I guess, because of egos, the fault of a failed effort is not that the effort was wrong, but that it was implemented poorly. Therefore, like a drug addict seeking their next fix, those wanting a "solution" demand a doubling/tripling/quadrupling of the effort to "solve" the problem they believe exists. Like a drug addict they will never accept that they are the ones with the "problem".
If these increased efforts mean trampling on the rights of others or spending exorbitant money, that's OK. After all we are doing this to "protect" you whether you want it or not.
An issue that is being recognized but does not yet seem to reached the public consciousness is that our DRM laden electronic equipment will be less "reliable". As the the anti-piracy "codes" are cracked, legitimate consumers will be forced into an endless "upgrade" cycle for their equipment or it won't work.
Further, the implementation of these DRM technologies appear to give the content providers the ability to purposely obsolete your equipment at will. Planned obsolescence.
To apply a Murphism, as these anti-piracy measures become more complicated, it will become increasingly more difficult to have a DVD device that will work with every DVD in a reliable manner.
Competition and innovation are good, but corporate arrogance and egos can be self defeating. The simple solution would have been to use a neutral third party professional organization to develop one open source standard for the high definition DVDs. Had this technology been introduced three years ago, we would be a lot further ahead.
Just today the New York Times ran an article Of All the Hurdles to a Merger, View on Technology Is the Highest. The article notes "Microsoft must figure out how to integrate the two complex and almost entirely incompatible software systems that the companies use to run their vast Internet data centers."
While the Microsoft/Yahoo merger is significantly different that a DVD standard, it still points to the horrendous mess that one is faced with when one standard must eventually be implemented.
Steven Hirsch "motherhood" comments point to two fundamental failures.
1. We have an endless stream of "demands" by persons/corporations that some third party must do "something" to stop the "public" from doing something "bad". This is absurd. There is absolutely no logical rationale for EntityA to demand that EntityB stop EntityC from doing an activity that EntityA does not like! Due process anyone.
2. Security for websites is in some regards unobtainable. How is the website to know if the user is some 13 year old, someone who is 46, or even a pedophile? There is no way to really know.
The proposal is another non-solution that simply protects a special interest group and neglects the public as a whole. The "real" solution is to change the patent law so that this type of extortion would not be possible. Once again politicians are avoiding making the "hard decisions" and simply applying a band-aide for the benefit of their special interests.
Patents should never be granted for "concepts", "ideas", or "business models". Furthermore, even if a patent is granted, and someone else independently (via a black box development process) develops a similar product, the first patent holder should NOT be able to claim that they are entitled to "fees".
Businesses, so they say, want to throw off the shackles of onerous government regulation since it destroys free enterprise. So what do business actually due, they buy legislation from the Congressional supermarket to guarantee a revenue stream. I guess the concept of free enterprise really translates to corporate welfare.
I just had to re-register for a re-deployment of our time card system. To gain access to the system, I had to riffle through a whole bunch of papers containing my passwords and login IDs for a variety of systems in order to find the login ID and password that I needed.
So we have systems that are supposedly "secure" but the users have little pieces of paper in obvious locations that would give virtually anyone access to these supposedly secure systems.
This is actually quite a role switch. In the two states wehere I have recently lived, tax maps are publicly available on the web. That is the way it should be.
How is this a switch? Private companies have attempted to prevent governments from disseminating public data claiming that it would deprive them of revenue. I don't know what became of this bill, but in May 2005, the Electronic Frontier Foundation reported "Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., the Senate's third-ranking Republican, is pushing a bill that critics say would force the Weather Service to disseminate much of its data only to private companies."
Private companies have no entitlement to make money off public records. While they may have no entitlement, that doesn't mean they can't try to sell it either. However, they should never be allowed to prevent a government agency from making public data available to the public.
Unfortunately "On Wall Street, if you are not growing, you are dying." is quite true. Admittedly, if you grow your company to match the market and you are in "maintenance" mode, you will have a smaller company. It's unfortunate that this is considered "bad" and Un-American.
