And, actually, everyone's missing the fact the person copying data off the camera, even if they are photographer, may not own the copyright...if it was a work-for-hire, for example.
Or someone else may have been holding the camera and taken the picture. For example, a photography studio could have three photographers and one of a certain model of camera everyone uses.
In almost all those examples, the copyright holder would have given permission for whoever's getting the picture off the camera to get it...but they might not have.
Of course, under no circumstances would Nikon own the copyright.
Which is why I'm baffled as to why they can sell a circumvention device.
Someone should actually test this. Find a photographer with one of these cameras, have them put some pictures on it, you lease the camera with the explicit clause you can't download the photograph's other pictures (just in case), and then you do download them, using Nikon's software, and start distributing the pictures online.
Slogger can save every page you visit, in quite a lot of formats. I have two modes set up.
I have a button to turn on logging and get the text of every page saved in different text file, (And the URL saved in a seperate XML file.) for when I'm doing research I'll need later.
And I have a button that saves the whole page intact automatically, with graphics in a directory.
But if you have infinite disk space, you can easily do the latter on every page, with a handy toolbar button for a toggle. And all URLs recorded in whatever format you can invent.
Indexing the saved pages, you ask? I point you to Google Desktop.;)
Also, for google desktop, there is a plugin called Kongulo (Find in the standard place for plugins.) that a web spider, and they look just like they're in web browser history...a click, by default, goes and the current page, but you can go to the cached local copy instead.
You can almost do stuff like that with modules in Drupal.
There is, for example, the 'opt-in' module, which, despite the name, just gives roles to people who click a checkbox. (Obviously designed for a mailing list, but they're real roles, and work everwhere.)
And there's paypal subscription, granting roles to people who pay money.
And there's 'automember', where frequent posters can automatically get assigned roles.
The real problem is that node permission suck. You can get node_privacy_byrole, but that's a simple OR of roles able to read and write. There's no way to do boolean expressions.
We're not talking about replacing the plugs in a house, we're talking about adding DC plugs to get rid of all these damn wall warts and power supplies everywhere.
I look around the room I'm in, and I see half the things plugged in have an external or internal DC convertor, almost all below 12 volts. The only one with a DC convertor that draw more than about 50 watts AC is my laptop. (Which incidentally uses 19 volts, a good reason for a 24 plug.) It manages to get its power through a fairly small cord.
The point isn't to provide some random DC for no reason, the point is to provide low-amp, low-volt DC, like almost every single electronic device in existence needs.
Nope. TV is more private than web viewing. TV is a unidirectional broadcast protocol, while web-viewing is interactive, giving the publisher an avenue to monitor viewer actions. The administrator of the remote server is quite definiately paying attention to how many of her ads you download!
And, what? They look disapprovingly at your IP? They publish your address and people walking by on the street frown at you? They sound loud messages from your computer about how you're skipping ads and are a bad person?
There is no societal feedback on how you surf at all. There could be punishment from them, but a website is not society. (Well, most aren't. I guess it would, in theory, be possible for online communities to post lists of users who skip ads, and others there:( at you, but that's a rather tiny exception.)
Whereas while there can't be any publisher reaction to how you watch TV, there can be some societal feedback, assuming you do it with other people.
No, that is not what you said.
I started this with: Now...I refrain from blocking your ad, and you...refrain from blocking mine? WTF? I have no ads.
'Social contracts' have no bearing whatsoever to ads. Ads are unidirectional, from a very small subset of people to the population at large, and hence they can't possibly be part of any social contract.
And, of course, I was over-simplifying, like I said. Anything can be part of a social contract, from using turn signals to ritualistically eating dead people.
It's just to develop as part of social contract, a lot of people have to want themselves and others to do it, and teach others to do it, until enough people do it that it's normal behavior and not doing it is weird.
And thus any behavior that doesn't, in some way, directly help a large amount of people, is very unlikely to become part of a social contract. (Especially today, when religious leaders can't make up new things to 'help' us.)
As an example: assume a FL emits peaks at 550nm and 540nm, while the paint may have a reflection peak at 545nm. Because this peak is not in the emission sprectrum, you simply will not perceive it.
My God! You could make walls transparent by painting them with that! Or would just the paint be invisible?;)
You will, of course, perceive the paint. It just will not be the right color, probably looking dingy brown.
And the odd thing is, we already have a standard...12 volts. Cars use it, although obviously we'd want a better plug than the stupid-ass cigarette lighter..
