Do you know of any DRM that actually works? What's going to stop those videos from being ripped and viewed for longer than 7 days, even if they do have DRM applied?
Part of the requirements they have, due to copyright restrictions, is that the videos can only be viewed for 7 days after they've been downloaded
But those requirements don't make any sense. Anybody can record the broadcast signal, and keep that footage for as long as they like. What's the difference? The BBC should be standing up to copyright holders, and most of all, arguing for common sense - not caving to stupidity. Yes, I know stupidity rules the day, but traditionally the BBC has stood against stupidity, and for intelligence and common sense.
Actors, writers and other contributors often have contracts with clauses that give them residual rights. Again, this means that each kind of use for the programmes must be negotiated, often with unions such as Equity. If a programme makes use of archive or library footage, or material from a wire service, then the rights to use that material must also be negotiated.
But why would this necessitate DRM? The exact same intellectual property (music, writing, actors, etc) is broadcast without DRM by the BBC over the airwaves. So, if it requires DRM for web distribution, then why doesn't it require DRM for broadcast distribution?
It seems that the choices were: "launch now for the majority of our users that is easy to implement, and follow up later with a solution that works for everyone" or "screw it, make everyone wait".
What? There are plenty of cross-platform, Open video CODECs. So why didn't they simply choose "Screw Microsoft, we'll release it for everybody now, and save lots of money and time"? I'm not aware of any difficulty in implementing cross-platform solutions - in fact it would be easier than using proprietary rubbish.
DSLR prices have fallen *drastically* in the past few years- four or so years ago, they were closer to UK £2000, three years ago they were still hovering around the £1000 mark. It's only in the past couple of years that they've really fallen to the sub-£400 level of late-1990s film SLRs that Joe Public could (or is willing) pay.
That's certainly true. But what caused it? One thing that intrigues me about still photography is that there is serious competition over quality in a way that hardly seems to exist elsewhere in the consumer electronics industry. Are Nikon and Canon just "special" companies? They really seem to make products with the user in mind - innovating in both technology and usability. While in other areas you get competition on price, and on paper specs, but rarely the whole experience. And still SLRs, even inexpensive ones, are built to last. Is it just the demand of the market? I don't see who one of the video camera manufacturers couldn't do a similar thing.
Three things to consider; firstly, I think videography is now approaching a state where the basic sensor and electronics won't cost any more than those used for still photography.... but it's not quite there yet.
I don't see why the sensor and electronics would cost any more than a still camera anyway. I don't really know, but I would have thought they'd already be cheaper. The only part that seems it would cost more is the complex mechanical tape mechanism. However, with video storage moving to flash memory and hard drives, that point is moot, anyway. And on the other side, still cameras require a mechanically complex reflex mirror, pentaprism and shutter combo. So, I don't really understand how they make still cameras that are cheap, and also built a lot more sturdily than video cameras that cost a lot more. My only conclusion is that the video camera manufacturers don't give a shit - or that video camera consumers will put up with crap, and not demand higher standards.
But filmmaking is inherently an altogether more involved business, and even if the cameras cost next to nothing, you're still going to need a moderately expensive setup- and likely quite a few people- to shoot footage that actually looks professional.
Well yes, but then there are millions of schools in the world, where labor is not at a shortage, where they'd like to invest time and skill in production, but simply can't afford the gear. But I guess we live in a world where people actually shoot video footage with their (shudder) cellphone, and in which consumers are fooled into buying those garbage memory-stick cameras which are designed to look like a real DV camera.
And although a scripted production might take a lot of planning and effort, small improvements in gear still make a big difference to casual videography. Your video of toddler's first steps, or of a children's birthday party is going to be massively better if you simply use a tripod, and a wide-aperture lens. It would be like night and day - transforming something unwatchable and nauseating into something tolerable. For the love of god, why do so many people think they don't need a tripod with their video camera?
