You should read all of 17 USC 602 (a) before jumping to conclusions about whether it's illegal to import videos.
If I'd been able to find the exact location of the appropriate sections of code, I would have. But I'm busy and have been having a bad google day, so I went from memory of past "import CD" problems.
I'm glad to hear of the statuatory exemption of one copy for personal use -- but I'm not sure that matters, ultimately, when someone like Mirimax can send out C&D letters and it ends up costing someone like a movie-review site $1000 in legal fees to clear up the mess.
Either that or you're already better versed in this than I. Either way, thanks for the cite.:)
However, I think I'm confused. It appears that this supreme court decision reverses my prior understanding -- that is, it seems like they upheld "First Sale" even for items sold overseas, and so allowed people to purchase cheaper goods elsewhere and re-sell them in the US, even at odds to local "exclusive distribution rights" owners.
Except for the fact that Miramax would not own the copyright, they would have licensed distribution rights.
In this case, they amount to the same thing.
I can't see why buying the DVD from overseas would be illegal at all.
That's because you're thinking like a consumer, and I heartily agree with you. It shouldn't be illegal. However, local copyright owners (or licensees) disagree, because for them it's not about whether or not the original copyright holder gets paid, it's about whether or not they make a profit at the end of the quarter. So it's in their best interests to deny imports of material over which they hold exclusive rights.
Is it legal? Yes (as far as I know). Is it right? Hell no. Can we fight it? Probably not, at least not until it starts to affect stuff people care about, and by the time it reaches that stage, there will be enough local (US) market that the US distributors will have released it already, rendering the point moot.
I think the biggest mainstream example of this in recent memory was the aforementioned Beanie Babie Import Fiasco. And if elderly ladies getting detained at the airport and having their half-dozen legally purchased beanie babies confiscated didn't create enough of an uproar to get congress to change these ridiculous laws, then I'm not sure what will.
Since when is it illegal to import a legal copy of a video from another country?
Since always, actually. It's quite annoying.
Remember how anal-retentive the folks who make "Beanie Babies" were a few years back? They were exercising their import-control rights so strongly that people buying legal, licensed beanies from abroad were having them seized at customs.
Essentially, if someone owns the copyright for a product in this country, they can restrict the importation of any copies of that product from abroad, even if that product was purchased legally (and for which they already received payment).
So, technically, I shouldn't be allowed to buy a copy of West Wing in the UK, even though WB gets a cut of the sale from their UK arm. (of course, now that they finally released it in the US, it doesn't matter).
This has been the case for years, but it's rarely strongly enforced. Personally, I'd love to see something like this go before the courts -- I can see (but don't agree with) companies having an interest in (and rights to) regulate the wholesale importation of goods, but for individual purchases, they should go away.
As for this particular story (which I haven't read yet), if the movies in question were available for legal sale elsewhere, there shouldn't be anything wrong with having a link on the site, even on a US-hosted site for US-based audiences, just because the web's a global medium and they could argue the link was a service for overseas readers.
And if you're in the left lane and get rear ended, it's YOUR fault. You shouldn't have been there.
No, legally, at least in all the states I've lived in, it's the fault of the person who hit you. I believe the correct term is "Following too close to avoid a collision." It's also called "tailgating."
If people are passing you on the right, you're breaking the law. You must move to the right except to pass.
Is it? Really? Where? Not around Washington, DC. We have all 3- and 4-lane highways here, and every lane is in constant use, none of this "clear the lane after you pass" bullshit. In fact, I'm reasonably sure it's not required in Virginia, 'cause some ticked-off state legislator tried (and failed) to pass a law a few years to require the left lane be used only for passing.
If you change lanes without signalling ahead of time, you're breaking the law and endangering people. If you slow to 45 to take an exit without a signal on, you should get hit, then given a ticket. You are a hazard on the road.
Lane-change w/out signalling, yes, usually illegal and dangerous. But again, you shouldn't get hit -- if you're driving so close to someone that you do end up running into them 'cause they do something stupid, then you were travelling too close. Your fault, I don't care how stupid the idiot in front of you was.
The fact is, if there's a speed limit, that's the speed limit. You can drive that limit anywhere you like, even in the far left lane (except of course where there are laws requiring that lane for passing only). You want to speed? Fine, I don't care. But I'm not required (legally, morally, or ethically) to move aside to let you.
If anyone can cite me an actual ordinance, viewable online, that shows otherwise, I'd love to see it. 'cause nobody's ever been able to. (again, the handful of states that do have "left lane for passing only" laws don't count, and I cheerfully concede the need to move right (and, if necessary, run your hazard lights) when below the speed limit. I'm interested in seeing proof of a law that says I have to move aside for someone who wants to speed past me, when I'm already at the limit and otherwise driving properly.)
Think this doesn't make sense? Then imagine what would happen to the first person who gets a ticket for driving the limit while others behind him want to drive faster. If that's upheld, it pretty much throws speed limits out the window, doesn't it?
I guess what really bothered me about the post (and hundreds of other statements like it I hear all the time) is that you're most likely *not* an expert on driving laws in all 50 states. Don't say that you *must* move to the right except to pass, because that's not an accurate statement. There's no way in hell you can know that this is an accurate statement. It may be true in some places, but not in all.
