... maybe he would be less redundant, if people would stop modding the first post redundant! Of course, they don't actually believe that the post is redundant, they just like modding down people based upon their point of view, rather than the value of their argument.
The phone only would be able to sense the initial acceleration (which could be anything), and the bumpiness along the way. The latter is more viable, but I would be worried that a city in an earthquake would suddenly lose all cell phone usage.
You make it sound like censorship is some sort of conspiracy of power. Most censorship here in free democracies occurs because people want it. Pure and simple. You can argue that they're brainwashed, that everyone would be better off exposed to anything that anyone wants to show them, but in the end, it's what they want, and we live in a democracy. That's how things work around here.
You make it sound so negative! We do the same thing. We oppose every single abridgement to our freedoms with much gusto, yet we know, deep down, that we will have to reach a compromise. We can't specify a reasonable compromise that we'd be happy with, because it would be whittled down to something we would not accept.
Not to mention, it's simply wrong to say the RIAA only wanted what they got. They wanted what they asked for in the first place. They just knew they wouldn't get it.
Think about this for a second, think of one piece of legislation passed in the last ten years that has positively impacted anyone you know in the first world? I can't think of a single thing, not one, nothing. Maybe this is a failure of imagination on my part but on the whole laws in the last ten years have been mostly negative.
It would seem that way. Most laws are designed to cement the illegality of things that would otherwise be immoral, or directly associated with other illegal activities. Ergo, the the things they prevent would be already be very uncommon, and so you would be hard-pressed to find someone who would directly and definitely benefit. Moreover, these laws are preventative, so you can never tell whether or not it would have helped you.
That said, I realise that copyright and piracy are extremely contentious subjects on Slashdot, so I'll add that the above is (obviously) not universally applicable.
Not necessarily. DRM is not designed to rob you of your fair use rights. It's designed to take the absolute freedom out of owning certain patterns of bits. It is possible, in theory, to create a scheme that respects fair use and that curtails copyright infringement, but I've yet to see anything that comes close. This scheme is a step in the right direction, though.
Maybe not, but if you want thriving culture (like I do) in the age of the internet, we do need protection for artists.
What money did Da Vinci need to raise in order to create the Mona Lisa? Who funded the statue-carvers of Easter Island?
You may disagree, but if you want to convince me, you'll have to do more than cite examples of great creative works made in the years gone by when we couldn't copy creative works easily and exactly. Or artworks made out of religion or spiritualism (those days are fading). In short, please use contemporary examples, since society has changed a lot in the past few years.
How much of an advance did JK Rowling get in order to start Harry Potter (hint: zero).
She got the promise that if her book was successful, she would get a lot of money. The money was not guaranteed by any means and it was certainly a gamble, but because of the chance that she would make a decent amount of money, there was value in writing the book. Without copyright law, the book industry would be in such an anaemic state, the idea of publishing a book to the rest of the world probably wouldn't even occur to her.
Creative works made with only profit as a motive are not culturally fundamental. We'll live without them.
I take it all back. I am clearly in the presence of someone who is vastly more informed than me. Ladies and Gentlemen, this Slashdotter obviously is familiar with all creative works made for profit! I believe he is also able to distinguish between works that are made for profit, and ones made to better our culture! Wow, and to think I used to believe that people who made claims like that were unfairly profiling creative works and automatically applying prejudices without considering the content of the creative work.
For example, it won't play some things unless there is a secure path to the output device.
Under what conditions? Is it just if it has a recognised form of DRM on it? It can invalidate software remotely that is identified as a problem by the vendor.Got any specific examples?
How was this flamebait? Repeating lies is very effective.
I'm not doubting that repeating lies is effective. The problem is that holocaust (and the denial thereof) is a very touchy subject, and the way your post broached the issue was without tact or humility. It is the kind of post that could incite a series of impassioned and inappropriate responses (known euphemistically as "flames"). That's why we call posts such as yours "flamebaits". All clear now?
Before you go overboard with your conspiracy theory, consider this:
This is Slashdot. Home to the world's IT experts, with access to the world's computers. IT experts that work for big businesses, and are responsible for hundreds (if not thousands) of potential Vista licences. They realise that there is no good reason to introduce delay (intentionally or unintentionally), especially when used in a business context, and the business would be paying a couple of hundred dollars per computer to upgrade. Such a move would be sheer stupidity, and Microsoft is not stupid (I gotta give them credit for that, at least). If, perhaps, you could have demonstrated that it only affected home editions of Vista, I might have believed that, but as it stands, it just seems an unfortunate symptom of some other problem.
