It's not that everyone thinks it should be OK to videotape movies, it's that the law is completely unreasonable. First, it's been bought and paid for by Hollywood from day one with inconsistent and laughably bad data. Second, the laws are already in place to stop it, what these laws do is make the penalties completely unreasonable. $2 million for videotaping a movie? That's ridiculous. Third, the laws have proven to be completely useless everywhere else. Finally, the biggest source of piracy isn't camcorders in movie theaters, it's critics, industry insiders and Chinese workers.
Anyone who thinks this is about people bringing cameras into a theater is an idiot.
It's not that one specific browser should be used as the "correct" one, it's that when conventions have been used by Opera, Firefox and IE for years and they all agree that something should work, the standard should reflect that, no questions asked.
As much as I love standards, and I do, it makes it hard to deal with safari when every other browser works differently. In my opinion, if the standard works differently than 90% of the market, then maybe the standard needs to change.
Wow, what a beautiful rant; really, it didn't sound prepared at all.
What's annoying isn't that people think it's wrong, it's that people get modded "+5 Insightful" for making an off-topic, reactionary and crowd-pandering post on an article that's about government abuses much worse than what's happening with the US. What the US government is doing is bad, but it's not on the level of Darfur, so where's your outrage over the Sudanese government?
While we're at it, where's everyone's outrage over the complete lack of military reaction of Europe? Or do the same people who hate the US government seem to believe we can send diplomats to fix Sudan?
Assuming Europe is the same as here for availability, the number of Wii's sold is roughly equal to the number produced (since they get bought within hours of being put on the shelf). Is this true for Europe and can the same be said for the PS3?
Just writing down speculation on creating life should be enough, shouldn't it? I mean, it has to be non-obvious and the current test for that is whether or not they wrote it down at some point. How does the bible not destroy this patent, much less the ridiculous amount of speculation on being able to create life with biology. This patent's dead in the water unless their methodology gets around that.
My biggest concern is that they were forced to review the privacy policy first, which isn't realistic at all. Claiming real-world relevance requires the study be similar to real world circumstances.
I assure you if the TV station were called Debian or Ubuntu you would not have made that argument Of course I wouldn't have, because the EU hasn't exacted a lot of punitive action against Debian or Ubuntu lately and they aren't nearly as well known. My argument was that Vista is big and well known enough to leak outside of its applicable trademark area; of course I wouldn't make that argument with operating systems that have a market share less than 10% of Vista's.
I agree that presenting Vista as only being applicable to a software trademark isn't realistic. For example, if someone were to have registered the trademark "Coke" for use with a TV station, people would expect it to be affiliated with the gargantuan beast that is Coke. Vista is a gargantuan beast much like Coke and will influence everyone's perception of the word. It's big enough, in other words, to be applicable outside of software. Couple that with the dislike of Microsoft in EU courts, and this man's got a good case.
His argument that the requests would only be suspicious if the attacker is logged in misses some of the point. Let's say that Match.com usually gets 10 password requests per second, now they're suddenly getting an average of 15. That's a significant increase, so then they'll do some data mining or start requiring a Turing test. Also, his argument depends on not having to reuse any IP addresses, since the same IP address checking 3 email addresses that correspond to 3 unrelated accounts would be suspicious. I'm not saying that it's not harder to spot the attack when someone isn't logged in, but I am saying it's not impossible.
I disagree, the brain's regenerates, just differently. Rather than replacing what's been damaged (which it can still do to a much lesser extent), it changes the capabilities of other areas to compensate. That's why we can remove half of a persons brain, or sever the Corpus Callosum and still have the people function normally. If this technology works, it'll displace a small amount of functionality elsewhere, nothing more. If it doesn't work, it will have only ruined the lives of the people who were hungering and needing it the most until we're more sure of the side effects. While that's still not desirable, it does place the risk with the group that also gets the greatest benefit.
Come now, we all know that if Windows came bundled with what Apple machines come with, there would be more antitrust lawsuits. Whatever your opinion of their respective companies, the comparison isn't fair when Windows is legally restricted from bundline more.
The methods of "teleportation" that I've read get around Heisenburg's uncertainty principle in that it uses a third, unknown particle (in the case of the article, a photon) to transmit all the information between the particles. Since the particles don't break quantum states, it works, although we haven't been able to do it large scale yet.
