Encryption can fail if the government makes it illegal or establishes a way of forcing the populace to give the passwords during an investigation. Such investigation could start simply by monitoring your bandwidth usage and comparing it to that of someone who only sends mails and browses for porn from time to time.
However, there should be ways of making the such a monitoring useless. For example, a worm could be done that connects to torrent sites and download movies to random folders in your computer. The worm could accept suggestions about how to search in such a way as to make it impossible to discern if the movie it downloaded was the "infected" user's choice or simply a random popular choice.
With a portion of the population not willing to patch or kill the worm, the propagation would be brutally fast (taking into account which part of the internet population would be voluntary victims).
You'd have to hunt down the unwillingly downloaded Harry Potter latest movie or britanity spear latest... whatever she does now. However, bandwidth speed is growing fast and multimedia size is more or less constant.
Now I'm sure this attack will be useless before it reaches my country.
I suppose it will be through encryption but it's not important. We all know this is not going to stop anything, just bother some British people for a short while.
Fortunately they keep applying those attacks to civilized countries first, so they become obsolete before reaching the people who lives in countries who wouldn't be able to respond so fast.
Much more correct, precise and better explained than me. Would you mind giving examples of:
- A criminal law that categorically forbids something that is universal and unavoidable. - A civil law that creates a private cause of action. - A law that is unclear as to what it prohibits. - A law which give express discretion to the trial judge. - A law which limit the ability of a certain decisions to be appealed, either through express limits on which appeals may be heard or by posing procedural hurdles in terms of standards of review or prerequisites for review.
I'd try filling some of those, but I'd probably fail.
If I'm a judge (or anyone with power of decision) and find a law (or rule) that forbids something everybody does, I'll do everything in my hand to keep that law alive, as it gives me power.
Car analogy:
I place ridiculously low speed limits around the city. Then I instruct all the traffic police not to enforce them unless surpassed by 50% or more. There's an exception, if they find someone that seems suspect for any reason, they can apply the law strictly, to the ridiculously low value.
Everybody agrees the limit is ridiculous, but, as the immense majority are never fined, they don't care and they ignores the limit.
Result? Instant power to the police.
The same strategy can be applied in a multitude of cases to give power to whoever decides when a rule or law applies.
Ambiguity is not a mistake is a power generating tactic.
To avoid concentrating all the data management in a single entity, we need a national benchmarking committee for each country and then international elections to get a chief of benchmarking interrelationships or CBI.
To avoid the possible corruption of the CBI, we would need an independent international supervision committee for the review of benchmarking standards.
The IISCRBS would review the actions of the CBI yearly and produce a thorough report.
That report (which would be called the IISCRBS-CBI report) would be the main reference to start any kind of productive debate about who has the leetest rack and who's a lame n00b.
Even using current calculations of pi, this would give a diameter of ~171.887 inches, vs the 172 inches calculated from the text. How would you describe that using cubits and handbreadths?
If I were a god?
I'd change the average hand length of my monkeys to fit my arbitrary description.
Everybody knows that pi = 3. It's in the Bible, after all.
Does any idiotic thing get modded up as long as it blasts Christianity? Nowhere in the Bible does it talk about the principles of Euclidian geometry.
"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." -- First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26
The joke's on them! They're using my method of debunking bogus patents by research into prior art! If only that guy hadn't patented blackmailing someone who is debunking bogus patents by brandishing your own patent for debunking bogus patents, I'd be rich!:( My client is the guy who patented blackmailing someone who is debunking bogus patents by brandishing your own patent for debunking bogus patents or, as we call it, BSWIDBPBBYOPFDBP.
I have to inform you that our product name in both it's long and short versions is a trademark. We require to immediately Cease and desist from using our product's long name without reference to the short name and the patent holder (ThatGuyYouHate inc.).
Thank you.
P.S.: We also hold rights over the song "BSWIDBPBBYOPFDBP" interpreted by TheSameGuy, so please inform us if you did read this post in loud voice.
The minimum speed that I am guaranteed to get. The maximum speed I will get under optimal conditions. The percentage of the time I can expect to be within n% of the maximum speed. The maximum amount of downtime allowed before I am compensated. The maximum transfer I am allowed per month and the cost per GB of going over. The problem is they're not competing for you as a customer, but for people who don't really understand what they are buying.
ISP A: - Minimum speed: 1MBs/5MBs. - Time over certain speed: 99% time over 5MBs-25MBs. 90% time over 5MBs-50MBs - Max non-compensated downtime: 4 hours. - Transfer limit: 1GB. - Cost for extra transfer: 0.05$/GB.
ISP B: - Minimum speed: 1MBs/5MBs. - Time over certain speed: 90% time over 5MBs-25MBs. 5% time over 5MBs-50MBs - Max non-compensated downtime: A month. - Transfer limit: 1Gb. - Cost for extra transfer: 5$/Gb.
