Actually, I think my error was that I should have posed it as a debate on whether the *rate* of expansion is increasing or decreasing. Sorry about that. But the point holds -- they're jumping to premature conclusions and shouting about it to get undeserved attention.
Ubuntu, hm. Isn't that the one that STRONGLY RECOMMENDS you install a shaky bootloader, GRUB (rather than picking a boot drive at startup) which can then fail and lock you out of all operating systems leaving you unable to fix it from the install-only disc they told you would be sufficient to install, but then would later claim you were supposed to realize you should have dl'ed a live CD and install on a machine you didn't care about first anyway?
Right -- exponential growth. But you can also get money by investing the money or loaning it out instead of buying a slave. What's the doubling time for a generation of slaves? Make them bear kids at say, 15. Factor in mortality, and I'd say 25 years is your doubling time. That corresponds to a rate of capital growth of ~3% per year. You're better of loaning the capital or investing it.
Well, that's exaggeration, but whenever I hear "the universe is expanding, like we thought 2 and 4 times ago, not contracting, like we thought last time and 3 times ago" or "well, the universe is 10 billion, not 8 billion light years wide", that to me comes across as a sort of modern version of "1000, not merely 800 angels can dance on the head of a pin".
If the data are that ambiguous, why talk to mass media?
Well, I'm of the mind they *are* making a lot of noise carelessly; I have neighbors that do so, and don't seem to give a damn. His reaction sounds exactly like something I want to do to people who are disrespectful to me like that. Except that I have very sensitive hearing, so that would hurt me too.
Why did it never occur to them that they might just be experiencing what he was previously? Are they reading to negotiate a deal, which would require admitting they did exactly what he's doing?
Oh! Or you could buy the way-old PS2 games (which are the same thing, just with slight worse graphics and different stories) and play them on your PS3! That would save you a ton of money on console games!
I don't want to sound too fawning, but those seem like such commonsense, reasonable ideas, I don't know why they weren't originally written into patent law. (Though maybe some leeway in either direction on the penalties you've listed.) Especially the part about legalese, which should be easy to check. That is, a defendant, or anyone contesting the patent, is allowed to offer an alternative summary description of the patent in simpler language, and if the plaintiff/patentholder cannot show how his "invention" differs AND the judge (or jury or whatever) finds the offered version to be significantly easier to understand, then some penalty applies, perhaps including releasing the patent into the public domain. By giving people a stiff incentive to find the simplest way to describe it, you've made the patent office's job easier, and, as icing on the cake, you will make a lot of ho-hum "inventors" have to face the harsh reality of their own lack of creativity.
Wasn't the GameCube and (original) Xbox already infinging then with their trigger button? I though those could be in-between. That would be infringing in 2001, and they're just now suing. Isn't there a time limit on how prompt you have to be in suing over a patent, like how they have statues of limitations in criminal law? (Yes, smarty, I know patent law isn't the same as criminal law.)
And why wait until 2-3 months before launch when they've known something like this for, what, 3-6 months (depending on what you count as the Wiimote's revelation)?
I work as a diversity consultant for colleges and businesses, and I explain the benefits of having a diverse workforce. Nobody seems to understand that having more diversity will give stakeholders a more enriching experience than having the same old white-bread stuff, if you know what I mean. There's been a significant rollback in the money allocated to diversity education programs. I'm not suprised that people have to be told this applies to consoles.
That's how it works these days. The most trivial idea is reworked as some kind of novel, "intelligent" apporach that obviously no one would have ever used if they hadn't introduced it. For example, the whole "Just In Time" approach. "Um, you're shortenging warehouse time." "Yeah, but we're like doing it a cool, intelligent, systematic way, pay me big consulting dollars." Next, we're going to have "customer-oriented solutions" being patented.
Yes. Ultimately, we're worse off with DRM and the music than we would be with no DRM and without that music. (It wouldn't be all music,
Thank you. That's clearer and more honest than most posts I've seen on this: you accept that some music would be produced irrespective of DRM, and some would not be worthwhile without, and further accept that the music that needs it, isn't worth it if it would mean DRM.
