I'm just amazed at the number of people here who seem to have no problem with the possibility of going to jail based on the say-so of a device that:
(a) was made by humans (so it can't be perfect!)
(b) is owned/operated by the prosection/gvt (conflict of interest?)
(c) they are unable to independantly verify the workings.
Would you allow your opposition in a civil case to say - "I'm right, 'cause I have this black-box with a green light that's flashing; and it flashes whenever I'm right." The difference here is that you won't just lose some cash, but a part of your life, possibly your job, house etc...
As I said: this doesn't guarantee "open source" specifically, only that everyone has access...
When everyone knows something, it isn't a secret (by definition!); therefore, by extension, anything that everyone has access to can not be a trade secret...Extending this; why should I only see the "mechanism" if I'm formally charged and in legal proceedings? and so in the end, we have some sort of "open source" system, more specifically, one which is transparent, and (in the long term) helps ensure that those that are guilty obtain the prescribed punshiment, and those that are not are found "not guilty" are let go w/o punshiment.
Isn't that what we are all after?
Have any of you nay-sayers considered the possibility of false negatives in a closed-source system?
Closed-source demands perfection in a single entity. Open Source is the admission that not one of us is perfect.
No it doesn't.
Maybe I'm wrong, but imho, every free citizen has the right to personally verify any evidence used against them in a court of law. Whether or not that citizen is able to comprehend the arguments/details/whatever is not relevant - only that they be allowed to review it.
If they are personally unable to comprehend this, then this affords them the opportunity to consult with the experts of their choosing as they see fit - not as the gvt sees fit.
For due process to be transparent, the defendant needs to be afforded every opportunity to review and question every element that is being used to convict him/her. No matter how "independant" any group/company/organisation/person might be on paper, they are still not "my guy" if they have to sign "their papers" in order to see the evidence.
While this doesn't exlcude non-OSS, it does (and imho should) exclude anything where the mechanism is a trade secret. (that doesn't mean it's OSS, just not a trade secret)
When someone buy a dell or hp they don't have to install anything. They turn it on and a setup screen apears, after figuring out a few clicks, wallah a computer works. Magicaly, these users don't know much about computers... ...Most people just want thier computrers to work and do what they ask of it.
I agree 100%. The real problem with Linux is the complexity. WinXX users just click icons. The very little bit of configuration necessary is already cause for large help desk groups and companies.
Going from windows to linux is about as easy as going from win98 to XP to the majority of users.
More like trading in their Chevy for a 747. The car has three input devices (steering wheel, coupl'a pedals and a shift of some sort), and two instruments to monitor: speed and gas. The 747 on the other hand has dozens of buttons, levers, controls, guages and readouts. Learning to manipulate the Chevy is accomplished (to varying degrees of success) by most every 16-year old in only 5 1-hr lessons. Qualifying to fly a 747 takes hundreds of hours...
This isn't a bash on Linux -- I think that most of us here understand that there is an inverse relationship between power & complexity.
The real trick (imho) for Linux is to on one hand remain as powerful as it is for those that want it, while providing the ease-of-use/defaults/automation for those that just want to steer, accelerate and stop...
s/w has taught us that anything that can be done legit can be replicated/altered by those that are sufficiently interested.
So when the FBI arrests you b/c the marks on the fake bills match your printer you can protest all you want, but they will have "proof".
This is why IT sucks - everyone assumes it is infallible.
well you better burn your "-1 lacks research" mod points on yourself then, 'cause if you wander down to your local electronics store you will discover that the model numbers AND serial numbers are on many many boxes and yes they are both in BARCODE format for easy computer access. btw, "barcode" refers to format, not content.
Thanks largely to the invention of this nifty thing called a microprocessor adding the serial number on a sticker on each box costs tenths of pennies, not millions, and saves thousands if not millions in dealing with the distribution & maintenance channels.
My Toshiba laptop box not only had the serial number on the box, but when it went in for service the Tohiba rep knew which retailer it was sold through...