(I'm just striving for more a more precise discussion, that's all.:) )
Specially-formulated repair compound developed after three-years of intense R&D by a fully-funded two-way competition between contractors: $6,450,000/oz.
Look on the project manager's face when the losing company buys the winner outright: priceless
I don't know why dollar signs arent drawn properly
What makes you think that they aren't drawn properly? I'm looking at an image of the $100 US Platinum coin, and though it's hard to see, it appears to me that it only has one vertical bar.
I'd say that usage on actual US money validates the use of the 1-bar $, wouldn't you?:)
And to top that off, I have a bicentenial $2 bill that looks nothing like the other $2 bills out there.
Huh? They redesigned the $2 bill in 1976, with the "bicentennial reverse" (the painting of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence), but it's been the same ever since. They don't print many (they printed a bunch in the mid 70's and a bunch more in the 90's). The only other reverse I've seen was Monticello, and that was last printed in the 60's (and might have been a US note, not a Federal Reserve note, I think).
Then there are those mysterious bills that say "sliver certificate". How the hell are we ever supposed to know what is money and what isn't?
You know by how good they look, how real they feel, how well done the printing is, etc.
The fun part -- those "Silver Certificates" are still real money. You can buy stuff with them, just as easily as with today's money. But you'd be a fool to do so, and you'd probably have a LOT of trouble getting someone to take it.
not only did Congress approve this, but 50 million Americans did, too.
Tell that to Gore.:)
Come to think of it, what does it say that 105 million Americans voted in the last election, but 50 million households (representing, presumably, in the neighborhood of 100 million voting-age americans) registered for the DNC list?
"The Island of the Day Before" does some weird, meta-writing stuff that I found beautiful.
I was never able to finish Island. Maybe I'll put that back in my queue (I still have it, just couldn't slog through it).
Baudolino (English translation released last fall) was pretty good -- not as spooky as Foccult or Rose, but loaded with some crazy myths and a fun look at the medieval (Damn, I hate trying to spell that word!) "Here There Be Dragons" sort of culture of exploration.
I saw Eco give a lecture at the University of Maryland some (10? Geez!) years back, about the origins of language, I think. I don't remember much of the lecture itself (save for a great quote about French being the perfect language, because in comparison, "German is too guttural, Italian too soft, Spanish too redundant, English too obscure." Search for "english too obscure" for a later PDF of the lecture topic).
Anyway, it was an interesting lecture, and I've really loved Eco's unrelentingly unique style of writing. So maybe it is time to re-try Island...
Re:It's a ridiculously contrived plot device,
on
Quicksilver
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The idea of two generations of the same families coincidentally bumping into each other after 50 years totally ruined Cryptonomicon..... Of the 6 billion or so people alive on the Earth today, representing 1.25 billion families, how often could something like that happen? Totally improbable given the small numbers involved.
I disagree. You're forgetting the most important rule of coincidences -- context.
If the Shaftoes and Waterhouses crossed paths by running into each other at an airport bar, when one both were travelling to different places, and they struck up a friendship, yeah, that'd be a crazy coincidence.
But in this case, you had Avi selecting Manilla harbor for very specific reasons, and then Waterhouse running into Douglass MacArthur Shaftoe working in that very harbor, doing exactly the kind of work they needed. That's not as crazy, especially since the work DM Shaftoe was doing was very much in character for himself and his family, and his choosing to do the work in Manilla was reasonable, given his family history there.
That is, it was inevitable that they'd run into each other.
If DM Shaftoe had decided to go into investment banking, though, and Avi pulled his firm's name out of a hat, and coincidentally ended up with Shaftoe as his firm's stock manager, then that'd be harder to accept.
No, of course not, and likewise, Apple, as a music publisher, is under no requirement to aid in the sale of your personal goods, whether they be books, furniture, or even music - that's the point, your goods, not theirs.
Except that they sold me something that I can't transfer to someone else, because it's tied to my computer / account. So they haven't entirely "washed their hands" of me, have they? In fact, they're still actively involved, in perpetuity, in my use of that file, through the system of authorizing computers to listen to it. No, a book publisher doesn't need to come to my house to facilitate the sale of a used book, but they also didn't print the book in such a way as to prevent it from leaving my house.
If I've purchased something, I should be able to sell / give it to someone else. Apples DRM prevents this. The question, to me, is whether that's legal - and whether I must surrender the right to re-sell under a EULA (click-through enforceability aside).
There's no legal requirement for Apple to get into in the loop, and even though "it's all software," there's no reason that they'd charge less than a buck a song for the resale. Hence, the whole thing is moot.
But I think that was part of the point of the exercise -- to see how far your rights, as an iTunes music buyer, go. If it's determined that people have a right to resell the songs, and that Apple is illegally restricting that right by not providing a mechanism to support resale, then they might be compelled to provide just such a mechanism. So there might be a "legal requirement for Apple to get into the loop," but we don't know at this stage.
Put another way -- does Apple have the right to, unilaterally, remove the right to re-sell something, granted under the First Sale doctrine? If they do, then, yes, it's all moot. If they do not, then they should be required to modify the system to support that right.
This has implications far beyond just iTunes -- if the DIVXX (or however it was spelled -- the aborted Circuit City rent-to-own DVD format) had taken off, then a similar test might have been forced when people tried to sell their used DVDs. Or think perhaps of activation codes and computer software -- if someone ships you a CD-ROM with an activation code tied to your computer, but you never use the software, do you have the right to resell it? Can the software manufacturer be required to provide a new activation code for the new buyer?
