There are subtle variations in speed from different computers, even if the hardware is identical.
To have a truly conclusive test, I would recommend running an internal web server, with a direct NIC to NIC connection using a xover cable to the PC you want to test. Dual boot both OSs (at different times obviously... though if you can pull off a dual dual boot, please tell me!;P ) then download the same resource 10 times on each OS and average out the speed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this issue come up back when Apple first released DRM-Free songs?
To add to that, the post is misleading, it's not actually hidden unless you are a complete and utter tool. In the info window of iTunes, it clearly shows the information they have "hidden" in the file...
Well, I don't know what else to say that I haven't said before... Check the Canadian Copyright Laws for yourself if you don't believe me: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/index.html
Actually it is perfectly legal, I have not only talked to several lawyers about it, but I also looked it up in the Canadian Copyright laws myself.
I don't understand how so many people have this misconception.
If you are intitled to the information on that disk, not the disk itself. The disk itself is meaningless.
If I buy a CD, and then copy it 100 times. That would be perfectly legal if I only use 1 copy at a time. If I wanted to use two copies at a time, I would need to buy 2 disks regardless of how many copies I have made.
It's like if you buy Windows XP, you can only use it on one computer, otherwise it's copyright infringement. But copying the disk to a second CD is perfectly legal, and is often used in large corporations to integrate extra service packs or drivers.
As long as you are only using the number of copies you purchased, how many copies you have is irrelevant.
From the Government of Canada's website:
(2) It is an infringement of copyright for any person to (a) sell or rent out,
(b) distribute to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
(c) by way of trade distribute, expose or offer for sale or rental, or exhibit in public,
(d) possess for the purpose of doing anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c), or
(e) import into Canada for the purpose of doing anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c),
I must admit it has been quite a few years since I have studied Canada's copyright laws, so if you can poke holes in what I am stating, feel free, but quote the Copyright Act and include links for my reference.
Well, according to the Canadian Copyright laws as I understood them, in the scenario you mentioned, yes it would be perfectly legal for you to download that CD that was stolen from you, or lost, or if your too lazy to rip it yourself.
You see, what you fail to understand is that when you buy music, software, and other copyrighted goods, you aren't actually purchasing the item, you are purchasing a right to use license.
That's how copyright law works.
If you buy a book, part of the cost goes to pay for the media itself (the book) and the rest goes to the publisher/author to pay for the information on the media. You don't own the information in the book, you own the paper used in the book and the right to read the information. That's all!
The same goes with an audio CD. You don't own the music, you own an aluminum covered piece of plastic, and the right to listen to the song. That's why its illegal to buy a CD and exhibit it. That is not part of your right when you bought that license.
Did you know that if you have an audio CD that is damaged, you (if you talk to the right person) can send it back to the record label, and get them to ship you a replacement at a reduced cost (just for shipping and media expenses)? Usually threatening to download it of the internet is enough to make them help you, because, after all, they would rather you buy it all over again.
Why do you think radio stations don't just go out and buy CDs and play them? I assure you it's not because they enjoy paying more for the music.
I suggest you brush up on your knowledge of copyright law before you start calling people thieves. Because, I for one didn't appreciate it.
What it always comes down to is that the RIAA never has any proof. When you buy a song, you get a right to use license, which means you have access to one copy of song/album xyz to listen to. But you could loose or have your copy stolen from you, that doesn't mean you lost the right to use license.
How can they prove that you never purchased what you downloaded? They can't!
Remember Eiffel 65? I had their CD, then I lost it, so I hit up WinMX (I think it was at the time), and downloaded it. What do you have to say about that RIAA? It is perfectly legal for me to download that CD because I'm not infringing on any copyrights.
They prey on weak poor families who can't defend them selves, often with "proof" that is questionable at best.
There will come a time when people like those who work at the RIAA will be healed accountable for what they do to the less fortunate people on this planet.
