The Real Purpose of DRM 235
Roberto writes "Gorgeous nerd Annalee Newitz hacked a political interpretation to recent vacuum cleaner cockfights at O'Reilly's ETech: 'Hollywood corporations have finally admitted that the real reason they built digital restriction management (DRM) software into PVRs and DVD players was to stop geeks from turning their recording devices into back-alley combat machines. You haven't seen ugly until you've watched what a DVD player without DRM can do to a TiVo.' Don't try to even think of this at home."
Dude... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dude... (Score:2)
Posted March 14, 2006. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Posted March 14, 2006. (Score:2)
TFA's cool though; I'll give you that.
Re:Posted March 14, 2006. (Score:5, Funny)
We used all the _real_ news yesterday.
Re:Dude... (Score:3, Funny)
Never believe any Slashdot story on April 1st... or April 2nd.
The REAL Purpose of DRM (Score:5, Funny)
Those uprisings do cause ever so much trouble.
-Lord Rove II
Re:The REAL Purpose of DRM (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The REAL Purpose of DRM (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The REAL Purpose of DRM (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The REAL Purpose of DRM (Score:4, Funny)
What's the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's the point? (Score:2)
Maybe they're worried that sales would suffer if their product got its ass kicked by a Tivo.
What? (Score:5, Interesting)
What the hell does that mean?
Err... (Score:4, Interesting)
Is this supposed to be a joke, or some form of satire? A "jest" at "nerds"?
Re:Err... (Score:4, Insightful)
It was an exagerated story of geeks going mad with modifications in hardware in order to give sarcastic support towards DRM. Basically shes slagging off the companys for claiming to put DRM in to stop people doing dangerous terrifying things when in actual fact its just to make more money at the expense of normal consumers.
At least thats what I thought it ment. It seemed clear when I read it. After reading half of the comments here im beginning to think that maybe im completely wrong and in fact it was totally nonsensical waffle...
Hmmm, reminds me of German... (Score:2)
Looks... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Looks... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Looks... (Score:2)
Re:Looks... (Score:5, Funny)
The loud ones (Score:2)
I cringe at comments quite frequently, but there's just nothing to be done beyond grimace and stagger onward. In an anonymous online situation the chances are that if they said something dodgy in the first place they're not going to care if
digital rights management (Score:3, Funny)
Re:digital rights management (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:digital rights management (Score:2, Insightful)
Rights are inherent; they don't need to be "managed".
Re:digital rights management (Score:2)
But they need to be enforced sometimes, no?
Re:digital rights management (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they don't. In the absence of outside influence, one's rights are maintained. Even criminal law doesn't enforce *rights* - it imposes restrictions upon behavior for which there is no right.
Anyway, DRM doesn't preserve or enforce any rights. All it does is enforce restrictions that content producers have deemed desirable. Hence the phrase "digital restrictions management", untouched by the marketing wonks at the ??AA.
Digital Rights (Score:3, Funny)
(Digital, digital, didgeridoo...)
Digital Slavery. (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you think you own. Good luck having a thought that has not been published in the last 100 years. RMS won't try to stop you from using the above phrase, but others will keep you from using equally common phrases and words. Then again, your view of what such an original thought entitles you to is skewed. Slaves frequently and paradoxicly side with their masters and direct the ire of their condition at their w
Re:Digital Slavery. (Score:2)
Digital, digital, didgeridoo... all ones and zeros, but what about two?
Evasive tactic (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Evasive tactic (Score:2)
Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:5, Insightful)
As was pointed out yesterday by several posters, this year's April Fool's was more than a little misogynistic in that it seemed to imply(obviously through exaggerations as Slashdot normally does on April Fool's) that women would like pink and ponies rather than technology news. I'm quite willing to let that slide, knowing that subtle humour is not really Slashdot's forte - but really, they shouldn't push their luck by describing female writers as being "gorgeous" the day afterwards.
(I do know that "political correctness" is largely frowned upon at Slashdot, but really, this isn't about submitting to some ever-changing and arbitrary standard, it's about basic politeness and showing respect for the people you are describing. You don't bring things like physical looks into the picture unless they are somehow relevant, and you certainly don't set different standards for what is relevant depending on the gender of the person being described.)
