Also, aren't various companies anti-union in general? I think Walmart is one example (and yes, I know a lot of people hate them). Walmart does not seem to be in any danger of losing employees.
Walmart also does the following to thwart unions:
Employees who may form unions are likely to be promoted or otherwise separated from their fellow workers
Walmart produces and shows anti-union propaganda to its employees
Wikipedia says Molybdenum is the 54th most abundant element on Earth. This is less abundant than silicon, but nowhere near as rare as other commonly used elements in semiconductors; Indium is far more rare.
No company should have to ignore any OS as a market when there are standards for streaming video. The problem is not market share; the problem is control. Netflix cannot take the chance that someone will rip its streams or in any way control their videos, likely due to the demands of the MPAA.
...and after the MPAA stops attacking our computers. Streaming would be an overnight success if you could save streams to your hard drive, connect your computer to your TV without HDCP screwing you up, and not be told that you are forbidden to watch the movies you were allowed to watch yesterday. The MPAA has basically made a concerted effort to cripple streaming, and so naturally people will gravitate toward the physical media they know and love (and understand -- streaming is still poorly understood by most people, as opposed to physical media).
Maybe it's just because I'm a college kid, but most people I know don't even bother renting DVDs anymore
Yes, it is because you are a college kid.
Older people are still not completely comfortable with their PCs and they have an easier time understanding physical media
Computer monitors are usually smaller than TV screens, and connecting a computer to a TV remains annoying.
People lend movies to each other; streaming screws this up.
Unless you can save Netflix streams on your hard drive, you will not be able to watch your movies when you lose Internet access (while traveling, for example); you can always use a portable DVD player.
Surely Netflix is in a position to understand that video streaming as a market has been crippled by the MPAA. Physical media will not be killed by streaming because people cannot do the sort of things they do with discs when they using streaming services. I know quite a few people who lend DVDs to their friends and family members, including DVDs from Netflix. People still do not always have Internet access, or if they are away from home Internet service may be very expensive -- but it is easy to use a portable DVD player (I may not be up to date on this, but as far as I know one cannot simply download video from Netflix and watch it on a laptop). Connecting a computer to a TV is still a pain and it still is not widely done; people generally do not want to watch movies on a smaller computer monitor when a larger TV screen is available.
When the MPAA stops making life hell for people who want to use their PCs to watch popular movies, killing DVD rental services will be more feasible.
If you upload something to Facebook, assume anyone can see it
I used to think this, but there are some pretty convincing arguments in The Net Delusion that have caused me to rethink that position. There are a lot of Facebook users, and dissident groups cannot avoid using Facebook to reach people, simply because of the large number of people on Facebook. If Facebook does not take privacy seriously, the risk to dissidents who try to contact their fellow citizens on Facebook will grow.
The point here is that yes, it is a problem when Facebook unexpectedly opens its users' data to the world against their wishes. There are legitimate reasons why someone might use Facebook but want to keep their account data private.
I know it is meant as a joke, but I can actually think of reasons why IT staff might want to look through confidential emails. Suppose you discovered evidence of illegal or unethical activity -- that could be used for blackmail, if you have a low standard of ethics, perhaps to increase your pay grade or improve your job security. The irony of mentioning "some accountant's email" is that accountants' mail is probably the best place to look for evidence of corruption.
I'm pretty sure a lot of that information is encrypted.
Given the popularity of identity-based encryption, it is possible that IT staff have access to data that was encrypted, since they probably control the key generation service. Where I am now, secret keys are issued by IT staff and we do not even use IBE. It is unfortunate, but for most people setting up, maintaining, and using decentralized cryptosystems is beyond what they are technically capable of or willing to do.
Except that this will not be used to police businesses; businesses will just encrypt all their emails. The point of this sort of monitoring is to police the lower-level crimes: drug smuggling, child exploitation, violations of embargoes, etc. Most black market transactions that are negotiated or conducted entirely on the Internet are done without encryption or using very poor encryption systems (e.g. Hushmail) because they tend to involve less educated people (or perhaps less tech-savvy people).
I would not say it is "good" for Apple or any other corporation to dictate what software may or may not be used on someone's personal computer. It flies in the face of the personal computer revolution, and basically undermines all the things that made PCs a great thing for the world. The fact that people have to hack their iPads just to get the same level of control they have over their PCs is a problem, regardless of functionality.
That really depends on what sort of development you are doing. I have known plenty of developers who have worked on very large projects and who spend most of their CPU time on their local workstations.
Apple has done a reasonable job of ensuring that the majority of day-to-day computing needs can be satisfied by the programs they have approved for use on the iPad. What I find interesting about this situation is that when we had the first wave of flamewars about the iPad and the App Store model, people were saying that there was no way that an iPad would ever be someone's primary computer. I guess they were wrong?
Not having to wait 20 minutes while your code is compiling? Being able to run more aggressive optimizers? There is more to development than editing your code.
Now, can someone explain to me how it is even possible to use an iPad as a developer, except to test software on it? I thought you were forbidden from having any tools that translate software...
