...please note that the article said "significant" proportion. If the relative quantity is small in comparison to "illegitimate uses" [as defined by RIAA, I presume], it may still be significant, depending on the nature and influence of the "legitimate" data providers. The article mentions Hollywood studios and Blizzard, and discusses growing corporate use of Bittorrent. Point is, if enough moneyed interests are behind the technology, the ISPs will have to deal with a contentious issue if they're throttling the flow.
Just because TFA's summary is imprecise doesn't mean the point of the article is not valid.
Hey, it's not my fault you can't understand a simple sarcastic analogy. Vista's DRM limits the capabilities of a media file in a misguided attempt to increase security. A governor limits the capabilities of a car, and using it to deter theft would be just as stupid as using Vista-style DRM. The only relevance of the governor to the analogy is in representing a performance limitation.
"If you really want to do something about it, just go find the guy who made the original comment and smack him on the back of the head. Extra points if you knock his brains out of his mouth."
Hey, you can't knock someone's brains out of their mouth! Like you'd say, "Most people have no fucking idea what is going on inside their body, and if they do have an idea, they have no idea how it's actually put together."
Oh wait, you weren't trying to make a point about anatomy, you were just expressing yourself through (childish) language. I guess it is easy to misunderstand someone's language if you're too busy trying to be arrogant. Tell me, is it difficult going through life with your head so far up your ass?
Hopefully commercial fusion becomes viable soon, removing a lot of the present objections to nuclear power. Hard to see how this will have much of an impact on transport fuels, though, without major advances in battery tech.
"Try telling any green environmental lefty that Ethanol is a bad thing and show them why, and they turn their nose saying, "But, but, but, but its GREEN!"
Wow, what an uninformed stereotype. Plenty of us green environmental lefties have serious issues with increasing society's reliance on industrial agriculture, and see the potential usurpation of the oil lobby by the corn lobby as a meaningless substitution. Our leaders keep trying to find new and exciting ways to supply our energy demand without examining the nature or utility of this demand. Sustainable energy will come from changing cultural attitudes regarding the worthy expenditures of energy, not a shuffling of environmental issues.
The simple irony of Perelman's nature in light of the conversation does not invalidate your point about individual genius. I was pointing it out as an interesting tangent, not a rebuttal.
"A privilege is granted or bestowed upon someone by benevolent authority, and may therefore be revoked by that same authority."
Doesn't apply to the privilege of habeas corpus, as the relevant constitutional text makes apparent. The conditions for its suspension are defined as rebellion or invasion. Neither situation is presently relevant. Hell, the Constitution doesn't even specify a "right" to a free speech. It just says that the freedom of speech will not be abridged.
Of course, most people would sensibly interpret anything the government is explicitly prevented from curtailing as a right. Unless they were inclined to Clintonesque word games in defense of the current administration's Constitutional abuses.
I should probably note that while the effects of this law are not universal, they are widespread, giving universities every incentive to set publicly-funded research goals based on marketability as opposed to scientific or practical necessity. Hence, antidepressants instead of a deeper understanding of the brain and mind. The effects of Bayh-Dole on medical research are appalling. (Not that the government, were it still to retain patent rights to federally-funded discoveries, would be much less resistant to financial temptation. Certainly not in the absence of highly-motivated and pervasive public oversight of research funding.)
"one of the most basic ways that we learn--try it and see what happens. Maybe if IT layed out the basic safety rules and then said, "Please play with the computers to see how they react when you do various things," then seemingly basic tasks wouldn't be so hard for users after awhile."
I agree wholeheartedly, but it'll never happen in any widespread, meaningful way. Autodidacticism is abhorrent to business culture's fixation with standardized, top-down "training." Put another way: if everyone's going to be an idiot with the computers, management would rather have them be the same idiots.
Why would they do that? You're already paying for the box in your cable bill; indeed, if you went out and bought a cable box, then called Comcast to pick up theirs, you'd still be paying for it.
"Consider the harm to a political campaign if people started making fake comercials for their opponents in order to make their supporters look stupid ("My name's Dan, and I think all these 'feminists' need is a good ing. I support John Smith because he believes a woman's place is in the kitchen.")."
I need to move to whatever place you're describing. Political harm, you say? That ad could win votes in these parts.
That Atlantic article about DeBeers was brilliant. Paying thousands for a chunk of cut carbon always seemed ridiculous to me, and its a fascinating reading abut how the whole consumer perspective on diamonds' value is a tenuous marketing scheme, successful for almost a century.
Another despicable instance of top-down commercial culture having actual material consequence. Tragic.