I think you're missing the point. It's not about having "SLR" video cameras. It's about having affordable HD video cameras in a similar segment to the affordable still digital cameras we have now. You can get inexpensive digital SLRs that allow full manual control, interchangeable lenses and excellent ergonomics. However, if you want an affordable digital video camera, you are stuck with a totally "integrated" device that you can't change the lenses on, has shitty ergonomics, and any manual controls (if present) are accessed through lame touch-screen menus. If you want a video camera that you have much control over, you have to fork out big bucks for professional models.
In still photography, you have these affordable SLRs that are modular (at least in terms of lenses) and give you total manual control. Of course, you can buy a top-of-the-line pro camera like the Nikon D3 - but they usually don't offer that much more than the inexpensive ones. For 99% of photographers, a Nikon D40 or D70 does the job fine. Most of the difference comes from the quality of the lens (and photographer), anyway. You can use the same lens on a cheap DSLR, or an expensive one and get much the same results. But if you want a decent lens on the video camera, it's hard to get. You are usually stuck with the built-in piece of crap. This is where the video camera companies are falling behind. They charge a ridiculous premium for things like interchangeable lenses, which is much higher than the cost differential of manufacturing it.
the result is that a video camera is a comparatively bad investment. When your DLSR body becomes obsolete, you can still use your nice collection of lenses. When your digital video camera dies or becomes obsolete, you have to chuck the whole thing.
Only to the extent they prevent violence. Which by definition is only to the extent they enable free trade.
Sorry, you're fucking insane. What does free trade have to do with preventing violence? "By definition"? Give me a fucking break. It's entirely possible to be free of violence without having any free trade.
But that's entirely arbitrary, and circular logic. Why should a drug be illegal, just because it is illegal? Many illegal drugs are relatively harmless, while many currently legal drugs are very dangerous. Why do you believe that alcohol should be legal, but marijuana should be illegal - when alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana? And how do you propose to make tobacco illegal? That would cause rioting in the streets!
I understand the whole, legalize and regulate mantra but the things you regulate will just cause black markets of their own where you can get unregulated drugs so that doesn't work.
Except that's not how it actually works in practicality. Nobody buys their alcohol from moonshiners. Nobody buys homemade Prozac or Viagra, they get it from a regulated pharmaceutical company. Where is this massive black market in inregulated alcohol and pharmaceuticals?
Should we legalize Slavery and regulate that?
Huge difference. You choose to consume drugs of your own free will. You are making a decision about your own body. Slavery, by definition, is loss of freedom, and having somebody decide for you, without your consent. You could not have chosen a more inappropriate analogy.
The solution to all of the World's evils are not to legalize them.
Except drugs are not "evil" and cannot be. They are inanimate substances, they do not have consciousness or the ability to make decisions. Evil requires conscious intent - in other words it is an attribute of humans - not of substances.
So law enforcement does not want more laws to enforce; they want less.
Most of the decent cops actually to want legalization. The problem is that the police forces are riddled with corrupt cops who get kickbacks from the drug trade, so it's in their interest to continue prohibition.
I think that Driving around while high on Methanphetamines is a little more dangerous then speeding. There is no way Drugs should ever be legalized, period.
But the fact that methamphetamines are illegal is not stopping anybody from driving around while high. So, how is the law helping anything, or making anybody safer?
BTW, what do you mean by "Drugs" (with a capital D, no less)? You talk as if they are all the same. So, aspirin should be made illegal? Alcohol should be made illegal? What do you mean?
If you vote to rob your neighbors' property, that is violence. That is by definition "forcing people to do things".
But taxation is not theft. The government issues the currency in the first place, so when it comes to economics, you never really owned anything. You decided to become involved in the system by using government-issued currency. If you oppose that, you should form your own currency, or only trade in commodities like grain and gold.
This is irrefutable government violence which causes poverty, which forcefully robs people.
But without government, you would be even poorer. There wouldn't be an economy. Someone who is stronger or has a bigger army would just work you as a slave, or take your property and rape your wife. Generally, governments enable wealth. They create law and order, and build public infrastructure like roads, without which, trade would be very difficult.
That is, unless they are corrupted. And that corruption typically comes from people seeking profits and wealth.
