I'm sure they do other checks, too. Online stuff is often more personal than medical records, though. I don't mind potential employers knowing that I had a cold last winter and had braces when I was a teenager. I do mind them seeing every single blog post or message board post I've made, though. I keep my real name and personal details out of those things, so my aliases are effectively a completely separate identity that only authorities and webmasters would be able to link together.
Not entirely paranoid. I thought it was a well-known fact that employers Googled people when considering hiring them. I keep this in mind whenever I post anything that links me to my real name, though.
I think this is made out to be more of a big deal than it really is. It's quite simple to prevent this from happening to you. Post "good stuff" under your real name, perhaps linked to a professional-sounding alias, and post other crap under another alias that you never link to your real name.
The thing is, if you make everything clean enough to be used by users with disabilities, the entire system ALSO becomes more usable for regular users, usually.
A good example is webpages. Having them be standards compliant is important for users with disabilities. The standards compliance also helps regular users on text-based browsers, and regular users in general.
Rather ungrateful like that, aren't they? I mean, it seems virus-scanner companies and MS have had a long relationship where they needed each other to survive. If virus scanners weren't around, Windows would probably have become unacceptable for a lot of businesses. Similarly, if Windows wasn't crap, virus scanner companies wouldn't have a market to target.
Now Microsoft is moving into their market, and will be selling both a problem and the solution to that problem. Nice.
Where to start.
on
Learning to DJ?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I always start with the Wikipedia article whenever I want to learn something new.
It seems you might be interested in a program called Final Scratch.
In order to run arbitrary code, two things are needed: - The Xbox needs to boot from DVD recordable discs. (this news means that's been done) - The encryption that checks whether or not the executable code is "signed" needs to be overcome. (yet to be done)
So, this is important. The next part is probably harder, though.
Indeed, but the original PlayStation came out at a time when people had been VERY satisfied with their previous Nintendo system, the SNES. In fact, the first PlayStation was originally going to be a collaboration between Nintendo and Sony as a CD-ROM drive for the SNES. Nintendo pulled out, Sony continued developing it, and the cancellation of that contract turned out to be the worst decision that Nintendo ever made.
My point is, at some point in time, the "popular" brand of systems always falls. Atari, Nintendo (and Sega?), and Sony's time will eventually come... It might not happen with the PS3, but the important thing to remember is that can happen, and eventually will. All empires are eventually toppled.
Why do all those steps when I can just do only the last one and have the songs I wanted? It's dishonest, but I did want to do the right thing in the first place. Instead of assisting me in doing the right thing, the music industry only wants to sell me inferior DRM files.
DRM sucks enough due to all of the real problems with it where you can't use the file on any device you want. We don't need to spread FUD about it decreasing battery life.
Is that such an unreasonable expectation? If we're not supposed to buy devices based on the advertised specifications, what exactly are we meant to buy them based on?
Is it really too much to ask that device manufacturers not be dishonest, and instead provide realistic expected battery life information?
They used WMA of a higher bitrate than the non-DRM file!
I'm no fan of DRM, but this appears to be FUD. They should have used a WMA with DRM and a WMA without DRM, both of the same bitrate. That would be a proper comparison.
I disagree that search really needs to get that good. When I search for something at the moment, I find that I always get what I want on the first page.
I think any search engine that attempts to "understand" what is meant by pages and queries will end up returning goofy results for the vast majority of queries.
They should have picked #2. They should have stood up to the companies and allowed any video that doesn't use DRM. Eventually, some content producers would go along with it, and others would be forced to in order to compete.
Google are a huge company, now. Don't make excuses for them and try to tell me that they're getting pushed around.
I do like everything else Google is doing (except China, which I'm undecided on), and so I like them in general, but I was disappointed that they caved in and put DRM into Google Video. They did not have to. Other (new!) content producers would create and sell TV shows through them if they current ones refused to.
I hope you're just trolling.
How would selling me non-DRM videos be facilitating me "pirating"? I can get the videos off bittorrent if I want to not pay for them, but I really do *WANT* to *BUY* them from Google.
As you point out, it really depends on what they do with that data. It would be very nasty if they started selling it, but it appears that, at least for now, they intend to keep it to themselves.
Torrents are not illegal. The bittorrent protocol is not illegal. The bittorrent method of distribution is not illegal. Torrent websites are not illegal.
The distribution, without permission, of files that fall under current copyright is illegal in most, but not all, places in the world.
Furthermore, searching for torrents of files that fall under copyright is not illegal. Downloading the torrents themselves might be illegal, I'm not sure. Downloading the copyrighted material itself, without permission, is always illegal. This has nothing to do with it being a torrent.
The thing about Google is, they have a lot of interests in the same places as normal people. For example, normal people have an interest in more powerful "fair use" clauses when it comes to copyright, and so does Google. (Google Book Search)
These interests are almost opposite to the interests of most other big companies. Whereas most companies want to restrict anyone from using their copyrighted works without paying them, Google *NEED* to use copyrighted works without paying for them.
You're right, sorry. The advantage is that DRM forces some people to buy multiple copies of the same thing. I wasn't thinking straight when I wrote the original post.
Management doesn't want to know the details. Just say there are 'major security concerns'.
You shouldn't usually sacrifice security for productivity, unless you don't need the security. I suppose Windows is a good example of businesses sacrificing security for productivity, though. In most cases they probably get away with it by having firewalls and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
... and when one of those websites that is usually ugly but full of features becomes beautiful, they are even more successful. Google, for example.
