Perhaps tattoos on the forehead and cheeks (both ends) would be appropriate a big L in red to denote a lying lobbyist whose opinions are for sale to the highest bidder.
Nah, use a big green H on the forehead to denote tham as Rimmer.
At least conservatives explain why they think you're wrong. Liberals spit and call you a Nazi.
That's head-spinningly ironic, given liberals' tendency to explain their position at length, and conservatives' tendency to use ad hominem in place of debate, and make their srguments up out of thin air. See your post that I am replying to as an example of such non-factual argument.
Are you referring to me as a blogger? That's pretty ridiculous, as I've never blogged in my life. In fact, I detest blogs.
Of course, in the tradition of Voltaire, I defend the bloggers' right to write their insipid drivel - but it doesn't stop me from being disgusted by them, and the very word "blog."
What your missing is that the bill was never about making bloggers register as lobbyists - that was all spin, and slashdot nicely bought it hook, line and sinker.
What does this have to do with technology? It's a social/political/media issue.
Is the reporting and journalistic standards of newspapers a technology issue? After all, your typical newspaper uses more advanced computing technology to publish their stories than the typical slashdot poster's computer. Just because it's on the interwebs doesn't make it a technology issue.
What makes you think universities can change people that much?
It's a matter of focus. In education, there's only so much time to cover the material. So you have to decide what is most vital, and what the purpose of the course is.
People who are going to be thinkers aren't going to be ruined by learning specific technologies. People who can't think creatively will find ways to learn by rote no matter what you test them on.
I'd have to disagree here. Some people won't find ways to learn by rote, or learn at all, no matter how much creativity they lack. On the other hand, people who are creative may be distracted and lose their creative thinking by focusing too specifically - or they are so creative that they just can't handle thinking about specific "down to earth" solutions or logic. I've seen plenty of both types of thinking. Like you said, how much can you change someone?
Only if you think that abstract thinking is inherently superior to applied knowledge. There's nothing clear-cut that makes one better than the other, they are both a part of the continuum of humanity.
The only reason DRM works is because circumventing it is illegal.
Not at all. DRM works because most people couldn't be bothered defeating it, or don't know how. Anyone who wants to break DRM is not being stopped by the law.
In fact, you seem to have it exactly backwards. The only reason that companies release media like CDs without DRM, is because there are copyright laws. Take away the copyright laws, and you only have technological methods to rely on.
Any DRM that is not backed up by such laws will be quickly broken.
What difference do the laws make? Any DRM is pretty much broken now, despite the laws. But this is in a climate where we have copyright laws, so companies don't have to rely exclusively on DRM.
Also, as other posters have mentioned, consumers won't accept an "ultra-hardcore DRM".
And companies won't accept no copyright laws, without worse DRM. So, take away copyright, and you get DRM that is extremely difficult to break - like full hardware/software DRM. That may incovenience users a lot - but it is better for the companies than going broke because there is no copyright law to even shame a small percentage of users into paying for content. The end result is that without copyright law, everybody basically loses. Artists and companies make less profit, and users have to deal with increasingly draconian DRM - or otherwise, they just stop selling content, so there is nothing to enjoy.
Today, customers accept lightweight DRM schemes because they don't interfere significantly with their use.
Right, because they consider buying the product legally to be more honorable than copying, because they know there are copyright laws. Take away those, and they will have no reason to pay for the content, whether DRMed or not.
I don't think you understand my argument, because you keep trying to refute me with reasoning that is the very basis of my argument. Companies allow lightweight DRM or no DRM at all, because copyright law exists as a backup. Take that away, and the whole nature of the game changes. I may be wrong about the effects - but there is no doubt that removing copyright law would have immediate and wide-ranging effects. I don't think those effects would be good for creativity, innovation, and the viability of investing in creative markets or being an artist.
On the contrary, one of the drawbacks of normal cameras is that you can only have one exposure level for the entire image.
Why does that have to be so? Couldn't you have different exposure levels for different pixels coming from an array if it were designed that way?
I saw a lecture on a technology that takes 3 different exposure pictures, then combines them to put a lot more depth into a picture with some bright areas and some dark areas.
A technology? You can do this with normal cameras. I've been doing it for years. You can also use a similar technique to reduce the noise from digital cameras and scanned images.
