You're supposed to slow down when you come to an intersection, even when the light is green. And you're supposed to go through intersections (or stop) with awareness and caution - not "hit" them.
I don't know about speed cameras, but its been proven that red-light cameras actually increase the number of accidents as people slam on the brakes if there's any doubt about making it through the intersection, and then get rear-ended.
It's been proven? Why don't you link to this "proof"?
If someone is driving in a way they don't know whether they are going to get through the lights, then they are not driving safely to begin with. Likewise - why is the person behind them driving so close that they can't stop without rear-ending them? You're supposed to drive at a safe distance from the car in front of you so you can stop in case of an emergency. Tail-gating is illegal. And don't they have yellow lights where you live?
It seems the speed and red light cameras aren't the problem. the real problem is bad driving and disregard for safety. Yet people use enforcement mechanisms as an excuse. "Oh, it's so unfair that I'm not allowed to drive dangerously!"
If you need more money, cut services or raise taxes
What's wrong with fining people who are breaking the law? Raising taxes is very unpopular, even when it's necessary. And "cutting services" in this case is basically the same as having more people killed, and spending more money on responding to accidents.
If so many people weren't breaking the law, how would they be able to "raise revenue"? It's pretty fucking simple. Don't speed if you don't want to pay. Surely that's fairer than charging everybody more taxes to pay for the idiots who speed?
Driving fasat has little to do with driving like a moron.
Huh? If you're breaking the posted speed limit, you are a moron. See how they're directly related?
I guarantee, that if the cops did not earn a single penny from all the speed traps and traffic enforcement...if they did not have quotas to meet monthly, you'd see a severe drop off in the number of these setups. I think the cops would move on to other policing activities.
You contradict yourself. Speed cameras (at least the permanently installed variety) do not use police resources. They save police resources. There aren't enough police to physically patrol the roads, considering how many cars there are, and how many speeders there are.
I think our city would be much better served by having the cops channel their activities into more serious crime prevention,
This is exactly what speed cameras enable. You don't need a cop operating them, the cop can go and pursue robberies and murders. You also make a mistake when you claim speeding is not a serious crime. It is very serious. Most robberies don't lead to death, but speeding consistently does. I can't think of anything more serious than killing someone and endangering the public.
Another great thing about speed cameras is that they are objective. No more crooked cops letting someone off because they are an attractive female - or busting someone who wasn't actually speeding because they are black, or the cop "doesn't like the look of him."
Working at a video store and telling a customer that no one ever rents these movies implies that the customer is an oddity and has very crappy tastes.
Why? It could mean that they are renting brilliant rare movies that are under-appreciated or not well known. To me, the ultimate insult is renting the same things as everybody else. Nothing says "bad taste" more than renting mainstream blockbusters.
it's in everyone's best interests to give me a disc which I don't need to return, I can just throw away as it becomes useless after a week. That's great, and it's a great use for DRM.
No, that's not great. It's a fucking disgusting waste of resources. It's harmful for everybody to have landfills filling up with discarded "useless" discs, and it's harmful for us the waste of petrochemical resources that go into producing that disc.
It's even harmful for the vendor, who has to pay more to distribute on disc, rather than simply using the internet (or a reusable storage medium like flash drives, for that matter).
DVD-Jon didn't crack CSS because it was there, he cracked it because he couldn't see his films where he wanted and on what he wanted...
I doubt that is true. i think DVD jon did crack it just "because it was there" - or rather, to make a name for himself as a hacker. The "only wanted to watch a DVD on my Linux machine" was just an excuse to get leniency from the authorities, and to help make him a symbol of The People(tm).
Look at what he does now. He has started a company whose goal is to make money by cracking Apple's Fairplay DRM. That's not the action of someone who simply wants to listen to tracks from the iTunes store on a non-iPod player. He pretty obviously has a profit motive. Ironically, this makes DVD Jon a supporter of DRM - if Apple actually dropped DRM as Jobs says he wants to - DVD Jon would be out of business, because his business model relies on having DRM to circumvent.
Churchill was a drunk who drank a bottle of brandy before he got out of bed every day. Does this mean that being a drunk has anything to do with his political philosophy?
Most probably. It is difficult for someone who is alcoholic not to have his thought processes and world outlook altered by the alcoholism.
Yet, it will be overlooked that Windows is the dominant in totalitarian states.