I'm just sayin', the technical hurdles shouldn't be anywhere near as insurmountable as some have said, and the legal questions are still unanswered.
And you think that this can be carried out for less than 99 cents? Please...... Add to that the fact that you put your credit card info at risk in the transfer process....
Sure, why not? Once the code's there, there's no need for human intervention at all -- it's all software.
And why would my credit card be at risk? I connect to Apple, using my own iTunes app, and de-authorize all computers for the file I sold. The guy I sold it to gives me his account number, but no password or credit card info (so *his* credit card isn't at risk, either), I tell Apple's server to replace my account ID with the buyer's, then I send the modified file to the buyer, who then authorizes it to his own computers. I've still got a copy, but I can't play it, since the account ID doesn't match mine any longer, so the only thing I can do is delete it.
Apple comes out looking like they (a) understand copyright restrictions and took that into account already, and (b) still don't want to be the RIAA and crack down on this sort of thing.
But this could be an opportuntiy to prove, once-and-for-all, to the RIAA and MPAA, that DRM can be used in a way that is acceptable to them.
Assuming that Apple keeps a database of all the computers authorized for a given copy of a song, have all those computers relinquish control of the song, so the DB shows all blanks. Then send the account number of the person who bought the song, along with your own account and the song file's ID, and now the DB changes who owns your copy of the song to the other person. Subsequent attempts to re-authorize your own copy will fail, since the database no longer recognizes that your account has rights to that copy.
They might even have designed their DRM system to allow for lending, perhaps allowing one of the three "slots" to be occupied by a timestamped 3rd party's computer, maybe with restrictions on burning to CD.
The only thing that RIAA would have a problem with would be the selling of used songs, but since that's not likely to happen very frequently, except in bulk transactions (as someone suggested in the last discussion, for example, when someone sells off their whole collection to make some emergency cash).
I really don't see what the technical problem is, unless they didn't design this into the system in the first place, in which case, they may end up being compelled to support it. Because, ultimately, that's what this test was all about in the first place.
I used to support a three-letter-agency (I still can't bring myself to say it out loud:) ), and we were 100% NeXTSTEP on the desktop.
It was fantastic -- trivial to administer, and every machine was configured such that absolutely no user-specific data or configuration information was stored on the local desktop. You could log in to your officemate's computer, another one down the hall, or clear across the country, and everything was exactly as if you were at your own desk (though cross-country use was a little slow at times). This is something I've never seen done with Windows.
It also made changing out hardware in case of failure a no-brainer -- grab a spare slab out of the closet on your way to the person's office, power down, swap units, power up, leave. 15 minutes, tops.
Just about all the users loved the system, too (imagine! Secretaries, using UNIX!:) ), but they all wanted Microsoft Office on it -- that was the main reason they finally dropped NeXT for Windows (well, that, plus NeXT pretty much closing up shop to remake apple).
Anyway, if the MacOS X boxes are anywhere near as reliable and easy to manage as NeXT was, then I'd really hope that Apple starts to push the enterprise angle stronger....
Well the courts MAY take that argument... although legally, they shouldn't.
Rights are rights, and rights and limitations granted by accepting agreements should stick.
Yes, but have you really agreed to the EULA when you click "I Agree"? Legally, that's untested.
I think we'd all agree that you can't put a EULA on the screen with the words "If you blink in the next 30 seconds, you affirm acceptance of the follwing terms and conditions." Right? So why is "by clicking, you agree" considered legally binding?
I have yet to see a single, documented, upheld court decision asserting that these click-throughs are really legally binding. Admitedly, the UCITA laws change it a little, but then it changes from someone challenging EULAs to someone challenging EULAs as allowed by UCITA.
If ignorance of law is no defense of violation of law.. how can ignorance of contract be any defense at all?
True, but the ambiguous point of click-through licenses is that you've not really signed any contract, especially in cases like this, where they ask you to accept something you haven't seen (and which they've failed to provide you). If you close your eyes and just hit keys randomly until the EULA screen goes away, can you legally be held responsible for whatever may have been "agreed to" without your knowledge or consent?
For starters, the double slit experiment, to see the neat effects of single electron interference, must be done in a vacuum. The electorns must not be influenced by anything else at all, like air/gas molecules. Also, it must be done at temperatures near absolute zero, where the thermal bath of the environment doesn't wash out the quantum effect you are talking about...
Ermm...
I'm not talking about electrons, but photons. Yes, you probably want to do it in an environment without any interference, but if it's sealed in a chip package, that'll be pretty close to a dark vacuum.
But even in normal, everyday conditions, it can work with very few of the measures you suggest. I've seen it demonstrated in a physics lecture hall -- certainly not a vacuum or at absolute zero.
Unless, of course, you're a troll, in which case, ding, you got me. Jerk.:)
I've always wondered if the double-slit experiment, in a particle mode, would be a good way to generate random numbers.
The phenomena (for those unfamilar with it) is putting two closely-spaced slits in a piece of paper and then shining a light through it. You end up with a spreading fringe of light and dark patterns, as the light waves coming through the slits interfere with each other.
