By the same logic of one being able to blame the internet provider for not blocking the traffic, can one who legitimately uses bittorrent or similar p2p service sue an ISP for blocking their network traffic and their customers subsequently being unable to access what they paid for? Some good examples include Linux distributions (bittorrent), some of Microsoft's updating system (partially p2p) and Blizzard's World of Warcraft downloaders and updater's (partially p2p) Will ISPs be able to tell the difference between bittorrent traffic and non-bittorrent p2p traffic? If not, will companies that could potentially lose thousands of dollars a year in both problems in distribution, forced to increase server capacity, and millions of customer support questions, claims, returns and lost sales? As bittorrent becomes increasingly popular for legitimate purposes, will the big ones step in? If so, could someone create a p2p server not based on bittorrent, mostly that could seed from existing bittorrent servers from areas where it is allowed?
What happened to the other 30,000 cases? If they didn't go to court, I assume they accepted the charges? If *the* 29,999 suspected "pirates" were never charged, then why is anyone making a fuss about it?
As some of the comments below have partially mentioned, it's not necessarily out of cowardice, fear, or "apprentice versus master". It's much more of the fact that if they sue the school at which many of their top future lawyers are taught, they will not have many top future lawyers in the future. If a college student going to school for law, and is considering specializing in intellectual property rights, and he is sued by the RIAA, guilty or not, do you think he will further his specialization in protecting corporations' property or protecting individuals rights? Do you think he will ever work for someone that just charged him $6000 per song and probably ruined his career? Do you think he'll ever make it out of college with those kind of debts?
I'm not sure if Freenet has any copyrighted works on it being distributed illegally, but the RIAA, MPAA, and MAFIAA can basically sue you on the sole premise that the files are available on your computer, meaning your IP address, which would be most easily accessible by the tracker. I would suggest the Electronic Frontier Foundation's guide http://www.eff.org/wp/how-not-get-sued-file-sharing/. Although a better method, perhaps, is to become politically immune by moving to Canada or Europe, but don't take that as legal advice, I'm not sure if that actually works. Probably better to consider the legal consequences now, and not later, considering the cost increases six thousand fold.
So now not only will I be cooked on medium high for 10 seconds, but all my electronic devices will stop working, perhaps permanently. Technology isn't free you know.
I'd much prefer it not to be on the hard drive at all - rather - 2-4gb of flash memory. However, internal USB ports are rarely used anymore and flash memory is probably considered too expensive to include it on the chip. Although sometimes I will (temporarily) map Photoshop or GIMP's swap file to a flash drive.
Perhaps the supposed rationale[1] is that it's not regulated the same way that in-state gambling is. But then by that token, online shopping should be banned, too. Rhetorical Elaboration: it is "not possible" (according to the state) to tax it in the same way as state gambling. Less state income + Casinos generate less taxable income + Casinos' "additional offerings" (i.e., bribe) = politicians criminalize source entity (i.e., Online Gambling).
Most people don't see "Shopping" as a bad thing and therefore would never rationalize banning Online shopping just because out-of-state online sales can often avoid sales tax. However, most people see "Gambling" as a bad thing, even if they gamble themselves--quite possibly the only exception being casino owners; therefore, it would be easy for one to rationalize banning a certain form of Gambling, perhaps masquerading under the guise of working towards the greater good -- in this case, the eventual banning of gambling, as it is a "sinful" activity.
The reason gambling and cigarettes aren't banned is because they generate huge sums of tax dollars, ironically, most of which goes into helping "victims" of gambling and cigarette addiction (including those indirectly victimized, i.e., violent crimes related to gambling), and the related (and not-so-related) psychological, social, and medical support systems.
Decide for yourself
Number of results of significant achievements in mankind and/or tools of politics and power (partially assembled from replies) in terms of results on Google:
some results are for comparison purposes only!
penis - 47,500,000
pen - 135,000,000
Tsar Bomba + RDS-220 111,000 + 10,200
printing press 72,600,000
aqueduct 2,650,000
sewer - 27,900,000
road - 711,000,000
internet - 1,580,000,000 (actually beats Google's 1,560,000,000)
langauge - 1,700,000
demoncracy - 78,100,000
paper - 566,000,000
light bulb - 4,910,000
computer - 940,000,000
LED - 340,000,000
love - 1,190,000,000
problem - 719,000,000
relationship - 398,000,000
terrorism - 58,000,000
Since the audio on vinyl can't be compressed to such extremes, records generally offer a more nuanced sound. Another reason for vinyl's sonic superiority is that no matter how high a sampling rate is, it can never contain all of the data present in an analog groove, Nyquist's theorem to the contrary."
