Re:it really doesn't beg that question.
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
...so that the majority of users don't go to the trouble of buying the product legitimately in the first place...
As that would directly reduce their profits, I'm pretty positive that's not what they intend to accomplish with DRM.
...a product that is inferior to and which can be more easily and cheaply obtained from illegitimate sources...
Have to disagree here as well, on all counts except "cheaply". If I want to buy a CD it's relatively easy to click through the hoops at Amazon and have it shipped directly to my residence. Or if I want a single track I can purchase it through iTunes (or a similar service) entirely legitimately. When it comes to quality, most downloads aren't compressed in a lossless format so buying a CD will almost always give me better quality. Not to mention I get the value-add of having my tracks pre-burned onto media that won't quickly decay (unlike CD-R and CD-RW media). This is mostly the case for video as well. Illegitimate downloading is cheap, I'll give you that, but only if you were already going to pay the $20-50/mo broadband cost necessary to make it possible.
it really doesn't beg that question.
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Can anyone think of a DRM technology which hasn't been cracked, and of course this begs the obvious question: Why doesn't the industry just give up and go DRM-free?
The industry isn't trying to make uncrackable DRM. They're trying to make DRM that's just annoying enough so that the majority of users don't go to the trouble. Expert users will always crack whatever they put out. That wouldn't be a problem except for the ease of distribution BitTorrent affords and other P2P services afford. The same principle applies w/ the RIAA lawsuits. They're not trying to sue everyone who pirates music. They're just trying to get enough publicity so that people start thinking, "Gee, if I download that song then there's a chance, however remote, that the RIAA is going to sue me. Even if the law is on my side and I win, that would be a colossal hassle. Maybe I'll just buy it instead."
You're the first person to complain. Posting with typos like "to to" may not cause anyone to suspect you're an idiot, but it definitely makes you look lazy.
Dell's in this for the money. They wouldn't have offered linux support if they didn't think it would help them sell more hardware, get better PR, etc. That's fine. But how much demand would there be for Dell's linux boxes if HP, Lenovo, Toshiba and Acer also had linux offerings? Answer: not nearly as much. That makes me curious what sort of behind-the-scenes deals Dell cut w/ Canonical w/ regards to the latter supporting other PC manufacturers' efforts to support linux. Obviously they can't stop it entirely; the code is open source. But it seems feasible that Canonical could have entered into a contract w/ Dell that prevents it from entering into support agreements with Dell's competitors. Or is that illegal?
I question those statistics. For one, they aren't a measure of "percentage of households with a personal computer", but "total personal computers per unit population". So they fail to capture differences between countries in the distribution of computers per household. I was also unable to find any definition of what they consider to be a "pesonal computer". Does that include PCs used in corporate settings? Server farms? Then there's the fact that Bermuda is #7 on the list, ahead places like Finland and the Netherlands. Wtf?
All else being equal, the wealth distribution in Western Europe would tend to predict a higher percentage of broadband subscription. Undereducated folks living hand to mouth probably aren't going to shell out for broadband. They may not even have a computer. As a percentage of the total population, that demographic is larger in the U.S. than in Germany or France.
The summary of this article makes the suggestion that it was the Bush appointee's laissez-faire governance of the FCC that allowed monopolies to squelch competition and landed us where we are. Ironically, it was probably the exact opposite of capitalism that caused France and Germany to lag behind back in 2000: firmly ensconced state-run telecoms.
The bigger question is: who cares? Percentage broad-band subscription is a pretty meaningless metric to obsess about. How about "average cost for broadband"? Deutsche Telekom's 6Mbit DSL is running at 45 euros/month, or about 40% more than I pay for 6Mbit DSL in the U.S. I don't speak German, but I believe the DT plan includes local voice calling. If that's the case, then the cost is approximately equal to what I pay for DSL + voice.
I wholeheartedly agree. An added benefit is that it would foster cross-polination between Linux and OSX developers, and make developing apps for both platforms that much easier.
How exactly can Linux lose? It's getting better all the time. It can't go bankrupt, it can't be taken over, it can't be bought out.
It could fade into obscurity, occupying an even smaller market share than it does now. Suppose some OS comes along and whoops linux in the server space. Do you think the IBM's of the world would give a rat's ass about Linux? Do you think *any* hardware manufacturer would have *any* incentive to open source anything? Hell, even the developers might start defecting in favor of more interesting open source projects. (Think: apps).
Sure, linux will always be available to you for free. It's open source, so you can always pull down the kernel and build your own distro from scratch. But if developers lose interest then it will stagnate feature and quality-wise, and there hardware support situation will grow even worse than it currently is.
