...really? What method did you use to come up with these odds? What numbers did you calculate these odds of which you speak?
May I subscribe to your journal?
Seriously, this is an exercise in futility. Talk "odds" all you want, but power systems WILL change and I don't know if it's 10 years down the road or 20 or 50 but they must and they will. There's too much inefficiency in the current delivery mechanism for it to last once the greenies have their way.
Ehud
@Previous poster: Yes, my bad. It's not 2^7, it's 7^2, and indeed 2^4+2^3+2^1 covers it within O(2^5).
I said boot _sequence_ not boot _times_. What it took to boot an MV system in 1975 or a DOS system (1981) or a CDC Cyber 370 in 1984 or a VMS VAX in 1987 is a different set of instructions than AmigaDOS (1986), or Windows 95 (1996), or Ubuntu Linux 8.10 (2008) just to name a few.
The "method of sequential steps to start a personal computer" (should such a thing exist in 2059) will be far far different than what it is today. I brought Moore's Law into it to give an example of the orders of magnitude of difference that 50 years can bring. 2^7 is 49. That's 7 generations of change as per Moore's law [for CPU usage] in less than 50 years. There will be significant REVOLUTIONARY changes.
"US Power" is not a defined term. Even if you went to the effort of saying "The two leads need to be supplied with a sine-wave alternating current peaking at 115 Volts" you have no way of knowing that in 50 years they'll be using Volts, AC, two leads, or know what a sine-wave is.
I like the previous poster's suggestion of a laptop with a solar charger. Of course this makes an assumption that there will be sunlight in the right frequencies and not the bad evil sunshine frequencies. Who knows what 50 years of industrial evolution, weather changes, and clouds will bring. Heck, what if they try and start it up in Seattle and all they have is clouds?
Finally, EVEN IF they did start it up, the point of a time capsule is to provide a glimpse of the past, not to ANNOY AND IRRITATE THE FUTURE. That means whatever OS you install on there is a waste. