that is when the people who are dissatisfied with MS and how the courts fail to create fair business practices from them all switch to Linux or Apple.... THAT would be justice
True, but if the *AA goes with no DRM they have to admit to courts and governments and to CONSUMERS that they were not only wrong, but their declining sales are because their products SUCK for the most part. Worse yet for them is the fact that they have to face stockholders and tell them this is true, unless they keep clinging to the lie that consumers are all thieves and criminals.
When it all plays out and the new digital arts business models begin to make money, we can look back and remember the *AA for the asshats that they really are, how they abused the legal and political systems, and how they tried to criminalize the consumer (their source of revenue).
That said, I think this will have to end up like a bullfight with a million picadors and if we are lucky, a quick final blow to put the *AA down.
Those of us who have some fairly big Sun iron would love to see this happen post haste. That would take some of the hodge-podge out of a few systems that I work on/with. Trying to ditch the Oracle license fees is a GoodThing!
Networks, as we know, are designed to work around the problems. New technologies and equipment will very soon make it possible to establish citywide dark mesh networks such that your packets of a torrent will be shared among hundreds or thousands of IP addresses across multiple ISP's. Now run those packets through an anonymizer like Tor and things get more difficult for the *AA by orders of magnitude.
Even if the ISPs were required to keep logs, the logs will show nothing. This is the exact opposite of what the *AA and governments actually want. It is possible to make it incredibly difficult for them to track who does what. The FBI will find it even more difficult to find purveyors of child pornography. Don't think that I support child pornographers, but I certainly won't sacrifice my rights to privacy in order to catch them, or rather make catching them possibly easier for the police.
With all the post 9/11 rhetoric, I'm certain that any would be terrorists are already encrypting their communications. Its really not difficult to do. There are tons of ways currently to hide or encrypt data communications that make it impossible for the FBI/governments to efficiently make sense of it. That means that the ONLY reason for tracking and logging is to control honest citizenry. George, you were right.
The *AA can log all they want to, and try to sue anyone they want. In the same fashion that DRM is worked around, darknets will appear and ruin all the lawyer's fun. They are fighting a losing battle on all fronts. Eventually they will either capitulate and sell it cheaper and without DRM, or they will go out of business because more artists start selling their art without using the *AA.
What we have to ask ourselves is WHY do we continue to elect politicians that support this type of active spying on the citizenry?
Wrong! Break the DRM, Break it early, and break it often. DRM is dead, in fact it was stillborn. The foundational thinking behind DRM (or CRAP if you like) was so 'not right' that it's 'not even wrong' and it isn't getting any better. The more often the *AAs have to fight back with new DRM the more likely it is that we will see who in the governments is getting paid to support DRM, and then we will really have a target to ridicule, impeach, or tar and feather.
The premise that all consumers are criminals is criminal in and of itself. Bear with me here. It defies logic and law to (analogy time) remove guns from citizens to prevent them from shooting people. It defies logic and good business sense to make.38 bullets that can only be used in guns made by one manufacturer. It defies the intent of the framers of the law in the US to presume that you are guilty until proven so, yet this is exactly what DRM is all about, the assumption that all consumers are guilty or would be if given even half a chance.
Besides this, governments should not be propping up business models that are antiquated and broken. Desktop publishing put typesetters out of work, did the governments do anything? Trains put buggy makers out of work, did the governments do anything? That is only naming a couple of examples, but the governments seem hell bent on protecting certain industries. I can only conclude that those same governments are being well paid by those industries, for that is the only logical motivation for such infringements on citizen's liberties and rights.
Now that AACS is cracked, time to follow the money and figure out who is getting paid and expose them as broadly as the DRM keys are exposed.
First, there is another government that thinks they can regulate the Internet. We know that is stupid, but more importantly, they believe they can regulate the dissemination of hate speech. We might as well ban megaphones now. Worse than regulating the Internet, this is an attempt (seemingly) to regulate thought and speech. Can we all agree on how that will work out. Next thing you know Reporters Without Borders will be reporting on this story.
There is way too much in the world to worry about besides what people view on the Internet. Lets not forget that it is the parents responsibility to ensure their kids don't torture animals, bully other kids, and learn a set of spiritual values.
I am (mostly) a libertarian, but despite political leanings, I cannot fathom any political faction believing that it is their responsibility to remove all possible danger from the lives of citizens as to provide a blanket of security and safety for them. When ANY government feels this is their responsibility, it is high time to execute that government and move on to the next version.
