What religious people seem to fail to comprehend is that atheism is not a religious belief, it is the lack of religious belief. That rather depends on what you mean by "religious". The definition is notoriously hard to pin down, and is particularly subject to variation according to whether adherents are looking for tax breaks or looking to get their beliefs taught in schools. Atheism does fit some defintions of religion, but not others. So depending on how you nail the jelly to the wall, you can be right and the "religious people" wrong. Or you can be wrong and the "religious people" right. Or both right, or both wrong. On which basis this argument should run and run.
I think that's generally true, but the UK's licensing model does let the BBC make some excellent radio (available online). They make a lot of the other sort, too, but that seems to a matter of their choice rather than the funding model.
Just so, but worse. The "two in a bar" rule that allowed up to two people to perform was the situation before the 2003 act (which came into force in 2005). Two people, or even one person, singing or playing an instrument without a licence pretty much anywhere is now illegal. There are exceptions for traditional dance and for impromptu performances, so if you turn to your beloved in the park and burst out singing "I will always love you" they won't get you under the licensing act (but then they can get you for disturbing the peace). The upside to the 2003 licensing act is that it's tough on karaoke too, but I think the price is too high just for that
And in reply to the grandparent posting, of course folk clubs come and go for various reasons, but there has been a flurry of clubs closing down for the specific reason of the owner of the venue deciding that the cost or effort of getting a live music license wasn't worth it. This at a time when folk festivals in the UK are booming and folk has a higher exposure on TV and radio than at any time since the end of what historians call the "long 1960s" (ie, since about 1973)
So we would only have access to music that the government approves of?
Yes. And, that is the system that is in effect now. I haven't seen the government give copyright to Disney and deny it for the Dixie Chicks, so you are an insane raver about the evils of the government. I thought the administration of copyright rested with the courts, not with the government?
Perhaps you should stick with actual wrongs (that list is long enough) rather than imagined ones that are contradictory to what's actually occurring now. Perhaps you're not aware that the UK government seems to be trying to kill off some forms of music, including my favourite genre of folk music. Not only by introducing licensing regulations that typically make it illegal to sing in a pub (whether the landlord approves or not), but also with a revenue generation scheme that means that if I do find a place where it's legal to sing, and I sing a song that's in the public domain (a Child Ballad such as "The Golden Vanity", perhaps) then the PRS will demand that they pay royalties on the performance and give the money to people who have material that is in copyright. These are actual wrongs, not imagined ones.
Since when did placing the government in charge of collecting revenue automatically lead to censorship? The issue is not so much who does the collecting as who does the distributing.
Ok, name one single instance in which the current UK government has attempted to have "evil" music genres banned, or one single instance in which the current UK government has attempted to have music critical of it banned. Or, come to that, one single other act on its part that leads you to believe that giving it the authority to collect revenues from compulsorary licensing would inevitably lead to censorship. Individual MPs -- and indeed groups of MPs -- in the UK, in the Netherlands and in France, have called for restrictions on Rap. They have not succeeded yet, but it's enough to make me nervous. And the licensing act of 2003 has, as predicted by the Musicians Union, caused the widespread closure of folk clubs and live music sessions (just follow the sad litany of closures on uk.rec.music.folk). A lot of us on the folk scene suspect that the present Labour Party leadership remembers all too well how the folk clubs of the 1960s were a hotbed of left-wing dissent and fears that they could be again. The present UK government do seem determined to stamp out amateur music making; when the 2003 licensing act was being discussed, ministers consistently refused to acknowledge that there was any music making at all outside "the music industry"
The first problem with the current setup is that it's put under industry administration (whose interests are vastly divergent with both most musicians and the public, witness the current example), when in fact it's a tax and should be under government administration. That way it'd be subject to the same constraints as other taxation forms; is it reasonably equitably collected, do we get our money's worth from the spending (ie, does it finance as many artists and creators as possible for the money we're willing to spend?), is this a reasonable level of expenditure? What's more, we could actually measure the number of new works and how they change depending on the level of spending so we could finally get real data rather than imaginary numbers made up to support organized con men. So we would only have access to music that the government approves of? Bad luck all the acts who are critical of the government, from Pete Seeger through Steve Earle to The Dixie Chicks, and bad luck any genres that are percieved as "evil", from blues and rock 'n' roll ("the Devil's music") to Gangsta Rap ("promotes violence"). Do you really want your senator choosing what you can listen to? Then you must have more trust in your government in the USA than I have in mine here in the UK. Having these choices in the hands of industry may be bad, but passing it to government looks to me to be even worse.
