With few exceptions, the extras come from the studio vaults, and are eligable for new copyright
Anything from the studio vaults is subject to the creation+120 limit. Under present U.S. law, the copyright term in most cases is life+70 for freelance works first published on or after 1976, and publication+95 or creation+120 (whichever is shorter) for all other works.
PS: I try to boycott MPAA members' DVD, but when they come out with something like that I end up not only supporting an MPAA member, but one of the worst behaved members. I'm not a perfect person.
The fix for that is simply to pay for the DVD, and then donate an equal amount to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Because more of the retail price of a DVD goes to the distribution chain than to the studio, you're supporting EFF much more than you're supporting MPAA studios.
You want profit? Then create it! Create it, pay for it or slag off!
That may be true for movies, but eventually, it'll become impossible to create new music. U.S. courts have defined copyright infringement on a musical work as the use of at least four consecutive notes that are substantially similar to the melody of a copyrighted work. Given that there are only 27,000 possible runs of four notes under the "substantially similar" standard (transpose melodies to start on middle C, fold rests into previous note, fold notes outside an 11-note range inward an octave, quantize durations to short/medium/long), I'm afraid that the day will come when composers will no longer be able to write new music that doesn't infringe a copyright.
Since the copyright on Star Wars Episode IV has (theoretically) expired
Wrong. Even barring retroactive extension, that movie is still under copyright. The term under the 1790 act was 14 plus 14, but the term under the 1976 act (Star Wars IV was released in '77) was 75 years.
Ok, I looked at the [xvid] site briefly and I can't find what you are referring to here.
I was referring to the perceptual coding in DivX.
But, uh... in exactly what circumstances? Because I can assure you that while you may not be able to distinguish between detail on a 21" monitor, put the same image(s) on a 90" front projection system and they'll SCREAM at you.
In that case, XviD users will just have to conduct tests with real projectors in order to find the right bitrate and make a suitable compression preset. What is the resolution of the existing film architecture again?
Methinks we have here the candidate for the biggest distributing computing effort ever to be undertaken.
Brute-force encryption cracking using distributed computing methods relies on known plaintext (i.e. the message starts with "The secret message is:"), known ciphertext, and known algorithm. If the drive itself (as opposed to software) performs the decryption (to avoid the Xing leak that opened the DeCSS floodgates), it won't be easy to discover the encryption algorithm, as the CPS-2 Shock team found. Besides, d.net still hasn't broken 64-bit encryption, and at this rate, it'll take until the heat death of the universe to brute-force 128-bit.
Red Hat Linux binaries and source still fit on one DVD, some versions of Slackware fit on a CD-ROM, an LFS install can be squeezed into 8 MB, and floppyfw (Linux for a dedicated packet-filtering firewall) fits on a 1.4 MB floppy.
In addition, the adoption of a unique ID written on a Blu-ray Disc realizes high quality copyright protection functions.
I assume this to mean that it'll employ the next generation of CSS encryption. For one thing, MPAA and friends have probably learned their lesson: don't roll your own stream cipher. For another, it's now legal to export products using 128-bit encryption from the United States; the regulations in effect when DVD CSS was standardized permitted only 40-bit.
Or is this just a try to make movies even LARGER so cable and DSL users can't share movies in high quality anymore?
At a point, the detail becomes so fine that the human eye can't distinguish it. XviD (a fork of the last free DivX 4 release) attempts to find that point.
Call me crazy, but I'd guess that demand on seti's servers grows linearly with the number of users.
However, the number of users grows exponentially with respect to time. Grandparent specified only that "the demand will grow exponentially" and that it will increase as the number of users increases. A colloquial meaning of "grow exponentially" is to grow following the early exponential-like stages of a logistic model, a model designed to model the spread of information such as a web site URL or a Warhol worm.
At any rate Seti doesn't use any extra power if your computer is running anyways since a CPU is always at 100% anyways (cept instead of SETI data it is doing Idle Loop calcs).
Not necessarily. Some operating systems call a special instruction when they hit the idle loop. This instruction tells the processor to go to sleep until the timer or a device signals an interrupt to the CPU. I'm sure Windows 98 and 98se do that; my laptop fan runs less often when I run dnetc than when I run only the system idle process.
Maybe a better solution is not to increase bandwidth but to encrypt the data to prevent tampering?
SETI@home data is processed on untrusted client hardware. There is no way to prevent somebody with a debugger from messing around with an application's internals while it's decrypting or encrypting work units. The SSSCA will outlaw computers that kernel-level debuggers can run on, but is that a good thing?
The random noise is ASCII-armored. Random noise in a hexadecimal encoding will compress 2:1 with just Huffman entropy coding, which is the last step of gzip's Deflate algorithm.