Let's forget about that since I have my entire life used the commerical break as a "bathroom break", "get a beverage break", "talk to the person in the room break"... and I think I'm not alone...and now with Tivo et al, the commercial is already perfectly skippable if you start watching the show at quarter after the hour instead of on the hour. Lastly, most of the shows are already available via commercial-free (illegal) downloads.
So instead, let's not forget about the pre-existing realities, and realise that legal downloads change nothing.
If DVD's have taught us anything it's that commercials will be added. I expect everything from product placements, to brand-mentions, and possibly yes, in-line ads (so you can't skip w/o skipping the show...)
I think that there's still tons of money for various companies to make, but it just might not be the local TV stations. They're just going to have to figure out how to make money w/o the network programming cash-cow. And if they can't figure it out, then they'll disappear just like the horse-buggy manufacturing company.
I'm getting really sick and tired of uncreative people who are making tons of money complaining when outside forces affect their current business model -- Either get creative with your revenue streams or get out of business.
I think that the consumer is speaking pretty loudly on this subject - on-demand type media is now what the consumer not only wants, but pretty much expects. Companies that can deliver this service stand to make a lot of money.
For beginner computer users in emerging markets who can only afford a low cost PC, Windows Vista Starter Edition provides a more affordable and easy introduction to personal computing because it is lower priced
I think this is pretty much going to be read as a slap by "emerging markets" when there is a fully featured OS that's free...
And once the "emerging markets" emerge and become dominant economic force(s) M$ will become just another apple-like example of how proprietary stuff eventually goes away, while stuff that's open and available thrives. (ironic that M$ used to be the 'open choice'...)
This is only a good idea if you're an insurance company, since they are the only ones guaranteed to make a profit on this.
developers pay premiums based on their history.
I don't know how it works where you are, but 'round here people pay car insurance based on how everyone else drives (factors like age, gender etc can play an enormous role in the rate, regardless of the drivers own record)
The liability insurance problem with doctors is a problem of the legal system, not with insurance itself.
...and that very same legal system will preside over these claims.
sadly, you don't have to be right to drag someone into court... you just have to be willing to pay legal fees.
The former contractor I made reference to has been in court for a couple of years, has lost his house and his wife over this, and imho, the pimp doesn't have a leg to stand on... just the bucks to keep litigating.
I think the company (at this point) is just fighting 'cause it knows he's broke...:(
Not necessarily.
All the contracts in our organisation have a termination clause, which either party can exercise with appropriate notice.
I'm not in the contracting side, so I don't know the exact details, but if I understood correctly, the employer can give 24hrs notice, and the contractor has to give 4-weeks...
Either way, if they don't want you, they can terminate the contract w/o penalty.
Like previous poster said: Read the contract. There's lots of choice when it comes to contracting.
And the 'pimps' are no better - while they offer the advantage of doing the job-search for you, their cut can be quite high, and worse, the contract may lock you in to their company. One of our former contractors is still in court over this...:(
well, two things, i guess:
1) My understanding is that the HBO shows are commercial free, and rely on paid subscription, so regardless of how anyone watches it, there are no ad revenues to lose. But if that's false, then I would simply expect the HBO download to include the ads. That would be no different than the broadcast version.
2) As of July 2005, iTunes had sold 500,000,000 songs, so I guess a million people disagree 500 times each, or ten million disagree 50 times each, or whatever, that just because something is available w/o paying copyright, they will infringe.
This is like the needles-for-drug-users question: Does giving out needles encourage non-users to start? I really doubt it. The drug users are drug users whether or not there are free needles.
So, what I'm saying is that there are versions on the 'net now, and HBO is not putting them there. So they can either jump in, and add legitimate versions to the 'net for those that simply want a choice of medium, or they can continue (as the recording industry is doing) to deny reality, and try to put the genie back in the bottle.
As for DRM, while you are probably correct, and that there are a lot of companies waiting for the magician to come and solve their problems, the reality is that there is no way to stop illegal versions. Since at the end of the day, the images needs to be visible, and the sounds need to be audible, the unencrypted streams must exist, and so someone will find a way to capture and save this stream. I believe Jon (aka DVD-Jon) Johansen's iTunes 'hack' is in fact a stream-read, and in no way decryptes the file.
