On the contrary, like Langdon alludes, I hear or see something, pop a few words into Google to do a search, next thing you know my bookshelf, real oak(!), is jamb packed with books.
Wow. I'd like to have that printer. Where'd you get it?
Okay this whole DVD decoding thing got started over the ruse that there was no playback device for linux neccessitating decoding and ripping in order to play them. It's a ludicrously lame argument but let's ignore that.
Three errors in one very short paragraph.
Wanting to play DVDs on Linux -- or, in general, not having to have an OS anointed by the Holy Fathers of DRM in order to watch them -- is not ridiculous, it's not a "ruse", and it's not the only legitimate reason for wanting to be able to decode DVDs.
When you shell out $20 or more for a DVD or a set of DVDs, you are not paying for the right to watch it on officially sanctioned platforms. You are buying it and obtaining the right to watch it whenever you want, wherever you want, and in whatever way you want (including a backup copy and/or a homebrew platform).
Hehe, that's great. It's amazing how few people actually take advantage of that option when they are faced with being screwed over.
I was one of those people, until DirecTV stole $300 from me and showed no sign of giving it back. Sometimes it takes an experience like that to educate you.
My mom had the same experience. She placed a $800 camera order and was called that day to "confirm her address", at which point they proceeded to try and sell her a $150 warranty and other expensive accessories. Once she refused, they suddenly informed her the product was out of stock, but they later said they could get it to her by Friday if she paid for a $150 warranty. She tried to cancel and they said there would be a $40 restocking fee (for restocking the product they didn't have).
To which my response would be: "Hm. That's more than twice what my bank charges for a Stop Payment."
I agree that point (3) is a problem. Points (1) and (2) are technological issues that can be solved with time.
(1) perhaps, but not (2). Adversaries will always adjust tactics to route around defensive systems. The very best that anyone can hope to accomplish with a missile defense system is to make ICBMs obsolete as a delivery method for nuclear weapons. In which case, someone wishing to launch a nuclear attack will just find a better way to deliver the warheads -- whether with earth-hugging stealth cruise missiles, or by smuggling them across the border on ships, trucks, and airplanes.
If anything, 9/11 proved that big, fancy, expensive SDI systems are even more pointless today than they were in the '80s.
Yes, most problems come from Flash and this is a MAJOR bug because more and more website are designed around flash. There's one thing I don't understand though... why don't you use links instead of Firefox if you don't need all that fancy stuff?
There's a rather big difference between "I don't like Flash" and "I don't like anything other than text".
I enjoy graphical web pages, DHTML, AJAX, and all that other nice stuff (when it's done right). I just don't like Flash. I think it's pointless.
I'm curious about this. I hear a lot of people talk about FF's memory leaks, but I have not had any noticeable problems, and I've used every version from pre-1.0 up to 1.5RC3. I will often leave my browser running all day and overnight, sometimes with multiple tabs open, and I rarely notice significant performance hits. Perhaps the people who experience these problems are doing things that I do not.
However, I do use Adblock (and, more recently, Flashblock) quite extensively to exterminate any graphical/Flash ad banners that I encounter. Could this be the reason I'm not experiencing memory trouble?
If so, then I (just for myself personally, not speaking for others) would classify this as a minor bug. I have no use for Flash. None at all. The one and only thing I have found it to be good at is providing cute and amusing web-based games -- which, admittedly, is nice these days because it entertains my little boy. But if I can avoid 95% of the Flash content on the web (unfortunately, some developers insist on using it for essential features like site navigation) I'll be happy -- and if doing so curtails my browser's most significant bug, all the better.
The reason people like products released as Betas, is because it's the most honest software companies ever get about their products. It's pretty much as simple as that; Beta implies under-constant-improvement, and even I as a consumer don't mind imperfect software, as long as the company will at least advise me it's been released in Beta - under construction.
True, but the problem with this is that, if it is over-used, the term loses all meaning. The whole point of a "beta" period is that, at some point in the foreseeable future, the product is expected to move into a "production" phase. This doesn't mean, of course, that it is completely finished and requires no more improvement. Even the most naive computer user today knows better than that. But when all (or at least the largest) developers leave their product in eternal beta mode, then eventually "beta" will mean nothing.