The first thing that comes to my mind is the requirement that nobody try to learn how the services are implemented (usually stated as "reverse engineering"). On principle, schools should have a problem with policies that forbid students from attempting to learn how their email software is implemented, although in practice schools generally have no problem with such agreements (perhaps they simply assume that students will never try to reverse engineer anything). Both Google apps for education and Microsoft Live@edu have these conditions.
Microsoft Live@edu also explicitly forbids accessing the service by an automated method, which means that students are required to use the interface as provided by Microsoft -- even caching Microsoft's web pages is apparently grounds for account termination (I assume this is meant to exclude the browser cache, but that is not made clear). Microsoft also requires schools to maintain a particular academic structure -- differentiating between students, alumni, faculty, and staff, which while common is not necessarily universal and may not align properly with a school's philosophy on education.
These may be negotiable, but I have yet to see any indication of that. Microsoft and Google both appear to require each end user at a customer institution to agree to a particular set of terms of service. Can you enlighten me by providing examples of institutions for which this is not the case?
Once upon a time, there were P2P networks where people shared videos using a highly distributed, hard to control system. You could search the networks and find funny things. There was some copyright infringement, as one would expect. A lot of people were too technically illiterate to figure out how to use P2P networks, or were too illiterate to recognize the viruses that unfriendly people were sharing on the networks.
Then wave after wave of lawsuits hit P2P network users. Although people were more likely to be hit by an out of control car than to be sued, sufficiently many people were scared that P2P networks started to die. The corporations that were doing the suing hated P2P, because sending C&D and DMCA takedown demands to random home users was just not something they could do in any effective way. Out of the ashes rose new, centralized systems that were easier for illiterate people to use and simultaneously had the resources to handle a flood of DMCA takedown demands. Life seemed to be good for everyone -- the users could remain stupid and unempowered, and the corporations could continue to rake in cash.
Now we are stuck with massive, centralized systems that are easy to censor, easy to attack, and easy to control. Hackers lost that round, corporations won, and ordinary people remain as oblivious as ever.
What I really care about is being able to communicate with Facebook users without having to actually open a Facebook account. Thank you for the information, I will look into this in more detail.
Imagine what? I said that I doubted that 5% of America know what BitTorrent is; among BitTorrent users, I doubt that any significant number would take to the streets to protest ICE seizing TPB. Few people will be up in arms; most will just route around the ICE action and perceive it as no big deal.
Where were to people marching in the streets when the court issued an injunction against Napster? That should tell you everything you need to know about the American public's views on these sorts of actions.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, aren't various companies anti-union in general? I think Walmart is one example (and yes, I know a lot of people hate them). Walmart does not seem to be in any danger of losing employees.
Walmart also does the following to thwart unions:
Aside from power and frequency restrictions (which can be limited in hardware), how might you run afoul of FCC regulations?
Once the contract is over, or if you paid full price, then you should be able to do whatever you want.
Where do I go to pay full price for a PS3?
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/08/24/facebook-banned-marijuana-leaf-of-libertarian-party-too/
Wikipedia says Molybdenum is the 54th most abundant element on Earth. This is less abundant than silicon, but nowhere near as rare as other commonly used elements in semiconductors; Indium is far more rare.
No company should have to ignore any OS as a market when there are standards for streaming video. The problem is not market share; the problem is control. Netflix cannot take the chance that someone will rip its streams or in any way control their videos, likely due to the demands of the MPAA.
...and after the MPAA stops attacking our computers. Streaming would be an overnight success if you could save streams to your hard drive, connect your computer to your TV without HDCP screwing you up, and not be told that you are forbidden to watch the movies you were allowed to watch yesterday. The MPAA has basically made a concerted effort to cripple streaming, and so naturally people will gravitate toward the physical media they know and love (and understand -- streaming is still poorly understood by most people, as opposed to physical media).
Maybe it's just because I'm a college kid, but most people I know don't even bother renting DVDs anymore
Yes, it is because you are a college kid.
Surely Netflix is in a position to understand that video streaming as a market has been crippled by the MPAA. Physical media will not be killed by streaming because people cannot do the sort of things they do with discs when they using streaming services. I know quite a few people who lend DVDs to their friends and family members, including DVDs from Netflix. People still do not always have Internet access, or if they are away from home Internet service may be very expensive -- but it is easy to use a portable DVD player (I may not be up to date on this, but as far as I know one cannot simply download video from Netflix and watch it on a laptop). Connecting a computer to a TV is still a pain and it still is not widely done; people generally do not want to watch movies on a smaller computer monitor when a larger TV screen is available.
When the MPAA stops making life hell for people who want to use their PCs to watch popular movies, killing DVD rental services will be more feasible.
If you upload something to Facebook, assume anyone can see it
I used to think this, but there are some pretty convincing arguments in The Net Delusion that have caused me to rethink that position. There are a lot of Facebook users, and dissident groups cannot avoid using Facebook to reach people, simply because of the large number of people on Facebook. If Facebook does not take privacy seriously, the risk to dissidents who try to contact their fellow citizens on Facebook will grow.
The point here is that yes, it is a problem when Facebook unexpectedly opens its users' data to the world against their wishes. There are legitimate reasons why someone might use Facebook but want to keep their account data private.