No, you need a licence to own equipment which is capable of receiving a television broadcast and which is used for doing so. Where does the burden of proof lie on "used for doing so"?
if it
takes one second between attempts for billions of combinations, you're going
to eventually be activating an obsolete OS. Mac users keep telling me that we already are.:-(
It's not really a "compulsory" tax. You're obliged to pay the license fee if you own a television tuner set to recieve broadcast television stations.
It's more general than that. To quote their website, "You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV." And if you look at the small print on the license you find that you don't only need a license to watch or record the TV, you need a license to be in posession of equipment/capable/ of watching or recording TV. So if any TV company anywhere puts any of their broadcast simultaneously online, then you need a licence for a computer and an internet connection. It's so very nearly compulsory that I doubt they have much difficulty getting getting magistrates to sign off a warrant. I know people who genuinely don't need a license who have had a licence inspector turn up at the door accompanied by a police officer with a warrant, so the evidence level needed doesn't seem to be set very high
I agree with others on this thread who think a taxation model is the best way to go for public service broadcasting (although when the government simultaneously forces the BBC to chase ratings there is perhaps an insufficiently clear idea of what constitutes public service), but I agree with you that the enforcement hassle of the license (and the RIAA-like tactics of some of the agencies subcontracted to do the enforcement, probably stemming from frustration that nothing else works) mean that it's a bad way to administer the tax.
The whole system is ludicrous, outdated and monstrously inefficient. We would be much better served if an independent body determined an appropriate level of funding for the BBC year-on-year, and the money came from general taxation. Yes, that would probably be better; rough on those who genuinely don't need a license though.
The flight data recorder would presumably have to be turned off during take-off and landing, and whenever the seat-belt signs are illuminated. Isn't that precisely when one most needs flight data recording?
Thanks, I think you're right -- I think the projection onto a line was an earlier proof of the existence of aperiodic tilings, not the proof of the Penrose tiling in particular. Either way, $\phi$ was known to be irrational long before those tilings, and was much explored in geometry, so I think it's credible that the designers knew what was going on.
That's the perennial technical problem with watermarks on audio. Either they're in what you hear or they're not. If they're in what you hear then they make the audio suckier. If they're not in what you hear then they can be removed by audio filtering.
The algorithm is being released under the GPL ( General Public License ). The algorithm belongs to PhoenixBit and VirusFree
but you may use/modify it freely.
*** DO NOT COPY ANYTHING FROM THIS PAGE TO ANY OTHER PAGE. IF YOU
WANT SOMEONE TO READ THIS THEN LINK TO THIS PAGE ***
In addition to trying to apply copyright to an algorithm, doesn't a restriction on copying defeat the purpose of releasing something under the GPL? Or does text in all caps trum previous text not in all caps? In fairness, that's something he didn't get (entirely) wrong. The attempt at GPL applies to the algorithm, the shouty restriction applies to the page describing the algorithm. They're not the same thing.
But that turing machine can still send and receive bits, even if they are written as something else, they can be reencoded by a simple mechanism. That means that it should be possible to program a turing machine to speak SCSI (although it makes everything more difficult). A TC could also be connected to it, following orders from the TM, too. So, in the end, it can use periphericals.
Perhaps you missed my suggestion that the Turing machine should only be able to output two ASCII characters, '1' and '0'. Sure, somebody could take that sequence and reencode it, but the reencoder would have to be installed outside the sandbox if the Turing machine is the only thing inside it. I suppose it might be possible to speak SCSI using just '1' and '0' (rather than 1 and 0), but it would be a crack worthy of a Turing award! And there is still the issue of peripherals using DMM.