This is not so much an example of stupid government as it is a call for the citizens of that country to impeach and behead the leaders of that government... in any order that seems appropriate at the time.
Cosmic radiation is an interesting thing. One other theory suggests that it is responsible for much of how lightning acts. Despite any theories, there is enough basic information to warrant further investigation with regard to climate and genetic mutations and many other things. The effect that solar radiation, cosmic radiation, and other not-of-this-world factors need to be taken into account,as any programs to counter man made warming could be exacerbated or perverted into a situation that worsens the warming trend if all factors are not known.
The only logical plan is to use multiple attempts to reduce factors that contribute to warming, and continue to study climate vigorously to ensure that we don't try to counter the natural way of things. Logic and temperate thinking is the only way to achieve buy-in by those with power and money needed to effect climate warming control measures.
This is an idea that might better help us understand how the climate works, and as such should be considered by all concerned. While it may or may not be significant, studying it may lead to truly innovative thinking and understanding of the planets climate.
Yes, and better that if fail miserably right off the bat than to linger around and act as a foothold for all those that think they can regulate other parts of the Internet.
Hopefully, here in the US someone grabs the spirit of revealing sock puppet websites to ferret out the political sock puppet websites in the upcoming election.
While your comment has a ring of common sense to it, it is still illogical, and wrong for the following reasons.
If the running human is avoided, but not recognized, your AI car may find itself ensnared in the beginning of a marathon of runners, or perhaps mistakenly in the middle of a playground, or perhaps at the front of a building where people are running from a bomb scare?
Simply not hitting the human is simply not good enough all of the time. When software or AI systems have charge of life critical systems, such as cars, getting it right 90% of the time is not good enough and never will be.
There are tons of logic traps like this when designing AI where 90% correct is as bad as 9% correct. Just think of all the things you take for granted that you have to make deductions or logical conclusions about in order to function. Driving an automobile is far more complex than you seem to think it is. Miss one "bridge out" sign and your day is going to become very bad, very quickly.
It is interesting to consider the problem of AI researchers. How to create intelligence when it is not really understood. In the time between now and when we do understand it, we'll have to develop systems using logic and software that approximates how we understand it. A simple example is to ask yourself how many times that you had to learn that fire is hot? An AI system may have to learn this every time that you turn it on.
There is software systems that can approximate the size and distance between objects in a picture with reasonable accuracy, and if the scope of scenery presented to the system is limited, then that ability combined with sensing motion of objects is enough to determine a large percentage of what is desired. This is not the trouble or the hard part. The hard part is determining object classification and purpose in those times when it is not simple.
Each of us can almost always look at a scene and determine the difference between a jogger and a purse thief on the run or a businessman late for an appointment. For computers to do so takes a great deal more work. It is only a subtle difference and one where both objects maintain similar base characteristics.
The point? Even mimicking human skills is not easy, and fails at many points without the overwhelming store of knowledge that humans have inside their heads. This would point to the theory that if more memory was available, AI would be easier, but this is not true either. Humans can recognize a particular model of car, no matter what color it is and usually despite the fact that it might have been in an accident. The thinking that comes into play when using the abstract to extract reality from a scene is not going to happen for computers for quite some time.
The danger is when such ill prepared systems are put in charge of important things. This is always something to be wary of, especially when it is used to define/monitor criminal acts and identify those who are guilty whether that is on cameras at intersections or security systems, or government surveillance systems.
You have an interesting point, but may I point out something to think about here?
> Say, H1-Bs are required for cutting costs; and not due to lack of talent in the US. Even then... > 1. No H1-B, means higher costs for US Companies This is only true under a small group of circumstances.
> 2. US Companies compete locally (inside US), and globally with Global Companies
> 3. So US Companies' have a higher cost of product development or software services, compared to > those >from outside (which employ cheaper labor)
This particular US Company is selling that 'product' at grossly overinflated prices. The ability of MS to compete with the rest of the world is a really strange thing to think of. First, his main competitors are in the U.S. (Apple etc.) and some (?) of his competition is giving their product away! There is no amount of H1-B visas that can fix the problems that MS has. Anyone, especially those interested in the H1-B issue should be looking at what Bill G. has been doing with those visas. From the news, it doesn't seem like he's done a lot with them, unless he's planning to reveal a real OS that does all the things Vista is supposed to have been able to do. Perhaps all those Bangalorians living in Redmond are working overtime to rid the world of spam???