Often it is unfair. Literally so: when DRM interferes with a fair use, which by definition is not an infringement of copyright, then what else can we call that, but unfair?
I don't see any problem with people making their works *physically* more difficult to copy, as long as they don't try to make it *legally* more difficult. For example, if I interlace the text of a book with some colorful picture when published online as a.gif, someone will have to transcribe it in order to exercise his fair use rights of quoting excerpts on his blog or whatever. That would imply that laws protecting DRM restrictions and keeping you from circumventing them are bad, but if they just want to put them on to make it harder for mouth-breathers to share them, that's okay. I assume it's illegal to circumvent DRM, so I would agree with you in opposing that.
However, I don't know how they can, legally or physically, prevent you from exercising genuine fair use rights, such as quoting. Worst comes to worst, *tape record* an excerpt of the music you want to quote.
Plus, DRM doesn't conform with the shape of copyright. Copyright expires; DRM does not. Copyright can be changed by legislation; DRM cannot be.
And it just so happens that making DRM expirable or on-the-fly modifiable would also make it easily crackable.
Also, if the copyright term really does expire, that means you can legally download a digital copy. In the rare event that copyright is modified for the better, Congress could require them to re-issue the work with different restrictions.
I believe, as do many anti-DRM activists, that the average person is more than willing to pay a fair price for anything they want or need, they do not need to be forced to do the right thing.
The problem is that the media giants have decided that they want more than a fair price for their product,
So, let me see if I can get this straight. You want to dictate the price of music you believe they rightly own the copyright for, and, failing that, you oppose them putting up any barriers to copyright infringement of their product. Explain to me the significant difference between that and
"You wouldn't need so many casino security guards if the odds of winning weren't so low!"
"You wouldn't need to watch for shoplifters if you didn't charge so much!"
Stupid but honest question: if DRM is bad, is the production of music only profitable through DRM also bad? Record companies use DRM so as to make copying more difficult and protect their copyright in the music. Do people find it unfair that they can't circumvent copyright as easy as they'd like?
What about having someone holster a Wiimote to each limb and having dances that incorporate whatever movement can be detected that way, like I suggest here? Okay, you probably can't talk about that. But I was just thinking, that seems like an easier way to detect depth than a Kalman filter. I don't mind if no company tries to implement this, as long as Nintendo lets me buy an SDK so I can try it myself.
I was thinking they could get this to work on the upcoming Wii, and it would be able to seriously detect depth-position, unlike the EyeToy or the thing in the article. Imagine: holster a Wiimote to each arm and leg. The screen would specify the moves, perhaps through symbols that appear on the screen with some warning. Unlike DDR, this would be able to tell *which* foot you use for each move, and in addition, it could pick up kicks, twirls, claps, arm rolls, touching the ground, and probably a lot more I can't think of right now. I really hope someone makes such a game, and I'll try to get an SDK if no one does. (Not like they'll let an average Joe have one at any price, but I'll try.)
Why isn't the F/OSS community spending millions to reach out to schools and inform them of low cost solutions, demonstrate their effectiveness, train them, let them know where to buy support...
Oh, I forgot: open source is better. That should drive them *flocking* to you.
Crap software prevails in education because, whatever its flaws, they at least are willing to put up the money and effort to bring their solutions *to* the potential buyers.
Well, he's a genuine expert, and was correct on many things. There are indeed, as he said, massive amounts of data on the interent. He was also right that the internet is NOT a truck, and it WILL take a while to receive the internet if someone sends it to you.
Normally, when people (debatably) misuse "begs the question", it's as a replacement for "raises the question". So you'll typically see something like, "Clinton opposed welfare reform because it would deny many their due, begging the questions of just what someone's due really is." But here, it doesn't even make that (reasonable) error -- it uses it to mean "asks the question" -- and not in a philosophical way either, but rather, to mean literally have a discussion about it! Whether you can use "begs the question" to mean "raises the question" or "regresses to the question", there's a lot of debate about. But no one seriously argues that you can use it as the article did here! "New in town, Timmy begged the question of where he could buy clothes." Huh?