Conversely, how much does an analog groove contain? How accurate is it? How often and how much is it modified by relatively uncontrollable factors such as air pressure, dust, pollutants, temperature, and the quality of the music itself when it is played for the master copy (i.e., without digital editing they must do it perfectly and no one can be perfect)? (These factors I assume would not necessarily be "uncontrollable" but expensive to control.)
In support for Nyquist theorem, the smallest unit of time that is currently accepted by scientists as possible is a planck time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time/), so everything could essentially be digitized merely because of the fact that both time and matter have certain defined minima at which or above which, and only at which or above which, they can exist. Therefore, in extrapolation, it shouldn't be too hard to make something well beyond human's limits today or in the near future.
However, the only way to empirically test this considering today's limits to technology would be to actually test it with real people, both of them blindfolded, and they both listen to DVD-quality audio and Vinyl-quality audio via the same speaker system a few times in a random order, with the order changing for each group of people. The listeners will first hear a notification on which test it is (e.g., 1, 2, 3), and then they are to record which tests sounded better on paper with pencil.
It works in Firefox 2 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.8) Gecko/20071008 Firefox/2.0.0.8)
Probably, one or more of these applies:
-Either browser needs to be updated
-You don't have DivX installed
-The DivX site doesn't like Macs or Linux (if you are using one)
If you are using a Mac, it exemplifies the fact that the World Wide Web isn't the all compatible network of documents that it was meant to be.
Consider military aircraft that uses relatively conventional jet engines and fuel, such as kerosene. The B-52H, for instance, has a service ceiling of 65,000ft. Isooctane and the other constituents in aircraft fuel require oxygen to burn. Isooctane + Oxygen -> Water + Carbondioxide (and not to mention various hydrocarbons because the fuel is not 100% isooctane and the reaction isn't perfect). The water comes out in the exhaust, just like in Hydrogen engines, as water vapor, which can form a jet contrail--but let's not get into that.
Request Timeout.
Request Timeout.
Request Timeout.
Request Timeout.
100% loss.
That's basically the effect of postponing. You don't *need* to postpone it indefinitely, you can delay it until it times out... and send bogus data to everyone that fails in the checksum so it looks like they aren't actually modifying your transmission speed.
I don't agree with the mentality of the cellphone market in general (or the domain name market), but, honestly, can you name another phone sold in the US that has the equivalent of a Desktop operating system, multi-touch screen, iTunes, memory card AND 4gb storage (I think it has a memory card), and internet access? Can you name a phone that actually displays webpages like the iPhone does--in which websites have their versions for iPhone compatibility?
Some people like it simple. Most users of the Internet aren't heavy users, so therefore most people don't bother with technical stuff. In terms of their taste for browsing the internet, they like it simple. I deleted my rant about Microsoft security and compatibly before I submitted the comment, but perhaps it is best to have more security than necessary. Most people aren't smart enough to defend themselves against viruses, spyware, and identity theft, and therefore Vista has a valid point: don't let the user have a choice whether to defend themselves or not. Statistically, only 15% of internet users are "heavy users".
I had to stop reading the article. It doesn't agree with Slashdot's tone. The article here makes it seem that Microsoft is threatening to sue Linux users for patent infringement, while the aritcle at BetaNews sounds like simple Mutual agreement so that networks are more compatible. Quite frankly I can't understand how you can sue a user of an operating system for patent infringement. Were Microsoft users sued when Microsoft was sued on the premises of anti-trust laws? Did Overture sue advertisers on Google and the people that clicked on them, let alone Google's users? Did Geico sue people that clicked on sponsored links other than the ones to the Official Geico site? No. They sued the company the made the application.
I have enough trouble configuring my network correctly with Comcast, six computers, three wireless (one B, two G), two Mac with non-Intel processor, and a Motorola router with Vonage and Wireless-B/G. You run into an impossible number of problems with Apache and FileZilla FTP Server when you try to configure them on the network (cough, routers fault). While I choose not to read it because it's the information is too conflicting, anything to improve network compatibility is good news, especially if the money goes to the developers of systems who's network compatibility is neglected.
FACT: neither the article part of the Slashdot page contains the word "laptop", nor does any of the arstechnica.com page contain such. I'm honestly not sure where you're coming from with this; however, control+F happens to fail when the author's of a document do not actually use the terms you searched for (laptop and portable).