Re:"Destroyed the Music Business?" WTF??! OMG Poni
on
NBC Chief Slamming Apple
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You're an idiot if you think people wouldn't grow food, or engage in any business activity whatsoever, if it wasn't for government mandated direction.
Nice strawman, because I never said anything like that. The country was facing crisis, people were starving in the streets. There were very few jobs. The social programs changed that, and allowed us to get back to a point where economic wellbeing was possible. How do you think those starving people would have started their own business in those consditions?
Forcing others to spend money on things they are not voluntarily willing to choose makes them worse off then when people voluntarily spend money on things they voluntarily willingly choose.
Who said anything about forcing people to do things? They voted for FDR, didn't they? And his measures were very popular. Personally, I think letting people starve in the streets is much worse.
Pretending people who are robbed are better off from being robbed is pure fantasy.
What's with you and the crazy strawmen? When did I ever imply that people being robbed is good or better than anything?
."Science" is just a misnomer for "best guess at present" given unknown variables which may or may not exist.
Wheras "economics" is just making shit up in an attempt to get rich and manipulate others.
You don't want a nation of unproductive slobs concerned with little more than their next fix and damaged by repeated chemical abuse.
But drug abuse has actually increased since drugs were made illegal. So that doesn't seem to be stopping anyone from being unproductive.
You don't want a nation of unproductive slobs concerned with little more than their next fix and damaged by repeated chemical abuse.
I don't know anybody who would decide to try addictive drugs just because they became legal. Either they are already using the drugs illegally, or they would never try them in the first place.
Ever seen 15 year old kids drinking their parents' beer in a park, or smoking, or hanging around outside the local liquor store giving people $20 to buy them alcohol?
The difference is that the kids are drinking beer and other alcoholic drinks that are quality-controlled, subject to inspection of health authorities, with a regulated amount of alcohol in them. They aren't drinking rubbing alcohol, they aren't drinking moonshine made in a bathtub that will make them blind. So, the negative consequences are minimized. It works exactly the same with drugs. Today kids do use drugs, but they are using the equivalent of moonshine - highly variable, unpredictable stuff that could be adulterated with who-knows-what. Better that they are on the legally regulated pharmaceutical-quality stuff, rather than what comes from a random "meth lab" in a trailerpark.
And what regulations would you propose that wouldn't be tantamount to making the drugs illegal?
Health and safety regulations, age restrictions. These are both applied to alcohol, and nobody considers alcohol illegal because of them.
No. I think it is hilarious how people somehow think it is logical to say that a response to a problem is the cause of said problem.
But the war on drugs is not a response to a problem. Drugs were made illegal because of racist propaganda and the desire of DuPont to replace hemp fibre with synthetics like nylon.
Even if all controlled substances were legal do you think people would just start paying taxes on their purchases of crack cocaine when they haven't had to for all this time?
But they already do - drugs being illegal make them thousands of times more costly than what they would cost on an open market. That's why drug-related crime would be a problem. Besides, I don't remember saying anything about taxes. You could always grow your own.
Do you really think Crack Cocaine belongs on the streets?
It's not a question of whether it "belongs" there - the fact is that if people want to use something, they will do it regardless of the law.
Do you think that Children will not be able to aquire Crack Cocaine once it's price has plummeted?
If cocaine were legalized, then why would you choose crack cocaine, when you could get quality powder cocaine for cheap prices? People use crack because it's cheaper than the expensive powder cocaine. Without the black market pushing up prices, there'd be less of a market for crack.
Or maybe you prefer our kids to have Black Tar Heroine?
No, but kids can get it if they want now. Having it illegal is not going to change that. Especially as children are usually considered too young to jail. So what difference would it make to them? With drugs being illegal, pushers have an incentive to push heroin onto people, because it is profitable. If there aren't those black-market profits, there wouldn't be any incentive for dealers to promote hard drugs. And once again, heroin is like crack. Under a legal system, you could just smoke opium instead - much healthier. Heroin exists because it gets more bang for the buck than opium, because of the high prices created by the black market.
I for one don't want to deal with my neighbor dancing around my condo complex naked and screaming because he took some PCP and is having a bad trip.
