To the GP and anyone else who suggests that watermarking is unacceptable because it also reduces functionality, I've got a question. How, exactly, does a watermark with no other DRM prevent you from doing whatever you want with what you buy?
Assuming the watermark is continuous throughout playback, it's a problem for fan vidders and possibly AMV'ers.
Vidding and AMV'ing involves using footage from a favorite live-action TV show/movie (vidding) or animated TV show/movie (AMV'ing) to create a mashup music video. I don't know that much about AMVs-- see Wikipedia-- but in ye old days of vidding, which dates back to the 70s, they used to do it by a method involving two VCRs and a stopwatch. Three VCRs, if you wanted to do fades.
(I believe that these mashups constitute fair use, but IANAL and won't rehearse my arguments here unless someone asks.)
Vidders tend to prefer really clean, high-quality source video, and will buy DVDs when available, but otherwise will resort to recording off of their TVs. They also come from a tradition of fan mentorship that used to inculcate extreme lawsuit-shyness in new vidders. As a result, I predict that these watermarks will have a chilling effect even if the *AAs don't take full advantage. As a fan of fan vids, I find this sad.
Watermarking can be a problem for people who create video mashups, amvs, songvids, etc. Of course, these might be considered infringing, but those of us who enjoy them as an art form are pushing for them to be recognized as fair use.
I have long thought that GWB's administration behave as if they expect that they or those sympathetic to them will be in power forever. I try not to speculate on whether they are stupid enough to believe it and/or malicious enough to try to make it happen.
My guess is that your mother can't directly compare what she discloses to you with what she discloses to GWB because the relationship is radically different. She *knows* you. If, for example, she's very bad at managing her money and has a negative balance on her checking account, she might be embarassed to tell you. But if GWB found out the same info, she'd still be just one out of millions of citizens to him.
I'd suggest pointing out that every prerogative GWB successfully claims ("I can violate FISA whenever I want because I'm the preznit!!1!") will be inherited by his successor. Is she comfortable with the idea that, say, Hillary Rodham Clinton will be able to eavesdrop on her phone calls?
(it is my understanding that the use of lethal force is illegal unless you are being personally attacked).
It's my understanding that it's illegal in the US, too, unless you're protecting your home against invasion by a burglar. (IANAL, just a USian.)
Sure, everybody breaks the law or does things that they are ashamed of once in a while...but if everybody does it, what's the big deal?
If it's true that warrantless wiretapping were to reveal that everyone breaks the law once in a while, wouldn't this become the justification for stripping the citizenry of even more rights?
Sometimes we get castigated for lying if we are caught wearing a ring without actually being married, so, no, that's not a good solution for us, and you can't assume any woman without a ring is looking for a guy.
Precisely the same way a human manager would know: by examining their metrics. If person A takes an average of twenty seconds to assemble a big mac, and person B takes forty seconds, who are you going to have make the majority of your big macs?
In my experience customer satisfaction is much more complicated than how fast individual tasks are completed. Some customers really want to be served quickly. Some are more laid-back. When faced with two high priority tasks, it can be easier to make everyone happy by helping the impatient customer first.
Also, some customers want a lot of personal attention, and it may make sense to cater to them as long as there are no other high-priority tasks waiting.
I'm curious whether these considerations are irrelevant to fast food, or whether the computer can take over those kinds of decisions. If the computer can't, and the employee resorts to using his/her own judgement, the customers may be happier and yet the computer will measure the employee's performance as inferior.
One of the problems with managers is that they are human and thus irrational. The computer will not play solitaire and go golfing instead of developing the end-year financials. It will not continually direct the weakest employees to the most critical jobs.
How does the computer know who the weakest employees are?
The reason diamonds are a girl's best friend are their resale value, so that she has something to live on after she dumps her unfaithful boyfriend. Is technology resellable? Not so much.
Of course, none of this would matter if women made as much money as men, so that women could afford to stop viewing men as success objects.
There are thousands of Internets, and there is no real way to regulate them.