Desktops are not exactly hard to steal. If he looked like he's supposed to be "moving" the computer, and if he didn't look nervous, he might have done it almost effortlessly. Not to mention the little cart things with the plastic covers that you see in the movies that they do have at office-like places, some of which are already carrying neglected, obsolete computer equipment, so even if the curtains were only partially covering the equipment, it would blend in. If you've ever been to the DMV in the Northeast or otherwise, all their equipment is dirty with black grime, obsolete, and slow. They only seem to upgrade it when it fails. This may save money in terms of equipment but certainly not in terms of man hours when you're paying for operators to essentially wait an hour each time the computer has to load and then just relay you the information. It seems like everything else in this world is advanced enough to not require a paid operator, except the stuff that the state has to pay for.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose if there are kilotons and megatons you could measure it in megagrams and gigagrams. But then again who wants to use TNT anymore?
By the same logic of one being able to blame the internet provider for not blocking the traffic, can one who legitimately uses bittorrent or similar p2p service sue an ISP for blocking their network traffic and their customers subsequently being unable to access what they paid for? Some good examples include Linux distributions (bittorrent), some of Microsoft's updating system (partially p2p) and Blizzard's World of Warcraft downloaders and updater's (partially p2p) Will ISPs be able to tell the difference between bittorrent traffic and non-bittorrent p2p traffic? If not, will companies that could potentially lose thousands of dollars a year in both problems in distribution, forced to increase server capacity, and millions of customer support questions, claims, returns and lost sales? As bittorrent becomes increasingly popular for legitimate purposes, will the big ones step in? If so, could someone create a p2p server not based on bittorrent, mostly that could seed from existing bittorrent servers from areas where it is allowed?
He was so agonized by the exploding battery that he got smashed in a giant piece of equipment. *roll eyes*
What happened to the other 30,000 cases? If they didn't go to court, I assume they accepted the charges? If *the* 29,999 suspected "pirates" were never charged, then why is anyone making a fuss about it?
I may have been over simplifying, but, regardless of what may or may not be legal, this is what happens when you take it to court: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/05/riaa_wins_first_music_sharing_jury_trial/
As some of the comments below have partially mentioned, it's not necessarily out of cowardice, fear, or "apprentice versus master". It's much more of the fact that if they sue the school at which many of their top future lawyers are taught, they will not have many top future lawyers in the future. If a college student going to school for law, and is considering specializing in intellectual property rights, and he is sued by the RIAA, guilty or not, do you think he will further his specialization in protecting corporations' property or protecting individuals rights? Do you think he will ever work for someone that just charged him $6000 per song and probably ruined his career? Do you think he'll ever make it out of college with those kind of debts?
I'm not sure if Freenet has any copyrighted works on it being distributed illegally, but the RIAA, MPAA, and MAFIAA can basically sue you on the sole premise that the files are available on your computer, meaning your IP address, which would be most easily accessible by the tracker. I would suggest the Electronic Frontier Foundation's guide http://www.eff.org/wp/how-not-get-sued-file-sharing/. Although a better method, perhaps, is to become politically immune by moving to Canada or Europe, but don't take that as legal advice, I'm not sure if that actually works. Probably better to consider the legal consequences now, and not later, considering the cost increases six thousand fold.
So now not only will I be cooked on medium high for 10 seconds, but all my electronic devices will stop working, perhaps permanently. Technology isn't free you know.
They're talking about transfers via the *internet*, on college campuses, correct? I couldn't imagine the RIAA being effective over College intranets.
I'd much prefer it not to be on the hard drive at all - rather - 2-4gb of flash memory. However, internal USB ports are rarely used anymore and flash memory is probably considered too expensive to include it on the chip. Although sometimes I will (temporarily) map Photoshop or GIMP's swap file to a flash drive.
You should try to ask nicely first. (i.e., an admin or something)
Decide for yourself Number of results of significant achievements in mankind and/or tools of politics and power (partially assembled from replies) in terms of results on Google: some results are for comparison purposes only! penis - 47,500,000 pen - 135,000,000 Tsar Bomba + RDS-220 111,000 + 10,200 printing press 72,600,000 aqueduct 2,650,000 sewer - 27,900,000 road - 711,000,000 internet - 1,580,000,000 (actually beats Google's 1,560,000,000) langauge - 1,700,000 demoncracy - 78,100,000 paper - 566,000,000 light bulb - 4,910,000 computer - 940,000,000 LED - 340,000,000 love - 1,190,000,000 problem - 719,000,000 relationship - 398,000,000 terrorism - 58,000,000
Conversely, how much does an analog groove contain? How accurate is it? How often and how much is it modified by relatively uncontrollable factors such as air pressure, dust, pollutants, temperature, and the quality of the music itself when it is played for the master copy (i.e., without digital editing they must do it perfectly and no one can be perfect)? (These factors I assume would not necessarily be "uncontrollable" but expensive to control.) In support for Nyquist theorem, the smallest unit of time that is currently accepted by scientists as possible is a planck time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time/), so everything could essentially be digitized merely because of the fact that both time and matter have certain defined minima at which or above which, and only at which or above which, they can exist. Therefore, in extrapolation, it shouldn't be too hard to make something well beyond human's limits today or in the near future.