This is no different than the way TV networks pay licensing fees for the shows that they broadcast.
What the RIAA has a problem with is the satellite radio providers giving their listeners the ability to record high quality copies of potentially hundreds of songs a month.
Wow, then it's real lucky for the TV networks that there's no way to record high quality versions of the TV shows and make them available on the internet. ...what a lucky break that is.
I agree that this is a pseudo-solution, and also that it's a good one, but it's at most 1/2 the solution.
imho what's really missing is a pay-for-download version (iHBO anyone?).
This service could be free to HBO subscribers, and everyone else could buy single shows, a series or a time-span (1-month, etc).
The single thing that media groups didn't learn from s/w companies is that 100% piracy elimination is 100% impossible, and in my opinion software piracy even helped certain products become #1. I think this would be true for media as well: as more people pirate it, more people talk about it, and more people buy it.
The bottom line is that there is no product that everyone will buy, so any product that can be exchanged for 'free' will be. To a large degree this has positive, not negative economic impacts for the rights-holders. Since the piracy has no direct impact there is no monetary loss, but there is increased exposure.
It blows my mind that these supposed business experts are failing business-101: If there is a demand, fill it. The demand is to have media available on the internet, and since they are not filling it, it's being filled by others.
iTunes is proof that despite 'free' content, there are lots of people will pay for it...
When I was younger I thought all the world's problems could be fixed by applying economic (monetary) pressures, and I still feel that there is some very string merit to this approach.
Unfortunately there are some real probems with pure capitalism, and that reflects in a number of ares:
-The UN puts Norway, Sweden, Australia and Canada as the top 4 (2004) in United Nation's Quality of Life survey. All these countries have strong social policies (i.e. far less capitalistic than the US)
-Companies don't necessarily make what's best for the consumer: products are now more and more often made to be disposable. (how do I make more money: sell the best product once, or some minimum-standard product 1000x. Engineered Obsolesence is a capitalist phrase)
-Capitalism doesn't take hidden costs into account (like social problems, environmental problems) but looks only at the costs/profits for the next quarter.
I'm not sure I would find this acceptable for something like information. If I'm asking for an answer to some question, and I'm told the answer is '12', how can I verify this?
I guess what I'm also questioning is the feedback loop...and compensation (in capitalism) is a big part of the feedback loop. I'm intrigued by the idea of hiding bits of information, and perhaps over time one could determine whether or not someone was an expert or not.
I guess the real problems for me is that if I'm shopping for a car, I can look at each one before I buy - compare and contrast: why is the bimmer $65,000 and the hyundai only $10,000 ?
What exactly is it about the one bit of information/expertise that makes it worth spending 6x as much to learn it? Unlike physical goods, information can't be previewed, since it can't be 'unlearned'.
Since by definition I don't know the answer, it may be difficult to decide based purely on asking price which one I want or need to buy.
To answer the original question: I use wikipedia as a "xyz for dummies" reference. I don't expect to walk away an expert, but I do expect to have an idea of what the word/phrase is all about. Really, phd's arguing over minor symantics that only another phd would care about means nothing to me. If someone needs that kind of detail they are at the wrong resource... Once you view wikipedia in that context, it becomes a very valuable resource, and ain't broke, so it don't need no fixin'.
One last point that a previous poster aluded to: OSS is 100% free to me. I am 100% convinced that it not only has value today, but will have value to the human race into the forseable future and see no immediate threat to the current price model (free as beer and speach...) If that's not your vision of OSS you might be on the wrong forum;)
The connecting of several networks into a single network of networks (aka the internet) was most definately an American creation.
But the modern internet?
Methinks that CERN should receive the bulk of the credit since Mr Berners-Lee/CERN is credited with inventing the web - you know, the part of the network we use everyday (right now in fact!)
Americans might well notice that it's called the WORLD wide web, not the AMERICAN wide web...
...not that I have a problem with the root severs being held by a democracy - and I would have to agree that if it ain't broken, don't fix it.
Do any of the nay-sayers know how much influence the US Gvt actually exercises over those servers? While I don't know, I suspect there is very little interaction/influence.