It's hard to see it as a "technology" as such, when it's a simple photographic technique that has been used since the very early days of chemical photography. It's not some "new thing" that is unique to digital photography.
I don't know if this has made it into hardware yet, but with this serial method, each pixel could have a different exposure.
Again, how is this technique specific to single-pixel cameras, when it could just as easily be applied to pixel arrays? And what happens if the camera moves between the exposure reading and the actual exposure?
Think outside the box man! The idea that you only get one shot at an exposure level is a throwback to analog film.
When did I say you only have one shot at an exposure level? Jeez, analog photographers have been using multiple exposure readings since the days of yore.
So, why generalize? That does not make digital cameras inefficient. It makes the users of digital cameras inefficient. They shouldn't claim to be making more efficient cameras, they should be claiming to make cheaper crappy cameras for the Myspace folk. But not every camera user uses their camera like this.
Modern cameras have sophisticated algorithms to determine automatic exposure based on the composition of light and dark within the frame. To get the proper exposure with this system, it seems to mean you'd have to pre-scan the scene to get the exposure value. Or go back to old-school external light sensors rather than TTL (Through The Lens, not Transistor-Transistor Logic) metering.
The other benefit is that more money can be put into a higher quality CCD (such as one that senses in UV or IR).
Say what? Don't CCDs inherently respond to UV and IR? The problem is filtering out the IR and UV so it doesn't affect the visible spectrum and therefore your normal photos. This is why cameras have IR and UV filters over the sensor. To modify a standard camera to shoot IR for example, you simply remove the IR filter. And add an IR-pass filter if you want pure IR, rather than visible+IR - but that's not necessary.
the problem is that a lot of resources (such as CCD area) go into capturing this extra information which is then simply discarded.
What do you mean discarded? I use every pixel of my digital SLR in RAW mode, and I often wish there were more pixels. A lot more. So, where am I discarding these pixels?
'Cause I think that the ultra-strict DRM would drive consumers away..
That doesn't seem to be backed up by how the market behaves. Most people seem perfectly willing to accept DRM.
Anyway, even if most consumers did not accept DRM, what's the alternative? The companies couldn't make any money if they did not own any copyright - so they would make more money buying selling to the few people who would accept the hardcore DRM. The other alternative is that media companies could stop selling to the public, and start dealing in specialized media that they sell to big businesses who are willing to abide by strict protection of the content.
Either way, the result is that the arts are poorer for it, and we lose choices in what we can consume. People who want to have creative careers will be forced to starve or give up their careers. We'd probably end up with a society filled with conformist hamburger-flippers, with little beauty, everybody working automaton-like for the only jobs that are considered "real" - working with physical objects. This also has a potential environmental impact, as working with knowledge or ideas is not taken seriously, so we need to consume more resources to handle physical goods.
Think of the process of making a music CD. Why should the people who use oil and metal and wood to create the CD and its packaging, make a profit while the people who actually created the reason the CD is purchased, not be rewarded? Basically that's rewarding the exploiters, and punishing the thinkers and creators.
I go to the 'swap meet' in New Haven on Ella T. Grasso Blvd durring the summer and buy all sorts of movies for like $5 each!
And the only reason that worked, is because the writers and creators of the movie were able to own their ideas and sell them to movie studios, who had the funds to be able to take a risk on that and front the money for a film budget. If the writers and creators were not able to sell their ideas for the studios, what incentive do they have to disclose their ideas, when the studio could just take them for free? So, without those people holding copyright, you'd have movies written by company executives, not writers. I don't think you'd want those movies, even for $5.
"Regime" simply means a system of rules or government. Unfortunately, the word induces only negative connotations these days, because it is almost exclusively used to describe oppressive, fascist and military governments - a "fascist regime" for example. However, it is not an inherently negative word, as it is neutral on what form of rules or government it refers to. It's the "fascist" part that is bad, not the regime. You could have a "democratic regime" or a "happiness regime" for example.
So there's no need to let the "scary" word affect your thinking. Sadly, many people respond like this. All they need is one word they don't understand, and instead of looking at the actual issues, they will judge based on the word they don't understand and find intimidating.
If these companies can't figure out a way to protect their 'intellectual property', then tough titty for them!
Oh great, so you think the solution is ultra-hardcore DRM designed to lock up media forever, rather than a liberal copyright system which returns the work to the public domain after a limited period of time? Because that's what the "invisible hand" would come up with if there were no copyright laws.