It's easy to say that "all those other people" are watching these stale rehashes, but are/.ers really ascetics that avoid the Hollywood blockbusters? I'm sure many posters here are indeed watching these movies and encouraging more to be produced, while at the same time neglecting the independent movies that come out. The solution starts at home. It's not their fault for making what people are sure to see. It's the moviegoers' fault for seeing them. Stop seeing these just because "it's something". Then this trend will stop overnight.
Alright kid, let's step out of the Cadillac for a minute. Okay, take off those gold chains. Damn, you must have strong neck by now. Okay, not try to hide your teeth, I don't like seeing that big gold one. Now, but the gun down, or at least stop holding it sideways like that. And pull up your pants!!! Sheesh.
(I sure can tell a lot about you based on the intelligence of your posts.)
First of all, unions DO significantly hinder a company's performance. Ever heard of the Rust Belt? Ever heard of airline bankruptcies? Ever heard of GM, whose union-demanded pension obligations have now made them junk bond status? That took a while, I'll grant. But in today's less-regulated, global economy, there is real competition. Cost-plus? No way. The inefficient guys get tossed a lot sooner.
I'm saddened to know that you probably are making "actual business decisions". You're probably the kind of guy who said, "hm, the worker want huge, lifetime pensions and unlimited health care. Hm, how would that affect the balance sheet. If I set aside nothing now... hm, well, it looks like that obligation will cost me nothing! I'll just pay them as the profits come in, which I'm sure will continue to exponentially increase."
Open your eyes, MBA. Idiotic business models -- like those involving unbounded pensions and unions -- are collapsing. Guess they didn't cover that part in your last course. Hope you're diversified.
Um... yeah. I'm going to let you in on a little secret: they were just trying to find a reason to reject you. You don't need a CS worth of programming to do engineering programming. You were turned down in part because this "union" doesn't like competition from more capable younger workers. Kinda gets in the way of that $100/hour salary. Don't worry, smaller aerospace upstarts, like my employer, will quickly brush away such extravagant business models.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think my error was that I should have posed it as a debate on whether the *rate* of expansion is increasing or decreasing. Sorry about that. But the point holds -- they're jumping to premature conclusions and shouting about it to get undeserved attention.
Ubuntu, hm. Isn't that the one that STRONGLY RECOMMENDS you install a shaky bootloader, GRUB (rather than picking a boot drive at startup) which can then fail and lock you out of all operating systems leaving you unable to fix it from the install-only disc they told you would be sufficient to install, but then would later claim you were supposed to realize you should have dl'ed a live CD and install on a machine you didn't care about first anyway?
Right -- exponential growth. But you can also get money by investing the money or loaning it out instead of buying a slave. What's the doubling time for a generation of slaves? Make them bear kids at say, 15. Factor in mortality, and I'd say 25 years is your doubling time. That corresponds to a rate of capital growth of ~3% per year. You're better of loaning the capital or investing it.
;-)
I moonlight as a slavery accountant
Well, that's exaggeration, but whenever I hear "the universe is expanding, like we thought 2 and 4 times ago, not contracting, like we thought last time and 3 times ago" or "well, the universe is 10 billion, not 8 billion light years wide", that to me comes across as a sort of modern version of "1000, not merely 800 angels can dance on the head of a pin".
If the data are that ambiguous, why talk to mass media?
Yeah, that's what I thought, bitch.
Well, I'm of the mind they *are* making a lot of noise carelessly; I have neighbors that do so, and don't seem to give a damn. His reaction sounds exactly like something I want to do to people who are disrespectful to me like that. Except that I have very sensitive hearing, so that would hurt me too.
Why did it never occur to them that they might just be experiencing what he was previously? Are they reading to negotiate a deal, which would require admitting they did exactly what he's doing?
Oh! Or you could buy the way-old PS2 games (which are the same thing, just with slight worse graphics and different stories) and play them on your PS3! That would save you a ton of money on console games!
