Is akin to building the web browser into the operating system. I have no interest in encrypting my filesystem, but if I did, I wouldn't use Microsoft's tools to do it. I know I'm not the only one of the opinion that feels utilities that are so intertwined with the operating system create security risks. This strikes me as a big one.
For the same reasons that I use Firefox as a web browser and OpenOffice.org as an office suite, if I felt it necessary to encrypt my filesystem I'd use somebody else's tools to do it. (Even if I weren't aware of such a backdoor into my filesystem).
And here I was thinking the recording industry just wanted to make honest users pay twice to use something on two mediums. It also helps "keep honest users honest," by not "accidentally" doing something they're not supposed to with a file.
Watermarking doesn't meet either of those criteria.
I'm not a physicist, but I have had several physics classes in highschool and college. You're thinking of Newtonian relativity, which is vastly different from special relativity.
In highschool, I had a physics teacher try to explain to me that I could be at rest, and light would be traveling at C relative to me. Alternatively, I could be on an airplane, traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, and light would still be traveling at C relative to me. It was not that the difference between the two values was insignificant, rather that there was no difference.
The majority of this thread seems to think the Red Cross is going to start suing people for using their "trademark." However having read the article, I did not come across the word "sue" or "trademark." The Red Cross simply wants the gaming industry to stop misrepresenting the Red Cross.
From the article:
We would be willing to work with a videogame manufacturer to produce a game which shows the emblem in its correct use, as a symbol of protection during armed conflict, and where the player is rewarded for using the emblem correctly.
It's not a matter of a trademark, it's a matter of having gamers understand what the Red Cross is and does.
Where does this assertion come from? I find it extremely hard to believe that Microsoft has that much cash lying around that investors have no control over. You hear about Bill Gates and his extremely high net worth, but a huge portion of that is in Microsoft stock. If Microsoft decided to just stop being profitable, the stock would be rapidly devalued, and Bill Gates himself would take a serious financial hit.
I'm not completely ruling out the possibility, but until I see some financial records of microsoft, I'm not going to believe this.
I seriously doubt Microsoft has enough cash on hand to keep paying its employees for the next five years without any income. They might have enough cash from investors, but if they completely stopped selling products, the investors would back out, and then they'd be in trouble.
I agree that Microsoft has no inkling that they have to "open up or die," but I think investors are a large part of the reason they feel the should stay closed.
So you're saying those journals would sooner ignore some of the greatest scientific discoveries of our time, rather than review something because you mentioned it to your local paper first?
Also, Nature permits formal discussion of these topics at conferences, and the main article mentions this data being discussed at a conference.
Suppose for a minute that Chef Batali's restaurant made mushrooms more popular. There would be more of a demand for mushrooms, and thus you may be able to increase the price of your mushrooms to $2.00 a bushel. Thanks to Chef Batali, your profit has (at least) doubled. Without him, mushrooms never would have gained so much popularity, and you'd still be selling mushrooms for $1.00 to whoever would take them. Now does it seem fair to charge Chef Batali an extra fee for your mushrooms?
I've made the decision in the past to take a paycut for a less stressful job, but I was miserable at the place I was leaving. I'd be hesitant to give up a job that was comfortable to take less pay that I hope will be fun.
If you have a job that pays the bills and gets you some extra perks, would you rather give up the perks to enjoy your job?
People get fat, they sue McDonalds.
People get lung cancer, they sue the cigarrette companies.
People don't realize their coffee is hot, they sue the people who made it (McDonalds comes to mind).
People break into your house, get trapped in your garage and are forced to eat dog food to survive while you're on vacation, they sue you for emotional distress.
It seems like a short leap to sue the people who make music players for going deaf.
Change happens when people act, not when they just sit and complain.
Apparently you missed that part. I'm not saying you shouldn't act, I'm saying you shouldn't get worked up over something you're not going to do anything about. I applaud the EFF for standing up against illegal wiretaps, although I'm not sure suing AT&T for complying with a government agency is the best way to go about it. The primary target for my post was those Slashdotters whose blood starts boiling everytime they hear about things like this, but do nothing about it. If they want to support the EFF, I encourage them to do so. If they want to vote or campaign (or run?) against the current administration in coming elections, I would encourage them to do so. But don't just sit and complain.
As far as the NSA tapping my phone, I'll state again, I don't care. If they find some petty crime I've committed, (and that is the worst they could find) there's nothing they can do about it. An illegal phone tap won't hold up as evidence in a court of law, even in our current "opressive regime."
Furthermore, while the current administration may be trying to shape the United Sates their own way, they've been losing a lot of ground with the American people. I would guess they will take a large hit in November at mid-term elections, hopefully one large enough to create a balance of power. As bad as this administration may seem, it's not even close to being the most opressive our country has had. Time and time again, our system of government has been strong enough to overpower corruption. I see no reason it won't happen again.
I used to feel the same way you do, but in the past year, I've come to realize, that I can get worked up over things like this, or I can ignore them and live my own life. If the NSA wants to tap my phone, log my web usage, let them. It's a waste of their resources. They're not going to get anything interesting about me.