That's exactly the opposite of the direcftion things should be going in. Be careful what you wish for.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, use a big green H on the forehead to denote tham as Rimmer.
What does the ACLU or its political affiliation have to do with the facts of this issue?
That's head-spinningly ironic, given liberals' tendency to explain their position at length, and conservatives' tendency to use ad hominem in place of debate, and make their srguments up out of thin air. See your post that I am replying to as an example of such non-factual argument.
Of course, in the tradition of Voltaire, I defend the bloggers' right to write their insipid drivel - but it doesn't stop me from being disgusted by them, and the very word "blog."
What your missing is that the bill was never about making bloggers register as lobbyists - that was all spin, and slashdot nicely bought it hook, line and sinker.
You misspelled "kerplode."
Is the reporting and journalistic standards of newspapers a technology issue? After all, your typical newspaper uses more advanced computing technology to publish their stories than the typical slashdot poster's computer. Just because it's on the interwebs doesn't make it a technology issue.
WTF? The term "Grammar Nazis" is plural, and should not have any apostrophe in it.
It's a matter of focus. In education, there's only so much time to cover the material. So you have to decide what is most vital, and what the purpose of the course is.
People who are going to be thinkers aren't going to be ruined by learning specific technologies. People who can't think creatively will find ways to learn by rote no matter what you test them on.I'd have to disagree here. Some people won't find ways to learn by rote, or learn at all, no matter how much creativity they lack. On the other hand, people who are creative may be distracted and lose their creative thinking by focusing too specifically - or they are so creative that they just can't handle thinking about specific "down to earth" solutions or logic. I've seen plenty of both types of thinking. Like you said, how much can you change someone?
Both "training" and "thinking" have downsides.
Only if you think that abstract thinking is inherently superior to applied knowledge. There's nothing clear-cut that makes one better than the other, they are both a part of the continuum of humanity.
Not at all. DRM works because most people couldn't be bothered defeating it, or don't know how. Anyone who wants to break DRM is not being stopped by the law.
In fact, you seem to have it exactly backwards. The only reason that companies release media like CDs without DRM, is because there are copyright laws. Take away the copyright laws, and you only have technological methods to rely on.
Any DRM that is not backed up by such laws will be quickly broken.What difference do the laws make? Any DRM is pretty much broken now, despite the laws. But this is in a climate where we have copyright laws, so companies don't have to rely exclusively on DRM.
Also, as other posters have mentioned, consumers won't accept an "ultra-hardcore DRM".And companies won't accept no copyright laws, without worse DRM. So, take away copyright, and you get DRM that is extremely difficult to break - like full hardware/software DRM. That may incovenience users a lot - but it is better for the companies than going broke because there is no copyright law to even shame a small percentage of users into paying for content. The end result is that without copyright law, everybody basically loses. Artists and companies make less profit, and users have to deal with increasingly draconian DRM - or otherwise, they just stop selling content, so there is nothing to enjoy.
Today, customers accept lightweight DRM schemes because they don't interfere significantly with their use.Right, because they consider buying the product legally to be more honorable than copying, because they know there are copyright laws. Take away those, and they will have no reason to pay for the content, whether DRMed or not.
I don't think you understand my argument, because you keep trying to refute me with reasoning that is the very basis of my argument. Companies allow lightweight DRM or no DRM at all, because copyright law exists as a backup. Take that away, and the whole nature of the game changes. I may be wrong about the effects - but there is no doubt that removing copyright law would have immediate and wide-ranging effects. I don't think those effects would be good for creativity, innovation, and the viability of investing in creative markets or being an artist.
Why does that have to be so? Couldn't you have different exposure levels for different pixels coming from an array if it were designed that way?
I saw a lecture on a technology that takes 3 different exposure pictures, then combines them to put a lot more depth into a picture with some bright areas and some dark areas.A technology? You can do this with normal cameras. I've been doing it for years. You can also use a similar technique to reduce the noise from digital cameras and scanned images.
It's hard to see it as a "technology" as such, when it's a simple photographic technique that has been used since the very early days of chemical photography. It's not some "new thing" that is unique to digital photography.
I don't know if this has made it into hardware yet, but with this serial method, each pixel could have a different exposure.Again, how is this technique specific to single-pixel cameras, when it could just as easily be applied to pixel arrays? And what happens if the camera moves between the exposure reading and the actual exposure?