ISP C: Supermegaoffer!! 50MB MAX connection! Sign up now! Don't put up with the slow ISPs!
Final customer cover result would probably end up like: A: 25% B: 15% C: 60%
My first thought upon reading the article (yes, the title and the mandatory one more line) was "Big brother requires you to update your genital identification card yearly. When did you submit your last color picture?".
And there it is, in less than twenty posts my thread becomes obsolete before it's conception.
Every time I read news about "piracy", the "pirates" are "stealing" 90% of the money!
Now I wonder:
A - Is it 90% of the 10% left from the previous "pirate" operation? So, after three or four captures, it becomes clear they are actually selling legally less than 1/100 of a single copy.
B - Are the "pirates" stealing copies from other "pirates" and repitating them? So, 10% of the copies would be legally sold and 90% would reach the final clients after being "pirated" about twenty times.
Forget entitlement From then on, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I've donated work, even small works on demand (which is my actual source of income). I've paid for free work. In one case I took a considerable effort to track the person whose work saved me months of mine.
My hope is that one day everyone who works generating information (I don't care if it's composers or programmers) will be able to get paid directly from the consumer and that law will go against anyone who tries to get into the breach and suck benefits from both.
Last time I checked a song wouldn't cost you 1,000,000$. In fact it wouldn't even cost you 1$. A cop doesn't cost you 100$/day.
So what's your point? That the same song is getting sold to other people too? How is that any of your business? It's him who started the "I deserve money" argument, I'm simply arguing against it's sense.
What people "deserve" is what the market is willing to pay them. Ok. Following you reasoning: I'm not willing to pay him for his music, so he doesn't deserve my money.
If you can get people to pay you 1,000,000$ for a day's work, any kind of work, then that is what you "deserve". Following your reasoning: If he can't get me to pay for his music, then 0$ is what he deserves.
Any other way of measuring what people "deserve" doesn't fit into the economic system we all live by. ...And little by little you're starting to understand what everyone else already understood. Selling instances of a series of bits doesn't fit into the economic system we all live by.
Demanding musicians to somehow live by a whole other set of rules is unreasonable and won't work. Excuse me but who is demanding musicians anything at all?
Slashdot Mirror
Now, if we only had some means of reaching it...
The speed of light is a barrier like few the humanity has ever found.
Encryption can fail if the government makes it illegal or establishes a way of forcing the populace to give the passwords during an investigation. Such investigation could start simply by monitoring your bandwidth usage and comparing it to that of someone who only sends mails and browses for porn from time to time.
However, there should be ways of making the such a monitoring useless. For example, a worm could be done that connects to torrent sites and download movies to random folders in your computer. The worm could accept suggestions about how to search in such a way as to make it impossible to discern if the movie it downloaded was the "infected" user's choice or simply a random popular choice.
With a portion of the population not willing to patch or kill the worm, the propagation would be brutally fast (taking into account which part of the internet population would be voluntary victims).
You'd have to hunt down the unwillingly downloaded Harry Potter latest movie or britanity spear latest... whatever she does now. However, bandwidth speed is growing fast and multimedia size is more or less constant.
The cake is a spy!
We assume a spherical frictionless cake...
Pure coincidence, but now I can almost see Bill Gates cast as Muhammad Ali.
The Man. The Legend. The Vista.
Now I'm sure this attack will be useless before it reaches my country.
I suppose it will be through encryption but it's not important. We all know this is not going to stop anything, just bother some British people for a short while.
Fortunately they keep applying those attacks to civilized countries first, so they become obsolete before reaching the people who lives in countries who wouldn't be able to respond so fast.
"The Dakota Project"
"A one-man effort to provide all Windows XP SP2 updates on one downloadable CD."
With:
Bruce Willis as The Architect
Jennifer Lopez as Dakota
Will Smith as Bill Gates
Much more correct, precise and better explained than me. Would you mind giving examples of:
- A criminal law that categorically forbids something that is universal and unavoidable.
- A civil law that creates a private cause of action.
- A law that is unclear as to what it prohibits.
- A law which give express discretion to the trial judge.
- A law which limit the ability of a certain decisions to be appealed, either through express limits on which appeals may be heard or by posing procedural hurdles in terms of standards of review or prerequisites for review.
I'd try filling some of those, but I'd probably fail.
If I'm a judge (or anyone with power of decision) and find a law (or rule) that forbids something everybody does, I'll do everything in my hand to keep that law alive, as it gives me power.
Car analogy:
I place ridiculously low speed limits around the city. Then I instruct all the traffic police not to enforce them unless surpassed by 50% or more. There's an exception, if they find someone that seems suspect for any reason, they can apply the law strictly, to the ridiculously low value.