Brazil relies on it for 90% of its tax collection
As for Brazil's taxes...uhm, couldn't they (by design) ensure that regardless of being cut-off from the outside, their taxes still get collected within their physical borders? The root servers just direct traffic that gets to them...
Am I missing something?
Like all property-based systems, though, this tends to mean that property coagulates in the hands of corporations of course, and, from this, Bad Things may ensue if the government doesn't act as a balance. In any good governmental system, the government must act to ensure that the interests of those who own a lot of property (intellectual or otherwise) don't outweigh the interests of those who don't. But if that doesn't happen, it's the fault of poor government, not of copyright as such.
I guess I see "poor government" as a guarantee, so the only way to guarantee that big corporations don't obliterate individual rights is by not giving these intelectual property rights in the first place.
And if you don't think it's already abused note that m$ applied for a patent on the IsNot operator...
I'd like someone to explain to me how this will foster more innovation.
Re:This sort of thing...
on
RIAA Sues a Child
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's theft in the same way that declining to pay for, say, your haircut, is theft of services; and it is indeed illegal. Check section 2319 here, the bit titled "Criminal infringement of copyright."
Since the link points to law relating to counterfeit of gov't seals, I can only assume you've given up, and live the United Republic of the Recording Industry.
Slashdot Mirror
(a) was made by humans (so it can't be perfect!)
(b) is owned/operated by the prosection/gvt (conflict of interest?)
(c) they are unable to independantly verify the workings.
Would you allow your opposition in a civil case to say - "I'm right, 'cause I have this black-box with a green light that's flashing; and it flashes whenever I'm right." The difference here is that you won't just lose some cash, but a part of your life, possibly your job, house etc...
wtf?
This has nothing to do with letting guilty people "off the hook" and everything to do with ensuring that only the _guilty_ are found _guilty_.
When everyone knows something, it isn't a secret (by definition!); therefore, by extension, anything that everyone has access to can not be a trade secret...Extending this; why should I only see the "mechanism" if I'm formally charged and in legal proceedings? and so in the end, we have some sort of "open source" system, more specifically, one which is transparent, and (in the long term) helps ensure that those that are guilty obtain the prescribed punshiment, and those that are not are found "not guilty" are let go w/o punshiment.
Isn't that what we are all after?
Have any of you nay-sayers considered the possibility of false negatives in a closed-source system?
Closed-source demands perfection in a single entity. Open Source is the admission that not one of us is perfect.
'cause my Windoze PC has never crashed. honest.
Maybe I'm wrong, but imho, every free citizen has the right to personally verify any evidence used against them in a court of law. Whether or not that citizen is able to comprehend the arguments/details/whatever is not relevant - only that they be allowed to review it.
If they are personally unable to comprehend this, then this affords them the opportunity to consult with the experts of their choosing as they see fit - not as the gvt sees fit.
For due process to be transparent, the defendant needs to be afforded every opportunity to review and question every element that is being used to convict him/her. No matter how "independant" any group/company/organisation/person might be on paper, they are still not "my guy" if they have to sign "their papers" in order to see the evidence.
While this doesn't exlcude non-OSS, it does (and imho should) exclude anything where the mechanism is a trade secret. (that doesn't mean it's OSS, just not a trade secret)
I agree 100%. The real problem with Linux is the complexity. WinXX users just click icons. The very little bit of configuration necessary is already cause for large help desk groups and companies.
More like trading in their Chevy for a 747.
The car has three input devices (steering wheel, coupl'a pedals and a shift of some sort), and two instruments to monitor: speed and gas. The 747 on the other hand has dozens of buttons, levers, controls, guages and readouts.
Learning to manipulate the Chevy is accomplished (to varying degrees of success) by most every 16-year old in only 5 1-hr lessons. Qualifying to fly a 747 takes hundreds of hours...
This isn't a bash on Linux -- I think that most of us here understand that there is an inverse relationship between power & complexity. ...
The real trick (imho) for Linux is to on one hand remain as powerful as it is for those that want it, while providing the ease-of-use/defaults/automation for those that just want to steer, accelerate and stop
if only you actually could save money w/o m$.