And you can buy two 6 volt lantern batteries to make anything portable for quite some time, if we're talking about stuff like stereos and desk lamps.
We also have USB, although that's only 5 volts and thus not that great for anything. Works for cell phone chargers and portable CD players, though.
And with 12/5, we can get rid of 90% of computer power supplies.
First, we should invent a plug standard, one that fits in the traditional oval of AC outlets, although obviously with the holes at a different place. (If it fits in the oval, very soon people come out with half AC/half DC outlets.)
Although, if we're going to come out with a new standard, we could come out with a 12/5 volt plug, or even a 24/12/5 volt plug. (Do we want two grounds, one for each voltage? I'm afraid I don't know enough about electricity to know if that's a good idea.)
What would really rock is if the 5 volt part of it could take a USB plug. Now I'm imagining something like a square, with 24/12 (or 12/12 ground) on the top, and 5/ground on the bottom, with the bottom being a (USB) rectangle and the two top parts just being prongs. (Thus you can't plug it in sideways or upside down.) If we have a 12-ground, we could end up with stuff that just use 12/12-ground, so we'd want to do something to stop that from going in backwards, too.
And, this time, can we please use the same damn standard as Europe? Their cars and computers are 12 volt and 5 volts, too.
People who need their night vision to stay use red lights. A dim red light can create enough light to read by, yet when turned off you still can see in the dark. It's very common to have a dim red in theatres on for the crew while they set the stage, and the audience can't see a thing.
Blue, OTOH, is exactly the opposite. You look at a dim blue light for a second, and you'll lose your night vision as much as if it'd been a dim white light. This fact is often used in theatres, too, when they want audiences and actors to not have night vision. (The audience because they aren't supposed to see something, and actors so they can see when they walk out on stage instead of blinking like someone have a seizure.)
When you light up a dark room with dim blue, parts of the room will, sometimes, look darker, because you can't see in the shadows you could see in if the light was red. The parts that are lit, however, look brighter.
I think this is because the rods in your eye respond best to blue light, but I do not know that for a fact. Or maybe the blue cones are what control your pupils.
If so, blue light messes up your night vision more than the same amount of white light would, because blue light has it all in one place and white light has it all spread it, with parts where it wouldn't affect your night vision.
I think the traffic lights in my town are LED, too. Either that or they have a completely pointless grill over them with a bunch of tiny holes, blocking a good half of the light.
I keep looking at them to see if any single LED's burned out so I can tell, but so far nothing.
You can blind people in a cave with a frickin match, if they look at it when you light it.
Blinding people is not a useful indication of the power of a light, as it is entirely a function of the difference between the baseline light and the new light and the speed it powers up.
Nope. A quick survey of North America shows more than 90% of the population benefiting. Just in the realm of TV, hundreds of millions of people enjoy free programming because many of them watch the attached ads.
They don't benefit from watching the ads, and they don't benefit because others watch the ads. They benefit from having the ads. Actually, it's even more indirect than that.
But, regardless of whether or not it could be considered part of your social contract to watch the ads, it isn't. Like I said, it could be part of your social contract to wash boats parked in front of your house, or invite vistors to sleep with your daughter.
It's just not. No one thinks poorly if you fail to wash a boat some jerk randomly parked in front of your house, no one thinks poorly if not only do you fail to invite vistors to sleep with your daughter, but if you actually come out against it, and no one thinks poorly of you if you ignore or skip ads.
All in all, you are missing the more important factor for eligibility in a social contract: it must be a public activity (as all your successful examples were). They can only work when peer pressure and bystander scrutiny exist to lay informal punishments on infringers.
Well, granted, that is a fairly important bit, and I thought obvious. To be a social contract, it has to be about behavior exposed to society.
However, watching TV is public enough that there could be things you are expected to do and not do, although obviously you could ignore all the rules when in private.
But, when you apply it to websurfing, 99% of that is done 'in private', or at least with only one person paying attention. And thus it would be rather hard for people in society to come out against a specific instance of another person ad-blocking.
But I don't know what point you're making. I'm just saying, 'watching ads' is not, at this moment in time, part of your social contract, although advertisers would certainly like it to be. I'm not sure if it could be or not, but looking back at history and different cultures, almost anything could be part of a social contract, including stuff like 'which hand you wipe your ass with'.
Well, yes, a social contract is a bit vague, and it clearly changes from place to place.