I realise that the Turing machine was just an example, but my point is that on a TC almost anything needed in a university could happen just as well in a sandbox on a TC.
The point is that even under such extreme situation, that really complicates teaching, the tools for cracking are available anyway.
I don't see anything that is complicating teaching. I have a postgraduate degree in computing and there was nothing -- nanti, zilch, nada -- on my course that needed or even was enhanced by the fact that it was on GPCs. Perhaps some doctoral research needs a GPC, but I doubt much of it does. And all but a small subset of that could be strongly quarantined
Don't take me for a fan of TC; I don't like the idea of losing the capabilities I have at present, but the academic argument for opposing it just doesn't seem to hold water.
But I suppose "tantalisingly close" isn't enough to prove prior art on Penrose's U.S. Patent 4133152.
If I recall correctly, the proof that Penrose tiling is aperiodic depends on projection of a line marked out in intervals representing an irrational number onto a line marked out in uniform intervals. According to Wikipedia (hey, this isn't an academic paper, so I can cite Wikipedia, right?) the first reference for irrational numbers was in the Indian Sulba Sutras composed between 800-500 BC, so the fundamental knowledge was available in plenty of time for these tilings. And because irrational numbers were arrived at geometrically I can imagine that the ancients could indeed have understood the math.
There's more information about the ancient tilings here, which shows that the Islamic tilings break down into five basic tiles, and that each of those five tiles can be broken down into Penrose tiles. So it looks as if they beat the first modern aperiodic tiling, Berger's initial one, which needed 20426 tiles, but didn't get as far as cutting it down to Penrose's two.
Exactly what I plan to do at home, and what I expect from my present employer. But with my last employer, the suits who made the IT decisions didn't tend to ask what the computers were actually being used for, so I would likely have been stuck with using it and I'd have been getting the blame for failing performance. The user isn't always the person with the choice (not all users have the choice that I took, either, to move to a more enlightened employer).
"Commonsense security" would make a grand slogan. But in practice that would be the same stuff we get now, because the spin merchants would insist that whatever they're promoting is commonsense. "It's common sense to imprison everybody and have robots look after their basic needs; after all, if it saves one child..."
We don't live in a completely market economy, either in Europe or the USA (or anywhere else than I am aware of, for that matter). There is legislation restricting the operation of the market (anti-trust legislation, for example). Patent legislation was introduced for the specific purpose of spreading information about innovation (before it people had to keep how they did ideas secret if they wanted protect them).
The "European Model" works well for innovation; there's plenty of good innovation in Europe. The USA is arguably better at exploiting innovation because of a better venture capital environment -- I doubt it's due to a different patent environment.
You see, a GPC MUST EXIST if you are to teach computer science. The turing machine is the most basic there is to teach, and everything a computer can do, a turing machine can, by definition. Given a GPC, you can do anything you want, even if computer security is airtight, the keys will be leaked from an embedded device (firmware running on an emulator on a GPC).
I think that's where we disagree; a Turing machine doesn't have to be able to do everything the computer can. Specifically it doesn't have to be able to access the full range of peripherals. A Turing machine emulation that could only handle ASCII representations of the program and only send ASCII representations of the 1's and 0's on the output to stdout would still be a Turing machine (we're both ignoring the requirement for infinite storage, of course), but would not be able to access memory-mapped devices and would need an astonishing fluke to be able to crack anything else with just those two characters (one could do anything with 1 and 0, but not with '1' and '0'!)
Ok, that Turing machine emulator would be a pretty rotten teaching tool for anything other than teaching Turing machines, but I think my argument shows that the Turing machine argument for needing a GPC doesn't hold.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that's generally true, but the UK's licensing model does let the BBC make some excellent radio (available online). They make a lot of the other sort, too, but that seems to a matter of their choice rather than the funding model.
