animals from poachers. But will that save the industry?
In the capitalism, one uses an opportunity to profit, instead of taking oppressive measures to beat money out from people. That is a free market. Digital Rights protection does not correspond to that principle. As a concept, it is dead-born.
70 years ago, the only possibility for a musician to earn money was to give live concerts. Then, technical progress, at some level of its development, has made possible mass-circulating of recorded media, and thus formed the possibility to make enormous money on records. As a result, we have present pop-culture. But now the same technical progress brings circulation and distribution possibilities to new level. In reality, recorded media now can be freely accessible for anyone. Thus, eliminating the previous great possibility to profit from records. Besides, pop-culture now flies in the digital direction. Already now a digital game is much more entertaining than a sound album for the same price, even for adults. What to say about our children! That is why traditional recorded media distribution empire is virtually dead now.
DRM, in that light, is only profitable to software vendors. That is why Microsoft, Apple, etc. are so eager to participate. They are going to profit on record companies, taking share from their profits. To me, it looks like a parasitic activity on the dead body of the record industry.
We, who know only how to use computer for variety of tasks, are not computer literate. And most of us have neither willingness nor time to actually educate in that field.
If literacy only meant a minimal amount of knowledge required to successfully operate some device, then we could speak of mobile phone literacy, TV literacy and so on. That is not literacy.
Nowadays, computer literacy is truly rare compared to the spread of computers in general. And modern software is engineered specifically to address the illiterate auditory.
Here I must notice that computer courses are mainly pointed to retards. To normal people, even to complete illiterates, electronic devices use patterns are not something to be taught about.
Dear friends! Forget button shortcuts and menu navigations when you speak of computer literacy. There is no computer literacy other than the computer science. Regardles of whether we find learning THAT amount of knoledge actually useful or not.
Here is the briefs of what I have discovered on this program here in Russia:
Happy user pays half a price when he buys the computer, with the rest of the price being arranged as a credit.
Then he has a nice ability to use it slot-machine-way, with the hours he buys being his credit payments.
So system actually needs no protection. If user circumvents the system whatewer, he will be yet to pay his credit off.
It is nice to compare with the $100 laptop program. That program addresses same problem, but with quite another vision.
You cannot hide from your society. If one can make healthy living illegally for decades without trouble, that does not mean that one can walk naked or praise Ben Laden on a street without getting in trouble in 20 minutes. Because one's way of thinking generally must be socially accepted.
National-wide IDs have not much to do with privacy. They are just a step in an automation process.
Implementing National-wide IDs in a free society would never destroy neither privacy, nor fraud.
If someone knows everything about everyone, that does not mean he knows something special, because people differ not so much. Whatever you've done, they will have to close their eyes if they have analogous records for many others of respected society members.
Besides, until society remains free, there will always be possibilities circumventing any technological measures of control. Just because governments can not invent technologies. Governments can only use technologies, invented by people.
But nothing helps if society turns paranoid. Nazis killed millions of Jews in Germany and in invaded countries, and felt no lack of computation power.
Stalin had managed to kill millions for no obvious reason, and people had no practical possibilities to hide.
Not that he had a perfect people tracking system. Social paranoia sufficed.
replace word "Government" in all posts here, with "Society". The point of those posts becomes very clear.
If throw away "hate they know all my dirty little secrets" reason, here rises a topic of people feeling that social integration can threat their individual freedoms. Can it be a sign that individual freedoms in US decline?
"What do you mean by "true virtualization"? Emulation? First of all, "virtualization" is a broad concept..."
Here we speak of Software Virtualization and not of Virtualization in general. Software Virtualization traditionally means running an OS in emulated environment. You emulate environment for OS software only, not for its kernel. In traditional context, that could not be considered as a true OS virtualization. Of course, virtualization is still emerging field, and it is not quite correct to point out "true virtualization" or "false one". In that I agree with you.