I have also seen this attack used against my web server for about a year. It worries me greatly, however having only one user on the computer with a long password is a bit comforting.
Unfortunately, sometimes, I still wake up at nights in shear terror and run downstairs to see if my server is still running without any data missing.
I guess thats one of the down sides to running your website out of your house on your own personal computer...
Yay! Sanity! (I think I'll use that line from now on, anytime some one makes a reasonable deduction to point out how stupid Hydrogen power actually is)
What you fail to mention is that the far majority of hydrogen is generated by electrolysis.
The algae thing is rather new, and takes up a lot space, and generates almost no hydrogen (last I checked) and is nothing but a mere curiosity, almost like a science project to say "look what I can do".
Then, as for solar energy, just make electricity, thats what we want at the other end anyways. If we generate hydrogen its just to make electricity, so just make electricity and be done with it.
Nuclear energy, see previous comment.
And lastly our "Neanderthal-style" system, is pretty much the only one used.
But, you know, even if that all was magically solved, because we all farted hydrogen, and cows farted hydrogen, and cars gave off hydrogen instead of CO2, what you always come down to is: How do you store the hydrogen? You can't! It is very difficult to store hydrogen in a compressed from.
So, the final nail in the hydrogen coffin is you cant store it.
That should be default answer I think.
Hydro- YOU CAN'T STORE IT
Breaking news: new method of hydrogen instantly coverts anything people touch into hydrogen without any effort or energy! - But, we still can't store it!
Guess what, I have a magic lamp, and my first wish was that all the water in the world becomes hydrogen. To bad we can't store it. (And that were all dead because there isn't any water in our bodies anymore)
Billy: "Guess what Bob, I made a fuel cell car in my garage!" Bob: "Excellent Billy, to bad there is no way for you to carry around enough hydrogen for your car to actually be useful." Billy: "Thanks for ruining my life's work Bob, go get hit by a bus!" Bob: "Oh no! 32 bits of data!"
Thats not what we are talking about... We are talking about IC engine efficiency, not car efficiency.
To add to that, just because you use your tool, a car in this case, to undo the work you did with it, that doesn't mean that your tool's efficiency has decreased.
(No jokes about "using your tool", I'm to lazy to reword it.)
MPG only increased, back then, because of new laws.
They can add as many new laws now as they want, but as far as the IC engine is concerned, anymore efficiency out of it and it would be a perpetual motion machine.
You can make the Car more efficient, but you can't make the IC engine more efficient. You shouldn't confuse the two.
Neither, it takes more energy to make the hydrogen then you can get from it, and it is almost impossible to store...
Hydrogen is just a distraction, not a viable source of... well... anything really...
If hydrogen was so great, we would be all using it already, you can hose it directly into an IC engine and it would run with almost no modification.
The problem with hydrogen has been, and always will be 2 things.
1. Very difficult to produce, it takes a lot of energy, in the form of electricity. (Note: The concept of fuel cells is flawed inherently, because there is no way you can get more electricity out of the hydrogen then you put in to the water to make the hydrogen in the first place. Law of thermodynamics. I propose, we take that energy and store it in... say, batteries to power cars directly... There is no way that is less efficient then going from electricity to hydrogen to electricity.)
2. Very difficult to store. Needs to be kept under extreme pressure, and in some cases needs to be cooled.
Slashdot Mirror
not as weak as those chumps over at sourceforge.
Um... Isn't SourceForge and Slashdot owned by the same people?
V-tec just kicked in, yo!
There are subtle variations in speed from different computers, even if the hardware is identical.
To have a truly conclusive test, I would recommend running an internal web server, with a direct NIC to NIC connection using a xover cable to the PC you want to test. ;P ) then download the same resource 10 times on each OS and average out the speed.
Dual boot both OSs (at different times obviously... though if you can pull off a dual dual boot, please tell me!
I like your style!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this issue come up back when Apple first released DRM-Free songs?