I know people say evil triumphs when good men do nothing, but what does it accomplish to get worked up about the "most well managed, well thought out, and well prepared opressive regime in history?" It may raise your blood pressure a bit, but calling people names, even accurate ones, doesn't actually accomplish anything.
I'm not saying you shouldn't speak out. Encourage people to go to the polls and vote for better representation. Change happens when people act, not when they just sit and complain.
I still believe in Thomas Jefferson's quote: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism," but I don't wish to let my dissent overpower my life.
Yes, but a vast majority of Google's free services give another place to run ads. Searching, GMail, News, Froogle, and Local promote ad revenue, Google Earth has free versions and versions that you have to pay for, and Desktop has corporate versions that sell for big bucks. I'm sure I've missed a few, but just about everything google makes has some way of increasing profit. I have no doubt Google could make a Linux OS profitable, but I'm sure if they really are developing an operating system, they intend to profit from it.
Slashdot Mirror
For the same reasons that I use Firefox as a web browser and OpenOffice.org as an office suite, if I felt it necessary to encrypt my filesystem I'd use somebody else's tools to do it. (Even if I weren't aware of such a backdoor into my filesystem).
Watermarking doesn't meet either of those criteria.
In highschool, I had a physics teacher try to explain to me that I could be at rest, and light would be traveling at C relative to me. Alternatively, I could be on an airplane, traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, and light would still be traveling at C relative to me. It was not that the difference between the two values was insignificant, rather that there was no difference.
From the article:
We would be willing to work with a videogame manufacturer to produce a game which shows the emblem in its correct use, as a symbol of protection during armed conflict, and where the player is rewarded for using the emblem correctly.
It's not a matter of a trademark, it's a matter of having gamers understand what the Red Cross is and does.
I'm not completely ruling out the possibility, but until I see some financial records of microsoft, I'm not going to believe this.
I agree that Microsoft has no inkling that they have to "open up or die," but I think investors are a large part of the reason they feel the should stay closed.
Also, Nature permits formal discussion of these topics at conferences, and the main article mentions this data being discussed at a conference.
Suppose for a minute that Chef Batali's restaurant made mushrooms more popular. There would be more of a demand for mushrooms, and thus you may be able to increase the price of your mushrooms to $2.00 a bushel. Thanks to Chef Batali, your profit has (at least) doubled. Without him, mushrooms never would have gained so much popularity, and you'd still be selling mushrooms for $1.00 to whoever would take them. Now does it seem fair to charge Chef Batali an extra fee for your mushrooms?
If you have a job that pays the bills and gets you some extra perks, would you rather give up the perks to enjoy your job?
People get lung cancer, they sue the cigarrette companies.
People don't realize their coffee is hot, they sue the people who made it (McDonalds comes to mind).
People break into your house, get trapped in your garage and are forced to eat dog food to survive while you're on vacation, they sue you for emotional distress.
It seems like a short leap to sue the people who make music players for going deaf.
Apparently you missed that part. I'm not saying you shouldn't act, I'm saying you shouldn't get worked up over something you're not going to do anything about. I applaud the EFF for standing up against illegal wiretaps, although I'm not sure suing AT&T for complying with a government agency is the best way to go about it. The primary target for my post was those Slashdotters whose blood starts boiling everytime they hear about things like this, but do nothing about it. If they want to support the EFF, I encourage them to do so. If they want to vote or campaign (or run?) against the current administration in coming elections, I would encourage them to do so. But don't just sit and complain.
As far as the NSA tapping my phone, I'll state again, I don't care. If they find some petty crime I've committed, (and that is the worst they could find) there's nothing they can do about it. An illegal phone tap won't hold up as evidence in a court of law, even in our current "opressive regime."
Furthermore, while the current administration may be trying to shape the United Sates their own way, they've been losing a lot of ground with the American people. I would guess they will take a large hit in November at mid-term elections, hopefully one large enough to create a balance of power. As bad as this administration may seem, it's not even close to being the most opressive our country has had. Time and time again, our system of government has been strong enough to overpower corruption. I see no reason it won't happen again.
I know people say evil triumphs when good men do nothing, but what does it accomplish to get worked up about the "most well managed, well thought out, and well prepared opressive regime in history?" It may raise your blood pressure a bit, but calling people names, even accurate ones, doesn't actually accomplish anything.
I'm not saying you shouldn't speak out. Encourage people to go to the polls and vote for better representation. Change happens when people act, not when they just sit and complain. I still believe in Thomas Jefferson's quote: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism," but I don't wish to let my dissent overpower my life.
Yes, but a vast majority of Google's free services give another place to run ads. Searching, GMail, News, Froogle, and Local promote ad revenue, Google Earth has free versions and versions that you have to pay for, and Desktop has corporate versions that sell for big bucks. I'm sure I've missed a few, but just about everything google makes has some way of increasing profit. I have no doubt Google could make a Linux OS profitable, but I'm sure if they really are developing an operating system, they intend to profit from it.