"The only thing new about "viral marketing" is the name "viral marketing". You could say the same thing about television when it first came out, but no one called having their friends over to watch Milton Bearly "viral marketing"."
Sorry, that analogy doesn't apply. If individuals specifically paid money by Berle's producers to extol his comedic virtue, without disclosing this business relationship, were among these friends, then the term "viral marketing" is accurate. As far as we know, nobody was doing this back in Berle's day.
And anyone who takes money to influence their friends' opinions is worse than a virus; perhaps "filthy whore marketing" is a more apt term?
Exactly. Imagine watching Gov. Wallace and the National Guard, for example, on YouTube with a shaking image, filled with students' heads and scratchy wind noise. Today such footage would exist, but nobody would be aware of it unless there was no professional present. The "macaca" moment is a great example of the latter.
I agree; camera phones will provide a new source of visual information, but only as a result of their ubiquity. This sort of media exposure for fortunately-placed amateur videography is not exactly new (think Zapruder film), and there will be a place for highly-produced news photography as long as there is any sort of professional media.
"Actually you are both wrong. If focus groups were the answer we would have a lot more good television shows."
Actually, I already pointed out how the cost of TV production is inflated by the failure of new shows (a 70% failure rate would make for a great season, if the definition of "success" means any more than a three-season run). Of course not every show that is lavished with marketing attention (including focus groups and the celebrity press) succeeds, but the money is spent on that stuff by the major networks all the same to justify each show to high-paying national advertisers. These high costs need to be recouped in successful shows by elevating the ad revenue into the stratosphere, and of course the actors' agents can (rightfully) claim a large chunk of that money for their clients, critical as they are to a show's success.
Slashdot Mirror
...please note that the article said "significant" proportion. If the relative quantity is small in comparison to "illegitimate uses" [as defined by RIAA, I presume], it may still be significant, depending on the nature and influence of the "legitimate" data providers. The article mentions Hollywood studios and Blizzard, and discusses growing corporate use of Bittorrent. Point is, if enough moneyed interests are behind the technology, the ISPs will have to deal with a contentious issue if they're throttling the flow.
Just because TFA's summary is imprecise doesn't mean the point of the article is not valid.
I wonder which ethnicity's cuisine they'll tap for design inspiration this time?
Um, yes. That's my point. A governor would be a terribly stupid way to deter theft, just a stupid as Vista's method of DRM.
Sarcasm: Bringing Slashdot together since 1997.
Hey, it's not my fault you can't understand a simple sarcastic analogy. Vista's DRM limits the capabilities of a media file in a misguided attempt to increase security. A governor limits the capabilities of a car, and using it to deter theft would be just as stupid as using Vista-style DRM. The only relevance of the governor to the analogy is in representing a performance limitation.
"If you really want to do something about it, just go find the guy who made the original comment and smack him on the back of the head. Extra points if you knock his brains out of his mouth."
Hey, you can't knock someone's brains out of their mouth! Like you'd say, "Most people have no fucking idea what is going on inside their body, and if they do have an idea, they have no idea how it's actually put together."
Oh wait, you weren't trying to make a point about anatomy, you were just expressing yourself through (childish) language. I guess it is easy to misunderstand someone's language if you're too busy trying to be arrogant. Tell me, is it difficult going through life with your head so far up your ass?
Hopefully, other players in the media industry see this and realize that DRM is a pointless encumbrance!
Yeah, right. They'll just keep up with their usual approach, one akin to installing a governor on your car to deter theft.
Right, I forgot, widespread cultural priorities never change in response to material conditions.
Hopefully commercial fusion becomes viable soon, removing a lot of the present objections to nuclear power. Hard to see how this will have much of an impact on transport fuels, though, without major advances in battery tech.
"Try telling any green environmental lefty that Ethanol is a bad thing and show them why, and they turn their nose saying, "But, but, but, but its GREEN!"
Wow, what an uninformed stereotype. Plenty of us green environmental lefties have serious issues with increasing society's reliance on industrial agriculture, and see the potential usurpation of the oil lobby by the corn lobby as a meaningless substitution. Our leaders keep trying to find new and exciting ways to supply our energy demand without examining the nature or utility of this demand. Sustainable energy will come from changing cultural attitudes regarding the worthy expenditures of energy, not a shuffling of environmental issues.
The simple irony of Perelman's nature in light of the conversation does not invalidate your point about individual genius. I was pointing it out as an interesting tangent, not a rebuttal.
"The Poincare conjecture was recently solved largely due to the efforts of a single mathematician. "
How ironic, then, that he utterly shuns publicity and declined the Fields Medal. Something other than prizes motivates Perelman.
