You don't need glue. All that's needed is a phillips screwdriver, tape, and about 15 minutes. I have another comment posted here on this story with links on how to do it.
Note: it wasn't me who came up with the fixes I linked. But I tried them, and they work.
If you're having trouble with the drums not being responsive enough, there's a very very simple fix (also nearly free) that you can do. Me and a friend were having trouble with our drumset, and the fix worked wonders. You simply open the drums and put a piece of tape over the sensor down to the back of the drum. This increases the sensitive area, and makes the drums as sensitive as they should be. (Or too sensitive if you use too much tape. Test as you go.)
Nope. I've posted AC plenty of times from the same IP without undoing moderation. The only thing the system cares about is whether or not you're logged in when you post.
Yes it does, if you're posting while logged in to your account. The only way to *not* undo moderation is to make sure you're posting from a browser that's not logged into your account.
Well duh, of course it's trivial. They're always swooning over you. (Well, except when they're pretending to fight with you, but even then they always come around just in time.) Haven't you learned anything from Hollywood??
Apparently you just haven't watched enough movies. Obtaining physical access IS trivial. All you need is a hot chick to go swipe the security guard's badge that he conveniently left lying on his desk, and you're guaranteed access anywhere in the building.
This is one time I have to agree with bigstrat, in all of his posts in this little thread. (Very rare actually.) Having to choose between two 'choices' that both would do more harm than good is no choice at all. And I happen to share his viewpoint on that as well. I also chose to not vote for either of them. I'm not a hater, I just think either one of them will drag the country even further in the hole.
Spin this however you like, but the stock market grew at 8.4% average under Democrats over the last 100 years. It grew at 0.4% under Republicans. Face facts, Democrats are better for the economy. Just look at the chart.
Not saying you're wrong or right, but one thing to keep in mind: economic growth does not happen instantly. Something that will end up having a positive effect can take months, years, decades to come to fruition, and the same is true for something that can have a negative effect. It's entirely possible that you won't see the end result of economic decisions for several years. Or in the case of a US president, the actual results of an economic decision *might* not happen until the next president is in office.
Personally, I think the love for outsourcing labor to cheap places like China has had a lot more to do with our recent economic problems than anything Clinton or Bush did.
YES. IT. IS!! The entire reason I've been replying to you is because to defended some bad math by MadUndergrad. The whole reason I posted in the first place was *because* of that bad math.
This entire discussion has been about bad math! Maybe that fundamental misunderstanding is part of why you keep GETTING IT WRONG.
No, you've just been trying to make this discussion about something it's not. But you're not one to talk about "bad math". You're apparently incapable of comprehending something as simple as +1 and -1 = 0. But I'm done trying to answer your irrelevant questions. This discussion is over.
And you aren't getting how *averages* have absolutely nothing to do with the *actual* number of uploads an *individual* person does.
Saying that people, on average, have a 1:1 upload:download ratio says absolutely nothing about how that average is distributed. You could have 500 "good citizens" with a 2:1 ratio and 500 "parasites" with a 1:2 ratio. You could have 1 person only uploading the file and 9999 people only downloading it. Chances are that you'll probably see a bell curve or something similar, with most people hovering around the average, some people being leeches, and some people being seeders.
You fail statistics forever for not understanding this.
You don't need everyone uploading everything 1000 times for it to be possible for one person to upload one file 1000 times. Got it memorized?
This whole discussion is not about details on statistics. I could debate statistics with you on this subject all year long, and we'd end up going nowhere because no one has any kind of actual statistics data on this, except perhaps in the case of private bit torrent sites. I already put in a sufficient amount about the role of statistics in this discussion in my last post. Which you conveniently chose to ignore.
The laxness of the RIAA's "it's possible" case is something to decry in its own right, but it's absolute insanity to say the opposite -- that it's completely impossible.
What the RIAA is implying by the payment for 'damages' they are demanding is completely impossible.
For one thing, it's simply not. If you leave Gnutella or eDonkey2000 running for days at a time, it's easily possible to continuously upload a file. Let's say you cap your client at an upload rate of 32 Kbps. If you have a popular, 4 MB, MP3 file on your system, you can upload a full copy roughly every 2 minutes. In a single day, that's over 700 copies of the file uploaded. (Most I may or may not have at some point seen was 60:1 over 2 days, though.)