Its like sitting in your Dodge Viper, parked on the side of the street. Along walks a hooker carrying a blackjack. Five minutes later (still parked on the side of the street) you are arrested for speeding. Everyone knows that you don't buy a Viper to go slow.
tide of free information. The little dutch boy approach won't 'hold water' in the age of ever increasing amounts of data. Data that wants to be free, or freely sold to the highest bidder. What should be happening, and probably is, is that such photo services' data should be used by those that want to hide things, ensuring that they have done their hiding correctly.
If you want to be sure that nobody steals your identity, don't give it to anyone for any reason, or better yet, always pretend to be someone else. Same applies to sensitive infrastructure. The problem with trying to hide information is that you tell people where to look more intensely. This simply puts a big target on those areas for local spy work. It doesn't take much to find out what you want to know about most places, if they aren't hidden or protected with the same efforts as is Area 51. Even if Google blurs the pictures, China won't, nor will any other government with a space presence.
I think the whole thing is either a ruse, or just another example of people thinking they can regulate the Internet or its uses.
Lately we've seen memos and emails suggesting just how far MS is willing to go, perhaps in the future we'll see emails or memos describing how malicious software was released into the wild to help people decide to buy the new 2007 applications to go with their new Vista PCs?
You are exactly correct. While the rate on certain things, they have not weighted various aspects of providing or consuming those services. This lack of weighting just makes the report a set of statistics that should be ignored for the most part.
No surgeon needed, simply take a job selling used cars, and to speed things up get a second job working at the Verizon customer call center at night. That should pretty much kill any altruistic tendencies that you might currently have.
Welcome to the Apple fanboi club^H^H^H^H er,/. or any other web site that talks about Apple. If you don't support Apple's point of view somehow, your comments get modded to oblivion.
I continue to believe that the worst part of the iPhone is the hype, and I certainly include all the gibberish iterated here on/. today about what should or could have been done for the keynote.
I've never even seen an iPhone, and will probably walk away without asking to look at it when I do see one. I'm tired of hearing about this product that doesn't yet exist. Instead, I'll learn about and play with products that do exist. More than that, I'm tired of hearing people spout off about how great it is.... they can't possibly know if it is great or not, not yet.
MP3 players are already making huge volumes of information available to us. Openculture http://www.oculture.com/weblog/2006/10/free_univer sity_1.html is a site dedicated to making that information available to us. There is currently more information available via electronic media than has ever been available to an individual ever before. I include public libraries in that statement. Reading a book requires a certain amount of attention; you can't drive while you read etc. but listening to a lecture, or a audio book is able to be done while you do other things.
Sure, video books will be good too, but making this information available is hugely significant. If Google and others can make learning as easy as plugging in your MP3 player, that is very cool for those of us who would like to learn this way.
Much content is valid as audio only, and while there are those that prefer their reference materials to be on paper (not dependent on batteries), technology is making the possibility of not having power/batteries a much smaller likelihood. Lack of batteries is becoming a lame excuse, so to speak.
I predict that there will be a trend of teaching with audio/video download files. Imagine if everything you wanted to know about your hobby could be downloaded in a instructional form on audio or video/audio formats? So you want to learn about testing an alternator for a 73 Ford pickup: download the file. You want to learn about the latest in Hollywood gossip; download the file. Why should we be dependent on carrying a book, or sitting in front of a tv, or waiting for the radio station to tell us what we want to hear. Why can't we choose to hear it or view it when we want?
This type of service and technology will empower a great many people. Think of what home schooling can now do. Think of how this could impact training at work. Think of how this could bring author's content to millions more people!
I didn't see anyone suggest a second hard drive, encrypted and not carried in the computer case?
If you only have a 'test drive' in the laptop, they can look at it all they want. They would still have to find and recognize the other drive as well as the boot USB drive, and then ask for encryption keys... that is if you don't immediately blame them for corrupting your data rather than admit it is encrypted...
Just file for copyright of all personal information pertaining to yourself, and when a problem arises, simply file a DMCA violation complaint against them.