One example of what is wrong, with the growth at any cost mentality, is the proposed acquisition of Yahoo by Microsoft. Acquiring Yahoo will not solve Microsoft's problems with its core product lines. In fact it will be a "detractor" since the management focus and corporate resources will now be devoted to "integration". (Of course, there is nothing conceptually wrong with a corporation re-envisioning itself.)
Time will tell, but this acquisition may be a repeat of the failed Time-Warner/AOL merger.
Market limits is an issue most companies "refuse" to acknowledge. The market is ultimately limited by our population. Within that population limitation, you can only sell so many copies of Quicken, MS Office, Norton anti-virus etc. Since these companies, as well as others, refuse to accept market limits they churn their products to force consumers to "upgrade".
Companies, as they reach marketing limits, should adjust their business model to recognize that their core products are in "maintenance mode" rather than a growth mode. Maybe all those little irritating bugs (err features) would finally get fixed. Unfortunately, the mantra of all these companies is growth, growth, growth, ever more growth.
Actually, I was thinking of responding along this line. The New York Times has a good article on the concept that Microsoft has become a bloated bureaucracy and this acquisition will do nothing to resolve Microsoft's underlying incompetence.
We received one of these notices, we didn't subscribe. The reason, too many "free" offers that silently metamorphize into a paying obligation that you don't realize until the bill arrives.
Out of curiosity, has anyone subscribed to one of these offers and what happened when the free period expired?????????
Regretfully my "sound bite" generator isn't working too well. We need a Murphy Law for security. Any large scale deployment of a security system to serve an infinite population is fundamentally unsafe.
At a fundamental level, as more and more people acquire "keys" to access the "protected" system, the greater the chance that one of them will prove to be a nut case, a fanatic, an opportunist, disgruntled, etc. (It is not uncommon for a fired (just or unjust) employee to strike back.)
Another way to put it, the more "keys" one has, the easier it is to "lose" one. Then if you have to change the "key" it becomes an administrative nightmare trying to get everyone a new "key".
Not only that, but all companies and governments are in competition for employees. What does that mean? You might start off having high employment standards, but then you find you can't hire enough staff, so you lower your standards and you skimp on security checks. The sleeper terrorist is then able to sneak in. (also the nut case, etc.)
PS: This also applies to DRM technologies. Eventually someone on the inside will publicly disgorge the security "keys".
The irony is that the those who assert that they want less government interference in business are actually demanding more government regulation for the purpose of establishing revenue "toll booths" for their business models. ** corporate welfare ** Of course they don't say that.
Many of those advocating a "strong" copyright position in the name of "competition" are delusional. A "strong" copyright position means that you are claiming an unduly expansive property right where you can scream "infringement" at the drop of a pin to demand "compensation". This, as you point out, retards competition.
We apparently are entering an era were the content industry is buying legislation at the congressional supermarket that essentially gives them what has traditionally been government "police powers", the ability to point the finger of guilt, to judge (declare) guilt, and to punish. All this without any pretense of due process.
Ms. Bono-Mack is listed as a Republican. I thought republicans are for less government!?!? Ron Paul, in the Presidential debates, has pointed out how the Republican party has lost its ideals.
PS: I am NOT a Ron Paul supporter, he has like Kucinich, point out obvious hypocrisies in how our political system works.
PSS: As others have pointed out.
1. If we have filter, how would we know if the copyright flag would even be valid?
2. What is to stop a content provider from asserting copyright on content that is in the public domain?
3. If a content user is "damaged" by an "illegally" deployed copyright flag, how is the content user going to be compensated?
4. Of course this will be top of a slippery slope leading to filtering for the noble cause of preventing child abuse eventually descending into the filtering of content that may be critical of unpopular ideas such as the preservation of free speech.
This seems to be another fanciful "study" that "documents" a known difference in attitude between men and woman. A few years ago a woman's group released a "study" "documenting" that women at college were under a lot more stress then men.
Dr. Laura speaking on this attitude difference simply stated that, given any situation, men don't worry about details as much as woman. So on the issue of computers and security, men are "confident" that they know what they are doing and are simply not as worried. Delusions are wonderful!