Where it gets spooky is when you drop the light source down to where it emits photons one at a time -- they *still* interfere with each other, even though there aren't any other photons present at any given point to interfere with.
Anyway, I seem to recall that the place where each photon ends up is random. So why not put a low-power, stream-of-single-photons light source on one side of the double-slit, and a pair of sensors on the other side? Label one sensor "0" and the other "1" and interpret the strings as binary numbers. Convert (and optionally send them through a bit blender) and you're done.
I'd think this could be manufactured in a small chip-like package, and made a standard motherboard component.
Has anyone investigated this approach? If so, I'd be curious to hear what their results were (and if it turns out not to be as random as one would like).
No. The cellophane (which is placed on half the screen) isn't a polariser, it's a half-wave plate. That means it rotates the polarisation of any light passing through it by 90 degrees.
In effect, they're making the left half of the screen emit light with horizontal polarisation, and the right half with vertical polarisation (or vice versa).
Aha!
Interesting. Thanks, that helps a little. So, then, we're back to how easy it is for the brain to fuse two peripheral images (or one primary and one really-peripheral image), or whether the blocking of the "phantom" images will make it easier for the subject to naturally relax his eyes into a crossed orientation.
Of course, now that I think about it, they're still wearing glasses? We were to understand there'd be no glasses?
So, again, you could do this w/no cellophane whatsoever just by crossing your eyes, or, alternately, by putting the images on the "proper" halves of the screen (left eye on left side, right on right), and viewing with a little divider running from the middle of the screen back to your nose. A very high-tech Stereoptican, in effect.
No, because your right eye is wearing a polarizer that blacks out the right half of the screen and lets it see only the left half. See figure 3.
Yes, that's true, but your right eye isn't focused on (isn't pointing at) the left side of the screen -- it's looking where your left eye is, that is, at the right half of the screen, toed in to be where your brain knows the screen is.
So the only way this could work is if you focus your eyes at the center of the screen, and then maybe, your brain will fuse the images into one. Or you'll relax and eventually your eyes will automatically cross to do the fusing for you.
All this does, as another poster pointed out, is to help to hide the "phantom" images that you'd see, and potentially be confused by, when crossing your eyes. But when looking at one or the other image, the other one will always be a peripheral image, unless you cross your eyes to really focus on that side of the screen.
In practice, what you'll probably see with this is an image that sort of shimmers half clear and half black, and a near-duplicate of the image just to the side (perhaps one one side, perhaps on the other). I'll bet that actually fusing the images, in practice, will be difficult and not all that natural. They didn't have any photographs of people actually using their proposed apparatus, so I'm wondering if they didn't just come up with a cool idea, and write a paper about it, without actually testing it.
All questions of image fusing aside, as I also pointed out, I have a hard time believing that the cellophane wouldn't just turn half your screen black.
Okay, I just had to respond to this. I've been a long-time semi-dabbler in stereophotography, and naturally anything 3-D related on/. just jumps right out at me (sorry about the pun). This article, while organized in a scholarly-looking fashion, really doesn't present anything new whatsoever. In fact, if I'm reading it correctly, you can achieve exactly the same results with no cellophane at all!
They talk a lot about cellophane having natural polarizing characteristics (I'd never heard that, but okay). Then they talk about how laptops have polarizers built into them -- sure, I've known that ever since the glasses for Starchaser: Legend of Orin made my digital watch look funky. Where their article breaks down is in the actual application of polarizing technology on the laptop.
They suggest putting the right eye's image on the left half of the screen, and the left eye's image on the right, then using polarizing filters to ensure that each eye only sees what's appropriate for it. Great. No problem. Except that there is one problem -- when your left eye is looking at the right half of the screen, your right eye is looking there, too!!
In order for your brain to properly "fuse" the images together, your eyes will have to perform some tiresome calisthenics -- that is, your left eye is going to have to turn slightly right, to face the right half of the screen, while your right eyes turns slightly left. Basically, you're crossing your eyes.
If you're just going to cross your eyes anyway, drop all the cumbersome cellophane goggles and overlays and crap, and simply look at two images side by side.
Also, I'm not convinced that placing a polarizer over half the screen wouldn't just turn that half of the screen totally black (as shown in figure 2 of the paper).
The challenge for 3-D image display isn't blocking the "wrong" images from each eye, it's blocking the wrong images when they're displayed in the same space -- overlaid in a single frame. For that, you need colors (anaglyphic glasses), or polarizing filters (again, though, both images displayed in the same space), or lcd shutters (multiplexing the images in time, rather than in color or polarization). Or you can use a lenticular screen, that bends the images left or right and draws them in a series of interlaced vertical stripes.
But not what they're suggesting here. It all seems pretty useless to me.
[obCaveat: "Unless I'm missing the point entirely."]
The more ridiculously-researched "good faith" letters like this go out, the better defense people will have when they simply throw them in the trash.
I don't recall the specifics about how the DMCA requires ISPs to investigate / respond to this kind of crap, but I think any sane judge would agree that it wasn't Congress' intent to force ISPs to spend all sorts of manpower (and, thus, $$) investigating every stupid letter that comes forth.
So bring it on! We need MORE lawyers sending out MORE useless crap so that ISPs can be justified in ignoring all of them, even the ones that actually are well-researched.