The ansible communicated by means of two entangled particles. That is impossible by everything that we currently know.
The type of system they're talking about is where you use entangling to imprint the differences between two particles on a third one. They're fundamentally different and resemble neither the ansible nor star trek transporters.
Agreed. In addition, China's already shown a propensity for messing with the internet, so they could just institute national policies that directly link your activities with your name. I know it wouldn't be perfect and that you could get around it, but it would be a whole lot better than profiling by surfing habits.
The real places this could be used are in countries that have enough freedom to not be able to meddle at a base level, but that have or desire a high degree of surveillance on their citizens (Great Britain works with CCTV, the NSA probably already does it). Whether you should worry about it or not is another issue entirely...
We need to start actively throwing their algorithm off. If every one of us guys were to start visiting hellokitty.com and mypinkfluffybarbieplayingwithponies.com and all the women were to start reading slashdot, they wouldn't be able to tell us apart!
I agree that these people are ridiculous, but in part it's people like this that keep people in line. Knowing that even an innocent suggestion or law can be twisted to resemble the most sinister act from 1984, policy makers are more careful about what they say and do. The best way to keep things from crossing the line is to make sure that nobody can even come close to the line. So while I agree with you that people like those making this film are blowing things out of proportion, and while I personally don't agree with them, I do believe that what they do is important and healthy for society.
I also like them because people who purposely blow things out of proportion are the people that have no credibility with the public. They're preaching to the choir, not gaining any converts, so I'm okay with it.
Actually, the way that he distorts the truth and offers obviously one-sided arguments is what turns most of the people I know away from him. He's not waking up the sheep, he's pissing them off and making them less likely to listen to a similar message, but one that's presented in a way that they'll listen to. Just because "HE'S FAT" doesn't mean that's what people ignore him for.
Also, you yourself will never be effective at influencing people, because you're so fucking confrontational and arrogant that you think other people who think differently than you are actually "sheep." In actuality, a lot of very intelligent people support viewpoints that are different than yours because they're priorities and assumptions are different.
I know that I'm being a troll here, but I don't understand how an arrogant asshat like yourself, who believes so sincerely that you know better than everyone else, gets away with not having a troll label.
Slashdot Mirror
Could these changes foreshadow the 4th edition of D&D?
It's not that everyone thinks it should be OK to videotape movies, it's that the law is completely unreasonable. First, it's been bought and paid for by Hollywood from day one with inconsistent and laughably bad data. Second, the laws are already in place to stop it, what these laws do is make the penalties completely unreasonable. $2 million for videotaping a movie? That's ridiculous. Third, the laws have proven to be completely useless everywhere else. Finally, the biggest source of piracy isn't camcorders in movie theaters, it's critics, industry insiders and Chinese workers.
Anyone who thinks this is about people bringing cameras into a theater is an idiot.
It's not that one specific browser should be used as the "correct" one, it's that when conventions have been used by Opera, Firefox and IE for years and they all agree that something should work, the standard should reflect that, no questions asked.
As much as I love standards, and I do, it makes it hard to deal with safari when every other browser works differently. In my opinion, if the standard works differently than 90% of the market, then maybe the standard needs to change.
Wow, what a beautiful rant; really, it didn't sound prepared at all.
What's annoying isn't that people think it's wrong, it's that people get modded "+5 Insightful" for making an off-topic, reactionary and crowd-pandering post on an article that's about government abuses much worse than what's happening with the US. What the US government is doing is bad, but it's not on the level of Darfur, so where's your outrage over the Sudanese government?
While we're at it, where's everyone's outrage over the complete lack of military reaction of Europe? Or do the same people who hate the US government seem to believe we can send diplomats to fix Sudan?
Assuming Europe is the same as here for availability, the number of Wii's sold is roughly equal to the number produced (since they get bought within hours of being put on the shelf). Is this true for Europe and can the same be said for the PS3?
Just writing down speculation on creating life should be enough, shouldn't it? I mean, it has to be non-obvious and the current test for that is whether or not they wrote it down at some point. How does the bible not destroy this patent, much less the ridiculous amount of speculation on being able to create life with biology. This patent's dead in the water unless their methodology gets around that.
My biggest concern is that they were forced to review the privacy policy first, which isn't realistic at all. Claiming real-world relevance requires the study be similar to real world circumstances.