To add to that, the post is misleading, it's not actually hidden unless you are a complete and utter tool. In the info window of iTunes, it clearly shows the information they have "hidden" in the file...
Ah I see. And those laws in the US are probably like that mainly because of the DMCA, I'm guessing...
Well, I don't know what else to say that I haven't said before...
Check the Canadian Copyright Laws for yourself if you don't believe me: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/index.html
Actually it is perfectly legal, I have not only talked to several lawyers about it, but I also looked it up in the Canadian Copyright laws myself.
I don't understand how so many people have this misconception.
If you are intitled to the information on that disk, not the disk itself. The disk itself is meaningless.
If I buy a CD, and then copy it 100 times. That would be perfectly legal if I only use 1 copy at a time. If I wanted to use two copies at a time, I would need to buy 2 disks regardless of how many copies I have made.
It's like if you buy Windows XP, you can only use it on one computer, otherwise it's copyright infringement. But copying the disk to a second CD is perfectly legal, and is often used in large corporations to integrate extra service packs or drivers.
As long as you are only using the number of copies you purchased, how many copies you have is irrelevant.
From the Government of Canada's website:
(2) It is an infringement of copyright for any person to
(a) sell or rent out,
(b) distribute to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
(c) by way of trade distribute, expose or offer for sale or rental, or exhibit in public,
(d) possess for the purpose of doing anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c), or
(e) import into Canada for the purpose of doing anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c),
If you are feeling adventurous, feel free to read the whole thing at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/index.html
I must admit it has been quite a few years since I have studied Canada's copyright laws, so if you can poke holes in what I am stating, feel free, but quote the Copyright Act and include links for my reference.
...although if you download it using Bittorrent you're also *uploading* it at the same time: i.e. making it available to others.
Ah, now that in Canada is illegal.
I should point out, I am in Canada, so our laws are slightly different from the US.
Well, according to the Canadian Copyright laws as I understood them, in the scenario you mentioned, yes it would be perfectly legal for you to download that CD that was stolen from you, or lost, or if your too lazy to rip it yourself.
You see, what you fail to understand is that when you buy music, software, and other copyrighted goods, you aren't actually purchasing the item, you are purchasing a right to use license.
That's how copyright law works.
If you buy a book, part of the cost goes to pay for the media itself (the book) and the rest goes to the publisher/author to pay for the information on the media. You don't own the information in the book, you own the paper used in the book and the right to read the information. That's all!
The same goes with an audio CD. You don't own the music, you own an aluminum covered piece of plastic, and the right to listen to the song. That's why its illegal to buy a CD and exhibit it. That is not part of your right when you bought that license.
Did you know that if you have an audio CD that is damaged, you (if you talk to the right person) can send it back to the record label, and get them to ship you a replacement at a reduced cost (just for shipping and media expenses)? Usually threatening to download it of the internet is enough to make them help you, because, after all, they would rather you buy it all over again.
Why do you think radio stations don't just go out and buy CDs and play them? I assure you it's not because they enjoy paying more for the music.
I suggest you brush up on your knowledge of copyright law before you start calling people thieves. Because, I for one didn't appreciate it.
All the links are down... One of the down sides of seeing a story when it is new I guess.
Looks interesting though! Might get more interesting when their web server stops spitting out flames...
What it always comes down to is that the RIAA never has any proof. When you buy a song, you get a right to use license, which means you have access to one copy of song/album xyz to listen to. But you could loose or have your copy stolen from you, that doesn't mean you lost the right to use license.
How can they prove that you never purchased what you downloaded? They can't!
Remember Eiffel 65? I had their CD, then I lost it, so I hit up WinMX (I think it was at the time), and downloaded it. What do you have to say about that RIAA? It is perfectly legal for me to download that CD because I'm not infringing on any copyrights.
They prey on weak poor families who can't defend them selves, often with "proof" that is questionable at best.
There will come a time when people like those who work at the RIAA will be healed accountable for what they do to the less fortunate people on this planet.