Nice straw man. You have so many unfounded assumptions there, it's laughable. You're assuming that A. the average user is going to leave his P2P client online and allow other people to download at max upload continuously for that duration of time, B. that's the only song he has that anyone is downloading, C. the MP3 is going to be popular enough that in that short duration it's actually going to be uploaded that much. And to make all that happen, the user has to be sharing just one small MP3. So thanks for proving my point - it's completely impossible for the average P2P user to be sharing their stuff to more than a couple of people.
For another thing, your drug metaphor is idiotic because, unlike a smoking joint, there is no physical supply of data to run out of. If that's your best argument, then it's no wonder you can't seem to understand this problem.
Sure there is. The physical supply in the case of P2P is how much upload bandwidth you have. Even running 24/7 doing nothing but uploading P2P files with no downtime, you can't get more than 170GB uploaded per month with a typical 512Kbps upload bandwidth. So go on, try to argue that the average P2P user is going to be doing that. You and I both know that's not the case.
Lastly, I'd like to point out that sharing a file and liability have another wrinkle to consider -- contributory infringement liability. A defendant may have contributory infringement liability when they, "with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another." This is part of the RIAA's "making available" theory of liability. The idea is that one person making a single file available (to say 3 people) "induces, causes, or materially contributes" to the copyright infringement that occurs when *they* share the file and so on.
Which (AFAICT, IANAL) is completely irrelevant because these are civil cases not crimina
You apparently aren't getting how averages work. It doesn't matter who *actually* does the uploading. If every participant downloads it once, then the average upload per user is also one. Even if 99% of the participants don't upload at all. Even on services like Gnutella you can control what other people are able to download from you. And most people won't sit there and upload 40x as much as they download (let alone 1,000x). No matter how you slice it, the average user cannot upload everything they download at a 40:1 ratio. It's a mathematical impossibility. For every case of one person uploading one item at a 40:1 ratio, that is balanced out by the equivalent of 40 other people who downloaded that item not uploading it at all. That's how averages work. No matter how you want to twist it around, P2P is always a 1:1 ratio. Everything you upload is going directly to someone else. Either you have a very small percentage of the P2P participants doing most of the uploading (and those aren't the people the RIAA is getting their hands on) or most of the participants are sharing things with 1-2 people. You can't have it both ways, and you certainly can't have everyone uploading everything 1,000 times. But again, all you need to prove upload ratio one way or the other on a case by case basis is download and upload usage stats.
So sure, if the RIAA wants to go after people doing the actual ripping and people who actually are uploading things hundreds or thousands of times, they're welcome to it. I'm sure even the majority of the P2P advocates would be willing to admit those people deserve such fines. Problem is though, the RIAA doesn't even try to determine how much their scapegoats are actually uploading, let alone try to go after the ones that actually might be uploading such large amounts. What they're currently doing is like treating every person who's ever smoked a joint as a top-level drug dealer because there's "thousands of people they might have given drugs to", and never mind the fact that they couldn't possibly have done it because they have never had that kind of supply.
We know that if 1000 people get a file that was seeded by a single peer originally, that peer must have uploaded between 1-1000x the size of the file in bytes. We don't know if the seed provides all of the data for those copies or if peers supplied other peers with it.
With bit torrent, of course you know that. The initial bit torrent seeder typically seeds it from 5-20x (depending on the size of the swarm) and then leaves and allows other people to do the seeding. But that's not even the point. This whole discussion is about the average P2P user. The ones the RIAA is going after. Those people don't even have the bandwidth to share what they download 1,000 times.
MadUndergrad's argument is not about how much the peers are responsible for the uploading and sharing of data -- it's that since no one peer will download a file more than "several times, tops" that people can't be shown to have shared a song more than 2-3 times. His argument advocates that the only amount of liability you can have for sharing is the most that a single peer would download from you.