HAHA that would totally fsck up the SarBox rules:)
While what you say has a ring of truth to it, the unencrypted version still will have the 'fingerprint' in it, and upon inspection, this will show that the person who physically has the file will either have the right to use it or not. The fingerprint itself may not show who has the right to use, but a receipt or other form of "I have purchased this" listing will show the user has the right to use. This is how a purchase receipt works if you are accused of stealing from a store. It is how MS used to work... The label on the box was your 'receipt' so to speak, and contained your codeword to unlock the software.
When it is easily verifiable that a piece of data is copyrighted work xyz, and that user abc has license to use that work, there will be no **AA style court cases. We already trust people with security, and keeping a log of the files that you have purchased a right to use is not such a big deal. Its like a box of receipts kept in your possession and somewhere other than your possession.
The information for your bank details is guarded by not much more than a login, so this information could also be kept behind such or better security.
Sure, there are problems with this or any solution, but this one is not intrusive, does not require a court battle to prove innocence or guilt. The user simply either has the rights or not. Additionally, works that are not copyrighted works will not require a receipt as there is no fingerprint in them. Software will be able to verify or notify when a file is copyrighted or not so users won't be blindly working with the files. Some ambitious software may want to try to validate a receipt for each copyrighted file... read DRM. This would allow you to download till your router goes up in flames, yet still protect the copyrights of content producers.
This is a totally non-abusive way to implement copyright protection schemes that does not require normal people to be treated as criminals. It in fact treats them as intelligent, letting them know when a file is copyrighted or not, allowing them to make the decision on whether to use it or not.
If your new iPod marks which are copyrighted and which are not, and which of the copyrighted files have been verified with a receipt against the fingerprint, then you know, and any copy can look to see if you are listening to copyrighted works without a receipt. This removes the burden of security from the P2P networks, from the file sharers, from ISPs, from everyone but the user. That, my friends, is how things should be, rather than this contorted convolution of common sense and common law.
Slashdot Mirror
that is when the people who are dissatisfied with MS and how the courts fail to create fair business practices from them all switch to Linux or Apple.... THAT would be justice
True, but if the *AA goes with no DRM they have to admit to courts and governments and to CONSUMERS that they were not only wrong, but their declining sales are because their products SUCK for the most part. Worse yet for them is the fact that they have to face stockholders and tell them this is true, unless they keep clinging to the lie that consumers are all thieves and criminals.
When it all plays out and the new digital arts business models begin to make money, we can look back and remember the *AA for the asshats that they really are, how they abused the legal and political systems, and how they tried to criminalize the consumer (their source of revenue).
That said, I think this will have to end up like a bullfight with a million picadors and if we are lucky, a quick final blow to put the *AA down.
Those of us who have some fairly big Sun iron would love to see this happen post haste. That would take some of the hodge-podge out of a few systems that I work on/with. Trying to ditch the Oracle license fees is a GoodThing!
Networks, as we know, are designed to work around the problems. New technologies and equipment will very soon make it possible to establish citywide dark mesh networks such that your packets of a torrent will be shared among hundreds or thousands of IP addresses across multiple ISP's. Now run those packets through an anonymizer like Tor and things get more difficult for the *AA by orders of magnitude.
Even if the ISPs were required to keep logs, the logs will show nothing. This is the exact opposite of what the *AA and governments actually want. It is possible to make it incredibly difficult for them to track who does what. The FBI will find it even more difficult to find purveyors of child pornography. Don't think that I support child pornographers, but I certainly won't sacrifice my rights to privacy in order to catch them, or rather make catching them possibly easier for the police.
With all the post 9/11 rhetoric, I'm certain that any would be terrorists are already encrypting their communications. Its really not difficult to do. There are tons of ways currently to hide or encrypt data communications that make it impossible for the FBI/governments to efficiently make sense of it. That means that the ONLY reason for tracking and logging is to control honest citizenry. George, you were right.
The *AA can log all they want to, and try to sue anyone they want. In the same fashion that DRM is worked around, darknets will appear and ruin all the lawyer's fun. They are fighting a losing battle on all fronts. Eventually they will either capitulate and sell it cheaper and without DRM, or they will go out of business because more artists start selling their art without using the *AA.
What we have to ask ourselves is WHY do we continue to elect politicians that support this type of active spying on the citizenry?
Wrong! Break the DRM, Break it early, and break it often. DRM is dead, in fact it was stillborn. The foundational thinking behind DRM (or CRAP if you like) was so 'not right' that it's 'not even wrong' and it isn't getting any better. The more often the *AAs have to fight back with new DRM the more likely it is that we will see who in the governments is getting paid to support DRM, and then we will really have a target to ridicule, impeach, or tar and feather.