So when the FBI arrests you b/c the marks on the fake bills match your printer you can protest all you want, but they will have "proof".
This is why IT sucks - everyone assumes it is infallible.
Thanks largely to the invention of this nifty thing called a microprocessor adding the serial number on a sticker on each box costs tenths of pennies, not millions, and saves thousands if not millions in dealing with the distribution & maintenance channels.
My Toshiba laptop box not only had the serial number on the box, but when it went in for service the Tohiba rep knew which retailer it was sold through...
feel free to mod this down (-1 mod angry).
Let's forget about that since I have my entire life used the commerical break as a "bathroom break", "get a beverage break", "talk to the person in the room break" ... and I think I'm not alone...and now with Tivo et al, the commercial is already perfectly skippable if you start watching the show at quarter after the hour instead of on the hour. Lastly, most of the shows are already available via commercial-free (illegal) downloads.
So instead, let's not forget about the pre-existing realities, and realise that legal downloads change nothing.
I think that there's still tons of money for various companies to make, but it just might not be the local TV stations. They're just going to have to figure out how to make money w/o the network programming cash-cow. And if they can't figure it out, then they'll disappear just like the horse-buggy manufacturing company.
I'm getting really sick and tired of uncreative people who are making tons of money complaining when outside forces affect their current business model -- Either get creative with your revenue streams or get out of business.
I think that the consumer is speaking pretty loudly on this subject - on-demand type media is now what the consumer not only wants, but pretty much expects. Companies that can deliver this service stand to make a lot of money.
Well, I guess this article might be about you then...
I think this is pretty much going to be read as a slap by "emerging markets" when there is a fully featured OS that's free ...
And once the "emerging markets" emerge and become dominant economic force(s) M$ will become just another apple-like example of how proprietary stuff eventually goes away, while stuff that's open and available thrives. (ironic that M$ used to be the 'open choice'...)
I don't know how it works where you are, but 'round here people pay car insurance based on how everyone else drives (factors like age, gender etc can play an enormous role in the rate, regardless of the drivers own record)
The former contractor I made reference to has been in court for a couple of years, has lost his house and his wife over this, and imho, the pimp doesn't have a leg to stand on
I think the company (at this point) is just fighting 'cause it knows he's broke... :(
All the contracts in our organisation have a termination clause, which either party can exercise with appropriate notice.
I'm not in the contracting side, so I don't know the exact details, but if I understood correctly, the employer can give 24hrs notice, and the contractor has to give 4-weeks...
Either way, if they don't want you, they can terminate the contract w/o penalty.
Like previous poster said: Read the contract. There's lots of choice when it comes to contracting.
And the 'pimps' are no better - while they offer the advantage of doing the job-search for you, their cut can be quite high, and worse, the contract may lock you in to their company. One of our former contractors is still in court over this... :(
1) My understanding is that the HBO shows are commercial free, and rely on paid subscription, so regardless of how anyone watches it, there are no ad revenues to lose. But if that's false, then I would simply expect the HBO download to include the ads. That would be no different than the broadcast version.
2) As of July 2005, iTunes had sold 500,000,000 songs, so I guess a million people disagree 500 times each, or ten million disagree 50 times each, or whatever, that just because something is available w/o paying copyright, they will infringe.
This is like the needles-for-drug-users question: Does giving out needles encourage non-users to start? I really doubt it. The drug users are drug users whether or not there are free needles.
So, what I'm saying is that there are versions on the 'net now, and HBO is not putting them there. So they can either jump in, and add legitimate versions to the 'net for those that simply want a choice of medium, or they can continue (as the recording industry is doing) to deny reality, and try to put the genie back in the bottle.
As for DRM, while you are probably correct, and that there are a lot of companies waiting for the magician to come and solve their problems, the reality is that there is no way to stop illegal versions. Since at the end of the day, the images needs to be visible, and the sounds need to be audible, the unencrypted streams must exist, and so someone will find a way to capture and save this stream. I believe Jon (aka DVD-Jon) Johansen's iTunes 'hack' is in fact a stream-read, and in no way decryptes the file.
Wow, then it's real lucky for the TV networks that there's no way to record high quality versions of the TV shows and make them available on the internet.
