If you're living in America, Home of the Obese as I am, we might find that forcing people to do sit-ups before a movie would improve our declining life expectancy numbers.
I agree that this information needs to be taught at a very early age. School would be a great place to teach and reinforce good browsing habits and behaviors. However, I would endeavor to guess that most schoolteachers are not themselves 'up-to-speed' on the latest exploits and tricks.
Despite it being fairly available at the time (mid-late 90's), my house didn't have internet access until I was a junior or senior in high school. Why? My dad didn't know enough about it beyond the basics of his business email to feel safe handing it over to his kids.
Even still, when we got the internet, the connected computer was in a mostly 'public' place in the house. It wasn't pr0n they were worried about, or even child molesters (we were too old for that at the time). My dad explained to me that an important life lesson is to never turn your back on something you don't understand.
The real problem is that MOST people out there don't know enough about how to be safe online (as well as how to protect from viruses, etc.) to be able to effectively use and maintain a network-attached computer. And yet, they're perfectly willing to go 'play' with it.
There is no way this will beat Netflix. People like my mother use Netflix simply because she doesn't like buying movies. It costs her a few dollars to see a movie through Netflix, where I doubt that these 'download' movies will be less than $12.99USD.
Riddle me this: Do you really think there are more people out there willing/able to download and burn a full-length DVD (including those who know what DRM is) than willing to hop on a website and order movies to their homes? Hell, for as fast as Netflix is in getting movies out, you could likely order one and have it delivered before your download of the same movie would be completed.
Somebody wake me when I can go online or on my TV and order any movie I want on-demand.
Oh, and the DRM scheme of limiting the number of times you can watch the movie on your computer is about the most fucking stupid thing I've heard today. This is another industry trying to ensure that you will NEVER own anything.
I recall a paper I read a couple years back, hailing from the Poynter Institute IIR, indicating that since about 1960 or so, political/government coverage has declined proportionally to increases in sports and entertainment/pop-culture reporting.
I work in mainstream media as a stills photographer, and I can tell you firsthand that I have seen this decline even in my relatively short career.
Why has it happened? For several reasons, I think. First off, reporting on politics is downright difficult (and even more so under certain administrations). For as good as journalists have gotten at catching people with their hands in the cookie jar, government and corporations have been allowed, by the people nonetheless, to hide information behind laws and lawyers. Second, I think the 'quality' of the person (speaking to newer-hires) working for newspapers and TV news has gone down dramatically. People are assigned to beats they know nothing about, and the editors don't have enough of a clue to help them. Plus, the industry pays so poorly they have a hard time wresting the brilliant people away from politics and PR.
Finally, it comes down to corporate ownership/parentage. It's not that NewsCorp TELLS the newspapers/TV shows what to air so much as the almighty dollar tells them what to air. Most publications are required to 'maximize shareholder value' of the parent company, which means running more boobs, blood and fluff than they used to/want to. These days, a headline like "Hot chick caught drunk, talks to Donald Trump (With Pictures)" sells more papers than, "Bush administration caught doing something we don't understand with a committee that may or may not exist." Corporate parentage has diverted more effort to selling papers than reporting the news.
Throw these three things together, along with smaller problems in the industry, and you have, in my opinion, the short explanation of the downfall of modern mass media.
Although Google does leave stuff in beta forever (and has diluted the notion of what beta software, or for that matter 'final' software is), I don't really think it's only so they get the PR effect twice. Companies like Google can buy more PR than mere mortals could typically imagine.
Looking at Google News specifically, I think they leave it in beta because they haven't figured out how to make money on it yet, and once they do it as a for-profit venture, they'll have to start paying for the news on their site.
Another reason they might leave stuff in beta forever, is that there is no practical commercial use for the software, but it's constant development leads to advances in other software that has commercial uses AND makes them money. While these things are under development, they leave stuff in beta to AVOID a pr black eye if they pull a product or discontinue a project.
At any rate, I suspect there is far more to it than getting a release-party double whammy every time.
I can't comment specifically on Fortune 500's deploying a majority of Apple systems, and I agree with you that MacOS was a terrible 'team player' up until about OS 10.2.
Apple has pretty much killed AppleTalk, at least as a primary network protocol, and has also greatly refined its network printing and fileserver access tools. In fact, it uses many of the *nix tools and protocols to play on networks.