How does drugs being illegal stop that? People do that now. Except we have overcrowded prisons, and drug addicts won't seek rehabilitation or medical treatment for their problem, because of fear of jail if they are honest about their habit.
I transcode tons of stuff. The only things that
have ever given me any sorts of problems are
attempts to convert from NTSC -> PAL sync rates.
But most of the free tools have problems with some of the newer copy protection schemes - such as the ones on newer Sony discs. Slysoft is almost always the first to support cracking of new protection schemes.
Anyone that pays $80 to rip DVD's is an idiot.
Anybody who doesn't see the value in paying for good software and saving time and headaches is a bigger idiot. What you don't seem to realize is that AnyDVD is not just for ripping, it works seamlessly for playing DVDs with copy protection (in any application) and overriding blocks on skipping unwanted content, etc. It also gives a very nice, detailed analysis of the discs, too. Perhaps you shouldn't knock it until you've tried it?
FDR, by forcefully taxing and mandating where wealth would be put to use (ala the welfare social security system), actually destroyed the wealth which would have been created from free market voluntary trade
But he saved the country. Without his social plan, there wouldn't be an American economy to speak of - and the Americans would not have been able to enjoy the lifestyle that allows them to come up with new ideas and businesses.
Don't believe the false tripe masquerading as economic scientific knowledge you will find in most history books.
Economics is not a science. If anything is "tripe," it's most economic textbooks.
All I'm saying is that before you say that the US is evil and wrong for torturing information out of *people who want to kill us all*, you might look at the part where they are trying to get this information out of *people that want us all dead*.
But in many cases they aren't. They're just torturing people who are the wrong race, or in the wrong place at the wrong time. And so far, none of this has achieved any useful results, except making the US even more hated.
Absolutely. That's the job of our nation. To safeguard it's people.
how does torturing thousands of people safeguard the nation or its people? It just puts it in greater danger.
Where do you get off saying there's no evidence it would save even one life?
Because there is none. There is no recorded evidence of torture saving any lives, only destroying them.
This is where things get way out into left field.
The beliefs of the terrorists are pretty much this:
* Americans don't believe in the koran.
* We must kill all americans
But how do you know the person you are torturing is a terrorist? There's plenty of evidence that many of the people tortured or imprisoned in the "war against terror" are no terrorists or connected with them.
Even if it means using torture to get information that will prevent the deaths of those who *ARE RIGHT* by those who *ARE WRONG*.
but once you torture, you are not "right" any more. You have become the enemy.
There isn't a nice fuzzy gray area that most people on the left seem to love. There is a right, and a wrong.
That seems to be what you are avoiding. Torture is never right. By engaging in it, you remove any moral high ground you might claim. If you truly believe in liberty and justice, you must apply the same to your enemy. You are the one trying to make a gray area of what is a bright line between right and wrong. Good people don't torture, only evil people do.
Similarly, a child is vastly more likely to get backed into by their own parent's SUV than run over by someone flying through a school zone at twice the speed limit.
Slashdot Mirror
P.S:
Do you know of any DRM that actually works? What's going to stop those videos from being ripped and viewed for longer than 7 days, even if they do have DRM applied?
But those requirements don't make any sense. Anybody can record the broadcast signal, and keep that footage for as long as they like. What's the difference? The BBC should be standing up to copyright holders, and most of all, arguing for common sense - not caving to stupidity. Yes, I know stupidity rules the day, but traditionally the BBC has stood against stupidity, and for intelligence and common sense.
But why would this necessitate DRM? The exact same intellectual property (music, writing, actors, etc) is broadcast without DRM by the BBC over the airwaves. So, if it requires DRM for web distribution, then why doesn't it require DRM for broadcast distribution?
What? There are plenty of cross-platform, Open video CODECs. So why didn't they simply choose "Screw Microsoft, we'll release it for everybody now, and save lots of money and time"? I'm not aware of any difficulty in implementing cross-platform solutions - in fact it would be easier than using proprietary rubbish.