It's overlooked that Windows is dominant everywhere, not just in totalitarian regimes. You see, because Windows is so commonplace, it's the default "standard." It's so dominant that it is actually invisible to people. It's kind of like a fnord. The elephant in the room that is so big that people don't even see it.
That's the great untold thing about this story. For untold years, slashdot editors have been writing untold dupes, while governments around the world have been avoiding getting their untold shit together for untold years. When will the untold story be told?
But using misleading arguments about previous music formats which you couldn't efficiently or accurately duplicate, will only weaken your arguments.
How is my argument misleading? You could duplicate content, and many people did it. Few were bothered by the loss of quality. The misleading argument is saying that it wasn't possible, or that people didn't do it. Your Phish argument demonstrates this - if people were proud of a second-generation copy, then that shows how widespread multi-generation copying was. We did it all the time as teenagers.
They also created their work in a pre-Internet era, in which essentially zero cost distribution to potentially hundreds of millions of people simply wasn't possible.
Very few people download feature-length movies. TV episodes yes, but rarely movies. Most of those are copies from a borrowed DVD, not via the internet.
It's also the studios ignoring the low cost and reach of the internet. If they actually made their products cheaper to reflect the internet era, and massive increase in potential sales, then there would be little motivation for anybody to download copies illicitly.
Compare a twentieth generation audio cassette or video tape copy and a twentieth generation CD copy and then get back to us and tell us that they're the same situation.
I think you're the one being disingenuous. Why make a 20th generation copy, when you can make a first-generation copy from something borrowed from a friend or library? That's the actual situation with most DVD copying.
Let's look at reality. Copying of audio cassettes was very common, and the quality didn't seem to bother too many people. In fact, multiple generation copying of tapes was almost legendary in the early hip-hop and rap scenes, for example. Also, people used to make compilations by recording songs from the radio. Some people still do.
The change to a digital medium hasn't really changed much - people copied then, and they copy now. probably the biggest difference is that since DVD, many more people actually buy movies to keep. Before DVD, not many people purchased VHS cassettes to keep - they mostly recorded stuff from TV broadcasts. So, the digital medium has improved sales, and I would think has reduced copying.
DRM = Digital Rights Management. I don't think any of these people had to fear digital reproduction of their content when they made it.
What's your point? It could still be duplicated - and it was. What difference does it make if it is digital or not? Never heard of an audio cassette or videotape?
it works against the novice, clueless users who dont realise it can be removed yes,
The problem being that the novice clueless users are probably not inclined to try and copy a disc in the first place, and just go buy them at the store. So, it does nothing except cost producers profits, because they have to pay to license stuff from Macrovision, when they could simply release the product without those costs.
Its why i put 'successful' in quotes:)
Yeah, I got that, but I still think they remain a "one trick pony." the "SafeDisc" thing is really just the digital equivalent of their analog video hack. What are they going to do to "help Apple improve Fairplay? Have it include deliberate "bad samples" in AC3 files?
I was trying to highlight what a joke it was of Macrovision to think they had anything to offer Apple - who have some of the greatest talents in the software field, and produce a greater breadth and depth of software than pretty much any other company. In comparison, Macrovision reminds me of those idiots who write the drivers for hardware copy-protection dongles.
Indeed, so well infact that it wont even let it *start* the game:D
Yup, but Macrovision claim they want to "lead the industry" in DRM. Yet they've written software for a grand total of one platform, and are basically only still around because of the prevalence of their video hack. not really ones to be in a position of leadership over anything.
The funniest thing about their rant is that I actually know people who stopped buying DVDs, and started getting copied DVDs from friends because of Macrovision. You see, their DVD player is hooked up to their old TV via a VCR. This is because their TV only has an RF input. So DVDs look like utter crap. They eventually found out that this was because of Macrovision. But ripped DVDs that have been de-macrovisioned look perfectly fine.
I'm not sure how Macrovision can be considered "successful" when illegally ripped copies of products that use Macrovision look better than the purchased original. I guess they are successful in the way the mafia is successful - but even the mafia adds more value for end users than Macrovision.
ever heard of safedisc? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SafeDisc [wikipedia.org] Macrovision make that, and its fairly 'successful' in terms of publishers using it
Sounds like crap to me. Deliberately authoring discs with "weak sectors"? Sounds like copy protection from the Commodore 64 era. Probably breaks DVD standards, too.