(Oh, and if anyone feels the need to argue that though "gorgeous" in this context obviously wouldn't be said about a male subject - given the gender of the Slashdot editors - it is a harmless one-word compliment which doesn't lastingly change the focus of the discussion: do note that there's already a thread contesting [slashdot.org] that Ms. Newitz is "gorgeous" based on a 120x130 grayscale picture in her profile. (Which in and of itself confirms some stereotypes about geeks.) Would there be such a thread debating this unless the submitter/editor had seen it fit to mention this in the introduction?)
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:2)
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:2)
While your personal standards are largely none of my business, I can tell you that for Slashdot they are too high.
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:2)
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:2)
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:5, Interesting)
Likewise that introduction would be obviously inappropriate if the author's story was about an OpenSSH vulnerability or a commentary on the sad state of Windows Vista. In that case writing about physical appearances would be an irrelevant distraction which would imply judgement of factual nature of the article in question based upon the physical appearance of the person. Whether or not that judgement is positive isn't important.
But on a farcical story about cockfighting roombas that line isn't very clear. Can a comedian be demeaned by references to her appearance? Are they making less relevant a story that is already, at core, irrelevant? It again implies a degree of judgement, and a reminder of the prevalant nature of physical judgements in this culture. (I might add, the most insidiously judgemental people about women's appearances are largely other women)
I personally would have edited out the reference to her "gorgeousness." But the question remains... In a non-serious, non-professional context, is it OK to slip in an irrelevant compliment about someone looks?
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a friend who is a former figure-skater and an otherwise knockout bombshell blonde. She's smart, witty, catty, and has legs that could stop an artillery shell. She also loves computers, and was working on finishing up a degree in Computer Science while working in IT.
That is, until all the geeks chased her out.
Asking her to crawl under a desk to fix a cable whenever she'd wear a skirt (never on the jeans
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:2)
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:2)
To be fair, it is simple because geeks sees real life [tm] girls very rarerly. To learn how to talk with the girl, even is she is your work colegue, is very time consuming task. Too much time consuming. Don't expect standard geek spend time on this.
I learned several heavy lessons with all this. First, hardcore geeks won't get laid, period. It simply won't happen. So if you dig both - tech and girls - si
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what is acceptable? (Score:2)
They awarded him a little name plaque attesting to his nice-assedness at Chistmas. Now if the environment were totally PR, or likely if he were a woman, this would have caused problems. However, as a guy he blushed
She wore skirts?!?!?!?! (Score:2)
She wore skirts when she knew that her job would sometimes entail climbing under a desk?!?!?!?! Your friend simply dressed inappropriatly for her job. She was a hypocrate for complaining. You were kidding right? She didn't really wear skirts to a job that required climbing under a desk did she?
Forget about that - why call her a "nerd"? (Score:2)
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:2)
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:2)
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:2)
Case in point, she asked where the pink went.
Who qualifies? (Score:2)
In my books, it's always nice to see geeks who can qualify as both intelligent a
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:5, Insightful)
You use that word a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Mysogyny is an aversion or hatred of women. I have a six year old daughter, and believe me, the "PONIES" stuff was a pretty good (if way, way too obvious to be a prank) parody. But it doesn't signify mysogyny in any way.
Similarly, describing Ms. Newitz as "gorgeous" may be clumsy, insensitive and more than a little bit objectifying, but it's hardly mysogynistic. The overwhelming majority of single straight male slashdotters don't hate women, they just don't get them (in more ways than one).
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure she is lurking here and taking it all in stride. An accomplished journalist, she writes about techno-sexuality herself all the time--just take a look at some of her published pieces [techsploitation.com]:
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:2)
Fuck you, you elitist snob. (I imagine we're freaks for getting pissed off at those who insult us too, right?)
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:2)
O.M.G. (Score:4, Funny)
Did someone have too much to drink yesterday? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it a slow Sunday or what? Is this the best that's come into the old Inbox today?
Ummm (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
If the summary is that bad, I'm not about to click the link.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
wow. afraid to click a
it's tongue in cheek humor. get some.
About Sony AIBOs (Score:2)
If you can't make a computer do what you want, you don't really own it. As computers b
Glad I'm not the only one..... (Score:2)
LAME! NO PONIES!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:LAME! NO PONIES!!! (Score:2)
wasted time (Score:2)
Damn you Cowboy Neal.