I don't have a whole lot of experience with permissions management over large networks with either Apple or Windows boxes, but I can say that I've worked in businesses with large Mac and Windows and *nix heterogeneous networks and they all seem to play together pretty nicely.
I don't consider myself a Linux fanboi, but I'm not sure why in critical permissions management and network interoperability situations, Linux/Unix aren't the standard desktop systems, even over Windows.
I understand from an IT standpoint why Linux hasn't taken over in the home user/small business markets, but I completely fail to understand why every 'generic' Word 'n' Excel office worker (no need for specialized CAM/CAD, graphics, accounting, etc. software) isn't already sitting in front of a Linux box.
Anti-trust laws are designed to prevent separate businesses from getting together to 'fix' prices in the market or work together to squeeze out competition unfairly.
You're thinking of anti-monopoly laws. Yeah, MS may very well be a government sanctioned monopoly, but I can't see how this particular issue has anything to do with MS either colluding with another company (creating a trust) or unfairly competing against other companies (monopoly).
In fact, if anything, MS is hurting itself: by forcing the installed base to upgrade, Microsoft is forcing a choice in OS upon the users and some might not choose to continue buying Microsoft.
And thanks for the trendy-chic attempt at America-bashing. What piece of shit country do YOU live in? Last time I looked, almost every country in the world was facing major domestic and international threats and problems. But I'm sure you've got it all figured out, right?
I agree completely. I'd much rather spend the same amount on a physical CD that I can keep forever, encode how I see fit, and even loan to a friend or play on any player I see fit.
I used to buy iTMS music for albums I couldn't get or didn't care enough about to buy the $2-$3 more expensive CD. I'd then violate the heck out of the EULA by stripping the DRM from the m4p file so I could play it anywhere on anything that would play it.
Since I now have a tougher time de-DRMing iTMS purchases, I just buy the CD. I refuse to buy DRM'd anything when non-DRM options are available.
The cynical side of me would suggest that the US doesn't go after oil and diamond companies because they own the government, and make the leaders and legislators rich.
The even more cynical side of me would say that the government hopes to make newest-generation boob tubes (TVs) cheaper so that more people buy them and the corporate-fueled consumerism and brainwashing can continue to enslave the working classes of America. Now in HD.
In other words, the government loses very little fighting relatively harmless monopolies like Korean LCD manufacturers; at least a lot less than they would lose fighting oil and mineral monopolies. The government also enjoys the side benefit of John Q American being happy that he can now buy (or obtain through credit, more likely) another item that he doesn't really need, and that the government helped make it all possible.
I'm not saying that people should live spartan lives, devoid of TV or other entertainment, but in a time with a dangerous economy, volatile job market, astronomical personal debt levels and an uncertain future for retirement and disability resources, do we really need to worry about replacing our still-working CRT TVs with Asian-manufactured, unnecessary tech?
It's sad, but I've only recently realized that the best way to make a buck is to target Americans with stuff they don't need. Governments can get rich easily by facilitating that idea.
"I really don't think eBay can be said as a marketplace.
Marketplace: The arena of commercial or competitive dealings (source:Apple Dictionary).
How then is Ebay not a marketplace?
I agree with what you said about fees there being astronomical, but that is the nature of their business. People have a perception that Ebay is the place to go for good deals, hard-to-find-items and, typically, tax-free shopping (even on both ends of the deal).
Although Ebay used to have really good deals, nowadays prices on popular/common items are the same or more than what another online merchant, or even some brick and mortars, charge for the same good. Likely, this stems from the higher fees Ebay keeps imposing.
Ebay has done a great job of marketing: convincing buyers and sellers that Ebay is the place to do transactions. They have also done a great job of finding ways to take money from sellers and consumers coming and going.
I guess it says that Zune buyers will be less likely to suffer cuts from the plastic packaging?
But then again, it wasn't the iPod packaging I was complaining about. I was complaining about the packaging on a third-party skin (case) for the device. Maybe third-party vendors for Zune accessories will encase their products in the sharp plastic containers.
As an aside, the newer iPods all come in what would appear to be very eco-friendly containers. They're about the size of two jewel cases stacked on top of each other with a cellophane wrapper holding everything inside.
I bought a new 80gb iPod and one of those silicone skins to keep it in.
