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."
What's the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gorgeous? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Looks... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Gorgeous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gorgeous? (Score:2, Insightful)
Btw. Slashdot, thanks for fixing that.
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:Oh, of course (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, in the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn "It's a joke son, get it?"
Humor (or lack of sense of) (Score:1, Insightful)
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?)
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?
Re:digital rights management (Score:2, Insightful)
Rights are inherent; they don't need to be "managed".
LAME! NO PONIES!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
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 days), making lewd comments 'just out of earshot', and all kinds of other crap nominally pulled by thirteen-year-old boys.
She got tired and left for the other side of the business world. Makes more money, and doesn't have to put up with the juvenile bullshit.
So, guys, listen up -- you want more geeky women, you've got to treat them like human beings, and not like sex objects.
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
It's official: Slashdot has jumped the shark (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Official Publishers (Score:2, Insightful)
That's why we find the same people on each side of each of those apparently different conflicts. Prosumers [wikipedia.org] are the wave of the future, but the powers that be are hyperextending the "long now" as late as possible.
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:What? (Score:2, Insightful)
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: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