Of course it isn't level. Look at how the first Vista speaker finishes his piece:
It's an amazing OS. I really think that this one's going to give Apple Macs a run for their money.
You see, finally those underdogs Microsoft with their little-known, radical 'Windows' OS are going to give Apple, the dominant and seemingly invincible player, some decent competition. At long last, Microsoft can rise and challenge Apple, which was unthinkable until just now.
(I mean, c'mon, what kind of summary is that? "this one's going to give Apple Macs a run for their money"?!)
He's going to need attorneys very soon. By hacking the DRM he committed a violation; publishing the hack would just add insult to injury - perhaps a lawsuit for supposed 'damages'. But he has already broken the law.
I ran some tests on all the PDF viewers for Linux. xPDF used the least RAM and was the fastest. However, it has less features than e.g. Evince, and doesn't always render 100% correctly. Still, I use it on a daily basis (seeing as I often have several PDFs open for days).
Both of these are based on 'wavelett' style technology
Actually 'wavelet' is the correct spelling (sorry to be pedantic). But you are right that wavelet applications are an interesting topic.
In short, wavelets are like Fourier transforms, but they have a location, not just a frequency. Like with the FT, you can represent spatial data by wavelets, and the localization aspect turns out to be useful in practice, in particular for codecs (but it is also useful from a theoretical aspect, wavelets were - perhaps still are - somewhat in fashion among in statistical circles).
You give them the lock.
You give them the key.
You hope that they can't figure out how to put one into the other.
High fives.
Yes, any DRM method can be circumvented, as you indicate. But they still work. Thing is, DRM isn't meant to protect against Slashdot-reader-type people; we will always find a way to get our fair use rights back. But for 90% of the public, DRM works perfectly - they never heard of DeCSS, they won't know how to download this particular AACS hack.
Why do the DRM people even try to get DRM to work for everyone, that is, to prevent it being hacked by power users? Publicity, mostly. Yes, it's a losing battle, and they surely know that it is, but they can't let it be heard that 'DRM has failed'. So they will band-aid every breach, always a few steps behind the hackers. They can lose this battle, they have already won the war.
There isn't much we can do about this. I help out my non-geek friends with this sort of thing, but the majority of non-geeks probably just live with DRM. The only real solution to this would be political (like Norway, but against DRM in general, not Apple in particular).
You are right that the actual music labels are the issue, not the RIAA, of course (I was just saying RIAA for short - what I meant are the people holding the copyrights to the music). But the "Norway isn't America" issue is not relevant. While the RIAA (again, shorthand, meaning the people who hold the copyrights) may be based in the USA, they hold the copyrights to the music, and copyrights are valid worldwide by international agreements. So if the RIAA will only allow their music to be sold in Norway if it has DRM, then that is how it will be, because only they can authorize people to make copies of the music they hold the copyright to.
So, it isn't Apple who are to blame for DRM being used in Norway, or anywhere else (even though, as I said before, they do profit from it).
Windows doesn't limit what hardware you can run it on, and all the other 3rd party software that only runs on Windows? Well that's the people who write the software's decision.
Look at it this way: 3rd party software that only runs on Windows is exactly like DRMed music that only runs on iPods - it is the content manufacturer's decision to limit the platform. 3rd party developers could choose to use cross-platform tools; the RIAA could choose to sell music without DRM, that would work on any mp3 player (and actually the latter is much simpler).
DRM is the RIAA's fault, not Apple's (even if Apple do benefit from it). To see why this is true, consider the case of Norway from TFA: if they require iTunes to 'interoperate' with all mp3 players, or Apple must not do business in Norway, then the simplest way to comply would be to... sell music without DRM. The reason Apple can't do that is the RIAA.
The scientific publishing industry is almost like a cartel, and just like the entertainment industry they are flailing wildly to try and keep a dying business model alive with FUD.
