Until people figure out how to break the DRM and post PDF's of it online.
It takes a lot of work to digitize textbooks. The effort usually isn't worth the $20 a used textbook costs. It takes comparatively little effort to break DRM, and once the DRM is broken, it's broken for all e-books protected using the same scheme.
Now, if textbooks were sold at a reasonable price, then perhaps the incentive to download it off a torrent will be far less. It's like music. If the price of music was appropriate, people would rather buy the music than download it.
When will organizations realize that people don't like getting shafted, and will actively try to stop themselves from being shafted?
That's the feel-good, moral superiority reason that politicians like to trot out every so often, and that the public falls for time and again. If anyone here ever wonders why people call Americans arrogant, parent pretty much sums it all up right there.
Realists know that it's just another form of imperialism.
But, think of the children that could be saved if people didn't have guns in the first place.
I think that's the problem with today's world. I don't remember where the quote's from (and too lazy to look it up), but it seems people are so afraid of anything happening to themselves or their loved ones that nothing happens to anybody, ever.
And who's going to judge them if they violate that oath?
If you're thinking "the people," then think again, because most people calling themselves patriotic, full-blooded Americans barely understand that there is such a thing as the "Constitution," much less be able to understand it.
Or, to put it this way: How many people can quote the preamble? How many people can tell you what it approximately says but not in its exact words? How many people know it exists? How many people even know what a "preamble" is?
To each his or her own. Some people think members of the opposite sex are cute, and others think, well, maybe the goats just don't talk back, huh? Have you ever thought of it that way?
In general, there's no good reason for computers to execute code you did not explicitly ask it to execute.
Malware can still be distributed through sneakernet. And remember the Sony rootkit fiasco? That's no better or worse than something you might catch from popping a pirated CD or DVD (the ones you buy for $1 off the streets).
Computer security is about control. It's about controlling what enters and leaves the computer, and what executes on the computer. Anything that causes execution on read automatically implies a complete loss of control.
Overall hygenic condition probably contributes as well. I'd imagine it's easier to get better in an overall cleaner environment than it'd be in a dirtier one. Not necessarily because of the obvious reasons, but maybe because people's immune systems are better in dirtier environments, and this virus seems to be taking out the ones with the best immune systems.
From experience, it's just making good estimations. You can't predict the future, but you can assess the probability of a certain scenario happening in the future. People with enough foresight, enough domain-specific and general knowledge, will be able to better make those assessments. Being able to prioritize the knowledge, to filter the noise, and that jazz is also important, but can be acquired through experience. What is probably most crucial, and what most people fail at, is to be completely emotionally detached, because emotions will fog up the calculations. The easiest way for a normal, non-psychopathic person to do this is to give best-, worst-, and most-likely-case estimations, i.e. use hope, fear, and find a happy balance in between.
Many abilities seem to be paranormal, but it's really just a different level of intellect, directed in a way that you might have never imagined possible. Now, when people can start moving large inanimate objects with their mind (because some people can generate a magnetic field with their brains that's large enough to move small ferrous objects), that's when I'll concede to the paranormal.
It's all about credibility. If you used illegal means to get your "evidence," there's no assurance that the "evidence" wasn't planted there in the first place. There are no assurances either way, but at least with evidence obtained legally, it's showing that the person who acquired the evidence respects the rule of law.
I wish I had mod points, or I would mod it up myself.
Parent is one of the most insightful analysis I've seen of the current situation with China. It's quite a bit more complex than what everybody appears to think, and parent has done an excellent job encapsulating it succinctly.
These kinds of social dynamics are pretty much biologically ingrained. Humans are social creatures. We're programmed to form groups because that increases our chances of success (propogation). And we form like-minded groups because the like-mindedness improves unity. Differences create divisions, and hence naturally, anyone with a different mindset wouldn't be a part of the group. It makes the ability to compromise all the more important.
I think the solution isn't to decry this fact of life and try to fight it, but to learn how to compromise, and that's only possible through mutual respect.
Hell yeah, that's an awesome idea! Instead of wasting bullets, let's throw lawyers and lobbyists at them! And we can start with the RIAA and work our way up to the ones working for Disney. Now that's what I call killing two birds with one stone.
Your premise is essentially accurate, but your argument is slightly flawed. The pirates will take anything that moves and isn't heavily armed. Their ransom is not for the cargo or the ship, but for the crew. You can put a dollar value on any material object, but not on life. So to negotiate the highest possible ransom, they take people.
Their motivation is essentially money, but I wouldn't say it is greed. They do it for the same reasons everybody else works: to make a living, and hopefully to enable their children to live better lives. Greed is officers and managers of failed banks awarding themselves multi-million dollar bonuses for failing as spectacularly as they did (which was a product of greed in and of itself) and taking the rest of the world with them. Greed only applies to those who have but still want more. The desire in and of itself is not greed.
You might argue that these are mostly children. That may be by our standards, but the "coming of age" period varies by culture. So they may be children in our society, but they could very well be considered adults in theirs with all such expectations, e.g. that they start a family and provide accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
But no teeth.
Until people figure out how to break the DRM and post PDF's of it online.
It takes a lot of work to digitize textbooks. The effort usually isn't worth the $20 a used textbook costs. It takes comparatively little effort to break DRM, and once the DRM is broken, it's broken for all e-books protected using the same scheme.
Now, if textbooks were sold at a reasonable price, then perhaps the incentive to download it off a torrent will be far less. It's like music. If the price of music was appropriate, people would rather buy the music than download it.