I'm sure they do other checks, too. Online stuff is often more personal than medical records, though. I don't mind potential employers knowing that I had a cold last winter and had braces when I was a teenager. I do mind them seeing every single blog post or message board post I've made, though. I keep my real name and personal details out of those things, so my aliases are effectively a completely separate identity that only authorities and webmasters would be able to link together.
Not entirely paranoid. I thought it was a well-known fact that employers Googled people when considering hiring them. I keep this in mind whenever I post anything that links me to my real name, though.
I think this is made out to be more of a big deal than it really is. It's quite simple to prevent this from happening to you. Post "good stuff" under your real name, perhaps linked to a professional-sounding alias, and post other crap under another alias that you never link to your real name.
I'm suing Kinderstart for not linking to me.
The thing is, if you make everything clean enough to be used by users with disabilities, the entire system ALSO becomes more usable for regular users, usually.
A good example is webpages. Having them be standards compliant is important for users with disabilities. The standards compliance also helps regular users on text-based browsers, and regular users in general.
Rather ungrateful like that, aren't they? I mean, it seems virus-scanner companies and MS have had a long relationship where they needed each other to survive. If virus scanners weren't around, Windows would probably have become unacceptable for a lot of businesses. Similarly, if Windows wasn't crap, virus scanner companies wouldn't have a market to target.
Now Microsoft is moving into their market, and will be selling both a problem and the solution to that problem. Nice.
I always start with the Wikipedia article whenever I want to learn something new.
It seems you might be interested in a program called Final Scratch.
So many people already knew about this that Hollywood had pumped out a cheesy, un-original movie about it over a year ago!
In order to run arbitrary code, two things are needed:
- The Xbox needs to boot from DVD recordable discs. (this news means that's been done)
- The encryption that checks whether or not the executable code is "signed" needs to be overcome. (yet to be done)
So, this is important. The next part is probably harder, though.
Indeed, but the original PlayStation came out at a time when people had been VERY satisfied with their previous Nintendo system, the SNES. In fact, the first PlayStation was originally going to be a collaboration between Nintendo and Sony as a CD-ROM drive for the SNES. Nintendo pulled out, Sony continued developing it, and the cancellation of that contract turned out to be the worst decision that Nintendo ever made.
My point is, at some point in time, the "popular" brand of systems always falls. Atari, Nintendo (and Sega?), and Sony's time will eventually come... It might not happen with the PS3, but the important thing to remember is that can happen, and eventually will. All empires are eventually toppled.
Why do all those steps when I can just do only the last one and have the songs I wanted? It's dishonest, but I did want to do the right thing in the first place. Instead of assisting me in doing the right thing, the music industry only wants to sell me inferior DRM files.
Screw that.
DRM sucks enough due to all of the real problems with it where you can't use the file on any device you want. We don't need to spread FUD about it decreasing battery life.
Is that such an unreasonable expectation? If we're not supposed to buy devices based on the advertised specifications, what exactly are we meant to buy them based on?
Is it really too much to ask that device manufacturers not be dishonest, and instead provide realistic expected battery life information?
They used WMA of a higher bitrate than the non-DRM file!
I'm no fan of DRM, but this appears to be FUD. They should have used a WMA with DRM and a WMA without DRM, both of the same bitrate. That would be a proper comparison.
I disagree that search really needs to get that good. When I search for something at the moment, I find that I always get what I want on the first page.
I think any search engine that attempts to "understand" what is meant by pages and queries will end up returning goofy results for the vast majority of queries.
They should have picked #2. They should have stood up to the companies and allowed any video that doesn't use DRM. Eventually, some content producers would go along with it, and others would be forced to in order to compete.
Google are a huge company, now. Don't make excuses for them and try to tell me that they're getting pushed around.
I do like everything else Google is doing (except China, which I'm undecided on), and so I like them in general, but I was disappointed that they caved in and put DRM into Google Video. They did not have to. Other (new!) content producers would create and sell TV shows through them if they current ones refused to.
I hope you're just trolling. How would selling me non-DRM videos be facilitating me "pirating"? I can get the videos off bittorrent if I want to not pay for them, but I really do *WANT* to *BUY* them from Google.
As you point out, it really depends on what they do with that data. It would be very nasty if they started selling it, but it appears that, at least for now, they intend to keep it to themselves.
Yes, as they used Digital Rights Management on Google Video. This shows they don't care as much about their customers as they claim to.
Torrents are not illegal.
The bittorrent protocol is not illegal.
The bittorrent method of distribution is not illegal.
Torrent websites are not illegal.
The distribution, without permission, of files that fall under current copyright is illegal in most, but not all, places in the world.
Furthermore, searching for torrents of files that fall under copyright is not illegal. Downloading the torrents themselves might be illegal, I'm not sure. Downloading the copyrighted material itself, without permission, is always illegal. This has nothing to do with it being a torrent.
I'd say you can safely search for "torrent"...
Indeed, with .NET, no cracking is required. Just Google for a security hole and you're pretty much in. :)
The thing about Google is, they have a lot of interests in the same places as normal people. For example, normal people have an interest in more powerful "fair use" clauses when it comes to copyright, and so does Google. (Google Book Search)
These interests are almost opposite to the interests of most other big companies. Whereas most companies want to restrict anyone from using their copyrighted works without paying them, Google *NEED* to use copyrighted works without paying for them.
You're right, sorry. The advantage is that DRM forces some people to buy multiple copies of the same thing. I wasn't thinking straight when I wrote the original post.
Management doesn't want to know the details. Just say there are 'major security concerns'.
You shouldn't usually sacrifice security for productivity, unless you don't need the security. I suppose Windows is a good example of businesses sacrificing security for productivity, though. In most cases they probably get away with it by having firewalls and the like.