While I was removing the theft-deterrent plastic packaging, one of the sharp plasic edges cut clean through the silicone.
The good news is that the folks at the Apple store took it back without complaint, even though they could have said I damaged it myself (which I did) and not taken it back. The gal behind the counter even went so far as to call it a pretty frequent occurrence.
The government does not exhibit prior restraint in keeping you from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. In fact, the word/phrase is not illegal in and of itself.
Instead, once you yell "fire" and someone gets hurt, or you incite a public disturbance, THEN you have committed the crime. It has nothing to do with the words itself, but rather the result of the statement.
In the US, there really ARE very few limitations on free speech, really the only ones limiting obscenity and commercial speech. Again though, it has next to nothing to do with what's said, but the result of having said it.
I'll bet that they're not even interested in 'catching' people who would actively attempt to defeat the fingerprinting. Rather, they're looking to stop the people who don't know any better than to put copyrighted material on their page OR those that just don't care about the material being copyrighted.
All the while, I find myself wondering how much of the US population knows, or cares that we're headed for a place where speech is free as long as it's popular.
Although the professor-author may hold the copyright to the content in the book, usually the publisher owns the copyright to the book itself. They almost certainly have agreements in place to prevent the author from editioning the book elsewhere for a set period of time.
In other words, even though the professor wrote the book, he may very well still be violating copyright law in distributing photocopies of his own book to his own students.
As an aside, what would really impress me is instead of professors writing textbooks and selling them to megaconglomo publishers, releasing them into the public domain or retaining the copyright, but distributing the works for free via the IntarWeb.
At the risk of sounding like a Mac fanboi, I can say that I honestly believe that Apple makes a very solid OS and some of the best and most durable hardware I've used.
I do a lot of traveling, and my PowerBook 12" has held up way better than any Dell or IBM I have previously owned.
All of this is not to say that the laptops are the best, or that no one else's are even close. There are other laptops by other companies that perform very well.
Apple has something good going with their hardware, and I hope that they'll continue to make it as such. Some people like it for its 'not another black/beige box' looks. Others prefer it for its durability. Hell, car bodies are barely made of metal anymore.
I usually like Mac hardware and software, but I'll make an exception in the case of Aperture.
Aperture sucks royal ass.
It doesn't do anything that my previously mentioned software group doesn't do, nor does it do it any better.
As a matter of fact, it is a bloated, crappy piece of blingware that excels at precisely nothing except being an expensive memory hog.
I am convinced that Apple did not once actually talk to a real photographer after Week 1 when writing that software. I am further convinced that they released it expensive and with unjustifiably high system requirements so that Joe Lawyer with an $8000USD Canon 1DsMkII that he leaves on program mode would pony up the currency for the software and a new computer to run it in the hopes that the software would put him one step closer to being me; or at least being able to tell his buddies that he's a real 'pro' (as is evidenced by all the really expensive stuff) and that the law thing just pays the bills.
Aperture is SO bad, that I know not ONE SINGLE professional (who's not under an Apple software/hardware sponsorship) or serious amateur that has continued to use the garbage beyond the day the trial expired.
Sorry for the rant, but Aperture really does make me that mad.
Adobe's Lightroom is better *slightly*, but still the third iteration of a reinvented wheel.
You fail to take into account that it could be quite lucrative for a factory employee to accept less-than-genuine code from someone and install it on the manufacturing plant's computers.
Even cash aside, a lot of people don't particularly heart the Americans anymore. Apple is an American company, and I'd bet dollars to cents that Americans are the largest comsumers of iPods. This is a really nice way for a disgruntled employee to take a shot at his employer/enemy/arch-rival.
There are all kinds of reasons to assume an inside, malicious job beyond an employee visting a pr0n site or opening an email titled: I Love You.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're living in America, Home of the Obese as I am, we might find that forcing people to do sit-ups before a movie would improve our declining life expectancy numbers.
I agree that this information needs to be taught at a very early age. School would be a great place to teach and reinforce good browsing habits and behaviors. However, I would endeavor to guess that most schoolteachers are not themselves 'up-to-speed' on the latest exploits and tricks.
Despite it being fairly available at the time (mid-late 90's), my house didn't have internet access until I was a junior or senior in high school. Why? My dad didn't know enough about it beyond the basics of his business email to feel safe handing it over to his kids.