There are thousands of humans, and there is no real way to regulate them!
(Sorry, cheap shot, I know.)
Now some people want to give more power to the Federal government even though the Constitution says they can't have that power.
*scratches head* Explain to me again which Consitutional clause bans federal regulation of the internet?
As long as government doesn't create monopoly powers through Internet regulations, the Net will change to what the consumers want.
No, it won't. It will change to whatever best benefits the corporate shareholders without pissing off the consumers *too* much. Considering what low expectations consumers hold re technology (BSOD, anyone?), it'll take a *lot* to piss off the masses.
Displaying text as graphics will make the web far less friendly for the vision-impaired (such as myself), while still leaving the information vulnerable to any data mining software that incorporates OCR.
Because god knows I have tried and tried to simply say, "Not interested. Take me off your phone list," and hang up before the telemarketer can finish his/her sentence, but their mind-control rays always stop me.
Agreed. It's the difference between "they win" and "we lose". If we try to trade our civil liberties for greater security, they don't win, but we do lose.
The difference between a driver hitting a reckless pedestrian and a man raping a reckless girl is an act of will.
It's really sad that that even needs to be said.
"I plead not guilty, Your Honor, on account of my penis was moving so quickly that I just couldn't turn aside when she got in the way. Oh, and also I couldn't turn aside when my penis moved out and then in fifty more times before I ejaculated, because... um. Look, you know she was asking for it."
There is absolutely nothing stopping the telecoms from charging google and the like for their "Free" Bandwidth, meaning, if they feel that they are getting too smoking a deal, then by all means jack up their pricing on badnwidth to google and yahoo etc.
Wait, wait, wait. I've seen this suggestion several times, and while I think it's the most fair thing for the telecoms to do, it isn't remotely comparable to what they are seeking permission to do.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this would be a reasonable analogy to the current situation:
I have an account with Baby Bell X so that I can make phone calls. My out-of-state buddy Bob has an account with Baby Bell Y so that he can receive calls. (Okay, here's where telephones and the internet don't compare well: Phones are for active two-way communication, whereas a website makes content available for the web user who actively seeks such content. Which is why my analogy focuses on Bob's received calls, rather than including calls he initiates.)
Now, Bob is a major chatterbox who has 42 close friends all over the country, and Baby Bells A through Z have all noticed that he gets many long calls. Your suggestion is tantamount to saying that Baby Bell Y (Bob's phone service provider) should simply charge Bob more money. But the new law (if I understand it correctly) is saying that it's okay for Baby Bell X (my provider) to charge Bob money as well. So now if Bob wants to maintain his 42 friendships without suffering downgraded quality of service, he has to pay *all* of his friends' respective providers.
I cannot think of any way (other than implementing the new law) that the telecoms could help themselves to such a large slice of Google's profits, so of course they're going to scream if we manage to save net neutrality.
Since the inidivual knows the cost/risk, the market is taking all this into account. What we are really seeing is the very high discount rate people apply to things. (The old, which would you prefer $100 today or $120 next year).
This incorrectly assumes elasticity of demand.
E.g. In some regions it is very difficult to live without a car simply because affordable housing, affordable shopping, and one's workplace tend to be spread so far apart, and public transportation may leave something to be desired. *cough*Southern California*cough*
Buying a fuel-efficient car may save the consumer more money in the long run, but if fuel-efficient models are more expensive than inefficient ones, a consumer who lives near or below the poverty line may *have* to buy the vehicle that s/he can afford now even though s/he'll be paying for it at the pump later.
I agree with RyoShin. Bilingual households produce bilingual babies, regardless of whether one of those languages is sign.
Furthermore, consider that if your baby is hearing-impaired, s/he may not be diagnosed until her/his speech skills have noticeably lagged behind the average. If you wait to begin teaching sign language until after diagnosis, s/he will miss out on valuable language development time.
I don't understand how distribution through bittorrent would be an attractive option for webpages with a lot of content updates-- e.g. the front page of any newspaper or blog. It seems like users would end up leeching a lot of stale content.