And it's not morality...at least not any metaphysical morality. It's simply 'No one should do this to other people.'. Or, people should do this for others...social contracts work both ways. By 'other people', read 'other people in this society'.
As such, it's hard to see how growing drugs at your own house could ever be a violation of a social contract. Or cloning people, unless the concept there is 'I don't want to be cloned without permission.'.
A social contract is a sociological term, not a legal or ethical one. There's no social contract forbidding speeding, even though it's certainly illegal and possibly immoral because it endangers others. There could be one, if everyone drove the speed limit and thought speeders were jerks...but they don't, and thus there isn't.
Likewise, there is a social contract where you park in just one parking space, and failure to do so when you could have easily done so marks you as an idiot (Or just a very poor driver), even though it's not illegal and probably not even immoral.
Or how clean you have to be, that's a great example of a social contract.
And like I said, socially, it is completely acceptable to skip or ignore ads in every medium it is possible to do so. In fact, paying attention to the ads is considered a bit weird.
There could be. I was oversimplifying. Just like there could be a 'I will wax your boat if you park it in front of my house' component of a social contract.
As that doesn't appear to benefit anyone at all except boat owners, it is extremely unlikely to show up as a social contract, and is not, in fact, one.
In much the same way, 'I will watch your ads' only appears to benefit people who produce or run ads, which is not even 0.01% of the population.
There are social contracts that affect small parts of society, like 'help the blind'. But they are all outshoots of 'Help the helpless, because if you were helpless you'd want people to help you.'. We are unlikely to implement them for boat owners or people trying to sell us things.
As for 'trading' things, that's why 'social contact' is a bit of a misnomer. A social contract isn't between two people, it's the price we pay for simply living in society. Social contracts aren't with other people, they're with society, hence the name.
Ergo, the contract would be 'To live in society, company X has to produce things for free and put them on its website', and 'To live in society, person Y must look at the ads on any website he is on'.
Both of which are fairly silly and rather unlikely. The first because it's too vague, and the second because almost no one wants people to look at their ads, (Because they have no ads.) so they are unlikely to disapprove of people failing to look at other's ads. (Which is where social contracts come from.)
Slashdot Mirror
Or someone else may have been holding the camera and taken the picture. For example, a photography studio could have three photographers and one of a certain model of camera everyone uses.
In almost all those examples, the copyright holder would have given permission for whoever's getting the picture off the camera to get it...but they might not have.
Of course, under no circumstances would Nikon own the copyright.
Which is why I'm baffled as to why they can sell a circumvention device.
Someone should actually test this. Find a photographer with one of these cameras, have them put some pictures on it, you lease the camera with the explicit clause you can't download the photograph's other pictures (just in case), and then you do download them, using Nikon's software, and start distributing the pictures online.
Um, duh. When was the last time you agreed to an EULA when you bought software? Never.
They give you EULAs at install time or box-opening time.
If Adobe is going to sue people under the DMCA for breaking ROT13, I say fuck them anyway.
Rich people have other people working for them to carry the blank sheet of paper.
Nikon is the hero here. Some engineer at Nikon working on camera firmware heard about Adobe suing under the DMCA, and started laughing manicially.
Three years later, we get these cameras and refusal to license anything to Adobe. The phrase 'Turnabout's a bitch.' springs to mind.
Not that I'm exactly sure what they'd license anyway. How can Nikon grant licenses for Adobe to decrypt your pictures?
Anyway, Nikon was, and probably is still, hoping, Adobe will start cracking their encryption.
He said it was akin to having a 'peeing section' in a pool. That's all he said.
A lot of people read something into 'public', but a public pool, like a public restaurant, is simply one that is open to the public.
I have a button to turn on logging and get the text of every page saved in different text file, (And the URL saved in a seperate XML file.) for when I'm doing research I'll need later.
And I have a button that saves the whole page intact automatically, with graphics in a directory.
But if you have infinite disk space, you can easily do the latter on every page, with a handy toolbar button for a toggle. And all URLs recorded in whatever format you can invent.
Indexing the saved pages, you ask? I point you to Google Desktop. ;)
Also, for google desktop, there is a plugin called Kongulo (Find in the standard place for plugins.) that a web spider, and they look just like they're in web browser history...a click, by default, goes and the current page, but you can go to the cached local copy instead.
And usercontrib favicons for everything that doesn't have one. (Or it has, for example, the default Drupal ones.)
I was going to say 'categories', but anything that requires an opinion is probably going to overcomplicate everything.
