You don't stay within context. I am saying if you let TPB do its thing, then it would be next to impossible to restrict copyright to non-commercial use, since companies could use similar loopholes (supporting my claim that companies would be discouraged from investing in programs). In any case, I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to think TBP is not making money off of copying, they just manage to twist the laws enough to make it hard to pin on them. Yes, RIAA&co is "evil", but that doesn't justify TPB as being "right".
To bring the problem closer to home for people, how would this mindset affect programmers? If music and movies can be freely copied, then code can be copied just as readily. But companies will still pay for programmers to make software for business use? Are said companies fine with the fact that they would be subsidizing their competitors who can then copy the code without paying for it? Sounds like less software will be made and society will be worse off. Although somewhat more complicated, it is similar to a positive externality (in this case the companies realize the externality and need compensation to make it worthwhile). The solution to a positive externality with a suboptimal market is a subsidy, so why not guarantee exclusive profits as that subsidy?
Free to copy, but not for commercial use? I'd say TPB is making money off of copying. The driver of the getaway car is a criminal, despite the fact that he didn't rob the bank. Yes the engineer that designed the car is innocent, but if TPB is the driver, the programmers creating BitTorrent and HTML are the car engineers. Maybe the ads don't seem like enough money to you, but maybe the income of that now-subsidized startup competitor doesn't make that much either yet. Okay, so make the distribution sites not-for-profit. Now the problem is for-profits still have to compete with not-for-profits while subsidizing this competition. Better, but until you account for that inadvertant subsidization, you won't reach the optimal market outcome.
I'd like to see copyright shortened significantly, but I don't see the market optimizing without it. Sure, I make assumptions or miss options that may reason a lack of copyright as a means for maximizing society benefit, but it seems to me copyright is quite a simple way to do things.
The official video will be from a shaky handheld somewhere on the far left side of the auditorium, and be next to a bunch of people that like to talk over the performance.
Speaking of voting for "alternate" parties, why can't we have a voting system like the French? First election narrows the ballot to two candidates, then the final election selects the president. We already have primaries, so the party you select counts as a vote for that party, and the winning candidates in the two most popular parties race for November. That way the media can stay happy with its two-man race and the debates don't get skewed, and you have far less of an issue of "vote stealing" since there are two winners in the primary. (In France parties generally exist to help the leader get elected, so the issue of who leads the party isn't so much of an issue).
So if people get worms like this by being dumb with their computers, just write a worm that 'maliciously' enforces the security that people should be following. If you do it right it should infect the same set of people. Not being very knowledgeable in this area I don't know if this idea actually means anything or if its ridiculous enough to be funny.
Maybe to send each email you need to solve a CAPTCHA, unless the recipient has you on their whitelist. Paying people to solve them becomes a much greater cost when it is per message rather than per account. While it doesn't solve the problem of making a well-working CAPTCHA, it does make each successful solution less valuable to spammers, therefore making it less likely for them to bother. It will make more determined spammers try harder to automate the process, so we'd have to be sure we can keep the arms race moving.
As for legitimate users, most people get email addresses by asking for them, so the recipient should know to whitelist the sender.
the answers verifiable by a machine, but the problems not solvable by a machine
Use a generator for infinite CAPTCHA's, but start out by solving some number of them yourself. Then ask people registering to solve two CAPTCHAs: one that you have solved, and one new one. As people solve new ones the same way several times, they get added to the list of solved CAPTCHAs, and now the server knows the answer. As long as the CAPTCHA is not directly solvable by a machine, this could work, minus the meagerly paid humans. The list could have a finite capacity so it throws out the oldest solutions over time.
People have said it's an unfinished product- does it have the FBI warning at the beginning? If not I think this is a moot point and the FBI is way out of its bounds. Without that warning at the beginning you'd have no clue it might be illegal.
On the Alaskan pipelines you just need to stop the refrigerators from running. The thawing permafrost will do the rest. No bombs required, assuming the refrigerators aren't protected from basic crowbars or torches. I guess this could get congress to declare global warming a terrorist.
Going between school and home for breaks I drive through a large windfarm, and every time I endlessly stare at the things. Then again, being a mechanical engineering student I'd have picked the wrong major if I didn't do that.
That's sounds like a circular argument:
* Negative mass can't exist because it would allow FTL travel.
* FTL travel can't exist because it would require negative mass.
Negative mass can't exist because it would allow FTL trave
* iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii l
s iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii *
s iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii F
am evitagen eriuqer dluow ti esuaceb tsixe t'nac levart LT
It's only our abstractions that allow counting in the first place -- "car" is not a measurable unit
Dude, just because you mention "car" doesn't mean its a car analogy. You better step it up if you know what's good for your car-ma. (Yes, I'm groaning too).
Okay so can you get a DVD player from major sites/stores that doesn't enforce the DRM? Serious question here- my DVD player is old and needs replacement.
Maybe they are just doing this to sate the content providers. As long as they appear to be trying to solve the problem, they should get brownie points with the major companies. Considering how popular DRM seems to be with the execs, I'll bet they think this works just as "well".
Think of the children! Wait.. actually don't. But they most be protected, so please think of them... or maybe... er... You know what, just vote for me.
There's nothing against denying the Holocaust here (there's nothing against denying evolution either). While threats could get you in trouble, stupidity is protected speech.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't stay within context. I am saying if you let TPB do its thing, then it would be next to impossible to restrict copyright to non-commercial use, since companies could use similar loopholes (supporting my claim that companies would be discouraged from investing in programs). In any case, I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to think TBP is not making money off of copying, they just manage to twist the laws enough to make it hard to pin on them. Yes, RIAA&co is "evil", but that doesn't justify TPB as being "right".