.38 bullets that can only be used in guns made by one manufacturer. It defies the intent of the framers of the law in the US to presume that you are guilty until proven so, yet this is exactly what DRM is all about, the assumption that all consumers are guilty or would be if given even half a chance.
The premise that all consumers are criminals is criminal in and of itself. Bear with me here. It defies logic and law to (analogy time) remove guns from citizens to prevent them from shooting people. It defies logic and good business sense to make
Besides this, governments should not be propping up business models that are antiquated and broken. Desktop publishing put typesetters out of work, did the governments do anything? Trains put buggy makers out of work, did the governments do anything? That is only naming a couple of examples, but the governments seem hell bent on protecting certain industries. I can only conclude that those same governments are being well paid by those industries, for that is the only logical motivation for such infringements on citizen's liberties and rights.
Now that AACS is cracked, time to follow the money and figure out who is getting paid and expose them as broadly as the DRM keys are exposed.
First, there is another government that thinks they can regulate the Internet. We know that is stupid, but more importantly, they believe they can regulate the dissemination of hate speech. We might as well ban megaphones now. Worse than regulating the Internet, this is an attempt (seemingly) to regulate thought and speech. Can we all agree on how that will work out. Next thing you know Reporters Without Borders will be reporting on this story.
There is way too much in the world to worry about besides what people view on the Internet. Lets not forget that it is the parents responsibility to ensure their kids don't torture animals, bully other kids, and learn a set of spiritual values.
I am (mostly) a libertarian, but despite political leanings, I cannot fathom any political faction believing that it is their responsibility to remove all possible danger from the lives of citizens as to provide a blanket of security and safety for them. When ANY government feels this is their responsibility, it is high time to execute that government and move on to the next version.
This is not so much an example of stupid government as it is a call for the citizens of that country to impeach and behead the leaders of that government... in any order that seems appropriate at the time.
Cosmic radiation is an interesting thing. One other theory suggests that it is responsible for much of how lightning acts. Despite any theories, there is enough basic information to warrant further investigation with regard to climate and genetic mutations and many other things. The effect that solar radiation, cosmic radiation, and other not-of-this-world factors need to be taken into account ,as any programs to counter man made warming could be exacerbated or perverted into a situation that worsens the warming trend if all factors are not known.
The only logical plan is to use multiple attempts to reduce factors that contribute to warming, and continue to study climate vigorously to ensure that we don't try to counter the natural way of things. Logic and temperate thinking is the only way to achieve buy-in by those with power and money needed to effect climate warming control measures.
This is an idea that might better help us understand how the climate works, and as such should be considered by all concerned. While it may or may not be significant, studying it may lead to truly innovative thinking and understanding of the planets climate.
Yes, and better that if fail miserably right off the bat than to linger around and act as a foothold for all those that think they can regulate other parts of the Internet.
Hopefully, here in the US someone grabs the spirit of revealing sock puppet websites to ferret out the political sock puppet websites in the upcoming election.
While your comment has a ring of common sense to it, it is still illogical, and wrong for the following reasons.
If the running human is avoided, but not recognized, your AI car may find itself ensnared in the beginning of a marathon of runners, or perhaps mistakenly in the middle of a playground, or perhaps at the front of a building where people are running from a bomb scare?
Simply not hitting the human is simply not good enough all of the time. When software or AI systems have charge of life critical systems, such as cars, getting it right 90% of the time is not good enough and never will be.
There are tons of logic traps like this when designing AI where 90% correct is as bad as 9% correct. Just think of all the things you take for granted that you have to make deductions or logical conclusions about in order to function. Driving an automobile is far more complex than you seem to think it is. Miss one "bridge out" sign and your day is going to become very bad, very quickly.
It is interesting to consider the problem of AI researchers. How to create intelligence when it is not really understood. In the time between now and when we do understand it, we'll have to develop systems using logic and software that approximates how we understand it. A simple example is to ask yourself how many times that you had to learn that fire is hot? An AI system may have to learn this every time that you turn it on.
There is software systems that can approximate the size and distance between objects in a picture with reasonable accuracy, and if the scope of scenery presented to the system is limited, then that ability combined with sensing motion of objects is enough to determine a large percentage of what is desired. This is not the trouble or the hard part. The hard part is determining object classification and purpose in those times when it is not simple.