But how in gods name did they think that ISPs have the ability to delete content on other and foreign sites?
Maybe he got the idea from these people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_firewall_of_china
I find it interesting that you are thankful that you are included among the people who did think of that...
Indeed. After what happened with the PS3, I know I am not buying any more Sony products. This is not a company that respects its customers.
I know it is meant as a joke, but I can actually think of reasons why IT staff might want to look through confidential emails. Suppose you discovered evidence of illegal or unethical activity -- that could be used for blackmail, if you have a low standard of ethics, perhaps to increase your pay grade or improve your job security. The irony of mentioning "some accountant's email" is that accountants' mail is probably the best place to look for evidence of corruption.
I'm pretty sure a lot of that information is encrypted.
Given the popularity of identity-based encryption, it is possible that IT staff have access to data that was encrypted, since they probably control the key generation service. Where I am now, secret keys are issued by IT staff and we do not even use IBE. It is unfortunate, but for most people setting up, maintaining, and using decentralized cryptosystems is beyond what they are technically capable of or willing to do.
Except that this will not be used to police businesses; businesses will just encrypt all their emails. The point of this sort of monitoring is to police the lower-level crimes: drug smuggling, child exploitation, violations of embargoes, etc. Most black market transactions that are negotiated or conducted entirely on the Internet are done without encryption or using very poor encryption systems (e.g. Hushmail) because they tend to involve less educated people (or perhaps less tech-savvy people).
I would not say it is "good" for Apple or any other corporation to dictate what software may or may not be used on someone's personal computer. It flies in the face of the personal computer revolution, and basically undermines all the things that made PCs a great thing for the world. The fact that people have to hack their iPads just to get the same level of control they have over their PCs is a problem, regardless of functionality.
That really depends on what sort of development you are doing. I have known plenty of developers who have worked on very large projects and who spend most of their CPU time on their local workstations.
It has this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9f/Apple-logo.svg
Apple has done a reasonable job of ensuring that the majority of day-to-day computing needs can be satisfied by the programs they have approved for use on the iPad. What I find interesting about this situation is that when we had the first wave of flamewars about the iPad and the App Store model, people were saying that there was no way that an iPad would ever be someone's primary computer. I guess they were wrong?
Not having to wait 20 minutes while your code is compiling? Being able to run more aggressive optimizers? There is more to development than editing your code.
Now, can someone explain to me how it is even possible to use an iPad as a developer, except to test software on it? I thought you were forbidden from having any tools that translate software...
The first thing that comes to my mind is the requirement that nobody try to learn how the services are implemented (usually stated as "reverse engineering"). On principle, schools should have a problem with policies that forbid students from attempting to learn how their email software is implemented, although in practice schools generally have no problem with such agreements (perhaps they simply assume that students will never try to reverse engineer anything). Both Google apps for education and Microsoft Live@edu have these conditions.
Microsoft Live@edu also explicitly forbids accessing the service by an automated method, which means that students are required to use the interface as provided by Microsoft -- even caching Microsoft's web pages is apparently grounds for account termination (I assume this is meant to exclude the browser cache, but that is not made clear). Microsoft also requires schools to maintain a particular academic structure -- differentiating between students, alumni, faculty, and staff, which while common is not necessarily universal and may not align properly with a school's philosophy on education.
These may be negotiable, but I have yet to see any indication of that. Microsoft and Google both appear to require each end user at a customer institution to agree to a particular set of terms of service. Can you enlighten me by providing examples of institutions for which this is not the case?
Vote with your wallet
Sounds like wealthy people get more of a vote than I do.
Once upon a time, there were P2P networks where people shared videos using a highly distributed, hard to control system. You could search the networks and find funny things. There was some copyright infringement, as one would expect. A lot of people were too technically illiterate to figure out how to use P2P networks, or were too illiterate to recognize the viruses that unfriendly people were sharing on the networks.
Then wave after wave of lawsuits hit P2P network users. Although people were more likely to be hit by an out of control car than to be sued, sufficiently many people were scared that P2P networks started to die. The corporations that were doing the suing hated P2P, because sending C&D and DMCA takedown demands to random home users was just not something they could do in any effective way. Out of the ashes rose new, centralized systems that were easier for illiterate people to use and simultaneously had the resources to handle a flood of DMCA takedown demands. Life seemed to be good for everyone -- the users could remain stupid and unempowered, and the corporations could continue to rake in cash.
Now we are stuck with massive, centralized systems that are easy to censor, easy to attack, and easy to control. Hackers lost that round, corporations won, and ordinary people remain as oblivious as ever.
What I really care about is being able to communicate with Facebook users without having to actually open a Facebook account. Thank you for the information, I will look into this in more detail.
Imagine what? I said that I doubted that 5% of America know what BitTorrent is; among BitTorrent users, I doubt that any significant number would take to the streets to protest ICE seizing TPB. Few people will be up in arms; most will just route around the ICE action and perceive it as no big deal.
Where were to people marching in the streets when the court issued an injunction against Napster? That should tell you everything you need to know about the American public's views on these sorts of actions.