Can't disallow installing software
on
Peek-a-Boo(ty)
·
· Score: 1
If the user can't install it, they can't use it.
In a bank, a user shouldn't be able to install anything at all.
Some software doesn't need to write to the registry to be installed; it can run from a simple unzipped folder. The only way to disallow installing software is not to let the user write to storage at all.
Yeah, I'm sure he's really eager to require people who want to use his software to have to deal with installing all that crap in order to use his stuff.
Now watch somebody make money selling a desktop-oriented Cygwin distribution. "It's just like Linux, except it runs on top of Windows, so you still get your Office apps." A double click on Setup.exe, a few Enter keypresses, and you have a working GNUstep environment. Sure, it'll take some time and money to get it built and tested, but I know people who would be willing to pay for such an environment.
The more I hear " IE is better because MS are cheating" without proof
What IE gains in performance, it loses slightly in conformance. IE bends the rules of HTML by not always properly initializing every iframe page's DOM. Speed-conformance tradeoffs that the user can't set are nothing new in the world of proprietary software; see also the Quack 3 incident.
Speaking as a long-time Macintosh software developer, I literally drool at the possibility of selling my apps to an intel-sized audience with a simple recompile.
Take a step. Take another. Now take a GNUstep. Like Mac OS X's Cocoa, GNUstep is an implementation of the OPENSTEP API, except on top of a GNU system running X11 instead of a DarwinBSD system running Quartz. And if you need wincompatibility: 1. it's free software so you can fund a porting effort if you want, and 2. XFree86 runs on Cygwin.
Then you have 100s of workers doing the actual mixing: none of them are going to be paid enough to keep their mouths shut.
The right hand knows not what the left hand is doing. The Coca-Cola formula is split up into about a dozen parts, and the people who do the mixing know only that we take x pounds of Merchandise 1, y pounds of Merchandise 2, etc. It's possible to count the number of people who know the official Coke formula on one hand, in unary. (Source: Poundstone, William, Big Secrets.)
Do people think that the owners of Coca-Cola nip into the local corner shop, buy a magic ingredient that they hide in a brown paper bag, then under cover of darkness they slip into the mixing plant and add it to the BILLIONS of litres of syrup produced each year?
Yes. The people who operate the mixers don't know what's in those "Merchandise #n" containers, and the people who create the Merchandises are under strict NDA. NDA violations are handled under trade secret law, which has a maximum penalty for infringement five times higher than that of copyright law and is more likely to result in jail time.
Coca-Cola is dominant because they use patents and trademarks and brand loyalty and strong distribution channels.
Correct, except for patents. There may be patents on the processes used at a given time to make Coca-Cola, but there's no patent on the formula because unlike copyrights, patents are not perpetual; they last only 20 years after filing.
Coca cola have to release their secret recipe or they would not be able to be approved by the FDA . They also have to list the contents of product on the side of the can.
However, food product manufacturers do not have to list the specific nature of the flavorings in a product. Most of the time, they lump the flavorings into one ingredient: "NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS."
However -- I am running DRDOS's EMM386 on this Win95 machine (which boots to M$DOS 7.0) because it provides better/faster/more-stable/less-leaky DPMI support than CWSDPMI.
CWSDPMI r4 or r5?
No need to pirate edit.com; use Nano instead
on
FreeDOS
·
· Score: 2
Also the the IBM EE (Easy Editor) will give you terminal braindamage (pun intended). Warez MS EDIT.COM and avoid at all costs.
If you get edit.com, don't get the edit.com from DOS 5 or 6, as that requires QBasic, can only have one file open, can't edit binary files, and can only edit up to a 64 KB file. You want edit.com from Windows 95, 98, or ME.
If you don't want to pirate anything, you can get DJGPP, which is a port of the GNU system to PC DOS platforms (MS-DOS, DR DOS, FreeDOS) with an i386-series CPU. It includes a port of GNU Emacs. And if you don't like Emacs, there's always GNU Nano, a clone of Pico that has also been ported to PC DOS, or SETEDIT, a free clone of the Borland editor for DOS.
rule #1 NEVER buy ANYTHING valued over $20 at best buy. best buy comes from bizzaro world
NEVER may be too strong of a word. My friend bought a Game Boy Advance system at Best Buy (was $90, now $80), and it works fine, even with third-party development add-ons from Visoly. It should be safe to buy factory-sealed Nintendo products anywhere.
Partly because the vending machine downstairs from the dorm room of a student who doesn't drive carries Pepsi® brand soft drinks but not Sam's choice® brand.