This is exactly the kind of shit I'm referring to when I talk about hacky software developers. When have they written some serious software that does something useful?
And, from the Wikipedia article:
Though SafeDisc protection effectively prevents regular home users from creating functional copies of CDs or DVDs, it is quite easy for skilled software crackers to bypass.
So, it doesn't even work, does it?
00000001.TMP
CLCD16.DLL
CLCD32.DLL
CLOKSPL.EXE
DPLAYERX.DLL
And also by the existence of two files.EXE and.ICD (where is replaced with the acual game's name).
The EXE executable is only a loader which decrypts and loads the protected game executable in the encrypted ICD File.
Gee, that EXE file must work wonderfully with non-Windows systems.
Slashdot Mirror
In America, first you get the sugar.
It makesh me talk funny, you inshenshitive clod!
You're supposed to slow down when you come to an intersection, even when the light is green. And you're supposed to go through intersections (or stop) with awareness and caution - not "hit" them.
It's been proven? Why don't you link to this "proof"?
If someone is driving in a way they don't know whether they are going to get through the lights, then they are not driving safely to begin with. Likewise - why is the person behind them driving so close that they can't stop without rear-ending them? You're supposed to drive at a safe distance from the car in front of you so you can stop in case of an emergency. Tail-gating is illegal. And don't they have yellow lights where you live?
It seems the speed and red light cameras aren't the problem. the real problem is bad driving and disregard for safety. Yet people use enforcement mechanisms as an excuse. "Oh, it's so unfair that I'm not allowed to drive dangerously!"
What's wrong with fining people who are breaking the law? Raising taxes is very unpopular, even when it's necessary. And "cutting services" in this case is basically the same as having more people killed, and spending more money on responding to accidents.
If so many people weren't breaking the law, how would they be able to "raise revenue"? It's pretty fucking simple. Don't speed if you don't want to pay. Surely that's fairer than charging everybody more taxes to pay for the idiots who speed?
Driving fasat has little to do with driving like a moron.Huh? If you're breaking the posted speed limit, you are a moron. See how they're directly related?
You contradict yourself. Speed cameras (at least the permanently installed variety) do not use police resources. They save police resources. There aren't enough police to physically patrol the roads, considering how many cars there are, and how many speeders there are.
I think our city would be much better served by having the cops channel their activities into more serious crime prevention,This is exactly what speed cameras enable. You don't need a cop operating them, the cop can go and pursue robberies and murders. You also make a mistake when you claim speeding is not a serious crime. It is very serious. Most robberies don't lead to death, but speeding consistently does. I can't think of anything more serious than killing someone and endangering the public.
Another great thing about speed cameras is that they are objective. No more crooked cops letting someone off because they are an attractive female - or busting someone who wasn't actually speeding because they are black, or the cop "doesn't like the look of him."
Why? It could mean that they are renting brilliant rare movies that are under-appreciated or not well known. To me, the ultimate insult is renting the same things as everybody else. Nothing says "bad taste" more than renting mainstream blockbusters.
Ummm, when did these remixers ever claim to be gangstas?
No, that would be pointless, because nobody ever infringes on that technology.
Either way, it was something big with pictures.
But that would mean visiting Digg. And nobody wants that. Think of the poor tubes that have to carry that sewage.
SCO has the patent on "internet addiction" and is suing the man.
No, that's not great. It's a fucking disgusting waste of resources. It's harmful for everybody to have landfills filling up with discarded "useless" discs, and it's harmful for us the waste of petrochemical resources that go into producing that disc.
It's even harmful for the vendor, who has to pay more to distribute on disc, rather than simply using the internet (or a reusable storage medium like flash drives, for that matter).
I doubt that is true. i think DVD jon did crack it just "because it was there" - or rather, to make a name for himself as a hacker. The "only wanted to watch a DVD on my Linux machine" was just an excuse to get leniency from the authorities, and to help make him a symbol of The People(tm).
Look at what he does now. He has started a company whose goal is to make money by cracking Apple's Fairplay DRM. That's not the action of someone who simply wants to listen to tracks from the iTunes store on a non-iPod player. He pretty obviously has a profit motive. Ironically, this makes DVD Jon a supporter of DRM - if Apple actually dropped DRM as Jobs says he wants to - DVD Jon would be out of business, because his business model relies on having DRM to circumvent.
The "wow" starts now.