Even still, when we got the internet, the connected computer was in a mostly 'public' place in the house. It wasn't pr0n they were worried about, or even child molesters (we were too old for that at the time). My dad explained to me that an important life lesson is to never turn your back on something you don't understand.
The real problem is that MOST people out there don't know enough about how to be safe online (as well as how to protect from viruses, etc.) to be able to effectively use and maintain a network-attached computer. And yet, they're perfectly willing to go 'play' with it.
There is no way this will beat Netflix. People like my mother use Netflix simply because she doesn't like buying movies. It costs her a few dollars to see a movie through Netflix, where I doubt that these 'download' movies will be less than $12.99USD.
Riddle me this: Do you really think there are more people out there willing/able to download and burn a full-length DVD (including those who know what DRM is) than willing to hop on a website and order movies to their homes? Hell, for as fast as Netflix is in getting movies out, you could likely order one and have it delivered before your download of the same movie would be completed.
Somebody wake me when I can go online or on my TV and order any movie I want on-demand.
Oh, and the DRM scheme of limiting the number of times you can watch the movie on your computer is about the most fucking stupid thing I've heard today. This is another industry trying to ensure that you will NEVER own anything.
I recall a paper I read a couple years back, hailing from the Poynter Institute IIR, indicating that since about 1960 or so, political/government coverage has declined proportionally to increases in sports and entertainment/pop-culture reporting.
I work in mainstream media as a stills photographer, and I can tell you firsthand that I have seen this decline even in my relatively short career.
Why has it happened? For several reasons, I think. First off, reporting on politics is downright difficult (and even more so under certain administrations). For as good as journalists have gotten at catching people with their hands in the cookie jar, government and corporations have been allowed, by the people nonetheless, to hide information behind laws and lawyers. Second, I think the 'quality' of the person (speaking to newer-hires) working for newspapers and TV news has gone down dramatically. People are assigned to beats they know nothing about, and the editors don't have enough of a clue to help them. Plus, the industry pays so poorly they have a hard time wresting the brilliant people away from politics and PR.
Finally, it comes down to corporate ownership/parentage. It's not that NewsCorp TELLS the newspapers/TV shows what to air so much as the almighty dollar tells them what to air. Most publications are required to 'maximize shareholder value' of the parent company, which means running more boobs, blood and fluff than they used to/want to. These days, a headline like "Hot chick caught drunk, talks to Donald Trump (With Pictures)" sells more papers than, "Bush administration caught doing something we don't understand with a committee that may or may not exist." Corporate parentage has diverted more effort to selling papers than reporting the news.
Throw these three things together, along with smaller problems in the industry, and you have, in my opinion, the short explanation of the downfall of modern mass media.
Although Google does leave stuff in beta forever (and has diluted the notion of what beta software, or for that matter 'final' software is), I don't really think it's only so they get the PR effect twice. Companies like Google can buy more PR than mere mortals could typically imagine.
Looking at Google News specifically, I think they leave it in beta because they haven't figured out how to make money on it yet, and once they do it as a for-profit venture, they'll have to start paying for the news on their site.
Another reason they might leave stuff in beta forever, is that there is no practical commercial use for the software, but it's constant development leads to advances in other software that has commercial uses AND makes them money. While these things are under development, they leave stuff in beta to AVOID a pr black eye if they pull a product or discontinue a project.
At any rate, I suspect there is far more to it than getting a release-party double whammy every time.
Thanks. That makes a lot of sense.
I can't comment specifically on Fortune 500's deploying a majority of Apple systems, and I agree with you that MacOS was a terrible 'team player' up until about OS 10.2.
Apple has pretty much killed AppleTalk, at least as a primary network protocol, and has also greatly refined its network printing and fileserver access tools. In fact, it uses many of the *nix tools and protocols to play on networks.
I don't have a whole lot of experience with permissions management over large networks with either Apple or Windows boxes, but I can say that I've worked in businesses with large Mac and Windows and *nix heterogeneous networks and they all seem to play together pretty nicely.
I don't consider myself a Linux fanboi, but I'm not sure why in critical permissions management and network interoperability situations, Linux/Unix aren't the standard desktop systems, even over Windows.