Slashdot Mirror
With few exceptions, the extras come from the studio vaults, and are eligable for new copyright
Anything from the studio vaults is subject to the creation+120 limit. Under present U.S. law, the copyright term in most cases is life+70 for freelance works first published on or after 1976, and publication+95 or creation+120 (whichever is shorter) for all other works.
PS: I try to boycott MPAA members' DVD, but when they come out with something like that I end up not only supporting an MPAA member, but one of the worst behaved members. I'm not a perfect person.
The fix for that is simply to pay for the DVD, and then donate an equal amount to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Because more of the retail price of a DVD goes to the distribution chain than to the studio, you're supporting EFF much more than you're supporting MPAA studios.
You want profit? Then create it! Create it, pay for it or slag off!
That may be true for movies, but eventually, it'll become impossible to create new music. U.S. courts have defined copyright infringement on a musical work as the use of at least four consecutive notes that are substantially similar to the melody of a copyrighted work. Given that there are only 27,000 possible runs of four notes under the "substantially similar" standard (transpose melodies to start on middle C, fold rests into previous note, fold notes outside an 11-note range inward an octave, quantize durations to short/medium/long), I'm afraid that the day will come when composers will no longer be able to write new music that doesn't infringe a copyright.
Since the copyright on Star Wars Episode IV has (theoretically) expired
Wrong. Even barring retroactive extension, that movie is still under copyright. The term under the 1790 act was 14 plus 14, but the term under the 1976 act (Star Wars IV was released in '77) was 75 years.
Ok, I looked at the [xvid] site briefly and I can't find what you are referring to here.
I was referring to the perceptual coding in DivX.
But, uh... in exactly what circumstances? Because I can assure you that while you may not be able to distinguish between detail on a 21" monitor, put the same image(s) on a 90" front projection system and they'll SCREAM at you.
In that case, XviD users will just have to conduct tests with real projectors in order to find the right bitrate and make a suitable compression preset. What is the resolution of the existing film architecture again?
Methinks we have here the candidate for the biggest distributing computing effort ever to be undertaken.
Brute-force encryption cracking using distributed computing methods relies on known plaintext (i.e. the message starts with "The secret message is:"), known ciphertext, and known algorithm. If the drive itself (as opposed to software) performs the decryption (to avoid the Xing leak that opened the DeCSS floodgates), it won't be easy to discover the encryption algorithm, as the CPS-2 Shock team found. Besides, d.net still hasn't broken 64-bit encryption, and at this rate, it'll take until the heat death of the universe to brute-force 128-bit.
Red Hat Linux binaries and source still fit on one DVD, some versions of Slackware fit on a CD-ROM, an LFS install can be squeezed into 8 MB, and floppyfw (Linux for a dedicated packet-filtering firewall) fits on a 1.4 MB floppy.
In addition, the adoption of a unique ID written on a Blu-ray Disc realizes high quality copyright protection functions.
I assume this to mean that it'll employ the next generation of CSS encryption. For one thing, MPAA and friends have probably learned their lesson: don't roll your own stream cipher. For another, it's now legal to export products using 128-bit encryption from the United States; the regulations in effect when DVD CSS was standardized permitted only 40-bit.
Or is this just a try to make movies even LARGER so cable and DSL users can't share movies in high quality anymore?
At a point, the detail becomes so fine that the human eye can't distinguish it. XviD (a fork of the last free DivX 4 release) attempts to find that point.
[snip torture involving force-feeding ham to UCE senders] whilst being made to listen to Enya's Orinoco Flow over and over again.
Don't knock Enya. Remember when she collaborated with Eminem for a remix of "The Real Slim Shady"? (Hear it here for a limited time.)
Call me crazy, but I'd guess that demand on seti's servers grows linearly with the number of users.
However, the number of users grows exponentially with respect to time. Grandparent specified only that "the demand will grow exponentially" and that it will increase as the number of users increases. A colloquial meaning of "grow exponentially" is to grow following the early exponential-like stages of a logistic model, a model designed to model the spread of information such as a web site URL or a Warhol worm.
At any rate Seti doesn't use any extra power if your computer is running anyways since a CPU is always at 100% anyways (cept instead of SETI data it is doing Idle Loop calcs).
Not necessarily. Some operating systems call a special instruction when they hit the idle loop. This instruction tells the processor to go to sleep until the timer or a device signals an interrupt to the CPU. I'm sure Windows 98 and 98se do that; my laptop fan runs less often when I run dnetc than when I run only the system idle process.
SETI@home data is processed on untrusted client hardware. There is no way to prevent somebody with a debugger from messing around with an application's internals while it's decrypting or encrypting work units. The SSSCA will outlaw computers that kernel-level debuggers can run on, but is that a good thing?
(Apparently random noise doesnt compress?)