Slashdot Mirror
You should read all of 17 USC 602 (a) before jumping to conclusions about whether it's illegal to import videos.
If I'd been able to find the exact location of the appropriate sections of code, I would have. But I'm busy and have been having a bad google day, so I went from memory of past "import CD" problems.
I'm glad to hear of the statuatory exemption of one copy for personal use -- but I'm not sure that matters, ultimately, when someone like Mirimax can send out C&D letters and it ends up costing someone like a movie-review site $1000 in legal fees to clear up the mess.
Your google-fu is much stronger than mine.
:)
Either that or you're already better versed in this than I. Either way, thanks for the cite.
However, I think I'm confused. It appears that this supreme court decision reverses my prior understanding -- that is, it seems like they upheld "First Sale" even for items sold overseas, and so allowed people to purchase cheaper goods elsewhere and re-sell them in the US, even at odds to local "exclusive distribution rights" owners.
Or is my legal-fu as bad as my google-fu?
Except for the fact that Miramax would not own the copyright, they would have licensed distribution rights.
In this case, they amount to the same thing.
I can't see why buying the DVD from overseas would be illegal at all.
That's because you're thinking like a consumer, and I heartily agree with you. It shouldn't be illegal. However, local copyright owners (or licensees) disagree, because for them it's not about whether or not the original copyright holder gets paid, it's about whether or not they make a profit at the end of the quarter. So it's in their best interests to deny imports of material over which they hold exclusive rights.
Is it legal? Yes (as far as I know). Is it right? Hell no. Can we fight it? Probably not, at least not until it starts to affect stuff people care about, and by the time it reaches that stage, there will be enough local (US) market that the US distributors will have released it already, rendering the point moot.
I think the biggest mainstream example of this in recent memory was the aforementioned Beanie Babie Import Fiasco. And if elderly ladies getting detained at the airport and having their half-dozen legally purchased beanie babies confiscated didn't create enough of an uproar to get congress to change these ridiculous laws, then I'm not sure what will.
Since when is it illegal to import a legal copy of a video from another country?
Since always, actually. It's quite annoying.
Remember how anal-retentive the folks who make "Beanie Babies" were a few years back? They were exercising their import-control rights so strongly that people buying legal, licensed beanies from abroad were having them seized at customs.
Essentially, if someone owns the copyright for a product in this country, they can restrict the importation of any copies of that product from abroad, even if that product was purchased legally (and for which they already received payment).
So, technically, I shouldn't be allowed to buy a copy of West Wing in the UK, even though WB gets a cut of the sale from their UK arm. (of course, now that they finally released it in the US, it doesn't matter).
This has been the case for years, but it's rarely strongly enforced. Personally, I'd love to see something like this go before the courts -- I can see (but don't agree with) companies having an interest in (and rights to) regulate the wholesale importation of goods, but for individual purchases, they should go away.
As for this particular story (which I haven't read yet), if the movies in question were available for legal sale elsewhere, there shouldn't be anything wrong with having a link on the site, even on a US-hosted site for US-based audiences, just because the web's a global medium and they could argue the link was a service for overseas readers.
I'm sorry, I just can't let this go uncommented.
:) )
And if you're in the left lane and get rear ended, it's YOUR fault. You shouldn't have been there.
No, legally, at least in all the states I've lived in, it's the fault of the person who hit you. I believe the correct term is "Following too close to avoid a collision." It's also called "tailgating."
If people are passing you on the right, you're breaking the law. You must move to the right except to pass.
Is it? Really? Where? Not around Washington, DC. We have all 3- and 4-lane highways here, and every lane is in constant use, none of this "clear the lane after you pass" bullshit. In fact, I'm reasonably sure it's not required in Virginia, 'cause some ticked-off state legislator tried (and failed) to pass a law a few years to require the left lane be used only for passing.
If you change lanes without signalling ahead of time, you're breaking the law and endangering people. If you slow to 45 to take an exit without a signal on, you should get hit, then given a ticket. You are a hazard on the road.
Lane-change w/out signalling, yes, usually illegal and dangerous. But again, you shouldn't get hit -- if you're driving so close to someone that you do end up running into them 'cause they do something stupid, then you were travelling too close. Your fault, I don't care how stupid the idiot in front of you was.
The fact is, if there's a speed limit, that's the speed limit. You can drive that limit anywhere you like, even in the far left lane (except of course where there are laws requiring that lane for passing only). You want to speed? Fine, I don't care. But I'm not required (legally, morally, or ethically) to move aside to let you.
If anyone can cite me an actual ordinance, viewable online, that shows otherwise, I'd love to see it. 'cause nobody's ever been able to. (again, the handful of states that do have "left lane for passing only" laws don't count, and I cheerfully concede the need to move right (and, if necessary, run your hazard lights) when below the speed limit. I'm interested in seeing proof of a law that says I have to move aside for someone who wants to speed past me, when I'm already at the limit and otherwise driving properly.)
Think this doesn't make sense? Then imagine what would happen to the first person who gets a ticket for driving the limit while others behind him want to drive faster. If that's upheld, it pretty much throws speed limits out the window, doesn't it?
I guess what really bothered me about the post (and hundreds of other statements like it I hear all the time) is that you're most likely *not* an expert on driving laws in all 50 states. Don't say that you *must* move to the right except to pass, because that's not an accurate statement. There's no way in hell you can know that this is an accurate statement. It may be true in some places, but not in all.