This is a regulatory nightmare. Any proposed solution would probably be considered blatantly unfair.
One solution. ICANN requires that a bond be posted before allowing a domain to be registered. Also, when a domain is given up, that it cannot be be used for something like six months to pull a figure out of thin air.
Thus if a domain is used for an illegal activity, those hurt could recover something. Additionally, the domain could not be easily rolled over.
Of course there will be innovative workarounds for this type of solution.
I notice that PCMag judicially seemed to avoid disclosing technological issues that would hurt the consumer. Thanks Mike for uncovering a smoking gun in the form of Lance Ulanoff that proves what I long believed. PCMagazine is not a consumer friendly magazine.
On the post: That Didn't Take Long At All: $89 Million Australian Internet Filters Called A Failure
A Form of Drug Addtiction
If these increased efforts mean trampling on the rights of others or spending exorbitant money, that's OK. After all we are doing this to "protect" you whether you want it or not.
On the post: HD DVD May Finally Be Dead... Only Three Years Too Late
Less Reliability
Further, the implementation of these DRM technologies appear to give the content providers the ability to purposely obsolete your equipment at will. Planned obsolescence.
To apply a Murphism, as these anti-piracy measures become more complicated, it will become increasingly more difficult to have a DVD device that will work with every DVD in a reliable manner.
On the post: HD DVD May Finally Be Dead... Only Three Years Too Late
My Way or NO way
On the post: Porn Company Exec Blames Google & Yahoo For Kids Accessing Porn
Always Someone's Elses Responsiblity
1. We have an endless stream of "demands" by persons/corporations that some third party must do "something" to stop the "public" from doing something "bad". This is absurd. There is absolutely no logical rationale for EntityA to demand that EntityB stop EntityC from doing an activity that EntityA does not like! Due process anyone.
2. Security for websites is in some regards unobtainable. How is the website to know if the user is some 13 year old, someone who is 46, or even a pedophile? There is no way to really know.
On the post: Senate Wants To Exempt Banks From Patent Infringement Lawsuit
Special Inerests Win Again
Patents should never be granted for "concepts", "ideas", or "business models". Furthermore, even if a patent is granted, and someone else independently (via a black box development process) develops a similar product, the first patent holder should NOT be able to claim that they are entitled to "fees".
On the post: House Approves Bill To Require Universities To Offer Students Music Services
Less Regulation in Action!
On the post: Large-Scale Surveillance Systems Create Security Risks
Re: ALL Large Scale Security UNSAFE
So we have systems that are supposedly "secure" but the users have little pieces of paper in obvious locations that would give virtually anyone access to these supposedly secure systems.
On the post: West Virginia Tax Official Tries To Stop Website From Posting Public Tax Maps
Public Records
How is this a switch? Private companies have attempted to prevent governments from disseminating public data claiming that it would deprive them of revenue. I don't know what became of this bill, but in May 2005, the Electronic Frontier Foundation reported "Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., the Senate's third-ranking Republican, is pushing a bill that critics say would force the Weather Service to disseminate much of its data only to private companies."
Private companies have no entitlement to make money off public records. While they may have no entitlement, that doesn't mean they can't try to sell it either. However, they should never be allowed to prevent a government agency from making public data available to the public.
On the post: Telcos Realizing Markets Don't Just Grow Forever
Even Growth Can Cause Death
Unfortunately "On Wall Street, if you are not growing, you are dying." is quite true. Admittedly, if you grow your company to match the market and you are in "maintenance" mode, you will have a smaller company. It's unfortunate that this is considered "bad" and Un-American.
One example of what is wrong, with the growth at any cost mentality, is the proposed acquisition of Yahoo by Microsoft. Acquiring Yahoo will not solve Microsoft's problems with its core product lines. In fact it will be a "detractor" since the management focus and corporate resources will now be devoted to "integration". (Of course, there is nothing conceptually wrong with a corporation re-envisioning itself.)
Time will tell, but this acquisition may be a repeat of the failed Time-Warner/AOL merger.