That's certainly true. But what caused it? One thing that intrigues me about still photography is that there is serious competition over quality in a way that hardly seems to exist elsewhere in the consumer electronics industry. Are Nikon and Canon just "special" companies? They really seem to make products with the user in mind - innovating in both technology and usability. While in other areas you get competition on price, and on paper specs, but rarely the whole experience. And still SLRs, even inexpensive ones, are built to last. Is it just the demand of the market? I don't see who one of the video camera manufacturers couldn't do a similar thing.
Three things to consider; firstly, I think videography is now approaching a state where the basic sensor and electronics won't cost any more than those used for still photography.... but it's not quite there yet.I don't see why the sensor and electronics would cost any more than a still camera anyway. I don't really know, but I would have thought they'd already be cheaper. The only part that seems it would cost more is the complex mechanical tape mechanism. However, with video storage moving to flash memory and hard drives, that point is moot, anyway. And on the other side, still cameras require a mechanically complex reflex mirror, pentaprism and shutter combo. So, I don't really understand how they make still cameras that are cheap, and also built a lot more sturdily than video cameras that cost a lot more. My only conclusion is that the video camera manufacturers don't give a shit - or that video camera consumers will put up with crap, and not demand higher standards.
But filmmaking is inherently an altogether more involved business, and even if the cameras cost next to nothing, you're still going to need a moderately expensive setup- and likely quite a few people- to shoot footage that actually looks professional.Well yes, but then there are millions of schools in the world, where labor is not at a shortage, where they'd like to invest time and skill in production, but simply can't afford the gear. But I guess we live in a world where people actually shoot video footage with their (shudder) cellphone, and in which consumers are fooled into buying those garbage memory-stick cameras which are designed to look like a real DV camera.
And although a scripted production might take a lot of planning and effort, small improvements in gear still make a big difference to casual videography. Your video of toddler's first steps, or of a children's birthday party is going to be massively better if you simply use a tripod, and a wide-aperture lens. It would be like night and day - transforming something unwatchable and nauseating into something tolerable. For the love of god, why do so many people think they don't need a tripod with their video camera?
I think you're missing the point. It's not about having "SLR" video cameras. It's about having affordable HD video cameras in a similar segment to the affordable still digital cameras we have now. You can get inexpensive digital SLRs that allow full manual control, interchangeable lenses and excellent ergonomics. However, if you want an affordable digital video camera, you are stuck with a totally "integrated" device that you can't change the lenses on, has shitty ergonomics, and any manual controls (if present) are accessed through lame touch-screen menus. If you want a video camera that you have much control over, you have to fork out big bucks for professional models.
In still photography, you have these affordable SLRs that are modular (at least in terms of lenses) and give you total manual control. Of course, you can buy a top-of-the-line pro camera like the Nikon D3 - but they usually don't offer that much more than the inexpensive ones. For 99% of photographers, a Nikon D40 or D70 does the job fine. Most of the difference comes from the quality of the lens (and photographer), anyway. You can use the same lens on a cheap DSLR, or an expensive one and get much the same results. But if you want a decent lens on the video camera, it's hard to get. You are usually stuck with the built-in piece of crap. This is where the video camera companies are falling behind. They charge a ridiculous premium for things like interchangeable lenses, which is much higher than the cost differential of manufacturing it.
the result is that a video camera is a comparatively bad investment. When your DLSR body becomes obsolete, you can still use your nice collection of lenses. When your digital video camera dies or becomes obsolete, you have to chuck the whole thing.
Sorry, you're fucking insane. What does free trade have to do with preventing violence? "By definition"? Give me a fucking break. It's entirely possible to be free of violence without having any free trade.
You sound like a Randian extremist.
But that's entirely arbitrary, and circular logic. Why should a drug be illegal, just because it is illegal? Many illegal drugs are relatively harmless, while many currently legal drugs are very dangerous. Why do you believe that alcohol should be legal, but marijuana should be illegal - when alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana? And how do you propose to make tobacco illegal? That would cause rioting in the streets!
Except that's not how it actually works in practicality. Nobody buys their alcohol from moonshiners. Nobody buys homemade Prozac or Viagra, they get it from a regulated pharmaceutical company. Where is this massive black market in inregulated alcohol and pharmaceuticals?