(I'm just striving for more a more precise discussion, that's all.
It is typically used to signify the end of a mathematical (or other) proof.
I've always prefered W^5. ("Which Was What We Wanted")
Magnets? Rubber bands?
Whatever happened to the "Pros," the "New Guys," and the "Elected Ones"?
I don't know why dollar signs arent drawn properly
:)
What makes you think that they aren't drawn properly? I'm looking at an image of the $100 US Platinum coin, and though it's hard to see, it appears to me that it only has one vertical bar.
I'd say that usage on actual US money validates the use of the 1-bar $, wouldn't you?
And to top that off, I have a bicentenial $2 bill that looks nothing like the other $2 bills out there.
Huh? They redesigned the $2 bill in 1976, with the "bicentennial reverse" (the painting of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence), but it's been the same ever since. They don't print many (they printed a bunch in the mid 70's and a bunch more in the 90's). The only other reverse I've seen was Monticello, and that was last printed in the 60's (and might have been a US note, not a Federal Reserve note, I think).
Then there are those mysterious bills that say "sliver certificate". How the hell are we ever supposed to know what is money and what isn't?
You know by how good they look, how real they feel, how well done the printing is, etc.
The fun part -- those "Silver Certificates" are still real money. You can buy stuff with them, just as easily as with today's money. But you'd be a fool to do so, and you'd probably have a LOT of trouble getting someone to take it.
not only did Congress approve this, but 50 million Americans did, too.
:)
Tell that to Gore.
Come to think of it, what does it say that 105 million Americans voted in the last election, but 50 million households (representing, presumably, in the neighborhood of 100 million voting-age americans) registered for the DNC list?
"The Island of the Day Before" does some weird, meta-writing stuff that I found beautiful.
I was never able to finish Island. Maybe I'll put that back in my queue (I still have it, just couldn't slog through it).
Baudolino (English translation released last fall) was pretty good -- not as spooky as Foccult or Rose, but loaded with some crazy myths and a fun look at the medieval (Damn, I hate trying to spell that word!) "Here There Be Dragons" sort of culture of exploration.
I saw Eco give a lecture at the University of Maryland some (10? Geez!) years back, about the origins of language, I think. I don't remember much of the lecture itself (save for a great quote about French being the perfect language, because in comparison, "German is too guttural, Italian too soft, Spanish too redundant, English too obscure." Search for "english too obscure" for a later PDF of the lecture topic).
Anyway, it was an interesting lecture, and I've really loved Eco's unrelentingly unique style of writing. So maybe it is time to re-try Island...
The idea of two generations of the same families coincidentally bumping into each other after 50 years totally ruined Cryptonomicon. .... Of the 6 billion or so people alive on the Earth today, representing 1.25 billion families, how often could something like that happen? Totally improbable given the small numbers involved.
I disagree. You're forgetting the most important rule of coincidences -- context.
If the Shaftoes and Waterhouses crossed paths by running into each other at an airport bar, when one both were travelling to different places, and they struck up a friendship, yeah, that'd be a crazy coincidence.
But in this case, you had Avi selecting Manilla harbor for very specific reasons, and then Waterhouse running into Douglass MacArthur Shaftoe working in that very harbor, doing exactly the kind of work they needed. That's not as crazy, especially since the work DM Shaftoe was doing was very much in character for himself and his family, and his choosing to do the work in Manilla was reasonable, given his family history there.
That is, it was inevitable that they'd run into each other.
If DM Shaftoe had decided to go into investment banking, though, and Avi pulled his firm's name out of a hat, and coincidentally ended up with Shaftoe as his firm's stock manager, then that'd be harder to accept.
No, of course not, and likewise, Apple, as a music publisher, is under no requirement to aid in the sale of your personal goods, whether they be books, furniture, or even music - that's the point, your goods, not theirs.
Except that they sold me something that I can't transfer to someone else, because it's tied to my computer / account. So they haven't entirely "washed their hands" of me, have they? In fact, they're still actively involved, in perpetuity, in my use of that file, through the system of authorizing computers to listen to it. No, a book publisher doesn't need to come to my house to facilitate the sale of a used book, but they also didn't print the book in such a way as to prevent it from leaving my house.
If I've purchased something, I should be able to sell / give it to someone else. Apples DRM prevents this. The question, to me, is whether that's legal - and whether I must surrender the right to re-sell under a EULA (click-through enforceability aside).
There's no legal requirement for Apple to get into in the loop, and even though "it's all software," there's no reason that they'd charge less than a buck a song for the resale. Hence, the whole thing is moot.
But I think that was part of the point of the exercise -- to see how far your rights, as an iTunes music buyer, go. If it's determined that people have a right to resell the songs, and that Apple is illegally restricting that right by not providing a mechanism to support resale, then they might be compelled to provide just such a mechanism. So there might be a "legal requirement for Apple to get into the loop," but we don't know at this stage.
Put another way -- does Apple have the right to, unilaterally, remove the right to re-sell something, granted under the First Sale doctrine? If they do, then, yes, it's all moot. If they do not, then they should be required to modify the system to support that right.
