal interface, but it works. Get over it.
Keeping them on the line can be easier than you think. Many telemarketing companies have strict rules about never hanging up without a sale. A friend of mine just puts it on speakerphone and then hands the handset to his six year old. She loves to talk and so long as they remain polite with her he lets them chat for as long as they want. One caller remained on the line for 40 minutes trying to her to give the phone back to her daddy.
I think I can top that. I worked at a software development house. Our products were developed, tested, and only ran on a dozen or so UNIX/Linux flavors and some embedded OS's. Orders were issued from high up in the management chain that we were no longer allowed to run any freeware and also software had to be purchased through the purchasing department. Also, all users were to switch exclusively to Windows 2000 and Outlook. The orders were meant to make our company easy and attractive to acquire. What they really did was send a wake-up call to everyone with a clue that it was time to find a new job.
Hold the little flag button on the bottom left of your keyboard, then push the Pause/Break button faaar up on the right at the same time
Wow, I use Windows all the time and I did not know about that shortcut. You must admit, however, that it is pretty difficult and unintuitive for the average user to figure out. A lot of users have real problems with any key combinations. Compare this to how it is done on OS X. "Click the Apple menu in the far upper-left (or just move you mouse all the way up and left and click. Select the first menu option 'About This Mac'." The average user who starts clicking on menus will find it almost immediately and since it is labeled in normal English (Not right click on my computer and select properties or any of that nonsense) most novice users either know or can easily determine what version of the OS they are running without help. Windows has a long way to go before it is easy to use.
seen the populace that buys these computers? I'm not going to say *all* of them are novices, but I've noticed a fair amount of the people are mom-and-pop types who have zero computer experience.
...and this differs from Windows users how? I'd be willing to bet the skills of five random Apple store users against five random Wal-mart computer purchasers any day. I'm sitting in an office full of computer security experts and programmers who work on security products. About half of the people here are running macs. About 10% are running Windows and those are mostly tech writers and sales. Macs find their way into the hands of novices because they are really easy to use, but they also are the choice of many of the most advanced users because they are also some of the nicest hardware and software available. This mix is part of what makes macs so nice. Security guys pound on them, submit bugs, and demand quality. Novices know nothing, so Apple makes sure they don't need to know anything to have a secure computer to start with. Anyone who needs to run a web server bloody well can figure out how to open up that port and enable that service. Anyone who doesn't, well then they don't have to do anything. Easy and powerful, it's a good place to be.
IPSs will block traffic which may be bad. All of these systems have false positives. All of them will eventually block something really important that shouldn't be blocked. And all will eventually lead you to be fired because of that reason. And none of them will detect an intelligent, targeted attack.
Bzzzzzt! Wrong! Thanks for playing. There are indeed IPS systems that will detect intelligent, targeted attacks. They work by knowing what talks to what on your network and finding anomalous behavior. Sure, they come up with false positives. If someone starts a new server on your network and you don't account for it, a good IPS will notice. That is their job. The right IPS keeps humans in the loop most of the time. It does not just block all the traffic it thinks is out of place, it tells you the traffic is occurring and leaves it up to you to decide if that traffic needs to be stopped.
Automated blocking also has it's place. That place is dealing with a sudden DoS, worm, or other attack that is catastrophic to your network. It is infinitely preferable to get a call at 6AM that says, "we have a huge worm infection. The network is still up, but it is a little slow. The office in New York is quarantined and needs to be cleaned up before we can bring them back online. Right now only their mission critical servers are running and the four new employees workstations are shut down too." Compare that to, "we got hit by a worm and the whole network is down including all of our mission critical servers and e-commerce site." Automated blocking is fine for dealing with an emergency or mitigating the effects of a sudden attack. Sure if you tell you IPS to automatically block any anomalous traffic you might get canned, but then you'd deserve it wouldn't you?
IPS's are not a cure-all, but they are certainly useful and just because you don't know how to use them does not mean they are useless. They won't find every attack, but they will find and stop the majority if properly administrated.
Article: Everyone should use open standards, here's why and how.
LexNaturalis: I read what a "standard" is in the dictionary. Did you know MS .doc is a stanadard?
Slashdot: WTF? We're talking about open standards, not standards. Did you completely miss the entire point of this article and all the comments so far?
To address one or two of your later points:
I work at a government research lab and everything we do has to be compatible with MS Office.
...and you don't see anything wrong with that? So The government collects taxes from me to do research which they then publish in a secret format that changes every few years and requires I buy particular software only available from one company that knows the secret in order to read it. Mind you all of this while both their existing software and other free software can provide that same information in a non-secret format that anyone can read for free. You actually think this is in some way justified?
Yes, I do. You see MS is collecting boatloads of money for their software mainly because of their lock-in and bundling. All that money is taken from businesses around the world and then MS spends it on half-assed projects that don't pan out and to buy politicians and lawyers to insure they continue to get said money.
Here's their problem. First, they are working in a global economy and have priced themselves out of the low-end market. Nearly half the world is using illegal copies of their software and will likely never pay to use a legitimate copy. It is likely some of those countries will move to legal, free alternatives. Second, there are these large organizations called governments that pass laws for the good of those they represent. Some of them, like the European Union and China have passed and are likely to pass more laws that say everyone has to be able to access the information in a standard format that is actually defined publicly in order to insure that future generations can access that data and so that they are not locked into using only one supplier for all software that can access their data. In fact, only a very foolish or very greedy and bribed country or organization would approve of the current scheme of things and as computing becomes more ubiquitous MS's ability to maintain .doc as a standard will vanish. It is happening in the U.S. with companies, states, and organizations. It is happening in the EU and China which make up a huge portion of population by themselves. The .doc "standard" will soon be a lot less attractive to anyone, since most people will have legislated the use of something else. You can pay to use Word and then somehow convert your documents to the standard required by people you have to do business with, or you can just use any other program all of which support the legally defined standards of those people. It is not really a hard choice.