His post is about the average user. AVERAGE. Got it? Peer to peer is a 1:1 transfer. Nothing is uploaded and just 'disappears'. Nothing is uploaded and just automagically dispersed to 1,000 people. The only time something is uploaded is if it is being downloaded. Therefore, if the average user downloads an item 1-2 times, the average user also uploads that item 1-2 times. You do know what average means, right? Because that's the point you seem to keep missing.
The only bit of data the RIAA would really need that reasonably warrants a further search of someone's hard drives, etc. is how much they upload. The ISPs keep saying P2P is one of the biggest uses of their lines right now. Therefore it's safe to assume the typical P2P user is going to have most of their bandwdith used for P2P. Typical browsing/gaming/etc. isn't going to use more than 20-30GB or so of download per month. So based on what ISPs have told us, it's safe to assume the typical P2P user with unlimited bandwidth is using at least twice that (or more) in P2P downloads per month. So even if he's just sharing everything he downloads twice, his upload will be significantly higher than his download. If he's sharing everything with 1,000 people, his upload will be off the charts. So all the RIAA needs to do is get the upload info and show us how the P2P user's upload is hundreds of times higher than his download, and we'll know that that person does in fact deserve fines 1,000x the actual value of what he downloaded. (Obviously even that's not actual 'proof', but it's enough I'd think to warrant monitoring their activity and get real proof.) Of course the RIAA isn't getting or sharing that data because it would prove that they are full of shit, and would demonstrate that the typical P2P user is at most sharing what they download with 2-3 people.
If the RIAA were going purely after the groups who do the initial rip and upload, you would have a point and there wouldn't be any controversy here. Everyone knows they deserve some fines for that. But that's not the case. The RIAA has been going after anyone they can get the hands on who 'presumably' helped upload the files. Some of the accused have been people who don't even own a computer and have never used the internet.
We're talking about averages here, and it's P2P. That means for the average user to upload something 1,000 times, the average user ALSO has to download it 1,000 times. The average user will not download the same thing 1,000 times (likely not more than once) therefore by extension, the average user will not upload it 1,000 times. It's direct peer to peer. That means at the end of the day, uploads and downloads will be exactly the same. (Something cannot be uploaded if it is not downloaded.) For just one person to upload the same file 1,000 times, you have to have 1,000 people who don't upload any of that file. And you'll find very very few people who are going to let other downloaders leech even enough for a 50-1 ratio.
Why are you assuming that the average user shares a song with only one person?
How often does this have to be explained?? It's P2P. That means peer to peer. Something only gets uploaded when someone else downloads it. Since the average user downloads the average item one time, it's a valid assumption that the average user also uploads the average item one time. It's very simple math. You know, how +1 and -1 = 0?
- Anyone hosts any particular infringing item long enough for it to be downloaded 1,000 times.
That doesn't happen even with music, let alone bigger things like software and movies. The most you can expect is for one person to upload it about 50 times, and those are the extreme cases. If that's the case, you will definitely see it on their upload usage. All you need to do is ask the ISP how much the upload exceeds the download.
As has been pointed out before in the comments here, with a direct P2P network, 1 upload = 1 download. If the average user downloads a song no more than 3 times, then the average user on that P2P network also uploads the song 3 times. We're not talking about one person hosting his music collection on a website for all to download. Those kinds of things have been shut down about as fast as they went up for years now. True, not everyone hosts everything they download, and some host it longer than others, but if you've ever been part of a private bit-torrent site you've seen that even the biggest uploaders have no more than a 50-1 ratio, and that's including 'free leech' things. So at the very most you can expect the extreme file sharer to have 'illegally distributed' those items up to 50 times.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need glue. All that's needed is a phillips screwdriver, tape, and about 15 minutes. I have another comment posted here on this story with links on how to do it.
Note: it wasn't me who came up with the fixes I linked. But I tried them, and they work.
Here's the links again.
http://www.goodinput.com/2008/10/27/guitar-hero-world-tour-drum-fix/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhF5noVUBN8
If you're having trouble with the drums not being responsive enough, there's a very very simple fix (also nearly free) that you can do. Me and a friend were having trouble with our drumset, and the fix worked wonders. You simply open the drums and put a piece of tape over the sensor down to the back of the drum. This increases the sensitive area, and makes the drums as sensitive as they should be. (Or too sensitive if you use too much tape. Test as you go.)