Just so, but worse. The "two in a bar" rule that allowed up to two people to perform was the situation before the 2003 act (which came into force in 2005). Two people, or even one person, singing or playing an instrument without a licence pretty much anywhere is now illegal. There are exceptions for traditional dance and for impromptu performances, so if you turn to your beloved in the park and burst out singing "I will always love you" they won't get you under the licensing act (but then they can get you for disturbing the peace). The upside to the 2003 licensing act is that it's tough on karaoke too, but I think the price is too high just for that
And in reply to the grandparent posting, of course folk clubs come and go for various reasons, but there has been a flurry of clubs closing down for the specific reason of the owner of the venue deciding that the cost or effort of getting a live music license wasn't worth it. This at a time when folk festivals in the UK are booming and folk has a higher exposure on TV and radio than at any time since the end of what historians call the "long 1960s" (ie, since about 1973)
Yes. And, that is the system that is in effect now. I haven't seen the government give copyright to Disney and deny it for the Dixie Chicks, so you are an insane raver about the evils of the government. I thought the administration of copyright rested with the courts, not with the government? Perhaps you should stick with actual wrongs (that list is long enough) rather than imagined ones that are contradictory to what's actually occurring now. Perhaps you're not aware that the UK government seems to be trying to kill off some forms of music, including my favourite genre of folk music. Not only by introducing licensing regulations that typically make it illegal to sing in a pub (whether the landlord approves or not), but also with a revenue generation scheme that means that if I do find a place where it's legal to sing, and I sing a song that's in the public domain (a Child Ballad such as "The Golden Vanity", perhaps) then the PRS will demand that they pay royalties on the performance and give the money to people who have material that is in copyright. These are actual wrongs, not imagined ones.
The whole family was interested, but couldn't understand my sitting out on our front garden wall gazing into space.
It's more general than that. To quote their website, "You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV." And if you look at the small print on the license you find that you don't only need a license to watch or record the TV, you need a license to be in posession of equipment /capable/ of watching or recording TV. So if any TV company anywhere puts any of their broadcast simultaneously online, then you need a licence for a computer and an internet connection. It's so very nearly compulsory that I doubt they have much difficulty getting getting magistrates to sign off a warrant. I know people who genuinely don't need a license who have had a licence inspector turn up at the door accompanied by a police officer with a warrant, so the evidence level needed doesn't seem to be set very high
I agree with others on this thread who think a taxation model is the best way to go for public service broadcasting (although when the government simultaneously forces the BBC to chase ratings there is perhaps an insufficiently clear idea of what constitutes public service), but I agree with you that the enforcement hassle of the license (and the RIAA-like tactics of some of the agencies subcontracted to do the enforcement, probably stemming from frustration that nothing else works) mean that it's a bad way to administer the tax.
The whole system is ludicrous, outdated and monstrously inefficient. We would be much better served if an independent body determined an appropriate level of funding for the BBC year-on-year, and the money came from general taxation. Yes, that would probably be better; rough on those who genuinely don't need a license though.The flight data recorder would presumably have to be turned off during take-off and landing, and whenever the seat-belt signs are illuminated. Isn't that precisely when one most needs flight data recording?
"Effectively free" is still overpriced as far as I am concerned. The amount it slows the system down is unforgivable.
Thanks, I think you're right -- I think the projection onto a line was an earlier proof of the existence of aperiodic tilings, not the proof of the Penrose tiling in particular. Either way, $\phi$ was known to be irrational long before those tilings, and was much explored in geometry, so I think it's credible that the designers knew what was going on.
That's the perennial technical problem with watermarks on audio. Either they're in what you hear or they're not. If they're in what you hear then they make the audio suckier. If they're not in what you hear then they can be removed by audio filtering.
*** DO NOT COPY ANYTHING FROM THIS PAGE TO ANY OTHER PAGE. IF YOU WANT SOMEONE TO READ THIS THEN LINK TO THIS PAGE ***
In addition to trying to apply copyright to an algorithm, doesn't a restriction on copying defeat the purpose of releasing something under the GPL? Or does text in all caps trum previous text not in all caps? In fairness, that's something he didn't get (entirely) wrong. The attempt at GPL applies to the algorithm, the shouty restriction applies to the page describing the algorithm. They're not the same thing.