Each of us can almost always look at a scene and determine the difference between a jogger and a purse thief on the run or a businessman late for an appointment. For computers to do so takes a great deal more work. It is only a subtle difference and one where both objects maintain similar base characteristics.
The point? Even mimicking human skills is not easy, and fails at many points without the overwhelming store of knowledge that humans have inside their heads. This would point to the theory that if more memory was available, AI would be easier, but this is not true either. Humans can recognize a particular model of car, no matter what color it is and usually despite the fact that it might have been in an accident. The thinking that comes into play when using the abstract to extract reality from a scene is not going to happen for computers for quite some time.
The danger is when such ill prepared systems are put in charge of important things. This is always something to be wary of, especially when it is used to define/monitor criminal acts and identify those who are guilty whether that is on cameras at intersections or security systems, or government surveillance systems.
As long as you have the complete understanding, could you please go explain this to Mr. Gates and that man with the chair?
I'm hoping that soon Google will name some new service "G-Whiz"
You have an interesting point, but may I point out something to think about here?
.... ....
> Say, H1-Bs are required for cutting costs; and not due to lack of talent in the US. Even then...
> 1. No H1-B, means higher costs for US Companies
This is only true under a small group of circumstances.
> 2. US Companies compete locally (inside US), and globally with Global Companies
> 3. So US Companies' have a higher cost of product development or software services, compared to
> those >from outside (which employ cheaper labor)
This particular US Company is selling that 'product' at grossly overinflated prices. The ability of MS to compete with the rest of the world is a really strange thing to think of. First, his main competitors are in the U.S. (Apple etc.) and some (?) of his competition is giving their product away! There is no amount of H1-B visas that can fix the problems that MS has. Anyone, especially those interested in the H1-B issue should be looking at what Bill G. has been doing with those visas. From the news, it doesn't seem like he's done a lot with them, unless he's planning to reveal a real OS that does all the things Vista is supposed to have been able to do. Perhaps all those Bangalorians living in Redmond are working overtime to rid the world of spam???
> 4.
> 5.
> 6. Profit! (BUT HOW??!!
Profit? By purchasing senators and congressmen!!
Okay, how's this:
Its like sitting in your Dodge Viper, parked on the side of the street. Along walks a hooker carrying a blackjack. Five minutes later (still parked on the side of the street) you are arrested for speeding. Everyone knows that you don't buy a Viper to go slow.
tide of free information. The little dutch boy approach won't 'hold water' in the age of ever increasing amounts of data. Data that wants to be free, or freely sold to the highest bidder. What should be happening, and probably is, is that such photo services' data should be used by those that want to hide things, ensuring that they have done their hiding correctly.
If you want to be sure that nobody steals your identity, don't give it to anyone for any reason, or better yet, always pretend to be someone else. Same applies to sensitive infrastructure. The problem with trying to hide information is that you tell people where to look more intensely. This simply puts a big target on those areas for local spy work. It doesn't take much to find out what you want to know about most places, if they aren't hidden or protected with the same efforts as is Area 51. Even if Google blurs the pictures, China won't, nor will any other government with a space presence.
I think the whole thing is either a ruse, or just another example of people thinking they can regulate the Internet or its uses.
Lately we've seen memos and emails suggesting just how far MS is willing to go, perhaps in the future we'll see emails or memos describing how malicious software was released into the wild to help people decide to buy the new 2007 applications to go with their new Vista PCs?
You are exactly correct. While the rate on certain things, they have not weighted various aspects of providing or consuming those services. This lack of weighting just makes the report a set of statistics that should be ignored for the most part.
Will these explorer androids be launched by the JSA? Jihad Space Agency?
No surgeon needed, simply take a job selling used cars, and to speed things up get a second job working at the Verizon customer call center at night. That should pretty much kill any altruistic tendencies that you might currently have.
Welcome to the Apple fanboi club^H^H^H^H er, /. or any other web site that talks about Apple. If you don't support Apple's point of view somehow, your comments get modded to oblivion.
/. today about what should or could have been done for the keynote.
I continue to believe that the worst part of the iPhone is the hype, and I certainly include all the gibberish iterated here on
I've never even seen an iPhone, and will probably walk away without asking to look at it when I do see one. I'm tired of hearing about this product that doesn't yet exist. Instead, I'll learn about and play with products that do exist. More than that, I'm tired of hearing people spout off about how great it is.... they can't possibly know if it is great or not, not yet.