To bring the problem closer to home for people, how would this mindset affect programmers? If music and movies can be freely copied, then code can be copied just as readily. But companies will still pay for programmers to make software for business use? Are said companies fine with the fact that they would be subsidizing their competitors who can then copy the code without paying for it? Sounds like less software will be made and society will be worse off. Although somewhat more complicated, it is similar to a positive externality (in this case the companies realize the externality and need compensation to make it worthwhile). The solution to a positive externality with a suboptimal market is a subsidy, so why not guarantee exclusive profits as that subsidy?
Free to copy, but not for commercial use? I'd say TPB is making money off of copying. The driver of the getaway car is a criminal, despite the fact that he didn't rob the bank. Yes the engineer that designed the car is innocent, but if TPB is the driver, the programmers creating BitTorrent and HTML are the car engineers. Maybe the ads don't seem like enough money to you, but maybe the income of that now-subsidized startup competitor doesn't make that much either yet. Okay, so make the distribution sites not-for-profit. Now the problem is for-profits still have to compete with not-for-profits while subsidizing this competition. Better, but until you account for that inadvertant subsidization, you won't reach the optimal market outcome.
I'd like to see copyright shortened significantly, but I don't see the market optimizing without it. Sure, I make assumptions or miss options that may reason a lack of copyright as a means for maximizing society benefit, but it seems to me copyright is quite a simple way to do things.
The official video will be from a shaky handheld somewhere on the far left side of the auditorium, and be next to a bunch of people that like to talk over the performance.
It stopped for me shortly after "Aren't you a little short for a stormtrooper?"- is that the end or is there more out there?
Speaking of voting for "alternate" parties, why can't we have a voting system like the French? First election narrows the ballot to two candidates, then the final election selects the president. We already have primaries, so the party you select counts as a vote for that party, and the winning candidates in the two most popular parties race for November. That way the media can stay happy with its two-man race and the debates don't get skewed, and you have far less of an issue of "vote stealing" since there are two winners in the primary. (In France parties generally exist to help the leader get elected, so the issue of who leads the party isn't so much of an issue).
8)???
9)Profit!
So if people get worms like this by being dumb with their computers, just write a worm that 'maliciously' enforces the security that people should be following. If you do it right it should infect the same set of people.
Not being very knowledgeable in this area I don't know if this idea actually means anything or if its ridiculous enough to be funny.
Maybe to send each email you need to solve a CAPTCHA, unless the recipient has you on their whitelist. Paying people to solve them becomes a much greater cost when it is per message rather than per account. While it doesn't solve the problem of making a well-working CAPTCHA, it does make each successful solution less valuable to spammers, therefore making it less likely for them to bother. It will make more determined spammers try harder to automate the process, so we'd have to be sure we can keep the arms race moving.
As for legitimate users, most people get email addresses by asking for them, so the recipient should know to whitelist the sender.
the answers verifiable by a machine, but the problems not solvable by a machine
Use a generator for infinite CAPTCHA's, but start out by solving some number of them yourself. Then ask people registering to solve two CAPTCHAs: one that you have solved, and one new one. As people solve new ones the same way several times, they get added to the list of solved CAPTCHAs, and now the server knows the answer. As long as the CAPTCHA is not directly solvable by a machine, this could work, minus the meagerly paid humans. The list could have a finite capacity so it throws out the oldest solutions over time.
Mussolini made the earthquakes arrive on thyme
Fixed that for you.
http://xkcd.com/282/
People have said it's an unfinished product- does it have the FBI warning at the beginning? If not I think this is a moot point and the FBI is way out of its bounds. Without that warning at the beginning you'd have no clue it might be illegal.
On the Alaskan pipelines you just need to stop the refrigerators from running. The thawing permafrost will do the rest. No bombs required, assuming the refrigerators aren't protected from basic crowbars or torches. I guess this could get congress to declare global warming a terrorist.
Going between school and home for breaks I drive through a large windfarm, and every time I endlessly stare at the things. Then again, being a mechanical engineering student I'd have picked the wrong major if I didn't do that.
That's sounds like a circular argument: * Negative mass can't exist because it would allow FTL travel. * FTL travel can't exist because it would require negative mass.
Negative mass can't exist because it would allow FTL trave
* iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii l
s iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii *
s iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii F
am evitagen eriuqer dluow ti esuaceb tsixe t'nac levart LT
It's only our abstractions that allow counting in the first place -- "car" is not a measurable unit
Dude, just because you mention "car" doesn't mean its a car analogy. You better step it up if you know what's good for your car-ma. (Yes, I'm groaning too).
100's of sets of tourist photos randomly scattered across the internet
Have you seen Photosynth? Takes those random photographs and constructs locations in 3D- all photographs are made public on it too. Much more thorough than Google earth/maps.
(http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/blaise_aguera_y_arcas_demos_photosynth.html)
Jupiter is just winking at us.
I hate linux!!!
...can you let me back in now?
Okay so can you get a DVD player from major sites/stores that doesn't enforce the DRM? Serious question here- my DVD player is old and needs replacement.
Maybe they are just doing this to sate the content providers. As long as they appear to be trying to solve the problem, they should get brownie points with the major companies. Considering how popular DRM seems to be with the execs, I'll bet they think this works just as "well".
Lets go for a record depth of parent/child posts.
So am I falling into your trap or being helped by your informative comment? I guess I'll find out soon enough.
Think of the children! Wait.. actually don't. But they most be protected, so please think of them... or maybe... er... You know what, just vote for me.
I'm an optimist, so I round down to 16.666%
There's nothing against denying the Holocaust here (there's nothing against denying evolution either). While threats could get you in trouble, stupidity is protected speech.