Here's a link about fixing the toms.
http://www.goodinput.com/2008/10/27/guitar-hero-world-tour-drum-fix/
And a link (from the page linked above) to a YouTube clip showing how to fix the cymbals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhF5noVUBN8
Nope. I've posted AC plenty of times from the same IP without undoing moderation. The only thing the system cares about is whether or not you're logged in when you post.
Yes it does, if you're posting while logged in to your account. The only way to *not* undo moderation is to make sure you're posting from a browser that's not logged into your account.
Think man, think!! You don't need a chick for that! All you need is a Delorean! Man, you have got to start watching more movies.
Well duh, of course it's trivial. They're always swooning over you. (Well, except when they're pretending to fight with you, but even then they always come around just in time.) Haven't you learned anything from Hollywood??
Apparently you just haven't watched enough movies. Obtaining physical access IS trivial. All you need is a hot chick to go swipe the security guard's badge that he conveniently left lying on his desk, and you're guaranteed access anywhere in the building.
How do you get a tag misspelled on a /. story??
You can't be equally opposed to both candidates. That is impossible, b/c the candidates themselves have such different views on policy.
Just because the policies aren't the same doesn't mean they can't be equally detestable.
This is one time I have to agree with bigstrat, in all of his posts in this little thread. (Very rare actually.) Having to choose between two 'choices' that both would do more harm than good is no choice at all. And I happen to share his viewpoint on that as well. I also chose to not vote for either of them. I'm not a hater, I just think either one of them will drag the country even further in the hole.
Better print out everything from the internets too before he has those banned!!
Spin this however you like, but the stock market grew at 8.4% average under Democrats over the last 100 years. It grew at 0.4% under Republicans. Face facts, Democrats are better for the economy. Just look at the chart.
Not saying you're wrong or right, but one thing to keep in mind: economic growth does not happen instantly. Something that will end up having a positive effect can take months, years, decades to come to fruition, and the same is true for something that can have a negative effect. It's entirely possible that you won't see the end result of economic decisions for several years. Or in the case of a US president, the actual results of an economic decision *might* not happen until the next president is in office.
Personally, I think the love for outsourcing labor to cheap places like China has had a lot more to do with our recent economic problems than anything Clinton or Bush did.
YES. IT. IS!! The entire reason I've been replying to you is because to defended some bad math by MadUndergrad. The whole reason I posted in the first place was *because* of that bad math.
This entire discussion has been about bad math! Maybe that fundamental misunderstanding is part of why you keep GETTING IT WRONG.
No, you've just been trying to make this discussion about something it's not. But you're not one to talk about "bad math". You're apparently incapable of comprehending something as simple as +1 and -1 = 0. But I'm done trying to answer your irrelevant questions. This discussion is over.
And you aren't getting how *averages* have absolutely nothing to do with the *actual* number of uploads an *individual* person does.
Saying that people, on average, have a 1:1 upload:download ratio says absolutely nothing about how that average is distributed. You could have 500 "good citizens" with a 2:1 ratio and 500 "parasites" with a 1:2 ratio. You could have 1 person only uploading the file and 9999 people only downloading it. Chances are that you'll probably see a bell curve or something similar, with most people hovering around the average, some people being leeches, and some people being seeders.
You fail statistics forever for not understanding this.
You don't need everyone uploading everything 1000 times for it to be possible for one person to upload one file 1000 times. Got it memorized?
This whole discussion is not about details on statistics. I could debate statistics with you on this subject all year long, and we'd end up going nowhere because no one has any kind of actual statistics data on this, except perhaps in the case of private bit torrent sites. I already put in a sufficient amount about the role of statistics in this discussion in my last post. Which you conveniently chose to ignore.
The laxness of the RIAA's "it's possible" case is something to decry in its own right, but it's absolute insanity to say the opposite -- that it's completely impossible.
What the RIAA is implying by the payment for 'damages' they are demanding is completely impossible.