Yes, won't someone please think of the jobs this would create? Heck I can see it now, I'll be adding a new bullet point to my resume - "Available immediately (not in jail)"
The increases in efficiency will be staggering once all resumes can be reduced to a single bit.
Then our society will be divided into two classes: (1) those in jail, and (2) those who aren't in jail yet.
More accurately:
Those in jail
Those who build and work in jails
An added benefit of this structure is that it makes it very easy to move an individual from class (2) to class (1). Plus Wal-Mart will have a whole new market to branch out into, and something to add to their Superstores.
The reseller, Disclic, is legally allowed to sell the licenses at a discounted rate of between 20 percent to 50 percent, much lower than Microsoft's resellers.
That's why they're so cheap. They lick all of the discs before mailing them to you.
Of course Philip Morris says there's no safe cigarette. They don't want to invest the money to make their cigarettes safer...
Even more importantly, marketing a "safe" cigarette would necessarily imply that all other cigarrettes -- the cigarrettes they've been selling for decades -- are "unsafe". And they've been doing everything they can to deny that blindingly obvious fact.
Why not go to the source? Pass a law requiring that all WAPs have sufficient security built in and easy to configure? Require all OSs on computers sold in the state to meet a certain level of security?
We've reached an interesting point in our society. The proliferation of advanced information and networking technology has made it such that any person who wants to be part of the "revolution" has to either become a semi-expert on OS and networking technology, or be part of the problem. Nobody wants to be responsible for security breaches, DDOSs, or Spam deluges -- they just don't have the time or the ability to educate themselves on how to prevent it. If legislators start placing a burden on those users to be responsible for such things, what is most likely to happen is that people will just stay away from the technology for fear of inadvertently breaking the law. Why not place that burden where it belongs, on the people who do have the knowledge and skill to increase security -- the manufacturers and software developers?
On the flipside, recording artists and the companies that represent them have an expectation that their work is compensated, and that "legal" means to protect their interests be respected. I'm not arguing for the DMCA here, however it _IS_ law. By removing the Sony-installed malware, Mark has broken the law.
I don't think it's so clear-cut, even strictly within the bounds of the DMCA. Yes, he disabled their DRM by removing the malware, but that does not count as "circumventing" the DRM (the real issue under the DMCA as I understand it) because it doesn't get him any closer to being able to copy the content of the CD.
Of course, as you say, this is one of those legal Heisenberg zones that will not take on a definite value until/unless it is determined in a court of law.
I guess I don't see the 'crisis' in this other than these people were low-level, non-violent offenders. If a software glitch had let a Ted Bundy out for another killing spree, I would probably be more concerned.
I think the point is that, if a software glitch lets a Ted Bundy type out for another killing spree, it's a little too late to be concerned. Better that we hear about it now, when the only consequence is an extra month of freedom for a petty forger.
Well, if I may throw some straw on the fire.. I think the point is that in the West we're a bunch of spoiled babies who have no concept of what it means to suffer. We complain about taxes (that build roads, fund schools, feed people etc) that we actually can pay, while others starve with nothing and barely even clothes on their backs.
All true. And (full disclosure here) I am sometimes guilty of the same, and sometimes feel like a schmuck when I compare the things I whine about with the things that people in other parts of the world have to tolerate.
But none of that means that a company should not be held to task for knowingly selling a defective product -- even a luxury item. (Assuming, of course, that they did -- which I do not have an opinion on at this point).
I guess the real question is this: should a society ever reach a point where people say "OK, that's good enough! We have nothing to complain about anymore!", or should people continue to point out problems and try to correct them, even if those complaints seem trivial and childish compared to the problems other societies face? I tend to believe the latter. Nothing is ever perfect, and there is always room for improvement.
Or I could just be wasting all of my time waxing philosophical about a case involving a shiny gadget that I can't even afford.
Slashdot Mirror
Now how accusing someone of being a murderer counts as "subtle political jab"? It's slander and auhtor should be held responsible for it.
Sounds to me like he was. From his Wikipedia entry:
On the contrary, like Langdon alludes, I hear or see something, pop a few words into Google to do a search, next thing you know my bookshelf, real oak(!), is jamb packed with books.
Wow. I'd like to have that printer. Where'd you get it?
THIS RECIPE LICENSED UNDER THE GPL.
Great. Now I won't be able to drink it while using MS Word.