Exactly right. Slashdot readers are probably most familiar with the RIAA/MPAA and issues regarding them, as well as FOSS vs. proprietary software, but the same sort of thing is going on in other areas as well. Basically it can be summarized just as you said: dying business models trying to stay alive by unethical practices.
In scientific publishing, the old business model is giving way - slowly - to open-access journals. Also important in this topic are projects like arXiv, PubMed, CiteSeer, etc. which are also on the forefront of opening up access to scientific research.
Sounds good? Don't major email providers already do something like this? What else are Google doing when lots of people click on "This is Spam" for a particular email - surely they notice such things? The same should be true of email traffic patterns. Yet, perhaps some minor detail in TFA is the new bit. Obviously any improvement in this area is welcome.
While this will not stop spam, it will be reduced dramatically. The STP value of a spam source will grow proportionally to the number of junk messages sent. The first several thousands emails will get to unlucky recipients when spamming starts, but the rest hundreds of thousands will not.
Actually, webmail can do one better: if a message is marked as spam at some point in time, the system can retroactively remove it from the Inboxes of the 'first few thousand unlucky recipients' (or mark it 'this may be spam', gray it out, etc., at the least). I don't know of anyone doing this, but I wish they would.
Welcome to slashdot; here's your junk science for the day.
You can't prove string theory through experimentation, all you can do is attempt to disprove it.
Depends on what philosophy of science you subscribe to:
1. According to the 'old consensus' (e.g. the Logical Positivists, early 20th century), you can prove scientific theories.
2. According to Karl Popper, you cannot prove theories, you can only disprove them. It appears that you follow this approach.
3. According to W. V. Quine, you cannot prove or disprove theories, strictly speaking; evidence is taken along with previous information in order to arrive at conclusions.
4. And if you listen to Thomas Kuhn, you get a really different picture from all of these (which I won't go into).
Note that both Popper and Quine are among the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. It is of course legitimate that you are presenting the views of one of them. However, Slashdot readers should be aware of the existence of other views, both in science and in philosophy.
- installs new software correctly, in default and custom locations
- uninstalls old software correctly
- updates old to new software correctly
[...]
Most Linux distros already have package management that does all of the things you mention. This is in fact one of the major benefits of using Linux over Windows. Apt-get (for example) works like a charm, assuming what you want is in the repos (and in Debian, it generally is). I guess you are referring to cutting-edge software, that isn't in the repos yet?
What is interesting about CNR is something completely different than 'software installation that just works'. CNR can provide a standard and easy-to-use way to purchase software, for example, DVD playback, codecs, etc. - things that Linux distros can't legally include by themselves (in some countries at least). While the typical Linux user may not care much about these things, some people do, and in particular some organizations must be 100% legal, no doubts allowed. For them, a convenient way to spend a few dollars for mp3 playback and get it legally may be a big thing.
I think that part of this issue is that they want to be the single source of exposure for their artists, so anyone else that helps them out is a potential problem.
Exactly. But to be the single source of exposure is exactly what (1) copyright law is supposed to give the RIAA, because (2) they have the artists' consent for them being the single source. Now, the RIAA are assholes to be sure, but let's blame the real culprits here: (1) copyright law, which is ridiculously behind the times, and (2) the artists, without whom none of this insanity would be happening.
And before anyone says "but the artists have no choice" - they DO have a choice, there are independent labels. If an artist cares about music more than profits, the independent labels are a perfectly reasonable option.
The problem is precisely the LACK of a patent system for this type of scenario. This drug shows exactly what would happen WITHOUT a patent system - no one would have an incentive to develop and test new drugs, because anyone else would copycat without the upfront costs, and win therefore win the price war.
No, what this shows is that complete reliance on the drug companies is a problem. We simply cannot expect the drug companies to do all important biomedical research. And we don't - there are also nonprofit research bodies, e.g. universities.