For one thing, it's simply not. If you leave Gnutella or eDonkey2000 running for days at a time, it's easily possible to continuously upload a file. Let's say you cap your client at an upload rate of 32 Kbps. If you have a popular, 4 MB, MP3 file on your system, you can upload a full copy roughly every 2 minutes. In a single day, that's over 700 copies of the file uploaded. (Most I may or may not have at some point seen was 60:1 over 2 days, though.)
Nice straw man. You have so many unfounded assumptions there, it's laughable. You're assuming that A. the average user is going to leave his P2P client online and allow other people to download at max upload continuously for that duration of time, B. that's the only song he has that anyone is downloading, C. the MP3 is going to be popular enough that in that short duration it's actually going to be uploaded that much. And to make all that happen, the user has to be sharing just one small MP3. So thanks for proving my point - it's completely impossible for the average P2P user to be sharing their stuff to more than a couple of people.
For another thing, your drug metaphor is idiotic because, unlike a smoking joint, there is no physical supply of data to run out of. If that's your best argument, then it's no wonder you can't seem to understand this problem.
Sure there is. The physical supply in the case of P2P is how much upload bandwidth you have. Even running 24/7 doing nothing but uploading P2P files with no downtime, you can't get more than 170GB uploaded per month with a typical 512Kbps upload bandwidth. So go on, try to argue that the average P2P user is going to be doing that. You and I both know that's not the case.
Lastly, I'd like to point out that sharing a file and liability have another wrinkle to consider -- contributory infringement liability. A defendant may have contributory infringement liability when they, "with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another." This is part of the RIAA's "making available" theory of liability. The idea is that one person making a single file available (to say 3 people) "induces, causes, or materially contributes" to the copyright infringement that occurs when *they* share the file and so on.
Which (AFAICT, IANAL) is completely irrelevant because these are civil cases not crimina
You apparently aren't getting how averages work. It doesn't matter who *actually* does the uploading. If every participant downloads it once, then the average upload per user is also one. Even if 99% of the participants don't upload at all. Even on services like Gnutella you can control what other people are able to download from you. And most people won't sit there and upload 40x as much as they download (let alone 1,000x). No matter how you slice it, the average user cannot upload everything they download at a 40:1 ratio. It's a mathematical impossibility. For every case of one person uploading one item at a 40:1 ratio, that is balanced out by the equivalent of 40 other people who downloaded that item not uploading it at all. That's how averages work. No matter how you want to twist it around, P2P is always a 1:1 ratio. Everything you upload is going directly to someone else. Either you have a very small percentage of the P2P participants doing most of the uploading (and those aren't the people the RIAA is getting their hands on) or most of the participants are sharing things with 1-2 people. You can't have it both ways, and you certainly can't have everyone uploading everything 1,000 times. But again, all you need to prove upload ratio one way or the other on a case by case basis is download and upload usage stats.
So sure, if the RIAA wants to go after people doing the actual ripping and people who actually are uploading things hundreds or thousands of times, they're welcome to it. I'm sure even the majority of the P2P advocates would be willing to admit those people deserve such fines. Problem is though, the RIAA doesn't even try to determine how much their scapegoats are actually uploading, let alone try to go after the ones that actually might be uploading such large amounts. What they're currently doing is like treating every person who's ever smoked a joint as a top-level drug dealer because there's "thousands of people they might have given drugs to", and never mind the fact that they couldn't possibly have done it because they have never had that kind of supply.
In fact, it's not a Rock Band game at all, though it is made by the same developers.
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1598228/20081030/beatles.jhtml
We know that if 1000 people get a file that was seeded by a single peer originally, that peer must have uploaded between 1-1000x the size of the file in bytes. We don't know if the seed provides all of the data for those copies or if peers supplied other peers with it.
With bit torrent, of course you know that. The initial bit torrent seeder typically seeds it from 5-20x (depending on the size of the swarm) and then leaves and allows other people to do the seeding. But that's not even the point. This whole discussion is about the average P2P user. The ones the RIAA is going after. Those people don't even have the bandwidth to share what they download 1,000 times.