But the problem of drivers aside, there's a fundamental clash between ease of installation (i.e. something grandma can figure out herself) and security
Two thoughts. One, grandma shouldn't ever have to be installing an OS. She should buy hers pre-installed. That's one of ESR's main points. Two, I think you're being overly pessimistic about the conflict between security and ease-of-installation. Come up with a decent default setup, where nobody has root unless they need it. Prompt for a root password whenever it's needed. This is similar in spirit to what Microsoft's trying to do, but imho it could be done much more cleanly.
Did you read the whole thing? The crux of his argument is that Linux would only need to compomise in the short term. Once it gained a large enough userbase, it would be able to pressure companies to release open source drivers. At least, that's how I read it.
By adding a predator to an island where a species of lizards lived with no predators, they witnessed a quick shift in the average length of legs on the lizards. Long legs meant to escape were useless against the new larger predators while short legs became the dominant feature...
This isn't evolution, is it? Seems like natural selection causing certain external features to become dominant within a particular species, which has nothing to do with the creation of new species.
Unless you're going to be an engineer or scientist, I don't consider Calculus and Differential Equations to be essential. Only insofar as they contain material that's prerequisite to Numerical Analysis and/or Linear Algebra.
At some point, whatever agent is responsible for breaking down the pollutants must "run out". Do you then have to spray on another coat, at additional cost?
If two airplanes had been hit by lightning and crashed into a New York skyscraper, few of us would be able to name the date on which it happened.
If that skyscraper then collapsed, killing 3000 people, I'm thinking we'd remember it. If not the exact date, at least the fact that it happened. Witness Katrina- an accident in which far fewer people died than on 9/11. Do I remember the exact date Katrina hit? Nope. But I do remember it happened.
Is it really so mystical that people would react more strongly to intentional threats than to accidental ones? I could get hit by a meteor and die instantly when I walk outside tomorrow. There's nothing interesting about that, though, since it's essentially random, and there's nothing I can do about it anyway.
Believe it or not: the urine of women who use hormonal birth control. I read about an environmental study in the Pacific Northwest somewhere, where it was shown that sewage, dumped into a river, had estrogenic effects on male fish. The culprit? Synthetic estrogens, which are excreted in the urine of women who take hormonal birth control. Wastewater eventually makes its way into rivers and streams, which feed back into the reservoirs from which we get our drinking water. Not that this is conclusive in any way, but it's definitely something that's being looked at.
For one, most Americans don't speak a second language, so we're limited to countries where English is the native language. So, Ireland, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and possibly some former territories (Jamaica, British Virgin Islands, etc.)
Problem is, none of these countries want Americans to immigrate. They're extremely protective of their local economy. As an American you're free to travel in Canada and spend your tourism dollars, but don't try moving there to live and work unless you're specialized in a "hot" industry.
The other issue is standard of living. While those countries may have a higher across the board standard of living than the United States, the standard of living for "a mid-level programmer" may be substantially lower. (Note that I said "may"). If that's the case, then many Americans who might otherwise emigrate could be dissuaded from doing so because it would mean they'd have to live in a smaller house, drive a smaller car, etc.
[blockquote]And what is that "first line" of defense? Also some kids, teens, do have credit cards as well.[/blockquote]
I think credit card verification is reasonable. It's not a burden for most content providers, and it's very easy for parents to just refrain from getting their kids credit cards. If they absolutely must get a credit card for the kid, then they do so with the understanding that it will make it easier for him to access porn.
[quote]No, I'm saying it's Johnny's parents problem and not mine![/quote]
It really isn't your problem either way, unless you're a content provider, parent, or minor.
[quote]It is the parents job![/quote]
Sure. The ultimate responsibility rests on the parents. That doesn't mean their job can't be made easier by placing barriers in front of certain content. It's also parents' job to make sure their kid don't smoke cigarettes. But guess what! It's illegal to sell cigarettes to minors in most places! If it's the parents' responsibility to police their children's tobacco intake, why make prohibit its sale to minors?
You're essentially requiring Johnny's dad to keep him offline entirely, or stand over his shoulder the entire time he's online. Why? Because you want it to be the parents' job to police Johnny's internet activity. This is the equivalent of arguing there should be no age restrictions on the purchase of porn, and that in order to keep him from purchasing "hard copies", Johnny's dad should keep him locked up in the house 24/7.
Why not compel content providers to put up a simple "first line" barrier to consumption by minors? If Johnny's dad thinks it's okay for him to hit the porn, just get him a credit card.
If Johnny uses a fake ID then the seller/renter is off the hook, assuming they exercised due diligence in attempting to determine Johnny's age. So that's a bit of a red herring.
Read what I wrote: "limiting the sale (or rental) of their product to minors". His father is the entity to whom the video was sold or rented. Not Johnny Jr. So, in that case, the seller/renter would not be liable even if such a law were in place. They would be liable if they sold (or rented) to Johnny Jr. directly.