I don't want to sound too fawning, but those seem like such commonsense, reasonable ideas, I don't know why they weren't originally written into patent law. (Though maybe some leeway in either direction on the penalties you've listed.) Especially the part about legalese, which should be easy to check. That is, a defendant, or anyone contesting the patent, is allowed to offer an alternative summary description of the patent in simpler language, and if the plaintiff/patentholder cannot show how his "invention" differs AND the judge (or jury or whatever) finds the offered version to be significantly easier to understand, then some penalty applies, perhaps including releasing the patent into the public domain. By giving people a stiff incentive to find the simplest way to describe it, you've made the patent office's job easier, and, as icing on the cake, you will make a lot of ho-hum "inventors" have to face the harsh reality of their own lack of creativity.
Wasn't the GameCube and (original) Xbox already infinging then with their trigger button? I though those could be in-between. That would be infringing in 2001, and they're just now suing. Isn't there a time limit on how prompt you have to be in suing over a patent, like how they have statues of limitations in criminal law? (Yes, smarty, I know patent law isn't the same as criminal law.)
And why wait until 2-3 months before launch when they've known something like this for, what, 3-6 months (depending on what you count as the Wiimote's revelation)?
I work as a diversity consultant for colleges and businesses, and I explain the benefits of having a diverse workforce. Nobody seems to understand that having more diversity will give stakeholders a more enriching experience than having the same old white-bread stuff, if you know what I mean. There's been a significant rollback in the money allocated to diversity education programs. I'm not suprised that people have to be told this applies to consoles.
That's how it works these days. The most trivial idea is reworked as some kind of novel, "intelligent" apporach that obviously no one would have ever used if they hadn't introduced it. For example, the whole "Just In Time" approach. "Um, you're shortenging warehouse time." "Yeah, but we're like doing it a cool, intelligent, systematic way, pay me big consulting dollars." Next, we're going to have "customer-oriented solutions" being patented.
Yes. Ultimately, we're worse off with DRM and the music than we would be with no DRM and without that music. (It wouldn't be all music,
.gif, someone will have to transcribe it in order to exercise his fair use rights of quoting excerpts on his blog or whatever. That would imply that laws protecting DRM restrictions and keeping you from circumventing them are bad, but if they just want to put them on to make it harder for mouth-breathers to share them, that's okay. I assume it's illegal to circumvent DRM, so I would agree with you in opposing that.
Thank you. That's clearer and more honest than most posts I've seen on this: you accept that some music would be produced irrespective of DRM, and some would not be worthwhile without, and further accept that the music that needs it, isn't worth it if it would mean DRM.
Often it is unfair. Literally so: when DRM interferes with a fair use, which by definition is not an infringement of copyright, then what else can we call that, but unfair?
I don't see any problem with people making their works *physically* more difficult to copy, as long as they don't try to make it *legally* more difficult. For example, if I interlace the text of a book with some colorful picture when published online as a
However, I don't know how they can, legally or physically, prevent you from exercising genuine fair use rights, such as quoting. Worst comes to worst, *tape record* an excerpt of the music you want to quote.
Plus, DRM doesn't conform with the shape of copyright. Copyright expires; DRM does not. Copyright can be changed by legislation; DRM cannot be.
And it just so happens that making DRM expirable or on-the-fly modifiable would also make it easily crackable.
Also, if the copyright term really does expire, that means you can legally download a digital copy. In the rare event that copyright is modified for the better, Congress could require them to re-issue the work with different restrictions.
I believe, as do many anti-DRM activists, that the average person is more than willing to pay a fair price for anything they want or need, they do not need to be forced to do the right thing.
The problem is that the media giants have decided that they want more than a fair price for their product,
So, let me see if I can get this straight. You want to dictate the price of music you believe they rightly own the copyright for, and, failing that, you oppose them putting up any barriers to copyright infringement of their product. Explain to me the significant difference between that and
"You wouldn't need so many casino security guards if the odds of winning weren't so low!"
"You wouldn't need to watch for shoplifters if you didn't charge so much!"
Do you have a grown-up version of this argument?
Stupid but honest question: if DRM is bad, is the production of music only profitable through DRM also bad? Record companies use DRM so as to make copying more difficult and protect their copyright in the music. Do people find it unfair that they can't circumvent copyright as easy as they'd like?
What about having someone holster a Wiimote to each limb and having dances that incorporate whatever movement can be detected that way, like I suggest here? Okay, you probably can't talk about that. But I was just thinking, that seems like an easier way to detect depth than a Kalman filter. I don't mind if no company tries to implement this, as long as Nintendo lets me buy an SDK so I can try it myself.