Okay this whole DVD decoding thing got started over the ruse that there was no playback device for linux neccessitating decoding and ripping in order to play them. It's a ludicrously lame argument but let's ignore that.
Three errors in one very short paragraph.
Wanting to play DVDs on Linux -- or, in general, not having to have an OS anointed by the Holy Fathers of DRM in order to watch them -- is not ridiculous, it's not a "ruse", and it's not the only legitimate reason for wanting to be able to decode DVDs.
When you shell out $20 or more for a DVD or a set of DVDs, you are not paying for the right to watch it on officially sanctioned platforms. You are buying it and obtaining the right to watch it whenever you want, wherever you want, and in whatever way you want (including a backup copy and/or a homebrew platform).
I do know that the open-source liquor industry has gone way downhill since Prohibition was lifted.
Oh come on... Why keep up the pretence of being 'editors' if you don't even fix stupid mistakes like it's versus its?
Uh...
Never mind.
Hehe, that's great. It's amazing how few people actually take advantage of that option when they are faced with being screwed over.
I was one of those people, until DirecTV stole $300 from me and showed no sign of giving it back. Sometimes it takes an experience like that to educate you.
My mom had the same experience. She placed a $800 camera order and was called that day to "confirm her address", at which point they proceeded to try and sell her a $150 warranty and other expensive accessories. Once she refused, they suddenly informed her the product was out of stock, but they later said they could get it to her by Friday if she paid for a $150 warranty. She tried to cancel and they said there would be a $40 restocking fee (for restocking the product they didn't have).
To which my response would be: "Hm. That's more than twice what my bank charges for a Stop Payment."
I agree that point (3) is a problem. Points (1) and (2) are technological issues that can be solved with time.
(1) perhaps, but not (2). Adversaries will always adjust tactics to route around defensive systems. The very best that anyone can hope to accomplish with a missile defense system is to make ICBMs obsolete as a delivery method for nuclear weapons. In which case, someone wishing to launch a nuclear attack will just find a better way to deliver the warheads -- whether with earth-hugging stealth cruise missiles, or by smuggling them across the border on ships, trucks, and airplanes.
If anything, 9/11 proved that big, fancy, expensive SDI systems are even more pointless today than they were in the '80s.
Yes, most problems come from Flash and this is a MAJOR bug because more and more website are designed around flash. There's one thing I don't understand though... why don't you use links instead of Firefox if you don't need all that fancy stuff?
There's a rather big difference between "I don't like Flash" and "I don't like anything other than text".
I enjoy graphical web pages, DHTML, AJAX, and all that other nice stuff (when it's done right). I just don't like Flash. I think it's pointless.
I'm curious about this. I hear a lot of people talk about FF's memory leaks, but I have not had any noticeable problems, and I've used every version from pre-1.0 up to 1.5RC3. I will often leave my browser running all day and overnight, sometimes with multiple tabs open, and I rarely notice significant performance hits. Perhaps the people who experience these problems are doing things that I do not.
However, I do use Adblock (and, more recently, Flashblock) quite extensively to exterminate any graphical/Flash ad banners that I encounter. Could this be the reason I'm not experiencing memory trouble?
If so, then I (just for myself personally, not speaking for others) would classify this as a minor bug. I have no use for Flash. None at all. The one and only thing I have found it to be good at is providing cute and amusing web-based games -- which, admittedly, is nice these days because it entertains my little boy. But if I can avoid 95% of the Flash content on the web (unfortunately, some developers insist on using it for essential features like site navigation) I'll be happy -- and if doing so curtails my browser's most significant bug, all the better.
This kind of stuff is always an oversimplification. We are going to see these things forever.
That's absurd. I think it's very likely that the heat death of the universe will put a stop to it.
The reason people like products released as Betas, is because it's the most honest software companies ever get about their products. It's pretty much as simple as that; Beta implies under-constant-improvement, and even I as a consumer don't mind imperfect software, as long as the company will at least advise me it's been released in Beta - under construction.
True, but the problem with this is that, if it is over-used, the term loses all meaning. The whole point of a "beta" period is that, at some point in the foreseeable future, the product is expected to move into a "production" phase. This doesn't mean, of course, that it is completely finished and requires no more improvement. Even the most naive computer user today knows better than that. But when all (or at least the largest) developers leave their product in eternal beta mode, then eventually "beta" will mean nothing.