Should we legalize Slavery and regulate that?Huge difference. You choose to consume drugs of your own free will. You are making a decision about your own body. Slavery, by definition, is loss of freedom, and having somebody decide for you, without your consent. You could not have chosen a more inappropriate analogy.
The solution to all of the World's evils are not to legalize them.Except drugs are not "evil" and cannot be. They are inanimate substances, they do not have consciousness or the ability to make decisions. Evil requires conscious intent - in other words it is an attribute of humans - not of substances.
So law enforcement does not want more laws to enforce; they want less.Most of the decent cops actually to want legalization. The problem is that the police forces are riddled with corrupt cops who get kickbacks from the drug trade, so it's in their interest to continue prohibition.
I think that Driving around while high on Methanphetamines is a little more dangerous then speeding. There is no way Drugs should ever be legalized, period.But the fact that methamphetamines are illegal is not stopping anybody from driving around while high. So, how is the law helping anything, or making anybody safer?
BTW, what do you mean by "Drugs" (with a capital D, no less)? You talk as if they are all the same. So, aspirin should be made illegal? Alcohol should be made illegal? What do you mean?
But taxation is not theft. The government issues the currency in the first place, so when it comes to economics, you never really owned anything. You decided to become involved in the system by using government-issued currency. If you oppose that, you should form your own currency, or only trade in commodities like grain and gold.
This is irrefutable government violence which causes poverty, which forcefully robs people.But without government, you would be even poorer. There wouldn't be an economy. Someone who is stronger or has a bigger army would just work you as a slave, or take your property and rape your wife. Generally, governments enable wealth. They create law and order, and build public infrastructure like roads, without which, trade would be very difficult.
That is, unless they are corrupted. And that corruption typically comes from people seeking profits and wealth.
Nice strawman, because I never said anything like that. The country was facing crisis, people were starving in the streets. There were very few jobs. The social programs changed that, and allowed us to get back to a point where economic wellbeing was possible. How do you think those starving people would have started their own business in those consditions?
Forcing others to spend money on things they are not voluntarily willing to choose makes them worse off then when people voluntarily spend money on things they voluntarily willingly choose.Who said anything about forcing people to do things? They voted for FDR, didn't they? And his measures were very popular. Personally, I think letting people starve in the streets is much worse.
Pretending people who are robbed are better off from being robbed is pure fantasy.What's with you and the crazy strawmen? When did I ever imply that people being robbed is good or better than anything?
."Science" is just a misnomer for "best guess at present" given unknown variables which may or may not exist.Wheras "economics" is just making shit up in an attempt to get rich and manipulate others.
But drug abuse has actually increased since drugs were made illegal. So that doesn't seem to be stopping anyone from being unproductive.
You don't want a nation of unproductive slobs concerned with little more than their next fix and damaged by repeated chemical abuse.I don't know anybody who would decide to try addictive drugs just because they became legal. Either they are already using the drugs illegally, or they would never try them in the first place.
The difference is that the kids are drinking beer and other alcoholic drinks that are quality-controlled, subject to inspection of health authorities, with a regulated amount of alcohol in them. They aren't drinking rubbing alcohol, they aren't drinking moonshine made in a bathtub that will make them blind. So, the negative consequences are minimized. It works exactly the same with drugs. Today kids do use drugs, but they are using the equivalent of moonshine - highly variable, unpredictable stuff that could be adulterated with who-knows-what. Better that they are on the legally regulated pharmaceutical-quality stuff, rather than what comes from a random "meth lab" in a trailerpark.
And what regulations would you propose that wouldn't be tantamount to making the drugs illegal?Health and safety regulations, age restrictions. These are both applied to alcohol, and nobody considers alcohol illegal because of them.
But the war on drugs is not a response to a problem. Drugs were made illegal because of racist propaganda and the desire of DuPont to replace hemp fibre with synthetics like nylon.