Most probably. It is difficult for someone who is alcoholic not to have his thought processes and world outlook altered by the alcoholism.
It's overlooked that Windows is dominant everywhere, not just in totalitarian regimes. You see, because Windows is so commonplace, it's the default "standard." It's so dominant that it is actually invisible to people. It's kind of like a fnord. The elephant in the room that is so big that people don't even see it.
That's the great untold thing about this story. For untold years, slashdot editors have been writing untold dupes, while governments around the world have been avoiding getting their untold shit together for untold years. When will the untold story be told?
How is my argument misleading? You could duplicate content, and many people did it. Few were bothered by the loss of quality. The misleading argument is saying that it wasn't possible, or that people didn't do it. Your Phish argument demonstrates this - if people were proud of a second-generation copy, then that shows how widespread multi-generation copying was. We did it all the time as teenagers.
Very few people download feature-length movies. TV episodes yes, but rarely movies. Most of those are copies from a borrowed DVD, not via the internet.
It's also the studios ignoring the low cost and reach of the internet. If they actually made their products cheaper to reflect the internet era, and massive increase in potential sales, then there would be little motivation for anybody to download copies illicitly.
I think you're the one being disingenuous. Why make a 20th generation copy, when you can make a first-generation copy from something borrowed from a friend or library? That's the actual situation with most DVD copying.
Let's look at reality. Copying of audio cassettes was very common, and the quality didn't seem to bother too many people. In fact, multiple generation copying of tapes was almost legendary in the early hip-hop and rap scenes, for example. Also, people used to make compilations by recording songs from the radio. Some people still do.
The change to a digital medium hasn't really changed much - people copied then, and they copy now. probably the biggest difference is that since DVD, many more people actually buy movies to keep. Before DVD, not many people purchased VHS cassettes to keep - they mostly recorded stuff from TV broadcasts. So, the digital medium has improved sales, and I would think has reduced copying.
What's your point? It could still be duplicated - and it was. What difference does it make if it is digital or not? Never heard of an audio cassette or videotape?
The problem being that the novice clueless users are probably not inclined to try and copy a disc in the first place, and just go buy them at the store. So, it does nothing except cost producers profits, because they have to pay to license stuff from Macrovision, when they could simply release the product without those costs.
Its why i put 'successful' in quotesYeah, I got that, but I still think they remain a "one trick pony." the "SafeDisc" thing is really just the digital equivalent of their analog video hack. What are they going to do to "help Apple improve Fairplay? Have it include deliberate "bad samples" in AC3 files?
I was trying to highlight what a joke it was of Macrovision to think they had anything to offer Apple - who have some of the greatest talents in the software field, and produce a greater breadth and depth of software than pretty much any other company. In comparison, Macrovision reminds me of those idiots who write the drivers for hardware copy-protection dongles.
Indeed, so well infact that it wont even let it *start* the gameYup, but Macrovision claim they want to "lead the industry" in DRM. Yet they've written software for a grand total of one platform, and are basically only still around because of the prevalence of their video hack. not really ones to be in a position of leadership over anything.
The funniest thing about their rant is that I actually know people who stopped buying DVDs, and started getting copied DVDs from friends because of Macrovision. You see, their DVD player is hooked up to their old TV via a VCR. This is because their TV only has an RF input. So DVDs look like utter crap. They eventually found out that this was because of Macrovision. But ripped DVDs that have been de-macrovisioned look perfectly fine.
I'm not sure how Macrovision can be considered "successful" when illegally ripped copies of products that use Macrovision look better than the purchased original. I guess they are successful in the way the mafia is successful - but even the mafia adds more value for end users than Macrovision.
Sounds like crap to me. Deliberately authoring discs with "weak sectors"? Sounds like copy protection from the Commodore 64 era. Probably breaks DVD standards, too.
This is exactly the kind of shit I'm referring to when I talk about hacky software developers. When have they written some serious software that does something useful?
And, from the Wikipedia article:
Though SafeDisc protection effectively prevents regular home users from creating functional copies of CDs or DVDs, it is quite easy for skilled software crackers to bypass.So, it doesn't even work, does it?
00000001.TMP CLCD16.DLL CLCD32.DLL CLOKSPL.EXE DPLAYERX.DLL And also by the existence of two filesGee, that EXE file must work wonderfully with non-Windows systems.
"Unconstructive"? Is that anything like "destructive"?