"Speaking of security, Virtuozzo is used by almost every major hosting service provider, and they sell cheap VPSs. If the level of security isolation provided by VZ is not strong enough, all those providers are screwed."
Cheap emulated dedicated servers may revolutionize corresponding IT services. But that concept is not about security. For me, Virtualization is all about possibilities, not security.
Virtualization is a very much spoken about idea, often complemented by "Let's put all our distributed services into one box" (inspired by VmWare and server blades) publicity. Some posts here were saying just that, considering OpenVZ. Or even marveled "What a great idea to put each software piece into a separate virtual machine!". OK, no problem they consolidate services such a way, if they feel to. But for what sake should they feel safer having done so?
Running single instance of kernel, I run single OS yet. They can mimic all benefits of virtualization on this level, but basic security improvement I obtain is nothing more than a fancy variation of process privileges separation, achieved by cost of immense additional complexity and waste of resources.
Basically, I would never jump into separating everything around just to make things safe, unless I look for a fancy way to mess up.
But for sure, this tool can be very useful for some cases.
Back at those days, Microsoft had put an unbeleivable effort in IE 4 (its codebase could be compared to all the windows at that time), and was a great success. It's impossible to say that IE 4 had overcome Netscape in every feature. But it was so innovative that they could not compete.
At that time most of all people needed EXPERIENCE. And IE had given so much power to web developers, as never before and later. (later they restricted some features, after security issues).
Now, when hand-crafted pages fade in front of information portals, people need easy use and security more, than experience. And IE still has to bear this burden of all supported features.
But not the IE issues is what pushes Firefox forward, but its own real value.
Not that Firefox overcomes IE in every feature, but it is so innovative, that they cannot compete. For example if you discover firefox plugins, you never look back.
To go in pace, MS has to redesign IE heavily. Meanwhile, they did nothing in special in IE 7, which means that the share of happy Firefox users will continue to grow fast.
Slashdot Mirror
animals from poachers. But will that save the industry?
In the capitalism, one uses an opportunity to profit, instead of taking oppressive measures to beat money out from people. That is a free market. Digital Rights protection does not correspond to that principle. As a concept, it is dead-born.
70 years ago, the only possibility for a musician to earn money was to give live concerts. Then, technical progress, at some level of its development, has made possible mass-circulating of recorded media, and thus formed the possibility to make enormous money on records. As a result, we have present pop-culture. But now the same technical progress brings circulation and distribution possibilities to new level. In reality, recorded media now can be freely accessible for anyone. Thus, eliminating the previous great possibility to profit from records. Besides, pop-culture now flies in the digital direction. Already now a digital game is much more entertaining than a sound album for the same price, even for adults. What to say about our children! That is why traditional recorded media distribution empire is virtually dead now.
DRM, in that light, is only profitable to software vendors. That is why Microsoft, Apple, etc. are so eager to participate. They are going to profit on record companies, taking share from their profits. To me, it looks like a parasitic activity on the dead body of the record industry.
We, who know only how to use computer for variety of tasks, are not computer literate. And most of us have neither willingness nor time to actually educate in that field.
If literacy only meant a minimal amount of knowledge required to successfully operate some device, then we could speak of mobile phone literacy, TV literacy and so on. That is not literacy.
Nowadays, computer literacy is truly rare compared to the spread of computers in general. And modern software is engineered specifically to address the illiterate auditory.
Here I must notice that computer courses are mainly pointed to retards. To normal people, even to complete illiterates, electronic devices use patterns are not something to be taught about.
Dear friends! Forget button shortcuts and menu navigations when you speak of computer literacy. There is no computer literacy other than the computer science. Regardles of whether we find learning THAT amount of knoledge actually useful or not.
Here is the briefs of what I have discovered on this program here in Russia:
Happy user pays half a price when he buys the computer, with the rest of the price being arranged as a credit. Then he has a nice ability to use it slot-machine-way, with the hours he buys being his credit payments.
So system actually needs no protection. If user circumvents the system whatewer, he will be yet to pay his credit off.