If no drug company is interested in funding studies on this new drug, I can only hope that some academic research group will. They certainly have plenty of motivation - pure altruism, a possible Nobel prize, etc. And there is lots of money in academic medical research - both from government grants (which should be higher, but are still significant), and from donations. Aging rich people tend to be concerned about health-related issues, which leads many of them to make sizable donations (my scholarship is currently paid by such people).
[...] Ultimately, if you build it (the program), they will come, but not in droves. Like it or not, there seems to be a difference in wiring between the sexes.
Everything you said was fine until this point. But when you say 'wiring', it seems you are implying a biological difference (I say 'seems', because perhaps you didn't intend this... if not, then a different choice of words would have been better). But the difference may very well be only cultural - we just don't know. If it is in fact only cultural, then it can be changed, perhaps by incentive programs of some sort, such as TFA suggests.
You are absolutely wrong. According to this post the Department of Justice says you're mistaken, and this is the government agency tasked with keeping crime statistics. What say you now?
I say that there is more than one way to measure recidivism. For example, a study in Arizona found that 70% of sex offenders eventually return to prison for a new sex crime, looking at a 15 year period. The study you quoted looks at a 3 year period. I'm not saying one of the studies is right and the other is wrong - in fact they may both be right.
But it is not easy to make the comparisons we would like to make. For example, I would like to compare recidivism rates for sex offenders and murderers. But murderers serve very long sentences, so they are significantly older when released (if they are released at all), which may mean that their chances to commit another murder is lower just for that reason (older people commit less crimes, statistically). On the other hand there are plenty of people released when they are young for e.g. theft, and their recidivism rates may be higher than rates for sex offenders. But I am not sure that is the right thing to compare. In other words, there is data, and there is interpretation, and plenty of room to argue.
Funny, but noboby gets labeled a "murderer" for life. Murderers are released from prison every day. In fact, hundreds of them. They serve their sentence and move on. No reporting themselves to their neighbors. No exclusion zones. No "registered murderer" lists.
One reason (and I don't claim this is the only one) for the difference is recidivism rates (i.e. chance to repeat the crime). Recidivism rates for sex offenders are among the highest. Recidivism rates for murder are significantly lower.
I'm not justifying the whole 'registered sex offender' approach based on this data, mind you. Just mentioning it, as one of the main reasons for it.
You are right, the influence of Rock is very large, especially when you look at the past 50 years. But more recently, developments in Hip-Hop has been more influential, IMO. Yes, song structure and so forth in popular music are basically based on the Rock tradition, but again, I am talking about more recent developments. Say the last 10 years.
But I guess it is a matter of perspective and interpretation.
>> Name a type of music that has been more influential in the last 30 years.
> How about, um, rock music? Rock music in all its form hasn't exactly been out of style and dead since early 1977.
The emphasis above is my own. And that is what I think you missed in your response. Sure, Rock is doing fine, but it isn't influential the way that Hip-Hop is. Hip-hop has greatly influenced Rock (e.g. Red Hot Chili Peppers, all the Nu-Metal bands, etc., and that is just the rap aspect of Hip-Hop). Nearly every hit single is influenced by Hip-Hop these days; the same can't be said for Rock.
Note that this is irrelevant to my opinion about the genre. Personally I tend to listen to Post-Punk.
1) Google don't have a monopoly on search, unless you think 70-75% or so is a monopoly (I don't).
2) Search isn't everthing. Yahoo.com and msn.com were highly-popular websites, last I checked; people are free to advertise on them (and yes, I know appearing in Search results is free). Specifically for java-related issues (which is what TFA's website appears to be) there are various websites on which you can advertise or make your presence known. And there are also websites like Slashdot which are already helping TFA out.
Last things first: Apple doesn't have to abide by the APSL with respect to their own code.
True. And whatever code in OS X that isn't theirs is, if I am not mistaken, BSD-licensed, so that is no problem either.
Why would Apple create a new OS from scratch? This is probably a port of OS X to ARM (or whatever processer is used), designed for a small memory footprint and so forth.