However, the only way to empirically test this considering today's limits to technology would be to actually test it with real people, both of them blindfolded, and they both listen to DVD-quality audio and Vinyl-quality audio via the same speaker system a few times in a random order, with the order changing for each group of people. The listeners will first hear a notification on which test it is (e.g., 1, 2, 3), and then they are to record which tests sounded better on paper with pencil.
It works in Firefox 2 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.8) Gecko/20071008 Firefox/2.0.0.8) Probably, one or more of these applies: -Either browser needs to be updated -You don't have DivX installed -The DivX site doesn't like Macs or Linux (if you are using one) If you are using a Mac, it exemplifies the fact that the World Wide Web isn't the all compatible network of documents that it was meant to be.
Consider military aircraft that uses relatively conventional jet engines and fuel, such as kerosene. The B-52H, for instance, has a service ceiling of 65,000ft. Isooctane and the other constituents in aircraft fuel require oxygen to burn. Isooctane + Oxygen -> Water + Carbondioxide (and not to mention various hydrocarbons because the fuel is not 100% isooctane and the reaction isn't perfect). The water comes out in the exhaust, just like in Hydrogen engines, as water vapor, which can form a jet contrail--but let's not get into that.
Request Timeout. Request Timeout. Request Timeout. Request Timeout. 100% loss. That's basically the effect of postponing. You don't *need* to postpone it indefinitely, you can delay it until it times out... and send bogus data to everyone that fails in the checksum so it looks like they aren't actually modifying your transmission speed.
It only works if you install Vista backwards. In other word's, uninstall it.
I don't agree with the mentality of the cellphone market in general (or the domain name market), but, honestly, can you name another phone sold in the US that has the equivalent of a Desktop operating system, multi-touch screen, iTunes, memory card AND 4gb storage (I think it has a memory card), and internet access? Can you name a phone that actually displays webpages like the iPhone does--in which websites have their versions for iPhone compatibility?
Some people like it simple. Most users of the Internet aren't heavy users, so therefore most people don't bother with technical stuff. In terms of their taste for browsing the internet, they like it simple. I deleted my rant about Microsoft security and compatibly before I submitted the comment, but perhaps it is best to have more security than necessary. Most people aren't smart enough to defend themselves against viruses, spyware, and identity theft, and therefore Vista has a valid point: don't let the user have a choice whether to defend themselves or not. Statistically, only 15% of internet users are "heavy users".
I had to stop reading the article. It doesn't agree with Slashdot's tone. The article here makes it seem that Microsoft is threatening to sue Linux users for patent infringement, while the aritcle at BetaNews sounds like simple Mutual agreement so that networks are more compatible. Quite frankly I can't understand how you can sue a user of an operating system for patent infringement. Were Microsoft users sued when Microsoft was sued on the premises of anti-trust laws? Did Overture sue advertisers on Google and the people that clicked on them, let alone Google's users? Did Geico sue people that clicked on sponsored links other than the ones to the Official Geico site? No. They sued the company the made the application. I have enough trouble configuring my network correctly with Comcast, six computers, three wireless (one B, two G), two Mac with non-Intel processor, and a Motorola router with Vonage and Wireless-B/G. You run into an impossible number of problems with Apache and FileZilla FTP Server when you try to configure them on the network (cough, routers fault). While I choose not to read it because it's the information is too conflicting, anything to improve network compatibility is good news, especially if the money goes to the developers of systems who's network compatibility is neglected.
FACT: neither the article part of the Slashdot page contains the word "laptop", nor does any of the arstechnica.com page contain such. I'm honestly not sure where you're coming from with this; however, control+F happens to fail when the author's of a document do not actually use the terms you searched for (laptop and portable). Desktops are not exactly hard to steal. If he looked like he's supposed to be "moving" the computer, and if he didn't look nervous, he might have done it almost effortlessly. Not to mention the little cart things with the plastic covers that you see in the movies that they do have at office-like places, some of which are already carrying neglected, obsolete computer equipment, so even if the curtains were only partially covering the equipment, it would blend in. If you've ever been to the DMV in the Northeast or otherwise, all their equipment is dirty with black grime, obsolete, and slow. They only seem to upgrade it when it fails. This may save money in terms of equipment but certainly not in terms of man hours when you're paying for operators to essentially wait an hour each time the computer has to load and then just relay you the information. It seems like everything else in this world is advanced enough to not require a paid operator, except the stuff that the state has to pay for.
Yes but worse for public relations.
http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-05/NLW -DEW.htm
LRAD should work, although it would have to be aided by real soldiers to capture it's prisoners.