MadUndergrad's argument is not about how much the peers are responsible for the uploading and sharing of data -- it's that since no one peer will download a file more than "several times, tops" that people can't be shown to have shared a song more than 2-3 times. His argument advocates that the only amount of liability you can have for sharing is the most that a single peer would download from you.
His post is about the average user. AVERAGE. Got it? Peer to peer is a 1:1 transfer. Nothing is uploaded and just 'disappears'. Nothing is uploaded and just automagically dispersed to 1,000 people. The only time something is uploaded is if it is being downloaded. Therefore, if the average user downloads an item 1-2 times, the average user also uploads that item 1-2 times. You do know what average means, right? Because that's the point you seem to keep missing.
The only bit of data the RIAA would really need that reasonably warrants a further search of someone's hard drives, etc. is how much they upload. The ISPs keep saying P2P is one of the biggest uses of their lines right now. Therefore it's safe to assume the typical P2P user is going to have most of their bandwdith used for P2P. Typical browsing/gaming/etc. isn't going to use more than 20-30GB or so of download per month. So based on what ISPs have told us, it's safe to assume the typical P2P user with unlimited bandwidth is using at least twice that (or more) in P2P downloads per month. So even if he's just sharing everything he downloads twice, his upload will be significantly higher than his download. If he's sharing everything with 1,000 people, his upload will be off the charts. So all the RIAA needs to do is get the upload info and show us how the P2P user's upload is hundreds of times higher than his download, and we'll know that that person does in fact deserve fines 1,000x the actual value of what he downloaded. (Obviously even that's not actual 'proof', but it's enough I'd think to warrant monitoring their activity and get real proof.) Of course the RIAA isn't getting or sharing that data because it would prove that they are full of shit, and would demonstrate that the typical P2P user is at most sharing what they download with 2-3 people.
If the RIAA were going purely after the groups who do the initial rip and upload, you would have a point and there wouldn't be any controversy here. Everyone knows they deserve some fines for that. But that's not the case. The RIAA has been going after anyone they can get the hands on who 'presumably' helped upload the files. Some of the accused have been people who don't even own a computer and have never used the internet.
We're talking about averages here, and it's P2P. That means for the average user to upload something 1,000 times, the average user ALSO has to download it 1,000 times. The average user will not download the same thing 1,000 times (likely not more than once) therefore by extension, the average user will not upload it 1,000 times. It's direct peer to peer. That means at the end of the day, uploads and downloads will be exactly the same. (Something cannot be uploaded if it is not downloaded.) For just one person to upload the same file 1,000 times, you have to have 1,000 people who don't upload any of that file. And you'll find very very few people who are going to let other downloaders leech even enough for a 50-1 ratio.
Why are you assuming that the average user shares a song with only one person?
How often does this have to be explained?? It's P2P. That means peer to peer. Something only gets uploaded when someone else downloads it. Since the average user downloads the average item one time, it's a valid assumption that the average user also uploads the average item one time. It's very simple math. You know, how +1 and -1 = 0?
Your points are only relevant if:
- Anyone hosts any particular infringing item long enough for it to be downloaded 1,000 times.
That doesn't happen even with music, let alone bigger things like software and movies. The most you can expect is for one person to upload it about 50 times, and those are the extreme cases. If that's the case, you will definitely see it on their upload usage. All you need to do is ask the ISP how much the upload exceeds the download.
As has been pointed out before in the comments here, with a direct P2P network, 1 upload = 1 download. If the average user downloads a song no more than 3 times, then the average user on that P2P network also uploads the song 3 times. We're not talking about one person hosting his music collection on a website for all to download. Those kinds of things have been shut down about as fast as they went up for years now. True, not everyone hosts everything they download, and some host it longer than others, but if you've ever been part of a private bit-torrent site you've seen that even the biggest uploaders have no more than a 50-1 ratio, and that's including 'free leech' things. So at the very most you can expect the extreme file sharer to have 'illegally distributed' those items up to 50 times.
One of my kicks is the dwarven flight masters that tell me to keep my feet on the ground just before sending me off on a flight.
Sounds like you should have gone E/Mo instead.
Only if it comes with Natalie Portman, naked and petri...
Hmm... nope, not even then.