Think outside the box man! The idea that you only get one shot at an exposure level is a throwback to analog film.When did I say you only have one shot at an exposure level? Jeez, analog photographers have been using multiple exposure readings since the days of yore.
So, why generalize? That does not make digital cameras inefficient. It makes the users of digital cameras inefficient. They shouldn't claim to be making more efficient cameras, they should be claiming to make cheaper crappy cameras for the Myspace folk. But not every camera user uses their camera like this.
What are your pouring on those games? I think most stores would kick you out if you started pouring any substance on their games.
Those are banned by Homeland Security. They might contain nipples.
U just got pwnz0r3d by my fl4m1ng p00p b0mb, g33zr!!!
Modern cameras have sophisticated algorithms to determine automatic exposure based on the composition of light and dark within the frame. To get the proper exposure with this system, it seems to mean you'd have to pre-scan the scene to get the exposure value. Or go back to old-school external light sensors rather than TTL (Through The Lens, not Transistor-Transistor Logic) metering.
Say what? Don't CCDs inherently respond to UV and IR? The problem is filtering out the IR and UV so it doesn't affect the visible spectrum and therefore your normal photos. This is why cameras have IR and UV filters over the sensor. To modify a standard camera to shoot IR for example, you simply remove the IR filter. And add an IR-pass filter if you want pure IR, rather than visible+IR - but that's not necessary.
What do you mean discarded? I use every pixel of my digital SLR in RAW mode, and I often wish there were more pixels. A lot more. So, where am I discarding these pixels?
That doesn't seem to be backed up by how the market behaves. Most people seem perfectly willing to accept DRM.
Anyway, even if most consumers did not accept DRM, what's the alternative? The companies couldn't make any money if they did not own any copyright - so they would make more money buying selling to the few people who would accept the hardcore DRM. The other alternative is that media companies could stop selling to the public, and start dealing in specialized media that they sell to big businesses who are willing to abide by strict protection of the content.
Either way, the result is that the arts are poorer for it, and we lose choices in what we can consume. People who want to have creative careers will be forced to starve or give up their careers. We'd probably end up with a society filled with conformist hamburger-flippers, with little beauty, everybody working automaton-like for the only jobs that are considered "real" - working with physical objects. This also has a potential environmental impact, as working with knowledge or ideas is not taken seriously, so we need to consume more resources to handle physical goods.
Think of the process of making a music CD. Why should the people who use oil and metal and wood to create the CD and its packaging, make a profit while the people who actually created the reason the CD is purchased, not be rewarded? Basically that's rewarding the exploiters, and punishing the thinkers and creators.
I go to the 'swap meet' in New Haven on Ella T. Grasso Blvd durring the summer and buy all sorts of movies for like $5 each!And the only reason that worked, is because the writers and creators of the movie were able to own their ideas and sell them to movie studios, who had the funds to be able to take a risk on that and front the money for a film budget. If the writers and creators were not able to sell their ideas for the studios, what incentive do they have to disclose their ideas, when the studio could just take them for free? So, without those people holding copyright, you'd have movies written by company executives, not writers. I don't think you'd want those movies, even for $5.
Clearly, technology is to blame for that. To solve this problem, we must outlaw technology, and not deal with the crime problem.
Who is Carl Marx? Did he have a friend called Lenny?
So there's no need to let the "scary" word affect your thinking. Sadly, many people respond like this. All they need is one word they don't understand, and instead of looking at the actual issues, they will judge based on the word they don't understand and find intimidating.
That's strange. I didn't detect any arrogance in that post. However, your arrogance is off the scale with comments like the above and these:
Hypocrite, IP "rights" are the only bogus assertion around here.then I would say tough shit, that's the punishment you get for imposing false property rights.
And the appropiate response would be. FU, pull your head out and use the God given brain you were given to take things to their "rational" conclusion.
Yeah, no arrogance there at all. You just believe that your position is the only valid one, and anybody who disagrees should fuck off.
Oh great, so you think the solution is ultra-hardcore DRM designed to lock up media forever, rather than a liberal copyright system which returns the work to the public domain after a limited period of time? Because that's what the "invisible hand" would come up with if there were no copyright laws.
That's exactly the opposite of the direcftion things should be going in. Be careful what you wish for.