It is nice to compare with the $100 laptop program. That program addresses same problem, but with quite another vision.
Do you mean an alternate route can be used when black holed at the best route?
It must be much more useful to simply swallow those things, before test casing
Yet the most prominent job maker is the one who creates a market, not the one who plumbers it with whatever he manages to deliver.
My thanks go to people with ideas. Such as Vint Cerf, Alan Kay, Dennis Ritchie and so many others.
Wal-mart contributing Wikipedia resembles an 18th century Butcher House aiming the French Encyclopédie to become a good recipe-book.
Somehow I'm sure that from Wal-mart's point of view there's no much difference between hippies and encyclopédistes.
You cannot hide from your society. If one can make healthy living illegally for decades without trouble, that does not mean that one can walk naked or praise Ben Laden on a street without getting in trouble in 20 minutes. Because one's way of thinking generally must be socially accepted.
National-wide IDs have not much to do with privacy. They are just a step in an automation process.
Implementing National-wide IDs in a free society would never destroy neither privacy, nor fraud.
If someone knows everything about everyone, that does not mean he knows something special, because people differ not so much. Whatever you've done, they will have to close their eyes if they have analogous records for many others of respected society members.
Besides, until society remains free, there will always be possibilities circumventing any technological measures of control. Just because governments can not invent technologies. Governments can only use technologies, invented by people.
But nothing helps if society turns paranoid. Nazis killed millions of Jews in Germany and in invaded countries, and felt no lack of computation power.
Stalin had managed to kill millions for no obvious reason, and people had no practical possibilities to hide.
Not that he had a perfect people tracking system. Social paranoia sufficed.
replace word "Government" in all posts here, with "Society". The point of those posts becomes very clear.
If throw away "hate they know all my dirty little secrets" reason, here rises a topic of people feeling that social integration can threat their individual freedoms. Can it be a sign that individual freedoms in US decline?
Here we speak of Software Virtualization and not of Virtualization in general. Software Virtualization traditionally means running an OS in emulated environment. You emulate environment for OS software only, not for its kernel. In traditional context, that could not be considered as a true OS virtualization. Of course, virtualization is still emerging field, and it is not quite correct to point out "true virtualization" or "false one". In that I agree with you.
"Speaking of security, Virtuozzo is used by almost every major hosting service provider, and they sell cheap VPSs. If the level of security isolation provided by VZ is not strong enough, all those providers are screwed."
Cheap emulated dedicated servers may revolutionize corresponding IT services. But that concept is not about security. For me, Virtualization is all about possibilities, not security.
Virtualization is a very much spoken about idea, often complemented by "Let's put all our distributed services into one box" (inspired by VmWare and server blades) publicity. Some posts here were saying just that, considering OpenVZ. Or even marveled "What a great idea to put each software piece into a separate virtual machine!". OK, no problem they consolidate services such a way, if they feel to. But for what sake should they feel safer having done so?
Basically, I would never jump into separating everything around just to make things safe, unless I look for a fancy way to mess up.
But for sure, this tool can be very useful for some cases.
Back at those days, Microsoft had put an unbeleivable effort in IE 4 (its codebase could be compared to all the windows at that time), and was a great success. It's impossible to say that IE 4 had overcome Netscape in every feature. But it was so innovative that they could not compete.
At that time most of all people needed EXPERIENCE. And IE had given so much power to web developers, as never before and later. (later they restricted some features, after security issues).
Now, when hand-crafted pages fade in front of information portals, people need easy use and security more, than experience. And IE still has to bear this burden of all supported features.
But not the IE issues is what pushes Firefox forward, but its own real value. Not that Firefox overcomes IE in every feature, but it is so innovative, that they cannot compete. For example if you discover firefox plugins, you never look back.
To go in pace, MS has to redesign IE heavily. Meanwhile, they did nothing in special in IE 7, which means that the share of happy Firefox users will continue to grow fast.