Even if all controlled substances were legal do you think people would just start paying taxes on their purchases of crack cocaine when they haven't had to for all this time?But they already do - drugs being illegal make them thousands of times more costly than what they would cost on an open market. That's why drug-related crime would be a problem. Besides, I don't remember saying anything about taxes. You could always grow your own.
Do you really think Crack Cocaine belongs on the streets?It's not a question of whether it "belongs" there - the fact is that if people want to use something, they will do it regardless of the law.
Do you think that Children will not be able to aquire Crack Cocaine once it's price has plummeted?If cocaine were legalized, then why would you choose crack cocaine, when you could get quality powder cocaine for cheap prices? People use crack because it's cheaper than the expensive powder cocaine. Without the black market pushing up prices, there'd be less of a market for crack.
Or maybe you prefer our kids to have Black Tar Heroine?No, but kids can get it if they want now. Having it illegal is not going to change that. Especially as children are usually considered too young to jail. So what difference would it make to them? With drugs being illegal, pushers have an incentive to push heroin onto people, because it is profitable. If there aren't those black-market profits, there wouldn't be any incentive for dealers to promote hard drugs. And once again, heroin is like crack. Under a legal system, you could just smoke opium instead - much healthier. Heroin exists because it gets more bang for the buck than opium, because of the high prices created by the black market.
I for one don't want to deal with my neighbor dancing around my condo complex naked and screaming because he took some PCP and is having a bad trip.How does drugs being illegal stop that? People do that now. Except we have overcrowded prisons, and drug addicts won't seek rehabilitation or medical treatment for their problem, because of fear of jail if they are honest about their habit.
To fuel police corruption and organized crime?
But most of the free tools have problems with some of the newer copy protection schemes - such as the ones on newer Sony discs. Slysoft is almost always the first to support cracking of new protection schemes.
Anyone that pays $80 to rip DVD's is an idiot.Anybody who doesn't see the value in paying for good software and saving time and headaches is a bigger idiot. What you don't seem to realize is that AnyDVD is not just for ripping, it works seamlessly for playing DVDs with copy protection (in any application) and overriding blocks on skipping unwanted content, etc. It also gives a very nice, detailed analysis of the discs, too. Perhaps you shouldn't knock it until you've tried it?
But he saved the country. Without his social plan, there wouldn't be an American economy to speak of - and the Americans would not have been able to enjoy the lifestyle that allows them to come up with new ideas and businesses.
Don't believe the false tripe masquerading as economic scientific knowledge you will find in most history books.Economics is not a science. If anything is "tripe," it's most economic textbooks.
But a "mashup" is a Jungle or Drum & Bass party or rave. Doesn't have a lot to do with software, other than the software used to create the music.
Hmmm. I thought it was mostly FDR and WWII which achieved that.
Are you SURE you want to post to Slashdot?
Exactly how are "mashups" a technology?
Except they aren't. There are numerous recent examples of deaths under American "interrogation."
But in many cases they aren't. They're just torturing people who are the wrong race, or in the wrong place at the wrong time. And so far, none of this has achieved any useful results, except making the US even more hated.
how does torturing thousands of people safeguard the nation or its people? It just puts it in greater danger.
Where do you get off saying there's no evidence it would save even one life?Because there is none. There is no recorded evidence of torture saving any lives, only destroying them.
This is where things get way out into left field. The beliefs of the terrorists are pretty much this: * Americans don't believe in the koran. * We must kill all americansBut how do you know the person you are torturing is a terrorist? There's plenty of evidence that many of the people tortured or imprisoned in the "war against terror" are no terrorists or connected with them.
Even if it means using torture to get information that will prevent the deaths of those who *ARE RIGHT* by those who *ARE WRONG*.but once you torture, you are not "right" any more. You have become the enemy.
There isn't a nice fuzzy gray area that most people on the left seem to love. There is a right, and a wrong.That seems to be what you are avoiding. Torture is never right. By engaging in it, you remove any moral high ground you might claim. If you truly believe in liberty and justice, you must apply the same to your enemy. You are the one trying to make a gray area of what is a bright line between right and wrong. Good people don't torture, only evil people do.
Got any evidence for that?