Hmmm, this reminds me of those stories that come up from time to time about some big corporation forgetting to renew their domain names. If the outcome of the trademark dispute comes down to this, it will argue strongly for paying attention to the little details.
Not at all. If TFA is right, this has nothing to do with 'little details'. The big details are that Cisco had no product called 'iPhone' for years, and recently just stuck a sticker on a picture of an existing product, rebranding it 'iPhone', when renewing the trademark, when no such branding existed in the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
In a way, the perpetrators of these ripoffs are actually doing humanity a favor. They are making stupidity more painful.
Looking at it another way, these ripoffs make immorality more enjoyable (i.e. for the perpetrators).
Doesn't sound good to me.
Of course it isn't level. Look at how the first Vista speaker finishes his piece:
You see, finally those underdogs Microsoft with their little-known, radical 'Windows' OS are going to give Apple, the dominant and seemingly invincible player, some decent competition. At long last, Microsoft can rise and challenge Apple, which was unthinkable until just now.
(I mean, c'mon, what kind of summary is that? "this one's going to give Apple Macs a run for their money"?!)
He's going to need attorneys very soon. By hacking the DRM he committed a violation; publishing the hack would just add insult to injury - perhaps a lawsuit for supposed 'damages'. But he has already broken the law.
IANAL.
I ran some tests on all the PDF viewers for Linux. xPDF used the least RAM and was the fastest. However, it has less features than e.g. Evince, and doesn't always render 100% correctly. Still, I use it on a daily basis (seeing as I often have several PDFs open for days).
1. Don't equate pornography with sex. It isn't the same. You can be pro-sex but not pro-pornography.
2. That said, I would say that 95% of violently anti-pornography people are, at some level, anti-sex.
Both of these are based on 'wavelett' style technology
Actually 'wavelet' is the correct spelling (sorry to be pedantic). But you are right that wavelet applications are an interesting topic.
In short, wavelets are like Fourier transforms, but they have a location, not just a frequency. Like with the FT, you can represent spatial data by wavelets, and the localization aspect turns out to be useful in practice, in particular for codecs (but it is also useful from a theoretical aspect, wavelets were - perhaps still are - somewhat in fashion among in statistical circles).
Yes, any DRM method can be circumvented, as you indicate. But they still work. Thing is, DRM isn't meant to protect against Slashdot-reader-type people; we will always find a way to get our fair use rights back. But for 90% of the public, DRM works perfectly - they never heard of DeCSS, they won't know how to download this particular AACS hack.
Why do the DRM people even try to get DRM to work for everyone, that is, to prevent it being hacked by power users? Publicity, mostly. Yes, it's a losing battle, and they surely know that it is, but they can't let it be heard that 'DRM has failed'. So they will band-aid every breach, always a few steps behind the hackers. They can lose this battle, they have already won the war.
There isn't much we can do about this. I help out my non-geek friends with this sort of thing, but the majority of non-geeks probably just live with DRM. The only real solution to this would be political (like Norway, but against DRM in general, not Apple in particular).
You are right that the actual music labels are the issue, not the RIAA, of course (I was just saying RIAA for short - what I meant are the people holding the copyrights to the music). But the "Norway isn't America" issue is not relevant. While the RIAA (again, shorthand, meaning the people who hold the copyrights) may be based in the USA, they hold the copyrights to the music, and copyrights are valid worldwide by international agreements. So if the RIAA will only allow their music to be sold in Norway if it has DRM, then that is how it will be, because only they can authorize people to make copies of the music they hold the copyright to.
So, it isn't Apple who are to blame for DRM being used in Norway, or anywhere else (even though, as I said before, they do profit from it).
Look at it this way: 3rd party software that only runs on Windows is exactly like DRMed music that only runs on iPods - it is the content manufacturer's decision to limit the platform. 3rd party developers could choose to use cross-platform tools; the RIAA could choose to sell music without DRM, that would work on any mp3 player (and actually the latter is much simpler).