I understand from an IT standpoint why Linux hasn't taken over in the home user/small business markets, but I completely fail to understand why every 'generic' Word 'n' Excel office worker (no need for specialized CAM/CAD, graphics, accounting, etc. software) isn't already sitting in front of a Linux box.
Anti-trust laws are designed to prevent separate businesses from getting together to 'fix' prices in the market or work together to squeeze out competition unfairly.
You're thinking of anti-monopoly laws. Yeah, MS may very well be a government sanctioned monopoly, but I can't see how this particular issue has anything to do with MS either colluding with another company (creating a trust) or unfairly competing against other companies (monopoly).
In fact, if anything, MS is hurting itself: by forcing the installed base to upgrade, Microsoft is forcing a choice in OS upon the users and some might not choose to continue buying Microsoft.
And thanks for the trendy-chic attempt at America-bashing. What piece of shit country do YOU live in? Last time I looked, almost every country in the world was facing major domestic and international threats and problems. But I'm sure you've got it all figured out, right?
I agree completely. I'd much rather spend the same amount on a physical CD that I can keep forever, encode how I see fit, and even loan to a friend or play on any player I see fit.
I used to buy iTMS music for albums I couldn't get or didn't care enough about to buy the $2-$3 more expensive CD. I'd then violate the heck out of the EULA by stripping the DRM from the m4p file so I could play it anywhere on anything that would play it.
Since I now have a tougher time de-DRMing iTMS purchases, I just buy the CD. I refuse to buy DRM'd anything when non-DRM options are available.
Careful what you wish for. Uncle Sam IS practically kicking over dumpsters looking for bullet sponges (general infantry) to send overseas.
The cynical side of me would suggest that the US doesn't go after oil and diamond companies because they own the government, and make the leaders and legislators rich.
The even more cynical side of me would say that the government hopes to make newest-generation boob tubes (TVs) cheaper so that more people buy them and the corporate-fueled consumerism and brainwashing can continue to enslave the working classes of America. Now in HD.
In other words, the government loses very little fighting relatively harmless monopolies like Korean LCD manufacturers; at least a lot less than they would lose fighting oil and mineral monopolies. The government also enjoys the side benefit of John Q American being happy that he can now buy (or obtain through credit, more likely) another item that he doesn't really need, and that the government helped make it all possible.
I'm not saying that people should live spartan lives, devoid of TV or other entertainment, but in a time with a dangerous economy, volatile job market, astronomical personal debt levels and an uncertain future for retirement and disability resources, do we really need to worry about replacing our still-working CRT TVs with Asian-manufactured, unnecessary tech?
It's sad, but I've only recently realized that the best way to make a buck is to target Americans with stuff they don't need. Governments can get rich easily by facilitating that idea.
"I really don't think eBay can be said as a marketplace.
Marketplace: The arena of commercial or competitive dealings (source:Apple Dictionary).
How then is Ebay not a marketplace?
I agree with what you said about fees there being astronomical, but that is the nature of their business. People have a perception that Ebay is the place to go for good deals, hard-to-find-items and, typically, tax-free shopping (even on both ends of the deal).
Although Ebay used to have really good deals, nowadays prices on popular/common items are the same or more than what another online merchant, or even some brick and mortars, charge for the same good. Likely, this stems from the higher fees Ebay keeps imposing.
Ebay has done a great job of marketing: convincing buyers and sellers that Ebay is the place to do transactions. They have also done a great job of finding ways to take money from sellers and consumers coming and going.
So, did I miss something in your post?
In WWI and WWII, (Vietnam too???), cellophane from cigarette packs were used to keep the muzzles of firearms clear and ready for action as well.
I guess it says that Zune buyers will be less likely to suffer cuts from the plastic packaging?
But then again, it wasn't the iPod packaging I was complaining about. I was complaining about the packaging on a third-party skin (case) for the device. Maybe third-party vendors for Zune accessories will encase their products in the sharp plastic containers.
As an aside, the newer iPods all come in what would appear to be very eco-friendly containers. They're about the size of two jewel cases stacked on top of each other with a cellophane wrapper holding everything inside.
I bought a new 80gb iPod and one of those silicone skins to keep it in.
While I was removing the theft-deterrent plastic packaging, one of the sharp plasic edges cut clean through the silicone.