I have also seen this attack used against my web server for about a year. It worries me greatly, however having only one user on the computer with a long password is a bit comforting.
Unfortunately, sometimes, I still wake up at nights in shear terror and run downstairs to see if my server is still running without any data missing.
I guess thats one of the down sides to running your website out of your house on your own personal computer...
Hahaha! That was hilarious, my reaction was much the same as yours.
Am I the only one who is more than slightly irritated by that?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the majority of servers running *NIX? Or has Windows actually over taken the server market?
It's becoming that way... sadly...
Yay! Sanity! (I think I'll use that line from now on, anytime some one makes a reasonable deduction to point out how stupid Hydrogen power actually is)
Agreed! Yay! Sanity!
What you fail to mention is that the far majority of hydrogen is generated by electrolysis.
The algae thing is rather new, and takes up a lot space, and generates almost no hydrogen (last I checked) and is nothing but a mere curiosity, almost like a science project to say "look what I can do".
Then, as for solar energy, just make electricity, thats what we want at the other end anyways. If we generate hydrogen its just to make electricity, so just make electricity and be done with it.
Nuclear energy, see previous comment.
And lastly our "Neanderthal-style" system, is pretty much the only one used.
But, you know, even if that all was magically solved, because we all farted hydrogen, and cows farted hydrogen, and cars gave off hydrogen instead of CO2, what you always come down to is: How do you store the hydrogen? You can't! It is very difficult to store hydrogen in a compressed from.
So, the final nail in the hydrogen coffin is you cant store it.
That should be default answer I think.
Hydro- YOU CAN'T STORE IT
Breaking news: new method of hydrogen instantly coverts anything people touch into hydrogen without any effort or energy! - But, we still can't store it!
Guess what, I have a magic lamp, and my first wish was that all the water in the world becomes hydrogen. To bad we can't store it. (And that were all dead because there isn't any water in our bodies anymore)
Billy: "Guess what Bob, I made a fuel cell car in my garage!"
Bob: "Excellent Billy, to bad there is no way for you to carry around enough hydrogen for your car to actually be useful."
Billy: "Thanks for ruining my life's work Bob, go get hit by a bus!"
Bob: "Oh no! 32 bits of data!"
Sigh, I think I've just lost it.
Thats not what we are talking about... We are talking about IC engine efficiency, not car efficiency.
To add to that, just because you use your tool, a car in this case, to undo the work you did with it, that doesn't mean that your tool's efficiency has decreased.
(No jokes about "using your tool", I'm to lazy to reword it.)
MPG only increased, back then, because of new laws.
They can add as many new laws now as they want, but as far as the IC engine is concerned, anymore efficiency out of it and it would be a perpetual motion machine.
You can make the Car more efficient, but you can't make the IC engine more efficient. You shouldn't confuse the two.
Storing energy. And apparently not a very efficient one.
But then again, the first internal combustion engines weren't very efficient either and look where we are now.
Ha ha ha... Wait...
I assume that was a joke? Because ICEs are one of the most inefficient sources of energy in the world, they waste about %80 of their energy.
Neither, it takes more energy to make the hydrogen then you can get from it, and it is almost impossible to store...
Hydrogen is just a distraction, not a viable source of... well... anything really...
If hydrogen was so great, we would be all using it already, you can hose it directly into an IC engine and it would run with almost no modification.
The problem with hydrogen has been, and always will be 2 things.
1. Very difficult to produce, it takes a lot of energy, in the form of electricity. (Note: The concept of fuel cells is flawed inherently, because there is no way you can get more electricity out of the hydrogen then you put in to the water to make the hydrogen in the first place. Law of thermodynamics. I propose, we take that energy and store it in... say, batteries to power cars directly... There is no way that is less efficient then going from electricity to hydrogen to electricity.)
2. Very difficult to store. Needs to be kept under extreme pressure, and in some cases needs to be cooled.