This has implications far beyond just iTunes -- if the DIVXX (or however it was spelled -- the aborted Circuit City rent-to-own DVD format) had taken off, then a similar test might have been forced when people tried to sell their used DVDs. Or think perhaps of activation codes and computer software -- if someone ships you a CD-ROM with an activation code tied to your computer, but you never use the software, do you have the right to resell it? Can the software manufacturer be required to provide a new activation code for the new buyer?
I'm just sayin', the technical hurdles shouldn't be anywhere near as insurmountable as some have said, and the legal questions are still unanswered.
Sure, why not? Once the code's there, there's no need for human intervention at all -- it's all software.
And why would my credit card be at risk? I connect to Apple, using my own iTunes app, and de-authorize all computers for the file I sold. The guy I sold it to gives me his account number, but no password or credit card info (so *his* credit card isn't at risk, either), I tell Apple's server to replace my account ID with the buyer's, then I send the modified file to the buyer, who then authorizes it to his own computers. I've still got a copy, but I can't play it, since the account ID doesn't match mine any longer, so the only thing I can do is delete it.
No muss, no fuss.
In pseudo-code:
Did I miss anything?
Apple comes out looking like they (a) understand copyright restrictions and took that into account already, and (b) still don't want to be the RIAA and crack down on this sort of thing.
But this could be an opportuntiy to prove, once-and-for-all, to the RIAA and MPAA, that DRM can be used in a way that is acceptable to them.
Assuming that Apple keeps a database of all the computers authorized for a given copy of a song, have all those computers relinquish control of the song, so the DB shows all blanks. Then send the account number of the person who bought the song, along with your own account and the song file's ID, and now the DB changes who owns your copy of the song to the other person. Subsequent attempts to re-authorize your own copy will fail, since the database no longer recognizes that your account has rights to that copy.
They might even have designed their DRM system to allow for lending, perhaps allowing one of the three "slots" to be occupied by a timestamped 3rd party's computer, maybe with restrictions on burning to CD.
The only thing that RIAA would have a problem with would be the selling of used songs, but since that's not likely to happen very frequently, except in bulk transactions (as someone suggested in the last discussion, for example, when someone sells off their whole collection to make some emergency cash).
I really don't see what the technical problem is, unless they didn't design this into the system in the first place, in which case, they may end up being compelled to support it. Because, ultimately, that's what this test was all about in the first place.
I used to support a three-letter-agency (I still can't bring myself to say it out loud :) ), and we were 100% NeXTSTEP on the desktop.
:) ), but they all wanted Microsoft Office on it -- that was the main reason they finally dropped NeXT for Windows (well, that, plus NeXT pretty much closing up shop to remake apple).
It was fantastic -- trivial to administer, and every machine was configured such that absolutely no user-specific data or configuration information was stored on the local desktop. You could log in to your officemate's computer, another one down the hall, or clear across the country, and everything was exactly as if you were at your own desk (though cross-country use was a little slow at times). This is something I've never seen done with Windows.
It also made changing out hardware in case of failure a no-brainer -- grab a spare slab out of the closet on your way to the person's office, power down, swap units, power up, leave. 15 minutes, tops.
Just about all the users loved the system, too (imagine! Secretaries, using UNIX!
Anyway, if the MacOS X boxes are anywhere near as reliable and easy to manage as NeXT was, then I'd really hope that Apple starts to push the enterprise angle stronger....
Well the courts MAY take that argument... although legally, they shouldn't.
Rights are rights, and rights and limitations granted by accepting agreements should stick.
Yes, but have you really agreed to the EULA when you click "I Agree"? Legally, that's untested.
I think we'd all agree that you can't put a EULA on the screen with the words "If you blink in the next 30 seconds, you affirm acceptance of the follwing terms and conditions." Right? So why is "by clicking, you agree" considered legally binding?
I have yet to see a single, documented, upheld court decision asserting that these click-throughs are really legally binding. Admitedly, the UCITA laws change it a little, but then it changes from someone challenging EULAs to someone challenging EULAs as allowed by UCITA.
If ignorance of law is no defense of violation of law.. how can ignorance of contract be any defense at all?
True, but the ambiguous point of click-through licenses is that you've not really signed any contract, especially in cases like this, where they ask you to accept something you haven't seen (and which they've failed to provide you). If you close your eyes and just hit keys randomly until the EULA screen goes away, can you legally be held responsible for whatever may have been "agreed to" without your knowledge or consent?
For starters, the double slit experiment, to see the neat effects of single electron interference, must be done in a vacuum. The electorns must not be influenced by anything else at all, like air/gas molecules. Also, it must be done at temperatures near absolute zero, where the thermal bath of the environment doesn't wash out the quantum effect you are talking about...
:)
Ermm...
I'm not talking about electrons, but photons. Yes, you probably want to do it in an environment without any interference, but if it's sealed in a chip package, that'll be pretty close to a dark vacuum.
But even in normal, everyday conditions, it can work with very few of the measures you suggest. I've seen it demonstrated in a physics lecture hall -- certainly not a vacuum or at absolute zero.
Unless, of course, you're a troll, in which case, ding, you got me. Jerk.
I've always wondered if the double-slit experiment, in a particle mode, would be a good way to generate random numbers.
The phenomena (for those unfamilar with it) is putting two closely-spaced slits in a piece of paper and then shining a light through it. You end up with a spreading fringe of light and dark patterns, as the light waves coming through the slits interfere with each other.