There is, for example, the 'opt-in' module, which, despite the name, just gives roles to people who click a checkbox. (Obviously designed for a mailing list, but they're real roles, and work everwhere.)
And there's paypal subscription, granting roles to people who pay money.
And there's 'automember', where frequent posters can automatically get assigned roles.
The real problem is that node permission suck. You can get node_privacy_byrole, but that's a simple OR of roles able to read and write. There's no way to do boolean expressions.
Yes, in theory, you could switch quickly, but you could easily missing the very reason you were switching back and forth...getting the DHCP packet.
I look around the room I'm in, and I see half the things plugged in have an external or internal DC convertor, almost all below 12 volts. The only one with a DC convertor that draw more than about 50 watts AC is my laptop. (Which incidentally uses 19 volts, a good reason for a 24 plug.) It manages to get its power through a fairly small cord.
The point isn't to provide some random DC for no reason, the point is to provide low-amp, low-volt DC, like almost every single electronic device in existence needs.
And, what? They look disapprovingly at your IP? They publish your address and people walking by on the street frown at you? They sound loud messages from your computer about how you're skipping ads and are a bad person?
There is no societal feedback on how you surf at all. There could be punishment from them, but a website is not society. (Well, most aren't. I guess it would, in theory, be possible for online communities to post lists of users who skip ads, and others there :( at you, but that's a rather tiny exception.)
Whereas while there can't be any publisher reaction to how you watch TV, there can be some societal feedback, assuming you do it with other people.
No, that is not what you said.
I started this with:
Now...I refrain from blocking your ad, and you...refrain from blocking mine? WTF? I have no ads.
'Social contracts' have no bearing whatsoever to ads. Ads are unidirectional, from a very small subset of people to the population at large, and hence they can't possibly be part of any social contract.
And, of course, I was over-simplifying, like I said. Anything can be part of a social contract, from using turn signals to ritualistically eating dead people.
It's just to develop as part of social contract, a lot of people have to want themselves and others to do it, and teach others to do it, until enough people do it that it's normal behavior and not doing it is weird.
And thus any behavior that doesn't, in some way, directly help a large amount of people, is very unlikely to become part of a social contract. (Especially today, when religious leaders can't make up new things to 'help' us.)
My God! You could make walls transparent by painting them with that! Or would just the paint be invisible? ;)
You will, of course, perceive the paint. It just will not be the right color, probably looking dingy brown.
They're designed to plug into cigarette lighters, which, yes, is an idiotic plug standard.
Some of them you can cut open, or you can just wire your house with cigarette lighter sockets...they're only about four dollars at auto part stores.
AC with a capacitor makes white light.
And you can buy two 6 volt lantern batteries to make anything portable for quite some time, if we're talking about stuff like stereos and desk lamps.
We also have USB, although that's only 5 volts and thus not that great for anything. Works for cell phone chargers and portable CD players, though.
And with 12/5, we can get rid of 90% of computer power supplies.
First, we should invent a plug standard, one that fits in the traditional oval of AC outlets, although obviously with the holes at a different place. (If it fits in the oval, very soon people come out with half AC/half DC outlets.)
Although, if we're going to come out with a new standard, we could come out with a 12/5 volt plug, or even a 24/12/5 volt plug. (Do we want two grounds, one for each voltage? I'm afraid I don't know enough about electricity to know if that's a good idea.)
What would really rock is if the 5 volt part of it could take a USB plug. Now I'm imagining something like a square, with 24/12 (or 12/12 ground) on the top, and 5/ground on the bottom, with the bottom being a (USB) rectangle and the two top parts just being prongs. (Thus you can't plug it in sideways or upside down.) If we have a 12-ground, we could end up with stuff that just use 12/12-ground, so we'd want to do something to stop that from going in backwards, too.
And, this time, can we please use the same damn standard as Europe? Their cars and computers are 12 volt and 5 volts, too.
I'm kidding, of course. That would cause as much annoying flicker as fluorescents.
But you might be able to do something with capacitors, now that I think about it.
I think the coolness of blue is more from the ocean than from ice.
People who need their night vision to stay use red lights. A dim red light can create enough light to read by, yet when turned off you still can see in the dark. It's very common to have a dim red in theatres on for the crew while they set the stage, and the audience can't see a thing.
Blue, OTOH, is exactly the opposite. You look at a dim blue light for a second, and you'll lose your night vision as much as if it'd been a dim white light. This fact is often used in theatres, too, when they want audiences and actors to not have night vision. (The audience because they aren't supposed to see something, and actors so they can see when they walk out on stage instead of blinking like someone have a seizure.)