On the post: Telcos Realizing Markets Don't Just Grow Forever
Endemic Industry Wide Problem
Companies, as they reach marketing limits, should adjust their business model to recognize that their core products are in "maintenance mode" rather than a growth mode. Maybe all those little irritating bugs (err features) would finally get fixed. Unfortunately, the mantra of all these companies is growth, growth, growth, ever more growth.
On the post: Both Microsoft And Google Are Probably Best Off Shutting Up About Monopolies
Re: Let em' screw it up.
On the post: Both Microsoft And Google Are Probably Best Off Shutting Up About Monopolies
Hypocrisy
At the top - competition - BAD.
On the post: Laptop With Data Stolen? Announce It, Give 1-Year Free Credit Monitoring And Move On
The Free Service Come-on
Out of curiosity, has anyone subscribed to one of these offers and what happened when the free period expired?????????
On the post: Microsoft Figures Yahoo May Finally Be Desperate Enough To Sell
Failed Synergies
Time-Warner/AOL ---> Microsoft/Yahoo
History does repeat!
On the post: Large-Scale Surveillance Systems Create Security Risks
ALL Large Scale Security UNSAFE
At a fundamental level, as more and more people acquire "keys" to access the "protected" system, the greater the chance that one of them will prove to be a nut case, a fanatic, an opportunist, disgruntled, etc. (It is not uncommon for a fired (just or unjust) employee to strike back.)
Another way to put it, the more "keys" one has, the easier it is to "lose" one. Then if you have to change the "key" it becomes an administrative nightmare trying to get everyone a new "key".
Not only that, but all companies and governments are in competition for employees. What does that mean? You might start off having high employment standards, but then you find you can't hire enough staff, so you lower your standards and you skimp on security checks. The sleeper terrorist is then able to sneak in. (also the nut case, etc.)
PS: This also applies to DRM technologies. Eventually someone on the inside will publicly disgorge the security "keys".
On the post: ISP Copyright Filter Debate Continues: Verizon Stays Away, While Rep. Bono Is All For Filtering
Re: Re: Corporations Grabbing "Police Powers"
Many of those advocating a "strong" copyright position in the name of "competition" are delusional. A "strong" copyright position means that you are claiming an unduly expansive property right where you can scream "infringement" at the drop of a pin to demand "compensation". This, as you point out, retards competition.
On the post: ISP Copyright Filter Debate Continues: Verizon Stays Away, While Rep. Bono Is All For Filtering
Corporations Grabbing "Police Powers"
Ms. Bono-Mack is listed as a Republican. I thought republicans are for less government!?!? Ron Paul, in the Presidential debates, has pointed out how the Republican party has lost its ideals.
PS: I am NOT a Ron Paul supporter, he has like Kucinich, point out obvious hypocrisies in how our political system works.
PSS: As others have pointed out.
1. If we have filter, how would we know if the copyright flag would even be valid?
2. What is to stop a content provider from asserting copyright on content that is in the public domain?
3. If a content user is "damaged" by an "illegally" deployed copyright flag, how is the content user going to be compensated?
4. Of course this will be top of a slippery slope leading to filtering for the noble cause of preventing child abuse eventually descending into the filtering of content that may be critical of unpopular ideas such as the preservation of free speech.
On the post: Men Overconfident About How Secure They Are Online
Just "proving" the obvious
Dr. Laura speaking on this attitude difference simply stated that, given any situation, men don't worry about details as much as woman. So on the issue of computers and security, men are "confident" that they know what they are doing and are simply not as worried. Delusions are wonderful!
On the post: Can Google Solve The Domain Tasting Problem?
No Easy Solution
One solution. ICANN requires that a bond be posted before allowing a domain to be registered. Also, when a domain is given up, that it cannot be be used for something like six months to pull a figure out of thin air.
Thus if a domain is used for an illegal activity, those hurt could recover something. Additionally, the domain could not be easily rolled over.
Of course there will be innovative workarounds for this type of solution.
On the post: Free Music Does Not Conflict With The Free Market
Why I Dropped My PCMag Subscription
Next >>