[Vista] did take away a few liberties that I came to enjoy in XP, and so I will never switch.
Like what, if you don't mind me asking? I've never used Vista, and I haven't actually heard of anything you cannot do that you could in XP, let alone things that anyone would miss. I must admit I'm rather curious.
I agree. But my figure for copyright is more like 10-15 years. If you are still making money off it by then, it's part of our culture, and you have no right to own it any more. Anything above that is greed, IMHO.
True, but it certainly had a point. Getting rid of religion will just lead to something else they can use to delude themselves, or that they can use as justification for violence and aggression. I believe that religion is the symptom, not the problem, and that religion, by itself, is very benign. What is rather less benign is the attitude of some people, namely those who believe they know what is best for other people. Whether it be "you should not be deluded by this religion" or "you should not be deluded by that religion", or even "you should not be deluded by any religion". All breed hatred, and cause the negative effects generally attributed to religion itself. Think about it: how many violent crusades would have happened, if the Christians could mind their own business?
Who can wait for the rise of (and the war between) the United Atheist Alliance, United Atheist League, and the Allied Atheist Allegiance? By all the Sciences, it will be a glorious day.
I agree. It's a shame that people are trying to undermine the successful and legitimate efforts by these businessmen to successfully lock up all major distribution channels, radio stations...
If that's all they're trying to do, then fair enough, I say. Oppose! Oppose to the bitter end. The problem is, that is not all they are trying to do. They are trying to stop piracy - an illegal and harmful (to the people supplying the goods) practice that some current distribution channels are propagating. They'd have no leg to stand on if we all just stopped pirating. You could argue against this by asserting that they would come up with some phoney or misleading statistics, or pay a politician, but I don't think it would fly. Critics would just have to point out the flaws in the research/assertions, or do their own impartial research.
It's just wrong that corporations should not be able to force artists into contracts which deny them any profits after millions of dollars worth of sales.
Who's forcing? It's an investment. They provide the money, they provide the equipment, the manpower, and the marketing, the artist provides the rights to the music. What's so immoral about that? It's not like they don't have alternatives, and it's not like they can't make a decision of their own.
A unique combination of generations of producers, lawyers, organized criminals, and the congressmen and senators that they bought have worked hard to create a virtual monopoly.
Not to mention people. Y'know people, as in we the people? As in, people who believe (like me), that artists deserve some rights and some financial reimbursement if their music is successful? People who aren't blinded by the demonisation of copyright holders? People who believe that even if they use the legal system to be complete assholes, that still doesn't mean that we have a right to piracy? Remember those people?
Actually, I think it's kinda sad that the GP, easily the most insightful post I've seen in several weeks on an RIAA thread, is rated funny, and that he will get no karma and little respect for his ironic insight.
I have a theory: Slashdotters' opinions are often not at all representative of the majority, so consequently, they often believe that the system, designed to benefit the majority, is completely broken because nothing they want ever happens. This situation is a good example. People who make the parent's case usually believe at least one of these two things:
a) The wants of consumers do not filter through to these corporations, and that boycotting will make no difference, or b) These consumers don't actually know what they want, that they are blinded by corporate advertising saying they are happy when they really aren't, and that they (the person making the argument) know what these people want more than they themselves do.
It is a fact that most (if not all) corporations exist solely for the purpose of making money, and if you starve them of that, they will sit up and notice. I don't subscribe to the idea that I know what is best for other people, or that other people don't know what they want. If they want no rootkits, then they will think about it. If they don't know what a rootkit is, they probably won't notice or care. If you can't get a significant enough movement up and running (it's not like you don't have the communication equipment to set up an international boycott) then you may just have to accept that people don't care about the same things as you, and that you will have to just avoid the offending products.
Don't play dumb. There are significant differences between your choice of OS and your choice of website, the biggest being that most websites are not a platform for development and expansion. How many times have you purchased something and worried that it was going to be incompatible with your favourite website? None, I bet. Maybe there would be less of a problem if the OS market was standardised as much as the web.
Slashdot Mirror
... maybe he would be less redundant, if people would stop modding the first post redundant! Of course, they don't actually believe that the post is redundant, they just like modding down people based upon their point of view, rather than the value of their argument.
The phone only would be able to sense the initial acceleration (which could be anything), and the bumpiness along the way. The latter is more viable, but I would be worried that a city in an earthquake would suddenly lose all cell phone usage.