Does the federal govt. currently hold pornographic video distributors accountable for limiting the sale (or rental) of their product to minors? If so, and if that restriction is considered to be constitutional, then I'm not sure how one can argue that COPA is not also constitutional. It just applies the same principle to businesses that distribute their product over the net instead of through a brick and mortar (or mail order) system.
Slashdot Mirror
As that would directly reduce their profits, I'm pretty positive that's not what they intend to accomplish with DRM.
Have to disagree here as well, on all counts except "cheaply". If I want to buy a CD it's relatively easy to click through the hoops at Amazon and have it shipped directly to my residence. Or if I want a single track I can purchase it through iTunes (or a similar service) entirely legitimately. When it comes to quality, most downloads aren't compressed in a lossless format so buying a CD will almost always give me better quality. Not to mention I get the value-add of having my tracks pre-burned onto media that won't quickly decay (unlike CD-R and CD-RW media). This is mostly the case for video as well. Illegitimate downloading is cheap, I'll give you that, but only if you were already going to pay the $20-50/mo broadband cost necessary to make it possible.
The industry isn't trying to make uncrackable DRM. They're trying to make DRM that's just annoying enough so that the majority of users don't go to the trouble. Expert users will always crack whatever they put out. That wouldn't be a problem except for the ease of distribution BitTorrent affords and other P2P services afford. The same principle applies w/ the RIAA lawsuits. They're not trying to sue everyone who pirates music. They're just trying to get enough publicity so that people start thinking, "Gee, if I download that song then there's a chance, however remote, that the RIAA is going to sue me. Even if the law is on my side and I win, that would be a colossal hassle. Maybe I'll just buy it instead."
You're the first person to complain. Posting with typos like "to to" may not cause anyone to suspect you're an idiot, but it definitely makes you look lazy.
Dell's in this for the money. They wouldn't have offered linux support if they didn't think it would help them sell more hardware, get better PR, etc. That's fine. But how much demand would there be for Dell's linux boxes if HP, Lenovo, Toshiba and Acer also had linux offerings? Answer: not nearly as much. That makes me curious what sort of behind-the-scenes deals Dell cut w/ Canonical w/ regards to the latter supporting other PC manufacturers' efforts to support linux. Obviously they can't stop it entirely; the code is open source. But it seems feasible that Canonical could have entered into a contract w/ Dell that prevents it from entering into support agreements with Dell's competitors. Or is that illegal?
I question those statistics. For one, they aren't a measure of "percentage of households with a personal computer", but "total personal computers per unit population". So they fail to capture differences between countries in the distribution of computers per household. I was also unable to find any definition of what they consider to be a "pesonal computer". Does that include PCs used in corporate settings? Server farms? Then there's the fact that Bermuda is #7 on the list, ahead places like Finland and the Netherlands. Wtf?
To illustrate my point, check out this table: http://fiordiliji.sourceoecd.org/vl=7877390/cl=18/ nw=1/rpsv/factbook_fre/07-02-03-g01.htm. Iceland has the highest percentage of households with a computer at approx. 90%, while the U.S. sits at approx. 62%. Your stats show Iceland at #15 in computers-per-capita and the U.S. at #1. What gives?
Yes, I realize my table shows France lagging behind the U.S. and Germany ahead.
All else being equal, the wealth distribution in Western Europe would tend to predict a higher percentage of broadband subscription. Undereducated folks living hand to mouth probably aren't going to shell out for broadband. They may not even have a computer. As a percentage of the total population, that demographic is larger in the U.S. than in Germany or France.
The summary of this article makes the suggestion that it was the Bush appointee's laissez-faire governance of the FCC that allowed monopolies to squelch competition and landed us where we are. Ironically, it was probably the exact opposite of capitalism that caused France and Germany to lag behind back in 2000: firmly ensconced state-run telecoms.
The bigger question is: who cares? Percentage broad-band subscription is a pretty meaningless metric to obsess about. How about "average cost for broadband"? Deutsche Telekom's 6Mbit DSL is running at 45 euros/month, or about 40% more than I pay for 6Mbit DSL in the U.S. I don't speak German, but I believe the DT plan includes local voice calling. If that's the case, then the cost is approximately equal to what I pay for DSL + voice.
I wholeheartedly agree. An added benefit is that it would foster cross-polination between Linux and OSX developers, and make developing apps for both platforms that much easier.
It could fade into obscurity, occupying an even smaller market share than it does now. Suppose some OS comes along and whoops linux in the server space. Do you think the IBM's of the world would give a rat's ass about Linux? Do you think *any* hardware manufacturer would have *any* incentive to open source anything? Hell, even the developers might start defecting in favor of more interesting open source projects. (Think: apps).