Actually, ALL of the experimental data in the universe could do that.
Of course, how would one know when they got there?
"A privilege is granted or bestowed upon someone by benevolent authority, and may therefore be revoked by that same authority."
Doesn't apply to the privilege of habeas corpus, as the relevant constitutional text makes apparent. The conditions for its suspension are defined as rebellion or invasion. Neither situation is presently relevant. Hell, the Constitution doesn't even specify a "right" to a free speech. It just says that the freedom of speech will not be abridged.
Of course, most people would sensibly interpret anything the government is explicitly prevented from curtailing as a right. Unless they were inclined to Clintonesque word games in defense of the current administration's Constitutional abuses.
I should probably note that while the effects of this law are not universal, they are widespread, giving universities every incentive to set publicly-funded research goals based on marketability as opposed to scientific or practical necessity. Hence, antidepressants instead of a deeper understanding of the brain and mind. The effects of Bayh-Dole on medical research are appalling. (Not that the government, were it still to retain patent rights to federally-funded discoveries, would be much less resistant to financial temptation. Certainly not in the absence of highly-motivated and pervasive public oversight of research funding.)
Read up on the Bayh-Dole Act. This is the specific reason why your research tax dollars generate stock value as opposed to public knowledge.
"one of the most basic ways that we learn--try it and see what happens. Maybe if IT layed out the basic safety rules and then said, "Please play with the computers to see how they react when you do various things," then seemingly basic tasks wouldn't be so hard for users after awhile."
I agree wholeheartedly, but it'll never happen in any widespread, meaningful way. Autodidacticism is abhorrent to business culture's fixation with standardized, top-down "training." Put another way: if everyone's going to be an idiot with the computers, management would rather have them be the same idiots.
...I wonder how much they're paying for all this Slashvertising?
Enough, already. This thing comes out in JUNE, FFS.
Why would they do that? You're already paying for the box in your cable bill; indeed, if you went out and bought a cable box, then called Comcast to pick up theirs, you'd still be paying for it.
"Consider the harm to a political campaign if people started making fake comercials for their opponents in order to make their supporters look stupid ("My name's Dan, and I think all these 'feminists' need is a good ing. I support John Smith because he believes a woman's place is in the kitchen.")."
I need to move to whatever place you're describing. Political harm, you say? That ad could win votes in these parts.
That Atlantic article about DeBeers was brilliant. Paying thousands for a chunk of cut carbon always seemed ridiculous to me, and its a fascinating reading abut how the whole consumer perspective on diamonds' value is a tenuous marketing scheme, successful for almost a century.
Another despicable instance of top-down commercial culture having actual material consequence. Tragic.
"The only thing new about "viral marketing" is the name "viral marketing". You could say the same thing about television when it first came out, but no one called having their friends over to watch Milton Bearly "viral marketing"."
Sorry, that analogy doesn't apply. If individuals specifically paid money by Berle's producers to extol his comedic virtue, without disclosing this business relationship, were among these friends, then the term "viral marketing" is accurate. As far as we know, nobody was doing this back in Berle's day.
And anyone who takes money to influence their friends' opinions is worse than a virus; perhaps "filthy whore marketing" is a more apt term?
Exactly. Imagine watching Gov. Wallace and the National Guard, for example, on YouTube with a shaking image, filled with students' heads and scratchy wind noise. Today such footage would exist, but nobody would be aware of it unless there was no professional present. The "macaca" moment is a great example of the latter.
I agree; camera phones will provide a new source of visual information, but only as a result of their ubiquity. This sort of media exposure for fortunately-placed amateur videography is not exactly new (think Zapruder film), and there will be a place for highly-produced news photography as long as there is any sort of professional media.
Probably, unless you bump into something forcefully. Do you have a warranty?
Hey, maybe the Danes are just resistant to brain tumors! You can't say you don't know for sure!
***
sigh...
"Actually you are both wrong. If focus groups were the answer we would have a lot more good television shows."
Actually, I already pointed out how the cost of TV production is inflated by the failure of new shows (a 70% failure rate would make for a great season, if the definition of "success" means any more than a three-season run). Of course not every show that is lavished with marketing attention (including focus groups and the celebrity press) succeeds, but the money is spent on that stuff by the major networks all the same to justify each show to high-paying national advertisers. These high costs need to be recouped in successful shows by elevating the ad revenue into the stratosphere, and of course the actors' agents can (rightfully) claim a large chunk of that money for their clients, critical as they are to a show's success.