Slashdot Mirror
Way to leap to conclusions, Anonymous. Your teachers must be proud.
> wasting money on programs like sex education (sorry that is the job of the parents)
*boggle*
Sex education is a public health issue. When I was in kindergarten, we were taught how to brush our teeth. And tooth decay isn't even communicable.
And, unlike many other subjects taught in schools, sex education actually includes information that everyone needs to know.
Assuming the watermark is continuous throughout playback, it's a problem for fan vidders and possibly AMV'ers.
Vidding and AMV'ing involves using footage from a favorite live-action TV show/movie (vidding) or animated TV show/movie (AMV'ing) to create a mashup music video. I don't know that much about AMVs-- see Wikipedia-- but in ye old days of vidding, which dates back to the 70s, they used to do it by a method involving two VCRs and a stopwatch. Three VCRs, if you wanted to do fades.
(I believe that these mashups constitute fair use, but IANAL and won't rehearse my arguments here unless someone asks.)
Vidders tend to prefer really clean, high-quality source video, and will buy DVDs when available, but otherwise will resort to recording off of their TVs. They also come from a tradition of fan mentorship that used to inculcate extreme lawsuit-shyness in new vidders. As a result, I predict that these watermarks will have a chilling effect even if the *AAs don't take full advantage. As a fan of fan vids, I find this sad.
Watermarking can be a problem for people who create video mashups, amvs, songvids, etc. Of course, these might be considered infringing, but those of us who enjoy them as an art form are pushing for them to be recognized as fair use.
I have long thought that GWB's administration behave as if they expect that they or those sympathetic to them will be in power forever. I try not to speculate on whether they are stupid enough to believe it and/or malicious enough to try to make it happen.
My guess is that your mother can't directly compare what she discloses to you with what she discloses to GWB because the relationship is radically different. She *knows* you. If, for example, she's very bad at managing her money and has a negative balance on her checking account, she might be embarassed to tell you. But if GWB found out the same info, she'd still be just one out of millions of citizens to him.
I'd suggest pointing out that every prerogative GWB successfully claims ("I can violate FISA whenever I want because I'm the preznit!!1!") will be inherited by his successor. Is she comfortable with the idea that, say, Hillary Rodham Clinton will be able to eavesdrop on her phone calls?
(it is my understanding that the use of lethal force is illegal unless you are being personally attacked). It's my understanding that it's illegal in the US, too, unless you're protecting your home against invasion by a burglar. (IANAL, just a USian.)
Sure, everybody breaks the law or does things that they are ashamed of once in a while...but if everybody does it, what's the big deal? If it's true that warrantless wiretapping were to reveal that everyone breaks the law once in a while, wouldn't this become the justification for stripping the citizenry of even more rights?
I'm amused by your example because you're evidently unaware that dark-skinned people also get sunburns.
Sometimes we get castigated for lying if we are caught wearing a ring without actually being married, so, no, that's not a good solution for us, and you can't assume any woman without a ring is looking for a guy.
In my experience customer satisfaction is much more complicated than how fast individual tasks are completed. Some customers really want to be served quickly. Some are more laid-back. When faced with two high priority tasks, it can be easier to make everyone happy by helping the impatient customer first.
Also, some customers want a lot of personal attention, and it may make sense to cater to them as long as there are no other high-priority tasks waiting.
I'm curious whether these considerations are irrelevant to fast food, or whether the computer can take over those kinds of decisions. If the computer can't, and the employee resorts to using his/her own judgement, the customers may be happier and yet the computer will measure the employee's performance as inferior.
The reason diamonds are a girl's best friend are their resale value, so that she has something to live on after she dumps her unfaithful boyfriend. Is technology resellable? Not so much.
Of course, none of this would matter if women made as much money as men, so that women could afford to stop viewing men as success objects.
(Being female, I have no sense of humor...)
There are thousands of Internets, and there is no real way to regulate them.
There are thousands of humans, and there is no real way to regulate them!