DRM is the RIAA's fault, not Apple's (even if Apple do benefit from it). To see why this is true, consider the case of Norway from TFA: if they require iTunes to 'interoperate' with all mp3 players, or Apple must not do business in Norway, then the simplest way to comply would be to... sell music without DRM. The reason Apple can't do that is the RIAA.
Exactly right. Slashdot readers are probably most familiar with the RIAA/MPAA and issues regarding them, as well as FOSS vs. proprietary software, but the same sort of thing is going on in other areas as well. Basically it can be summarized just as you said: dying business models trying to stay alive by unethical practices.
In scientific publishing, the old business model is giving way - slowly - to open-access journals. Also important in this topic are projects like arXiv, PubMed, CiteSeer, etc. which are also on the forefront of opening up access to scientific research.
Actually, webmail can do one better: if a message is marked as spam at some point in time, the system can retroactively remove it from the Inboxes of the 'first few thousand unlucky recipients' (or mark it 'this may be spam', gray it out, etc., at the least). I don't know of anyone doing this, but I wish they would.
Depends on what philosophy of science you subscribe to:
1. According to the 'old consensus' (e.g. the Logical Positivists, early 20th century), you can prove scientific theories.
2. According to Karl Popper, you cannot prove theories, you can only disprove them. It appears that you follow this approach.
3. According to W. V. Quine, you cannot prove or disprove theories, strictly speaking; evidence is taken along with previous information in order to arrive at conclusions.
4. And if you listen to Thomas Kuhn, you get a really different picture from all of these (which I won't go into).
Note that both Popper and Quine are among the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. It is of course legitimate that you are presenting the views of one of them. However, Slashdot readers should be aware of the existence of other views, both in science and in philosophy.
Most Linux distros already have package management that does all of the things you mention. This is in fact one of the major benefits of using Linux over Windows. Apt-get (for example) works like a charm, assuming what you want is in the repos (and in Debian, it generally is). I guess you are referring to cutting-edge software, that isn't in the repos yet?
What is interesting about CNR is something completely different than 'software installation that just works'. CNR can provide a standard and easy-to-use way to purchase software, for example, DVD playback, codecs, etc. - things that Linux distros can't legally include by themselves (in some countries at least). While the typical Linux user may not care much about these things, some people do, and in particular some organizations must be 100% legal, no doubts allowed. For them, a convenient way to spend a few dollars for mp3 playback and get it legally may be a big thing.
Exactly. But to be the single source of exposure is exactly what (1) copyright law is supposed to give the RIAA, because (2) they have the artists' consent for them being the single source. Now, the RIAA are assholes to be sure, but let's blame the real culprits here: (1) copyright law, which is ridiculously behind the times, and (2) the artists, without whom none of this insanity would be happening.
And before anyone says "but the artists have no choice" - they DO have a choice, there are independent labels. If an artist cares about music more than profits, the independent labels are a perfectly reasonable option.
That's a nice solution. Any chance you might release it under an open-source license?
No, what this shows is that complete reliance on the drug companies is a problem. We simply cannot expect the drug companies to do all important biomedical research. And we don't - there are also nonprofit research bodies, e.g. universities.
If no drug company is interested in funding studies on this new drug, I can only hope that some academic research group will. They certainly have plenty of motivation - pure altruism, a possible Nobel prize, etc. And there is lots of money in academic medical research - both from government grants (which should be higher, but are still significant), and from donations. Aging rich people tend to be concerned about health-related issues, which leads many of them to make sizable donations (my scholarship is currently paid by such people).
[...] Ultimately, if you build it (the program), they will come, but not in droves. Like it or not, there seems to be a difference in wiring between the sexes.
Everything you said was fine until this point. But when you say 'wiring', it seems you are implying a biological difference (I say 'seems', because perhaps you didn't intend this... if not, then a different choice of words would have been better). But the difference may very well be only cultural - we just don't know. If it is in fact only cultural, then it can be changed, perhaps by incentive programs of some sort, such as TFA suggests.