Sure, linux will always be available to you for free. It's open source, so you can always pull down the kernel and build your own distro from scratch. But if developers lose interest then it will stagnate feature and quality-wise, and there hardware support situation will grow even worse than it currently is.
Did you read the whole thing? The crux of his argument is that Linux would only need to compomise in the short term. Once it gained a large enough userbase, it would be able to pressure companies to release open source drivers. At least, that's how I read it.
It's natural selection resulting in the adaptaion of favorable traits among a particular population.
See the wiki definition of Human Evolution.
...we wait for Vista SP1 before making the jump.
Also, because DX10 cards (and titles) will be ubiquitous by then.
Love the wiki.i c
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skept
Definitely:
Optionally:
Unless you're going to be an engineer or scientist, I don't consider Calculus and Differential Equations to be essential. Only insofar as they contain material that's prerequisite to Numerical Analysis and/or Linear Algebra.
At some point, whatever agent is responsible for breaking down the pollutants must "run out". Do you then have to spray on another coat, at additional cost?
If that skyscraper then collapsed, killing 3000 people, I'm thinking we'd remember it. If not the exact date, at least the fact that it happened. Witness Katrina- an accident in which far fewer people died than on 9/11. Do I remember the exact date Katrina hit? Nope. But I do remember it happened.
Is it really so mystical that people would react more strongly to intentional threats than to accidental ones? I could get hit by a meteor and die instantly when I walk outside tomorrow. There's nothing interesting about that, though, since it's essentially random, and there's nothing I can do about it anyway.
Believe it or not: the urine of women who use hormonal birth control. I read about an environmental study in the Pacific Northwest somewhere, where it was shown that sewage, dumped into a river, had estrogenic effects on male fish. The culprit? Synthetic estrogens, which are excreted in the urine of women who take hormonal birth control. Wastewater eventually makes its way into rivers and streams, which feed back into the reservoirs from which we get our drinking water. Not that this is conclusive in any way, but it's definitely something that's being looked at.
For one, most Americans don't speak a second language, so we're limited to countries where English is the native language. So, Ireland, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and possibly some former territories (Jamaica, British Virgin Islands, etc.)
Problem is, none of these countries want Americans to immigrate. They're extremely protective of their local economy. As an American you're free to travel in Canada and spend your tourism dollars, but don't try moving there to live and work unless you're specialized in a "hot" industry.
The other issue is standard of living. While those countries may have a higher across the board standard of living than the United States, the standard of living for "a mid-level programmer" may be substantially lower. (Note that I said "may"). If that's the case, then many Americans who might otherwise emigrate could be dissuaded from doing so because it would mean they'd have to live in a smaller house, drive a smaller car, etc.
[blockquote]And what is that "first line" of defense? Also some kids, teens, do have credit cards as well.[/blockquote] I think credit card verification is reasonable. It's not a burden for most content providers, and it's very easy for parents to just refrain from getting their kids credit cards. If they absolutely must get a credit card for the kid, then they do so with the understanding that it will make it easier for him to access porn.
[quote]No, I'm saying it's Johnny's parents problem and not mine![/quote] It really isn't your problem either way, unless you're a content provider, parent, or minor. [quote]It is the parents job![/quote] Sure. The ultimate responsibility rests on the parents. That doesn't mean their job can't be made easier by placing barriers in front of certain content. It's also parents' job to make sure their kid don't smoke cigarettes. But guess what! It's illegal to sell cigarettes to minors in most places! If it's the parents' responsibility to police their children's tobacco intake, why make prohibit its sale to minors?
You're essentially requiring Johnny's dad to keep him offline entirely, or stand over his shoulder the entire time he's online. Why? Because you want it to be the parents' job to police Johnny's internet activity. This is the equivalent of arguing there should be no age restrictions on the purchase of porn, and that in order to keep him from purchasing "hard copies", Johnny's dad should keep him locked up in the house 24/7. Why not compel content providers to put up a simple "first line" barrier to consumption by minors? If Johnny's dad thinks it's okay for him to hit the porn, just get him a credit card.
If Johnny uses a fake ID then the seller/renter is off the hook, assuming they exercised due diligence in attempting to determine Johnny's age. So that's a bit of a red herring.
Read what I wrote: "limiting the sale (or rental) of their product to minors". His father is the entity to whom the video was sold or rented. Not Johnny Jr. So, in that case, the seller/renter would not be liable even if such a law were in place. They would be liable if they sold (or rented) to Johnny Jr. directly.
Does the federal govt. currently hold pornographic video distributors accountable for limiting the sale (or rental) of their product to minors? If so, and if that restriction is considered to be constitutional, then I'm not sure how one can argue that COPA is not also constitutional. It just applies the same principle to businesses that distribute their product over the net instead of through a brick and mortar (or mail order) system.