I agree that presenting Vista as only being applicable to a software trademark isn't realistic. For example, if someone were to have registered the trademark "Coke" for use with a TV station, people would expect it to be affiliated with the gargantuan beast that is Coke. Vista is a gargantuan beast much like Coke and will influence everyone's perception of the word. It's big enough, in other words, to be applicable outside of software. Couple that with the dislike of Microsoft in EU courts, and this man's got a good case.
His argument that the requests would only be suspicious if the attacker is logged in misses some of the point. Let's say that Match.com usually gets 10 password requests per second, now they're suddenly getting an average of 15. That's a significant increase, so then they'll do some data mining or start requiring a Turing test. Also, his argument depends on not having to reuse any IP addresses, since the same IP address checking 3 email addresses that correspond to 3 unrelated accounts would be suspicious. I'm not saying that it's not harder to spot the attack when someone isn't logged in, but I am saying it's not impossible.
I wonder if this is referring to the people who get your ip address off of their file sharing programs?
I do think that this should at least make the RIAA use legal and more robust techniques to win cases.
I disagree, the brain's regenerates, just differently. Rather than replacing what's been damaged (which it can still do to a much lesser extent), it changes the capabilities of other areas to compensate. That's why we can remove half of a persons brain, or sever the Corpus Callosum and still have the people function normally. If this technology works, it'll displace a small amount of functionality elsewhere, nothing more. If it doesn't work, it will have only ruined the lives of the people who were hungering and needing it the most until we're more sure of the side effects. While that's still not desirable, it does place the risk with the group that also gets the greatest benefit.
At least you're being accurate...
Come now, we all know that if Windows came bundled with what Apple machines come with, there would be more antitrust lawsuits. Whatever your opinion of their respective companies, the comparison isn't fair when Windows is legally restricted from bundline more.
"Other planets" referred to planets other than Earth, not other than Titan.
The methods of "teleportation" that I've read get around Heisenburg's uncertainty principle in that it uses a third, unknown particle (in the case of the article, a photon) to transmit all the information between the particles. Since the particles don't break quantum states, it works, although we haven't been able to do it large scale yet.
The ansible communicated by means of two entangled particles. That is impossible by everything that we currently know.
The type of system they're talking about is where you use entangling to imprint the differences between two particles on a third one. They're fundamentally different and resemble neither the ansible nor star trek transporters.
Not only is firefox a hog (as mentioned above), but caching will cause higher reported ram usage than is actually required/used.
Agreed. In addition, China's already shown a propensity for messing with the internet, so they could just institute national policies that directly link your activities with your name. I know it wouldn't be perfect and that you could get around it, but it would be a whole lot better than profiling by surfing habits.
The real places this could be used are in countries that have enough freedom to not be able to meddle at a base level, but that have or desire a high degree of surveillance on their citizens (Great Britain works with CCTV, the NSA probably already does it). Whether you should worry about it or not is another issue entirely...
We need to start actively throwing their algorithm off. If every one of us guys were to start visiting hellokitty.com and mypinkfluffybarbieplayingwithponies.com and all the women were to start reading slashdot, they wouldn't be able to tell us apart!
I agree that these people are ridiculous, but in part it's people like this that keep people in line. Knowing that even an innocent suggestion or law can be twisted to resemble the most sinister act from 1984, policy makers are more careful about what they say and do. The best way to keep things from crossing the line is to make sure that nobody can even come close to the line. So while I agree with you that people like those making this film are blowing things out of proportion, and while I personally don't agree with them, I do believe that what they do is important and healthy for society.
I also like them because people who purposely blow things out of proportion are the people that have no credibility with the public. They're preaching to the choir, not gaining any converts, so I'm okay with it.
Actually, the way that he distorts the truth and offers obviously one-sided arguments is what turns most of the people I know away from him. He's not waking up the sheep, he's pissing them off and making them less likely to listen to a similar message, but one that's presented in a way that they'll listen to. Just because "HE'S FAT" doesn't mean that's what people ignore him for.
Also, you yourself will never be effective at influencing people, because you're so fucking confrontational and arrogant that you think other people who think differently than you are actually "sheep." In actuality, a lot of very intelligent people support viewpoints that are different than yours because they're priorities and assumptions are different.
I know that I'm being a troll here, but I don't understand how an arrogant asshat like yourself, who believes so sincerely that you know better than everyone else, gets away with not having a troll label.