What exactly are "pirate stimulating late-night conversations?" and why would I want to have them?
I don't know for sure, but from the sound of it this might be a good way to fight global warming.
Yes, won't someone please think of the jobs this would create? Heck I can see it now, I'll be adding a new bullet point to my resume - "Available immediately (not in jail)"
The increases in efficiency will be staggering once all resumes can be reduced to a single bit.
Simpler yet: just lock everyone inside a Walmart Superstore!
No, that's only for the illegal immigrants.
Then our society will be divided into two classes: (1) those in jail, and (2) those who aren't in jail yet.
More accurately:
An added benefit of this structure is that it makes it very easy to move an individual from class (2) to class (1). Plus Wal-Mart will have a whole new market to branch out into, and something to add to their Superstores.
Ohmy God; can we please get back to the current topic? And try to conduct yourselves with a little more dignity.
The reseller, Disclic, is legally allowed to sell the licenses at a discounted rate of between 20 percent to 50 percent, much lower than Microsoft's resellers.
That's why they're so cheap. They lick all of the discs before mailing them to you.
Of course Philip Morris says there's no safe cigarette. They don't want to invest the money to make their cigarettes safer...
Even more importantly, marketing a "safe" cigarette would necessarily imply that all other cigarrettes -- the cigarrettes they've been selling for decades -- are "unsafe". And they've been doing everything they can to deny that blindingly obvious fact.
Why not go to the source? Pass a law requiring that all WAPs have sufficient security built in and easy to configure? Require all OSs on computers sold in the state to meet a certain level of security?
We've reached an interesting point in our society. The proliferation of advanced information and networking technology has made it such that any person who wants to be part of the "revolution" has to either become a semi-expert on OS and networking technology, or be part of the problem. Nobody wants to be responsible for security breaches, DDOSs, or Spam deluges -- they just don't have the time or the ability to educate themselves on how to prevent it. If legislators start placing a burden on those users to be responsible for such things, what is most likely to happen is that people will just stay away from the technology for fear of inadvertently breaking the law. Why not place that burden where it belongs, on the people who do have the knowledge and skill to increase security -- the manufacturers and software developers?
On the flipside, recording artists and the companies that represent them have an expectation that their work is compensated, and that "legal" means to protect their interests be respected. I'm not arguing for the DMCA here, however it _IS_ law. By removing the Sony-installed malware, Mark has broken the law.
I don't think it's so clear-cut, even strictly within the bounds of the DMCA. Yes, he disabled their DRM by removing the malware, but that does not count as "circumventing" the DRM (the real issue under the DMCA as I understand it) because it doesn't get him any closer to being able to copy the content of the CD.
Of course, as you say, this is one of those legal Heisenberg zones that will not take on a definite value until/unless it is determined in a court of law.
Do your credit cards tell you how to spend your money?
Mine do. Usually in urgent, seductive whispers.
I guess I don't see the 'crisis' in this other than these people were low-level, non-violent offenders. If a software glitch had let a Ted Bundy out for another killing spree, I would probably be more concerned.
I think the point is that, if a software glitch lets a Ted Bundy type out for another killing spree, it's a little too late to be concerned. Better that we hear about it now, when the only consequence is an extra month of freedom for a petty forger.
Well, if I may throw some straw on the fire.. I think the point is that in the West we're a bunch of spoiled babies who have no concept of what it means to suffer. We complain about taxes (that build roads, fund schools, feed people etc) that we actually can pay, while others starve with nothing and barely even clothes on their backs.
All true. And (full disclosure here) I am sometimes guilty of the same, and sometimes feel like a schmuck when I compare the things I whine about with the things that people in other parts of the world have to tolerate.
But none of that means that a company should not be held to task for knowingly selling a defective product -- even a luxury item. (Assuming, of course, that they did -- which I do not have an opinion on at this point).
I guess the real question is this: should a society ever reach a point where people say "OK, that's good enough! We have nothing to complain about anymore!", or should people continue to point out problems and try to correct them, even if those complaints seem trivial and childish compared to the problems other societies face? I tend to believe the latter. Nothing is ever perfect, and there is always room for improvement.
Or I could just be wasting all of my time waxing philosophical about a case involving a shiny gadget that I can't even afford.