It's official: Slashdot has jumped the shark (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's official: Slashdot has jumped the shark (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah but. . . (Score:3, Funny)
That's not the only Roomba game... (Score:2)
In related news... (Score:2)
About time someone came out with this joke
New "real reason" of the day (Score:2)
Trusted computing (Score:2)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=K1H7omJW4TI [youtube.com]
Re:Gorgeous? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Gorgeous? (Score:2)
Re:Gorgeous? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Gorgeous? (Score:2, Funny)
Another one *shudder* [othermag.org].
Re:Gorgeous? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Gorgeous? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nerd != Fugly; (Score:3, Interesting)
30 seconds on google image search, NSFW! [nerdgirlnetwork.com]
Re:Gorgeous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gorgeous? (Score:2)
Re:Gorgeous? (Score:2)
For example, people say I'm articulate, have a solid sense of humor and am pretty good with computers. If anyone said I'm "handsome" I'd immediately shoot them down because I'm not. I wouldn't want people to even remotely consider that part of my attribute list, because people meeting me would inevitably be disappointed.
Considering beauty is a measurable, sellable quality in b
Re:Gorgeous? (Score:2, Insightful)
Btw. Slashdot, thanks for fixing that.
Re:Gorgeous? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Gorgeous? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you dudes wonder why you don't get laid? When you put a woman down like that it shows off your ego for the nanoparticle that it is.
This isn't "Women 101": this is the test you need to pass to get into Women 101.
Cheers
Stor
"Looks first" -- even on slashdot (Score:2)
While I have to agree with everyone who has posted that she doesn't strike me as particularly ravishing, I'm more annoyed with the fact that the submitter has to make any comment at all about her looks. I don't recall any submitted stories that began "Handsome hunk hacker Joe Blow has an article about...". While I'm used to people in the outside world thinking about looks first and substance second, I'm dismayed to find that seems to hold true for slashdot as well.
It's one thing for comments about people
Re:"Looks first" -- even on slashdot (Score:2)
I think this speaks more about the lack of substance in this article than about general attitudes toward a person's appearance in regards to the validity of their opinions.
Re:"Looks first" -- even on slashdot (Score:2)
How about accepting that Slashdot is owned, operated and participated by human beings. All human beings can individually and momentarily be lewd, cruel, rude, selfish, and many other things. Not every one of these moments is 'telling' or 'a sign' or 'typical'.
Re:"Looks first" -- even on slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I'm a woman and the first thought that went through my mind was "funny how they criticize her looks but don't mention their own". In my experience, guys are quick to shoot down a woman's looks regardless of how good-looking they're not themselves. Frankly, if some pudgy, out-of-shape geek criticizes my looks I can easily fix that problem... with a fork.
But yeah, the fact that there were comments about her looks made me roll her eyes. I've read articles that had pics of the guy in question and never once made a comment on his looks. Perhaps I will in the future - why shouldn't I?
Disclaimer: I've just been to a site where 90% of the files to download weren't available because "this entry is not approved". So I'm a bit irritated anyway.
Re:Gorgeous? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Gorgeous? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Gorgeous? Take beer goggles off please! (Score:4, Insightful)
1) you don't see the body
2) the photo is BW
3) the photo is small
4) the photo is crappy
5) there are people that appear not so good in photo but they are pretty in real life.
6) and most important, a girl can be gorgeous in her ideas and behavior, and you evaluate more and more this point of view as you get older.
therefore, you have to figure out in real life.
Re:Gorgeous? Take beer goggles off please! (Score:2)
So, how was your trip down the rivers of Egypt?
Gorgeous is about looks. This "but she has a great personality" stuff doesn't apply.
Re:Gorgeous? Take beer goggles off please! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen people go from drab to sexy with just a change of clothes. These webcam images say that there's a good bit of room for potential. I definitely not expect a date with her to be drab.
Re:Gorgeous? Take beer goggles off please! (Score:2)
That's a trick question!
Re:Gorgeous? Take beer goggles off please! (Score:2)
You forgot 7 (Score:2)
So, basically, unless looking at her turns you to stone, let the original poster have his humble opinion and, if you want to disagree, that's fine, but let's not turn this into a discussion over whether this woman is hot or not. There's a website for explicitly for made for that discussion [hotornot.com] if you're into t
Re:Gorgeous? Take beer goggles off please! (Score:2)
Re:Oh, of course (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, in the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn "It's a joke son, get it?"