You are absolutely wrong. According to this post the Department of Justice says you're mistaken, and this is the government agency tasked with keeping crime statistics. What say you now?
I say that there is more than one way to measure recidivism. For example, a study in Arizona found that 70% of sex offenders eventually return to prison for a new sex crime, looking at a 15 year period. The study you quoted looks at a 3 year period. I'm not saying one of the studies is right and the other is wrong - in fact they may both be right.
But it is not easy to make the comparisons we would like to make. For example, I would like to compare recidivism rates for sex offenders and murderers. But murderers serve very long sentences, so they are significantly older when released (if they are released at all), which may mean that their chances to commit another murder is lower just for that reason (older people commit less crimes, statistically). On the other hand there are plenty of people released when they are young for e.g. theft, and their recidivism rates may be higher than rates for sex offenders. But I am not sure that is the right thing to compare. In other words, there is data, and there is interpretation, and plenty of room to argue.
It's "Linspire" these days, and ESR now works with them.
Funny, but noboby gets labeled a "murderer" for life. Murderers are released from prison every day. In fact, hundreds of them. They serve their sentence and move on. No reporting themselves to their neighbors. No exclusion zones. No "registered murderer" lists.
One reason (and I don't claim this is the only one) for the difference is recidivism rates (i.e. chance to repeat the crime). Recidivism rates for sex offenders are among the highest. Recidivism rates for murder are significantly lower.
I'm not justifying the whole 'registered sex offender' approach based on this data, mind you. Just mentioning it, as one of the main reasons for it.
You are right, the influence of Rock is very large, especially when you look at the past 50 years. But more recently, developments in Hip-Hop has been more influential, IMO. Yes, song structure and so forth in popular music are basically based on the Rock tradition, but again, I am talking about more recent developments. Say the last 10 years.
But I guess it is a matter of perspective and interpretation.
>> Name a type of music that has been more influential in the last 30 years.
> How about, um, rock music? Rock music in all its form hasn't exactly been out of style and dead since early 1977.
The emphasis above is my own. And that is what I think you missed in your response. Sure, Rock is doing fine, but it isn't influential the way that Hip-Hop is. Hip-hop has greatly influenced Rock (e.g. Red Hot Chili Peppers, all the Nu-Metal bands, etc., and that is just the rap aspect of Hip-Hop). Nearly every hit single is influenced by Hip-Hop these days; the same can't be said for Rock.
Note that this is irrelevant to my opinion about the genre. Personally I tend to listen to Post-Punk.
Did you miss the memo? Google owns your ass now.
This is why people don't like monopolies much.
1) Google don't have a monopoly on search, unless you think 70-75% or so is a monopoly (I don't).
2) Search isn't everthing. Yahoo.com and msn.com were highly-popular websites, last I checked; people are free to advertise on them (and yes, I know appearing in Search results is free). Specifically for java-related issues (which is what TFA's website appears to be) there are various websites on which you can advertise or make your presence known. And there are also websites like Slashdot which are already helping TFA out.
Last things first: Apple doesn't have to abide by the APSL with respect to their own code.
True. And whatever code in OS X that isn't theirs is, if I am not mistaken, BSD-licensed, so that is no problem either.
Why would Apple create a new OS from scratch? This is probably a port of OS X to ARM (or whatever processer is used), designed for a small memory footprint and so forth.
Hmmm, this reminds me of those stories that come up from time to time about some big corporation forgetting to renew their domain names. If the outcome of the trademark dispute comes down to this, it will argue strongly for paying attention to the little details.
Not at all. If TFA is right, this has nothing to do with 'little details'. The big details are that Cisco had no product called 'iPhone' for years, and recently just stuck a sticker on a picture of an existing product, rebranding it 'iPhone', when renewing the trademark, when no such branding existed in the real world.