When will organizations realize that people don't like getting shafted, and will actively try to stop themselves from being shafted?
Well, if the drunk driver hit the president's motorcade, they might try to ban alcohol again.
That's the feel-good, moral superiority reason that politicians like to trot out every so often, and that the public falls for time and again. If anyone here ever wonders why people call Americans arrogant, parent pretty much sums it all up right there.
Realists know that it's just another form of imperialism.
That's 'cause it's butt-ugly looking. And nobody wants to put a butt-ugly looking cup into their living room display.
But, think of the children that could be saved if people didn't have guns in the first place.
I think that's the problem with today's world. I don't remember where the quote's from (and too lazy to look it up), but it seems people are so afraid of anything happening to themselves or their loved ones that nothing happens to anybody, ever.
Or I could say something bad back about you in my blog.
And who's going to judge them if they violate that oath?
If you're thinking "the people," then think again, because most people calling themselves patriotic, full-blooded Americans barely understand that there is such a thing as the "Constitution," much less be able to understand it.
Or, to put it this way: How many people can quote the preamble? How many people can tell you what it approximately says but not in its exact words? How many people know it exists? How many people even know what a "preamble" is?
To each his or her own. Some people think members of the opposite sex are cute, and others think, well, maybe the goats just don't talk back, huh? Have you ever thought of it that way?
Goats are browsers
So does it do better or worse than IE8 under the ACID3 test?
In general, there's no good reason for computers to execute code you did not explicitly ask it to execute.
Malware can still be distributed through sneakernet. And remember the Sony rootkit fiasco? That's no better or worse than something you might catch from popping a pirated CD or DVD (the ones you buy for $1 off the streets).
Computer security is about control. It's about controlling what enters and leaves the computer, and what executes on the computer. Anything that causes execution on read automatically implies a complete loss of control.
They got nuked.
Overall hygenic condition probably contributes as well. I'd imagine it's easier to get better in an overall cleaner environment than it'd be in a dirtier one. Not necessarily because of the obvious reasons, but maybe because people's immune systems are better in dirtier environments, and this virus seems to be taking out the ones with the best immune systems.
From experience, it's just making good estimations. You can't predict the future, but you can assess the probability of a certain scenario happening in the future. People with enough foresight, enough domain-specific and general knowledge, will be able to better make those assessments. Being able to prioritize the knowledge, to filter the noise, and that jazz is also important, but can be acquired through experience. What is probably most crucial, and what most people fail at, is to be completely emotionally detached, because emotions will fog up the calculations. The easiest way for a normal, non-psychopathic person to do this is to give best-, worst-, and most-likely-case estimations, i.e. use hope, fear, and find a happy balance in between.
Many abilities seem to be paranormal, but it's really just a different level of intellect, directed in a way that you might have never imagined possible. Now, when people can start moving large inanimate objects with their mind (because some people can generate a magnetic field with their brains that's large enough to move small ferrous objects), that's when I'll concede to the paranormal.
You still have much to learn, grasshopper.
Or, god forbid, convince you to eat an apple.
Of course the editors are going to sensationalize! You can't capture an audience if your summary states 18 microseconds.
It's all about credibility. If you used illegal means to get your "evidence," there's no assurance that the "evidence" wasn't planted there in the first place. There are no assurances either way, but at least with evidence obtained legally, it's showing that the person who acquired the evidence respects the rule of law.
I wish I had mod points, or I would mod it up myself.
Parent is one of the most insightful analysis I've seen of the current situation with China. It's quite a bit more complex than what everybody appears to think, and parent has done an excellent job encapsulating it succinctly.
These kinds of social dynamics are pretty much biologically ingrained. Humans are social creatures. We're programmed to form groups because that increases our chances of success (propogation). And we form like-minded groups because the like-mindedness improves unity. Differences create divisions, and hence naturally, anyone with a different mindset wouldn't be a part of the group. It makes the ability to compromise all the more important.
I think the solution isn't to decry this fact of life and try to fight it, but to learn how to compromise, and that's only possible through mutual respect.
You missed the part about what happens in Soviet Russia.
Hell yeah, that's an awesome idea! Instead of wasting bullets, let's throw lawyers and lobbyists at them! And we can start with the RIAA and work our way up to the ones working for Disney. Now that's what I call killing two birds with one stone.
And the 7 greatest captains will be called the Shichibukai. Just don't publically execute Rogers, or we'll all be screwed.
Your premise is essentially accurate, but your argument is slightly flawed. The pirates will take anything that moves and isn't heavily armed. Their ransom is not for the cargo or the ship, but for the crew. You can put a dollar value on any material object, but not on life. So to negotiate the highest possible ransom, they take people.
Their motivation is essentially money, but I wouldn't say it is greed. They do it for the same reasons everybody else works: to make a living, and hopefully to enable their children to live better lives. Greed is officers and managers of failed banks awarding themselves multi-million dollar bonuses for failing as spectacularly as they did (which was a product of greed in and of itself) and taking the rest of the world with them. Greed only applies to those who have but still want more. The desire in and of itself is not greed.
You might argue that these are mostly children. That may be by our standards, but the "coming of age" period varies by culture. So they may be children in our society, but they could very well be considered adults in theirs with all such expectations, e.g. that they start a family and provide accordingly.
Better question:
Does your machine come from Dell or HP or any other major vendor?