...what a lucky break that is.
imho what's really missing is a pay-for-download version (iHBO anyone?).
This service could be free to HBO subscribers, and everyone else could buy single shows, a series or a time-span (1-month, etc).
The single thing that media groups didn't learn from s/w companies is that 100% piracy elimination is 100% impossible, and in my opinion software piracy even helped certain products become #1. I think this would be true for media as well: as more people pirate it, more people talk about it, and more people buy it.
The bottom line is that there is no product that everyone will buy, so any product that can be exchanged for 'free' will be. To a large degree this has positive, not negative economic impacts for the rights-holders. Since the piracy has no direct impact there is no monetary loss, but there is increased exposure.
It blows my mind that these supposed business experts are failing business-101: If there is a demand, fill it. The demand is to have media available on the internet, and since they are not filling it, it's being filled by others.
iTunes is proof that despite 'free' content, there are lots of people will pay for it...
but the earth is flat.
Unfortunately there are some real probems with pure capitalism, and that reflects in a number of ares:
-The UN puts Norway, Sweden, Australia and Canada as the top 4 (2004) in United Nation's Quality of Life survey. All these countries have strong social policies (i.e. far less capitalistic than the US)
-Companies don't necessarily make what's best for the consumer: products are now more and more often made to be disposable. (how do I make more money: sell the best product once, or some minimum-standard product 1000x. Engineered Obsolesence is a capitalist phrase)
-Capitalism doesn't take hidden costs into account (like social problems, environmental problems) but looks only at the costs/profits for the next quarter.
I'm not sure I would find this acceptable for something like information. If I'm asking for an answer to some question, and I'm told the answer is '12', how can I verify this?
I guess what I'm also questioning is the feedback loop...and compensation (in capitalism) is a big part of the feedback loop. I'm intrigued by the idea of hiding bits of information, and perhaps over time one could determine whether or not someone was an expert or not.
I guess the real problems for me is that if I'm shopping for a car, I can look at each one before I buy - compare and contrast: why is the bimmer $65,000 and the hyundai only $10,000 ?
What exactly is it about the one bit of information/expertise that makes it worth spending 6x as much to learn it? Unlike physical goods, information can't be previewed, since it can't be 'unlearned'.
Since by definition I don't know the answer, it may be difficult to decide based purely on asking price which one I want or need to buy.
To answer the original question: I use wikipedia as a "xyz for dummies" reference. I don't expect to walk away an expert, but I do expect to have an idea of what the word/phrase is all about. Really, phd's arguing over minor symantics that only another phd would care about means nothing to me. If someone needs that kind of detail they are at the wrong resource... Once you view wikipedia in that context, it becomes a very valuable resource, and ain't broke, so it don't need no fixin'.
One last point that a previous poster aluded to: OSS is 100% free to me. I am 100% convinced that it not only has value today, but will have value to the human race into the forseable future and see no immediate threat to the current price model (free as beer and speach...) If that's not your vision of OSS you might be on the wrong forum ;)
But the modern internet?
Methinks that CERN should receive the bulk of the credit since Mr Berners-Lee/CERN is credited with inventing the web - you know, the part of the network we use everyday (right now in fact!)
Americans might well notice that it's called the WORLD wide web, not the AMERICAN wide web...
Do any of the nay-sayers know how much influence the US Gvt actually exercises over those servers? While I don't know, I suspect there is very little interaction/influence.
As for Brazil's taxes ...uhm, couldn't they (by design) ensure that regardless of being cut-off from the outside, their taxes still get collected within their physical borders? The root servers just direct traffic that gets to them...
Am I missing something?
Al Gore invented the internet.
I guess I see "poor government" as a guarantee, so the only way to guarantee that big corporations don't obliterate individual rights is by not giving these intelectual property rights in the first place.
And if you don't think it's already abused note that m$ applied for a patent on the IsNot operator...
I'd like someone to explain to me how this will foster more innovation.
Since the link points to law relating to counterfeit of gov't seals, I can only assume you've given up, and live the United Republic of the Recording Industry.
Long live the Republic!