When you light up a dark room with dim blue, parts of the room will, sometimes, look darker, because you can't see in the shadows you could see in if the light was red. The parts that are lit, however, look brighter.
I think this is because the rods in your eye respond best to blue light, but I do not know that for a fact. Or maybe the blue cones are what control your pupils.
If so, blue light messes up your night vision more than the same amount of white light would, because blue light has it all in one place and white light has it all spread it, with parts where it wouldn't affect your night vision.
I keep looking at them to see if any single LED's burned out so I can tell, but so far nothing.
Blinding people is not a useful indication of the power of a light, as it is entirely a function of the difference between the baseline light and the new light and the speed it powers up.
They don't benefit from watching the ads, and they don't benefit because others watch the ads. They benefit from having the ads. Actually, it's even more indirect than that.
But, regardless of whether or not it could be considered part of your social contract to watch the ads, it isn't. Like I said, it could be part of your social contract to wash boats parked in front of your house, or invite vistors to sleep with your daughter.
It's just not. No one thinks poorly if you fail to wash a boat some jerk randomly parked in front of your house, no one thinks poorly if not only do you fail to invite vistors to sleep with your daughter, but if you actually come out against it, and no one thinks poorly of you if you ignore or skip ads.
All in all, you are missing the more important factor for eligibility in a social contract: it must be a public activity (as all your successful examples were). They can only work when peer pressure and bystander scrutiny exist to lay informal punishments on infringers.
Well, granted, that is a fairly important bit, and I thought obvious. To be a social contract, it has to be about behavior exposed to society.
However, watching TV is public enough that there could be things you are expected to do and not do, although obviously you could ignore all the rules when in private.
But, when you apply it to websurfing, 99% of that is done 'in private', or at least with only one person paying attention. And thus it would be rather hard for people in society to come out against a specific instance of another person ad-blocking.
But I don't know what point you're making. I'm just saying, 'watching ads' is not, at this moment in time, part of your social contract, although advertisers would certainly like it to be. I'm not sure if it could be or not, but looking back at history and different cultures, almost anything could be part of a social contract, including stuff like 'which hand you wipe your ass with'.
It appears to be as indescructible as the rest of their line. Nice and bright.
And I don't know what this 'lasts forever' gibberish is. Buy a damn recargeable battery if you're using it that much. ;)
And it's not morality...at least not any metaphysical morality. It's simply 'No one should do this to other people.'. Or, people should do this for others...social contracts work both ways. By 'other people', read 'other people in this society'.
As such, it's hard to see how growing drugs at your own house could ever be a violation of a social contract. Or cloning people, unless the concept there is 'I don't want to be cloned without permission.'.
A social contract is a sociological term, not a legal or ethical one. There's no social contract forbidding speeding, even though it's certainly illegal and possibly immoral because it endangers others. There could be one, if everyone drove the speed limit and thought speeders were jerks...but they don't, and thus there isn't.
Likewise, there is a social contract where you park in just one parking space, and failure to do so when you could have easily done so marks you as an idiot (Or just a very poor driver), even though it's not illegal and probably not even immoral.
Or how clean you have to be, that's a great example of a social contract.
And like I said, socially, it is completely acceptable to skip or ignore ads in every medium it is possible to do so. In fact, paying attention to the ads is considered a bit weird.
As that doesn't appear to benefit anyone at all except boat owners, it is extremely unlikely to show up as a social contract, and is not, in fact, one.
In much the same way, 'I will watch your ads' only appears to benefit people who produce or run ads, which is not even 0.01% of the population.
There are social contracts that affect small parts of society, like 'help the blind'. But they are all outshoots of 'Help the helpless, because if you were helpless you'd want people to help you.'. We are unlikely to implement them for boat owners or people trying to sell us things.
As for 'trading' things, that's why 'social contact' is a bit of a misnomer. A social contract isn't between two people, it's the price we pay for simply living in society. Social contracts aren't with other people, they're with society, hence the name.
Ergo, the contract would be 'To live in society, company X has to produce things for free and put them on its website', and 'To live in society, person Y must look at the ads on any website he is on'.
Both of which are fairly silly and rather unlikely. The first because it's too vague, and the second because almost no one wants people to look at their ads, (Because they have no ads.) so they are unlikely to disapprove of people failing to look at other's ads. (Which is where social contracts come from.)