The point is that the transmission system that the BBC used was capable of being received by multiple receivers at the time (see http://sydenham.org.uk/john_logie_baird_00.html). In 1936, there were two competing transmission methods (Baird and Marconi-EMI), but there were seven different receivers available (if you were rich) - see http://www.tvhistory.tv/1935-1941.htm for a selection of manufacturers.
This completely contrasts with current situation where the transmission method is heavily encumbered and is wholly owned by a convicted monopolist. I don't see how Microsoft's DRM is considered the standard for DRM when it isn't even clearly documented - it cannot be a standard when only one company can implement it. Looking to the future, I don't see how I will be able to receive iPlayer broadcasts on a variety of devices (PSP, mobile phones, watches etc) if it's controlled by Microsoft, however I can easily use RealPlayer on a variety of devices.
I agree that there isn't a decent cross-platform DRM solution, but surely that's because DRM is a doomed idea. As a British citizen, I want my BBC license fee to be used for the creation of culture, not the locking down of it.
The hospitals deserve to be in a tight spot/go out of business if they make such a poor decision about suppliers. If they bought some cheap syringes that gave everyone blood poisoning, they should be held accountable - why not hold them accountable for buying rubbish software?
Surely the BBC have used STANDARDS in the past. Even though Marconi EMI was the only manufacturer at one time, other manufacturers could at least implement the standard (and they did - there now exist plenty of choices). Windows DRM is NOT a standard - no-one else can implement it unless they allowed to by Microsoft. This is quite clearly a case of the BBC getting into bed with Microsoft and ignoring the use of standards. This isn't about playing ball - this is about the BBC insisting that everyone use Microsoft's ball.
Surely if you make a mistake and forget to publish a piece of source code, you get the chance to rectify that mistake before the case goes to court. All it would take would be for the guilty party to upload a copy of the relevant source code onto a web site and then they would be compliant. What's so difficult about that?
Surely not voting means that you do not accept any government that may be elected. Voting indicates that you accept the elected government even when you may have voted for someone else. Voting also validates the voting system and signifies your agreement with it. It's unfortunate that not voting is seen as laziness rather than civil disobedience.
You can't always choose your ISP. In the UK, cable connections only service some areas and everywhere else you pretty much have to use BT's telephone cables. If BT decides to throttle bandwidth usage at the exchanges - how can I choose a different supplier?
Isn't this due to the different amount of space on a dvd vs blu-ray? The Blu-ray disc can easily hold a couple of different formats for the film, whereas the dvd can't.
I hope this developer never sells any copies - he is equating piracy with destroying people's information. If you pirate some software, you don't deprive the developer of his copy of he software (or source code), so why deprive the pirates of their own files? I know the argument of each pirated copy is a lost sale, but that blatantly isn't true. I hope this guy gets sued.
I was kinda being facetious, but just for the hell of it, here's how I would interpret it.
"Do" would mean a physical action - thinking or speaking evil would not be counted.
"No" - none.
"Evil" would have to be defined by a consensus of the population (either the whole population for consideration of broad classifications or a subsection for more detailed cases e.g. a jury of twelve). Either religious or secularist viewpoints can be valid depending on the type of society. Letting a single judge be the sole arbitrator of whether an act is evil would most certainly be problematic, but if a society decides that drinking alcohol is evil, then you would have to be careful about drinking there (or move elsewhere). Generally, the difference between a "bad" act or an "evil" act has to be measured by its effect with society deciding on the relevant punishments.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm waiting for the next version of Nobilis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobilis
Whenever I've gone to a bank, they just wear suits and business clothes. Why is the wardrobe department involved with this? I'm confused.
The point is that the transmission system that the BBC used was capable of being received by multiple receivers at the time (see http://sydenham.org.uk/john_logie_baird_00.html). In 1936, there were two competing transmission methods (Baird and Marconi-EMI), but there were seven different receivers available (if you were rich) - see http://www.tvhistory.tv/1935-1941.htm for a selection of manufacturers. This completely contrasts with current situation where the transmission method is heavily encumbered and is wholly owned by a convicted monopolist. I don't see how Microsoft's DRM is considered the standard for DRM when it isn't even clearly documented - it cannot be a standard when only one company can implement it. Looking to the future, I don't see how I will be able to receive iPlayer broadcasts on a variety of devices (PSP, mobile phones, watches etc) if it's controlled by Microsoft, however I can easily use RealPlayer on a variety of devices. I agree that there isn't a decent cross-platform DRM solution, but surely that's because DRM is a doomed idea. As a British citizen, I want my BBC license fee to be used for the creation of culture, not the locking down of it.
The hospitals deserve to be in a tight spot/go out of business if they make such a poor decision about suppliers. If they bought some cheap syringes that gave everyone blood poisoning, they should be held accountable - why not hold them accountable for buying rubbish software?
Surely the BBC have used STANDARDS in the past. Even though Marconi EMI was the only manufacturer at one time, other manufacturers could at least implement the standard (and they did - there now exist plenty of choices). Windows DRM is NOT a standard - no-one else can implement it unless they allowed to by Microsoft. This is quite clearly a case of the BBC getting into bed with Microsoft and ignoring the use of standards. This isn't about playing ball - this is about the BBC insisting that everyone use Microsoft's ball.
Hello? Bletchley Park anyone?
Surely if you make a mistake and forget to publish a piece of source code, you get the chance to rectify that mistake before the case goes to court. All it would take would be for the guilty party to upload a copy of the relevant source code onto a web site and then they would be compliant. What's so difficult about that?
He's got many secrets http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/fact/726
Most Insightful Post Ever!
How did the parent get modded Offtopic?
What about online sales? Will Amazon have to activate it's dvds when they are picking the order or will they just buy in ordinary dvds?
They have GOD lawyers now?
I thought Windoze was supposed to be easy to use?
I thought it wasn't illegal because of the blank media tax?
What kind of movie is 13GB? You're not trying to play HD on a PSP are you?
Surely not voting means that you do not accept any government that may be elected. Voting indicates that you accept the elected government even when you may have voted for someone else. Voting also validates the voting system and signifies your agreement with it. It's unfortunate that not voting is seen as laziness rather than civil disobedience.
You can't always choose your ISP. In the UK, cable connections only service some areas and everywhere else you pretty much have to use BT's telephone cables. If BT decides to throttle bandwidth usage at the exchanges - how can I choose a different supplier?
Yes - it's just a coincidence
Isn't this due to the different amount of space on a dvd vs blu-ray? The Blu-ray disc can easily hold a couple of different formats for the film, whereas the dvd can't.
Shouldn't it be 1:59am? Surely 1:59pm is actually 13:59?
I hope this developer never sells any copies - he is equating piracy with destroying people's information. If you pirate some software, you don't deprive the developer of his copy of he software (or source code), so why deprive the pirates of their own files? I know the argument of each pirated copy is a lost sale, but that blatantly isn't true. I hope this guy gets sued.
LOL
I was kinda being facetious, but just for the hell of it, here's how I would interpret it. "Do" would mean a physical action - thinking or speaking evil would not be counted. "No" - none. "Evil" would have to be defined by a consensus of the population (either the whole population for consideration of broad classifications or a subsection for more detailed cases e.g. a jury of twelve). Either religious or secularist viewpoints can be valid depending on the type of society. Letting a single judge be the sole arbitrator of whether an act is evil would most certainly be problematic, but if a society decides that drinking alcohol is evil, then you would have to be careful about drinking there (or move elsewhere). Generally, the difference between a "bad" act or an "evil" act has to be measured by its effect with society deciding on the relevant punishments.
How about: Do no evil.
http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/