MP3 players are already making huge volumes of information available to us. Openculture http://www.oculture.com/weblog/2006/10/free_univer sity_1.html is a site dedicated to making that information available to us. There is currently more information available via electronic media than has ever been available to an individual ever before. I include public libraries in that statement. Reading a book requires a certain amount of attention; you can't drive while you read etc. but listening to a lecture, or a audio book is able to be done while you do other things.
Sure, video books will be good too, but making this information available is hugely significant. If Google and others can make learning as easy as plugging in your MP3 player, that is very cool for those of us who would like to learn this way.
Much content is valid as audio only, and while there are those that prefer their reference materials to be on paper (not dependent on batteries), technology is making the possibility of not having power/batteries a much smaller likelihood. Lack of batteries is becoming a lame excuse, so to speak.
I predict that there will be a trend of teaching with audio/video download files. Imagine if everything you wanted to know about your hobby could be downloaded in a instructional form on audio or video/audio formats? So you want to learn about testing an alternator for a 73 Ford pickup: download the file. You want to learn about the latest in Hollywood gossip; download the file. Why should we be dependent on carrying a book, or sitting in front of a tv, or waiting for the radio station to tell us what we want to hear. Why can't we choose to hear it or view it when we want?
This type of service and technology will empower a great many people. Think of what home schooling can now do. Think of how this could impact training at work. Think of how this could bring author's content to millions more people!
Its a good thing, IMO.
I didn't see anyone suggest a second hard drive, encrypted and not carried in the computer case?
... that is if you don't immediately blame them for corrupting your data rather than admit it is encrypted...
If you only have a 'test drive' in the laptop, they can look at it all they want. They would still have to find and recognize the other drive as well as the boot USB drive, and then ask for encryption keys
Just a thought...
FTFA: " If this Apple/Microsoft partnership was formed how would this have changed the Microsoft and Apple dynamics?"
How about a MS product that won't give you a BSOD?
Or maybe an Apple product that does give you a BSOD?
Or maybe an iPod with CTRL, ALT, and DEL keys?
Perhaps it would have been even better than that, can you imagine Windows Explorer with an iPod interface?
This could have been the worst thing to happen... it might have given people a reason to buy MS?
Throw a dart at a pile of the last 6 years worth of tech news, that's what might have happened.
Just file for copyright of all personal information pertaining to yourself, and when a problem arises, simply file a DMCA violation complaint against them.
:)
HAHA that would totally fsck up the SarBox rules
While what you say has a ring of truth to it, the unencrypted version still will have the 'fingerprint' in it, and upon inspection, this will show that the person who physically has the file will either have the right to use it or not. The fingerprint itself may not show who has the right to use, but a receipt or other form of "I have purchased this" listing will show the user has the right to use. This is how a purchase receipt works if you are accused of stealing from a store. It is how MS used to work... The label on the box was your 'receipt' so to speak, and contained your codeword to unlock the software.
When it is easily verifiable that a piece of data is copyrighted work xyz, and that user abc has license to use that work, there will be no **AA style court cases. We already trust people with security, and keeping a log of the files that you have purchased a right to use is not such a big deal. Its like a box of receipts kept in your possession and somewhere other than your possession.
The information for your bank details is guarded by not much more than a login, so this information could also be kept behind such or better security.
Sure, there are problems with this or any solution, but this one is not intrusive, does not require a court battle to prove innocence or guilt. The user simply either has the rights or not. Additionally, works that are not copyrighted works will not require a receipt as there is no fingerprint in them. Software will be able to verify or notify when a file is copyrighted or not so users won't be blindly working with the files. Some ambitious software may want to try to validate a receipt for each copyrighted file... read DRM. This would allow you to download till your router goes up in flames, yet still protect the copyrights of content producers.
This is a totally non-abusive way to implement copyright protection schemes that does not require normal people to be treated as criminals. It in fact treats them as intelligent, letting them know when a file is copyrighted or not, allowing them to make the decision on whether to use it or not.
If your new iPod marks which are copyrighted and which are not, and which of the copyrighted files have been verified with a receipt against the fingerprint, then you know, and any copy can look to see if you are listening to copyrighted works without a receipt. This removes the burden of security from the P2P networks, from the file sharers, from ISPs, from everyone but the user. That, my friends, is how things should be, rather than this contorted convolution of common sense and common law.