I was thinking they could get this to work on the upcoming Wii, and it would be able to seriously detect depth-position, unlike the EyeToy or the thing in the article. Imagine: holster a Wiimote to each arm and leg. The screen would specify the moves, perhaps through symbols that appear on the screen with some warning. Unlike DDR, this would be able to tell *which* foot you use for each move, and in addition, it could pick up kicks, twirls, claps, arm rolls, touching the ground, and probably a lot more I can't think of right now. I really hope someone makes such a game, and I'll try to get an SDK if no one does. (Not like they'll let an average Joe have one at any price, but I'll try.)
So what are you doing about it?
Why isn't the F/OSS community spending millions to reach out to schools and inform them of low cost solutions, demonstrate their effectiveness, train them, let them know where to buy support...
Oh, I forgot: open source is better. That should drive them *flocking* to you.
Crap software prevails in education because, whatever its flaws, they at least are willing to put up the money and effort to bring their solutions *to* the potential buyers.
Where's the link to an article? Oh, this was just some guy rambling about something while high.
Well, he's a genuine expert, and was correct on many things. There are indeed, as he said, massive amounts of data on the interent. He was also right that the internet is NOT a truck, and it WILL take a while to receive the internet if someone sends it to you.
Normally, when people (debatably) misuse "begs the question", it's as a replacement for "raises the question". So you'll typically see something like, "Clinton opposed welfare reform because it would deny many their due, begging the questions of just what someone's due really is." But here, it doesn't even make that (reasonable) error -- it uses it to mean "asks the question" -- and not in a philosophical way either, but rather, to mean literally have a discussion about it! Whether you can use "begs the question" to mean "raises the question" or "regresses to the question", there's a lot of debate about. But no one seriously argues that you can use it as the article did here! "New in town, Timmy begged the question of where he could buy clothes." Huh?
It's easy to say that "all those other people" are watching these stale rehashes, but are /.ers really ascetics that avoid the Hollywood blockbusters? I'm sure many posters here are indeed watching these movies and encouraging more to be produced, while at the same time neglecting the independent movies that come out. The solution starts at home. It's not their fault for making what people are sure to see. It's the moviegoers' fault for seeing them. Stop seeing these just because "it's something". Then this trend will stop overnight.
I don't care what your name is, but you *sound* high.
Windu: Does Anakin Skywalker have enough midichlorians to join the Jedi Council? You're damn right he don't!
Alright kid, let's step out of the Cadillac for a minute. Okay, take off those gold chains. Damn, you must have strong neck by now. Okay, not try to hide your teeth, I don't like seeing that big gold one. Now, but the gun down, or at least stop holding it sideways like that. And pull up your pants!!! Sheesh.
... hm, well, it looks like that obligation will cost me nothing! I'll just pay them as the profits come in, which I'm sure will continue to exponentially increase."
(I sure can tell a lot about you based on the intelligence of your posts.)
First of all, unions DO significantly hinder a company's performance. Ever heard of the Rust Belt? Ever heard of airline bankruptcies? Ever heard of GM, whose union-demanded pension obligations have now made them junk bond status? That took a while, I'll grant. But in today's less-regulated, global economy, there is real competition. Cost-plus? No way. The inefficient guys get tossed a lot sooner.
I'm saddened to know that you probably are making "actual business decisions". You're probably the kind of guy who said, "hm, the worker want huge, lifetime pensions and unlimited health care. Hm, how would that affect the balance sheet. If I set aside nothing now
Open your eyes, MBA. Idiotic business models -- like those involving unbounded pensions and unions -- are collapsing. Guess they didn't cover that part in your last course. Hope you're diversified.
Um... yeah. I'm going to let you in on a little secret: they were just trying to find a reason to reject you. You don't need a CS worth of programming to do engineering programming. You were turned down in part because this "union" doesn't like competition from more capable younger workers. Kinda gets in the way of that $100/hour salary. Don't worry, smaller aerospace upstarts, like my employer, will quickly brush away such extravagant business models.