The good news is that the folks at the Apple store took it back without complaint, even though they could have said I damaged it myself (which I did) and not taken it back. The gal behind the counter even went so far as to call it a pretty frequent occurrence.
I for one welcome our new machine gun wielding......ah, fuck it.
I bet Chuck Norris could beat one with a roundho.....never mind.
In Soviet Russia, robot......nope.
But do they have frickin' laserbea.....too cliche.
What about a double major in either CS and Punjabi or CS and Szechuan/Cantonese?
I for one resent our soon-to-be Asian/Subcontinental overlords.
The government does not exhibit prior restraint in keeping you from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. In fact, the word/phrase is not illegal in and of itself.
Instead, once you yell "fire" and someone gets hurt, or you incite a public disturbance, THEN you have committed the crime. It has nothing to do with the words itself, but rather the result of the statement.
In the US, there really ARE very few limitations on free speech, really the only ones limiting obscenity and commercial speech. Again though, it has next to nothing to do with what's said, but the result of having said it.
I'll bet that they're not even interested in 'catching' people who would actively attempt to defeat the fingerprinting. Rather, they're looking to stop the people who don't know any better than to put copyrighted material on their page OR those that just don't care about the material being copyrighted.
All the while, I find myself wondering how much of the US population knows, or cares that we're headed for a place where speech is free as long as it's popular.
I know sometimes it's hard for us living in the US to remember that our case of (mostly) free speech is not common in other parts of the world.
Even Great Britain has no guarantee of free speech, per se.
Now, if only we could start spreading that around the world instead of spreading DemocracyTM, real democracy might ensue.
And that's where it gets tricky...
Although the professor-author may hold the copyright to the content in the book, usually the publisher owns the copyright to the book itself. They almost certainly have agreements in place to prevent the author from editioning the book elsewhere for a set period of time.
In other words, even though the professor wrote the book, he may very well still be violating copyright law in distributing photocopies of his own book to his own students.
As an aside, what would really impress me is instead of professors writing textbooks and selling them to megaconglomo publishers, releasing them into the public domain or retaining the copyright, but distributing the works for free via the IntarWeb.
At the risk of sounding like a Mac fanboi, I can say that I honestly believe that Apple makes a very solid OS and some of the best and most durable hardware I've used.
I do a lot of traveling, and my PowerBook 12" has held up way better than any Dell or IBM I have previously owned.
All of this is not to say that the laptops are the best, or that no one else's are even close. There are other laptops by other companies that perform very well.
Apple has something good going with their hardware, and I hope that they'll continue to make it as such. Some people like it for its 'not another black/beige box' looks. Others prefer it for its durability. Hell, car bodies are barely made of metal anymore.
I usually like Mac hardware and software, but I'll make an exception in the case of Aperture.
Aperture sucks royal ass.
It doesn't do anything that my previously mentioned software group doesn't do, nor does it do it any better.
As a matter of fact, it is a bloated, crappy piece of blingware that excels at precisely nothing except being an expensive memory hog.
I am convinced that Apple did not once actually talk to a real photographer after Week 1 when writing that software. I am further convinced that they released it expensive and with unjustifiably high system requirements so that Joe Lawyer with an $8000USD Canon 1DsMkII that he leaves on program mode would pony up the currency for the software and a new computer to run it in the hopes that the software would put him one step closer to being me; or at least being able to tell his buddies that he's a real 'pro' (as is evidenced by all the really expensive stuff) and that the law thing just pays the bills.
Aperture is SO bad, that I know not ONE SINGLE professional (who's not under an Apple software/hardware sponsorship) or serious amateur that has continued to use the garbage beyond the day the trial expired.
Sorry for the rant, but Aperture really does make me that mad.
Adobe's Lightroom is better *slightly*, but still the third iteration of a reinvented wheel.
You fail to take into account that it could be quite lucrative for a factory employee to accept less-than-genuine code from someone and install it on the manufacturing plant's computers.
Even cash aside, a lot of people don't particularly heart the Americans anymore. Apple is an American company, and I'd bet dollars to cents that Americans are the largest comsumers of iPods. This is a really nice way for a disgruntled employee to take a shot at his employer/enemy/arch-rival.
There are all kinds of reasons to assume an inside, malicious job beyond an employee visting a pr0n site or opening an email titled: I Love You.