Perhaps you missed my suggestion that the Turing machine should only be able to output two ASCII characters, '1' and '0'. Sure, somebody could take that sequence and reencode it, but the reencoder would have to be installed outside the sandbox if the Turing machine is the only thing inside it. I suppose it might be possible to speak SCSI using just '1' and '0' (rather than 1 and 0), but it would be a crack worthy of a Turing award! And there is still the issue of peripherals using DMM.
I realise that the Turing machine was just an example, but my point is that on a TC almost anything needed in a university could happen just as well in a sandbox on a TC.
The point is that even under such extreme situation, that really complicates teaching, the tools for cracking are available anyway.I don't see anything that is complicating teaching. I have a postgraduate degree in computing and there was nothing -- nanti, zilch, nada -- on my course that needed or even was enhanced by the fact that it was on GPCs. Perhaps some doctoral research needs a GPC, but I doubt much of it does. And all but a small subset of that could be strongly quarantined
Don't take me for a fan of TC; I don't like the idea of losing the capabilities I have at present, but the academic argument for opposing it just doesn't seem to hold water.
... to the PS1 compatability that I have at the moment with my PS2? Will the PS3 play PS1 games?
But I suppose "tantalisingly close" isn't enough to prove prior art on Penrose's U.S. Patent 4133152.
If I recall correctly, the proof that Penrose tiling is aperiodic depends on projection of a line marked out in intervals representing an irrational number onto a line marked out in uniform intervals. According to Wikipedia (hey, this isn't an academic paper, so I can cite Wikipedia, right?) the first reference for irrational numbers was in the Indian Sulba Sutras composed between 800-500 BC, so the fundamental knowledge was available in plenty of time for these tilings. And because irrational numbers were arrived at geometrically I can imagine that the ancients could indeed have understood the math.
There's more information about the ancient tilings here, which shows that the Islamic tilings break down into five basic tiles, and that each of those five tiles can be broken down into Penrose tiles. So it looks as if they beat the first modern aperiodic tiling, Berger's initial one, which needed 20426 tiles, but didn't get as far as cutting it down to Penrose's two.
Can be erased and re-written?
That would be pencil, then.
Exactly what I plan to do at home, and what I expect from my present employer. But with my last employer, the suits who made the IT decisions didn't tend to ask what the computers were actually being used for, so I would likely have been stuck with using it and I'd have been getting the blame for failing performance. The user isn't always the person with the choice (not all users have the choice that I took, either, to move to a more enlightened employer).
"Commonsense security" would make a grand slogan. But in practice that would be the same stuff we get now, because the spin merchants would insist that whatever they're promoting is commonsense. "It's common sense to imprison everybody and have robots look after their basic needs; after all, if it saves one child..."
We don't live in a completely market economy, either in Europe or the USA (or anywhere else than I am aware of, for that matter). There is legislation restricting the operation of the market (anti-trust legislation, for example). Patent legislation was introduced for the specific purpose of spreading information about innovation (before it people had to keep how they did ideas secret if they wanted protect them).
The "European Model" works well for innovation; there's plenty of good innovation in Europe. The USA is arguably better at exploiting innovation because of a better venture capital environment -- I doubt it's due to a different patent environment.
Not an ISO standard. "Women attracted to male geeks" is fully covered by an RFC: RFC0026.
I think that's where we disagree; a Turing machine doesn't have to be able to do everything the computer can. Specifically it doesn't have to be able to access the full range of peripherals. A Turing machine emulation that could only handle ASCII representations of the program and only send ASCII representations of the 1's and 0's on the output to stdout would still be a Turing machine (we're both ignoring the requirement for infinite storage, of course), but would not be able to access memory-mapped devices and would need an astonishing fluke to be able to crack anything else with just those two characters (one could do anything with 1 and 0, but not with '1' and '0'!)
Ok, that Turing machine emulator would be a pretty rotten teaching tool for anything other than teaching Turing machines, but I think my argument shows that the Turing machine argument for needing a GPC doesn't hold.