(Sorry, cheap shot, I know.)
Now some people want to give more power to the Federal government even though the Constitution says they can't have that power.
*scratches head* Explain to me again which Consitutional clause bans federal regulation of the internet?
As long as government doesn't create monopoly powers through Internet regulations, the Net will change to what the consumers want.
No, it won't. It will change to whatever best benefits the corporate shareholders without pissing off the consumers *too* much. Considering what low expectations consumers hold re technology (BSOD, anyone?), it'll take a *lot* to piss off the masses.
Displaying text as graphics will make the web far less friendly for the vision-impaired (such as myself), while still leaving the information vulnerable to any data mining software that incorporates OCR.
Three cheers for sexual harassment!
Because god knows I have tried and tried to simply say, "Not interested. Take me off your phone list," and hang up before the telemarketer can finish his/her sentence, but their mind-control rays always stop me.
Agreed. It's the difference between "they win" and "we lose". If we try to trade our civil liberties for greater security, they don't win, but we do lose.
The difference between a driver hitting a reckless pedestrian and a man raping a reckless girl is an act of will.
It's really sad that that even needs to be said.
"I plead not guilty, Your Honor, on account of my penis was moving so quickly that I just couldn't turn aside when she got in the way. Oh, and also I couldn't turn aside when my penis moved out and then in fifty more times before I ejaculated, because... um. Look, you know she was asking for it."
There is absolutely nothing stopping the telecoms from charging google and the like for their "Free" Bandwidth, meaning, if they feel that they are getting too smoking a deal, then by all means jack up their pricing on badnwidth to google and yahoo etc.
Wait, wait, wait. I've seen this suggestion several times, and while I think it's the most fair thing for the telecoms to do, it isn't remotely comparable to what they are seeking permission to do.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this would be a reasonable analogy to the current situation:
I have an account with Baby Bell X so that I can make phone calls. My out-of-state buddy Bob has an account with Baby Bell Y so that he can receive calls. (Okay, here's where telephones and the internet don't compare well: Phones are for active two-way communication, whereas a website makes content available for the web user who actively seeks such content. Which is why my analogy focuses on Bob's received calls, rather than including calls he initiates.)
Now, Bob is a major chatterbox who has 42 close friends all over the country, and Baby Bells A through Z have all noticed that he gets many long calls. Your suggestion is tantamount to saying that Baby Bell Y (Bob's phone service provider) should simply charge Bob more money. But the new law (if I understand it correctly) is saying that it's okay for Baby Bell X (my provider) to charge Bob money as well. So now if Bob wants to maintain his 42 friendships without suffering downgraded quality of service, he has to pay *all* of his friends' respective providers.
I cannot think of any way (other than implementing the new law) that the telecoms could help themselves to such a large slice of Google's profits, so of course they're going to scream if we manage to save net neutrality.
--"Alice".
This incorrectly assumes elasticity of demand.
E.g. In some regions it is very difficult to live without a car simply because affordable housing, affordable shopping, and one's workplace tend to be spread so far apart, and public transportation may leave something to be desired. *cough*Southern California*cough*
Buying a fuel-efficient car may save the consumer more money in the long run, but if fuel-efficient models are more expensive than inefficient ones, a consumer who lives near or below the poverty line may *have* to buy the vehicle that s/he can afford now even though s/he'll be paying for it at the pump later.
I agree with RyoShin. Bilingual households produce bilingual babies, regardless of whether one of those languages is sign. Furthermore, consider that if your baby is hearing-impaired, s/he may not be diagnosed until her/his speech skills have noticeably lagged behind the average. If you wait to begin teaching sign language until after diagnosis, s/he will miss out on valuable language development time.
Maybe SCO are secretly against all trademarks, patents, and copyrights, and are attempting to destroy the system from within.
I don't understand how distribution through bittorrent would be an attractive option for webpages with a lot of content updates-- e.g. the front page of any newspaper or blog. It seems like users would end up leeching a lot of stale content.