Where it gets spooky is when you drop the light source down to where it emits photons one at a time -- they *still* interfere with each other, even though there aren't any other photons present at any given point to interfere with.
Anyway, I seem to recall that the place where each photon ends up is random. So why not put a low-power, stream-of-single-photons light source on one side of the double-slit, and a pair of sensors on the other side? Label one sensor "0" and the other "1" and interpret the strings as binary numbers. Convert (and optionally send them through a bit blender) and you're done.
I'd think this could be manufactured in a small chip-like package, and made a standard motherboard component.
Has anyone investigated this approach? If so, I'd be curious to hear what their results were (and if it turns out not to be as random as one would like).
No. The cellophane (which is placed on half the screen) isn't a polariser, it's a half-wave plate. That means it rotates the polarisation of any light passing through it by 90 degrees.
In effect, they're making the left half of the screen emit light with horizontal polarisation, and the right half with vertical polarisation (or vice versa).
Aha!
Interesting. Thanks, that helps a little. So, then, we're back to how easy it is for the brain to fuse two peripheral images (or one primary and one really-peripheral image), or whether the blocking of the "phantom" images will make it easier for the subject to naturally relax his eyes into a crossed orientation.
Of course, now that I think about it, they're still wearing glasses? We were to understand there'd be no glasses?
So, again, you could do this w/no cellophane whatsoever just by crossing your eyes, or, alternately, by putting the images on the "proper" halves of the screen (left eye on left side, right on right), and viewing with a little divider running from the middle of the screen back to your nose. A very high-tech Stereoptican, in effect.
No, because your right eye is wearing a polarizer that blacks out the right half of the screen and lets it see only the left half. See figure 3.
Yes, that's true, but your right eye isn't focused on (isn't pointing at) the left side of the screen -- it's looking where your left eye is, that is, at the right half of the screen, toed in to be where your brain knows the screen is.
So the only way this could work is if you focus your eyes at the center of the screen, and then maybe, your brain will fuse the images into one. Or you'll relax and eventually your eyes will automatically cross to do the fusing for you.
All this does, as another poster pointed out, is to help to hide the "phantom" images that you'd see, and potentially be confused by, when crossing your eyes. But when looking at one or the other image, the other one will always be a peripheral image, unless you cross your eyes to really focus on that side of the screen.
In practice, what you'll probably see with this is an image that sort of shimmers half clear and half black, and a near-duplicate of the image just to the side (perhaps one one side, perhaps on the other). I'll bet that actually fusing the images, in practice, will be difficult and not all that natural. They didn't have any photographs of people actually using their proposed apparatus, so I'm wondering if they didn't just come up with a cool idea, and write a paper about it, without actually testing it.
All questions of image fusing aside, as I also pointed out, I have a hard time believing that the cellophane wouldn't just turn half your screen black.
Okay, I just had to respond to this. I've been a long-time semi-dabbler in stereophotography, and naturally anything 3-D related on /. just jumps right out at me (sorry about the pun). This article, while organized in a scholarly-looking fashion, really doesn't present anything new whatsoever. In fact, if I'm reading it correctly, you can achieve exactly the same results with no cellophane at all!
They talk a lot about cellophane having natural polarizing characteristics (I'd never heard that, but okay). Then they talk about how laptops have polarizers built into them -- sure, I've known that ever since the glasses for Starchaser: Legend of Orin made my digital watch look funky. Where their article breaks down is in the actual application of polarizing technology on the laptop.
They suggest putting the right eye's image on the left half of the screen, and the left eye's image on the right, then using polarizing filters to ensure that each eye only sees what's appropriate for it. Great. No problem. Except that there is one problem -- when your left eye is looking at the right half of the screen, your right eye is looking there, too!!
In order for your brain to properly "fuse" the images together, your eyes will have to perform some tiresome calisthenics -- that is, your left eye is going to have to turn slightly right, to face the right half of the screen, while your right eyes turns slightly left. Basically, you're crossing your eyes.
If you're just going to cross your eyes anyway, drop all the cumbersome cellophane goggles and overlays and crap, and simply look at two images side by side.
Also, I'm not convinced that placing a polarizer over half the screen wouldn't just turn that half of the screen totally black (as shown in figure 2 of the paper).
The challenge for 3-D image display isn't blocking the "wrong" images from each eye, it's blocking the wrong images when they're displayed in the same space -- overlaid in a single frame. For that, you need colors (anaglyphic glasses), or polarizing filters (again, though, both images displayed in the same space), or lcd shutters (multiplexing the images in time, rather than in color or polarization). Or you can use a lenticular screen, that bends the images left or right and draws them in a series of interlaced vertical stripes.
But not what they're suggesting here. It all seems pretty useless to me.
[obCaveat: "Unless I'm missing the point entirely."]
The more ridiculously-researched "good faith" letters like this go out, the better defense people will have when they simply throw them in the trash.
I don't recall the specifics about how the DMCA requires ISPs to investigate / respond to this kind of crap, but I think any sane judge would agree that it wasn't Congress' intent to force ISPs to spend all sorts of manpower (and, thus, $$) investigating every stupid letter that comes forth.
So bring it on! We need MORE lawyers sending out MORE useless crap so that ISPs can be justified in ignoring all of them, even the ones that actually are well-researched.
(or something like that)