The random noise is ASCII-armored. Random noise in a hexadecimal encoding will compress 2:1 with just Huffman entropy coding, which is the last step of gzip's Deflate algorithm.
If the user can't install it, they can't use it. In a bank, a user shouldn't be able to install anything at all.
Some software doesn't need to write to the registry to be installed; it can run from a simple unzipped folder. The only way to disallow installing software is not to let the user write to storage at all.
Yeah, I'm sure he's really eager to require people who want to use his software to have to deal with installing all that crap in order to use his stuff.
Now watch somebody make money selling a desktop-oriented Cygwin distribution. "It's just like Linux, except it runs on top of Windows, so you still get your Office apps." A double click on Setup.exe, a few Enter keypresses, and you have a working GNUstep environment. Sure, it'll take some time and money to get it built and tested, but I know people who would be willing to pay for such an environment.
Huh? I read through the bug and it doesn't sound like IE is doing anything non-conformal.
Now that I read the bug again, I see your point. However, there do exist other instances where IE cuts corners.
Unlike Mozilla, IE 6 doesn't run on Windows 95, and IE 5.5 has a few holes in its CSS2 support.
The more I hear " IE is better because MS are cheating" without proof
What IE gains in performance, it loses slightly in conformance. IE bends the rules of HTML by not always properly initializing every iframe page's DOM. Speed-conformance tradeoffs that the user can't set are nothing new in the world of proprietary software; see also the Quack 3 incident.
Speaking as a long-time Macintosh software developer, I literally drool at the possibility of selling my apps to an intel-sized audience with a simple recompile.
Take a step. Take another. Now take a GNUstep. Like Mac OS X's Cocoa, GNUstep is an implementation of the OPENSTEP API, except on top of a GNU system running X11 instead of a DarwinBSD system running Quartz. And if you need wincompatibility: 1. it's free software so you can fund a porting effort if you want, and 2. XFree86 runs on Cygwin.
Then you have 100s of workers doing the actual mixing: none of them are going to be paid enough to keep their mouths shut.
The right hand knows not what the left hand is doing. The Coca-Cola formula is split up into about a dozen parts, and the people who do the mixing know only that we take x pounds of Merchandise 1, y pounds of Merchandise 2, etc. It's possible to count the number of people who know the official Coke formula on one hand, in unary. (Source: Poundstone, William, Big Secrets.)
Do people think that the owners of Coca-Cola nip into the local corner shop, buy a magic ingredient that they hide in a brown paper bag, then under cover of darkness they slip into the mixing plant and add it to the BILLIONS of litres of syrup produced each year?
Yes. The people who operate the mixers don't know what's in those "Merchandise #n" containers, and the people who create the Merchandises are under strict NDA. NDA violations are handled under trade secret law, which has a maximum penalty for infringement five times higher than that of copyright law and is more likely to result in jail time.
Coca-Cola is dominant because they use patents and trademarks and brand loyalty and strong distribution channels.
Correct, except for patents. There may be patents on the processes used at a given time to make Coca-Cola, but there's no patent on the formula because unlike copyrights, patents are not perpetual; they last only 20 years after filing.
However, food product manufacturers do not have to list the specific nature of the flavorings in a product. Most of the time, they lump the flavorings into one ingredient: "NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS."
However -- I am running DRDOS's EMM386 on this Win95 machine (which boots to M$DOS 7.0) because it provides better/faster/more-stable/less-leaky DPMI support than CWSDPMI.
CWSDPMI r4 or r5?
Also the the IBM EE (Easy Editor) will give you terminal braindamage (pun intended). Warez MS EDIT.COM and avoid at all costs.
If you get edit.com, don't get the edit.com from DOS 5 or 6, as that requires QBasic, can only have one file open, can't edit binary files, and can only edit up to a 64 KB file. You want edit.com from Windows 95, 98, or ME.
If you don't want to pirate anything, you can get DJGPP, which is a port of the GNU system to PC DOS platforms (MS-DOS, DR DOS, FreeDOS) with an i386-series CPU. It includes a port of GNU Emacs. And if you don't like Emacs, there's always GNU Nano, a clone of Pico that has also been ported to PC DOS, or SETEDIT, a free clone of the Borland editor for DOS.
Have you tried Tetanus On Drugs?
rule #1 NEVER buy ANYTHING valued over $20 at best buy. best buy comes from bizzaro world
NEVER may be too strong of a word. My friend bought a Game Boy Advance system at Best Buy (was $90, now $80), and it works fine, even with third-party development add-ons from Visoly. It should be safe to buy factory-sealed Nintendo products anywhere.
Partly because the vending machine downstairs from the dorm room of a student who doesn't drive carries Pepsi® brand soft drinks but not Sam's choice® brand.