Absolutely. We'll have a new sport on our hands, of which we already have a long-established champion.
You make it sound like censorship is some sort of conspiracy of power. Most censorship here in free democracies occurs because people want it. Pure and simple. You can argue that they're brainwashed, that everyone would be better off exposed to anything that anyone wants to show them, but in the end, it's what they want, and we live in a democracy. That's how things work around here.
... think of the children? ;)
You make it sound so negative! We do the same thing. We oppose every single abridgement to our freedoms with much gusto, yet we know, deep down, that we will have to reach a compromise. We can't specify a reasonable compromise that we'd be happy with, because it would be whittled down to something we would not accept.
Not to mention, it's simply wrong to say the RIAA only wanted what they got. They wanted what they asked for in the first place. They just knew they wouldn't get it.
That said, I realise that copyright and piracy are extremely contentious subjects on Slashdot, so I'll add that the above is (obviously) not universally applicable.
Slashdot will now praise Nine Inch Nails for their quality of music, their contribution to our culture, and their business sense.
Not necessarily. DRM is not designed to rob you of your fair use rights. It's designed to take the absolute freedom out of owning certain patterns of bits. It is possible, in theory, to create a scheme that respects fair use and that curtails copyright infringement, but I've yet to see anything that comes close. This scheme is a step in the right direction, though.
It can invalidate software remotely that is identified as a problem by the vendor.Got any specific examples?
Before you go overboard with your conspiracy theory, consider this:
This is Slashdot. Home to the world's IT experts, with access to the world's computers. IT experts that work for big businesses, and are responsible for hundreds (if not thousands) of potential Vista licences. They realise that there is no good reason to introduce delay (intentionally or unintentionally), especially when used in a business context, and the business would be paying a couple of hundred dollars per computer to upgrade. Such a move would be sheer stupidity, and Microsoft is not stupid (I gotta give them credit for that, at least). If, perhaps, you could have demonstrated that it only affected home editions of Vista, I might have believed that, but as it stands, it just seems an unfortunate symptom of some other problem.
You don't really get the Environment, do you?
I agree. But my figure for copyright is more like 10-15 years. If you are still making money off it by then, it's part of our culture, and you have no right to own it any more. Anything above that is greed, IMHO.
True, but it certainly had a point. Getting rid of religion will just lead to something else they can use to delude themselves, or that they can use as justification for violence and aggression. I believe that religion is the symptom, not the problem, and that religion, by itself, is very benign. What is rather less benign is the attitude of some people, namely those who believe they know what is best for other people. Whether it be "you should not be deluded by this religion" or "you should not be deluded by that religion", or even "you should not be deluded by any religion". All breed hatred, and cause the negative effects generally attributed to religion itself. Think about it: how many violent crusades would have happened, if the Christians could mind their own business?
Who can wait for the rise of (and the war between) the United Atheist Alliance, United Atheist League, and the Allied Atheist Allegiance? By all the Sciences, it will be a glorious day.
Actually, I think it's kinda sad that the GP, easily the most insightful post I've seen in several weeks on an RIAA thread, is rated funny, and that he will get no karma and little respect for his ironic insight.
... pity it can't be applied to the RIAA. Shame, really.
I have a theory: Slashdotters' opinions are often not at all representative of the majority, so consequently, they often believe that the system, designed to benefit the majority, is completely broken because nothing they want ever happens. This situation is a good example. People who make the parent's case usually believe at least one of these two things:
a) The wants of consumers do not filter through to these corporations, and that boycotting will make no difference, or
b) These consumers don't actually know what they want, that they are blinded by corporate advertising saying they are happy when they really aren't, and that they (the person making the argument) know what these people want more than they themselves do.
It is a fact that most (if not all) corporations exist solely for the purpose of making money, and if you starve them of that, they will sit up and notice. I don't subscribe to the idea that I know what is best for other people, or that other people don't know what they want. If they want no rootkits, then they will think about it. If they don't know what a rootkit is, they probably won't notice or care. If you can't get a significant enough movement up and running (it's not like you don't have the communication equipment to set up an international boycott) then you may just have to accept that people don't care about the same things as you, and that you will have to just avoid the offending products.
Don't play dumb. There are significant differences between your choice of OS and your choice of website, the biggest being that most websites are not a platform for development and expansion. How many times have you purchased something and worried that it was going to be incompatible with your favourite website? None, I bet. Maybe there would be less of a problem if the OS market was standardised as much as the web.