Everybody agrees the limit is ridiculous, but, as the immense majority are never fined, they don't care and they ignores the limit.
Result? Instant power to the police.
The same strategy can be applied in a multitude of cases to give power to whoever decides when a rule or law applies.
Ambiguity is not a mistake is a power generating tactic.
...And an international benchmarking committee.
To avoid concentrating all the data management in a single entity, we need a national benchmarking committee for each country and then international elections to get a chief of benchmarking interrelationships or CBI.
To avoid the possible corruption of the CBI, we would need an independent international supervision committee for the review of benchmarking standards.
The IISCRBS would review the actions of the CBI yearly and produce a thorough report.
That report (which would be called the IISCRBS-CBI report) would be the main reference to start any kind of productive debate about who has the leetest rack and who's a lame n00b.
If I were a god?
I'd change the average hand length of my monkeys to fit my arbitrary description.
Does any idiotic thing get modded up as long as it blasts Christianity? Nowhere in the Bible does it talk about the principles of Euclidian geometry.
"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." -- First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26...Or even at http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=434088&cid=22220790, if you're really, really interested in actually reading the discussion.
I have to inform you that our product name in both it's long and short versions is a trademark. We require to immediately Cease and desist from using our product's long name without reference to the short name and the patent holder (ThatGuyYouHate inc.).
Thank you.
P.S.: We also hold rights over the song "BSWIDBPBBYOPFDBP" interpreted by TheSameGuy, so please inform us if you did read this post in loud voice.
Dumb[ (nt) ] -> would have been offtopic.
Dumb[Stupid...] -> is redundant in and on itself.
Patent granters should pay for damage done by granting frivolous patents.
Further discussion about that, here.
The maximum speed I will get under optimal conditions.
The percentage of the time I can expect to be within n% of the maximum speed.
The maximum amount of downtime allowed before I am compensated.
The maximum transfer I am allowed per month and the cost per GB of going over. The problem is they're not competing for you as a customer, but for people who don't really understand what they are buying.
ISP A:
- Minimum speed: 1MBs/5MBs.
- Time over certain speed: 99% time over 5MBs-25MBs. 90% time over 5MBs-50MBs
- Max non-compensated downtime: 4 hours.
- Transfer limit: 1GB.
- Cost for extra transfer: 0.05$/GB.
ISP B:
- Minimum speed: 1MBs/5MBs.
- Time over certain speed: 90% time over 5MBs-25MBs. 5% time over 5MBs-50MBs
- Max non-compensated downtime: A month.
- Transfer limit: 1Gb.
- Cost for extra transfer: 5$/Gb.
ISP C:
Supermegaoffer!! 50MB MAX connection!
Sign up now! Don't put up with the slow ISPs!
Final customer cover result would probably end up like:
A: 25%
B: 15%
C: 60%
Oh, the wonderful minds of slashdot.
My first thought upon reading the article (yes, the title and the mandatory one more line) was "Big brother requires you to update your genital identification card yearly. When did you submit your last color picture?".
And there it is, in less than twenty posts my thread becomes obsolete before it's conception.
Every time I read news about "piracy", the "pirates" are "stealing" 90% of the money!
Now I wonder:
A - Is it 90% of the 10% left from the previous "pirate" operation?
So, after three or four captures, it becomes clear they are actually selling legally less than 1/100 of a single copy.
B - Are the "pirates" stealing copies from other "pirates" and repitating them?
So, 10% of the copies would be legally sold and 90% would reach the final clients after being "pirated" about twenty times.
Best car analogy to RIAA ever.
No conversation about the RIAA shall leave it uncompared to a car.
I've donated work, even small works on demand (which is my actual source of income). I've paid for free work. In one case I took a considerable effort to track the person whose work saved me months of mine.
My hope is that one day everyone who works generating information (I don't care if it's composers or programmers) will be able to get paid directly from the consumer and that law will go against anyone who tries to get into the breach and suck benefits from both.
A cop doesn't cost you 100$/day. So what's your point? That the same song is getting sold to other people too? How is that any of your business?
It's him who started the "I deserve money" argument, I'm simply arguing against it's sense. What people "deserve" is what the market is willing to pay them. Ok. Following you reasoning: I'm not willing to pay him for his music, so he doesn't deserve my money. If you can get people to pay you 1,000,000$ for a day's work, any kind of work, then that is what you "deserve". Following your reasoning: If he can't get me to pay for his music, then 0$ is what he deserves. Any other way of measuring what people "deserve" doesn't fit into the economic system we all live by. ...And little by little you're starting to understand what everyone else already understood. Selling instances of a series of bits doesn't fit into the economic system we all live by. Demanding musicians to somehow live by a whole other set of rules is unreasonable and won't work. Excuse me but who is demanding musicians anything at all?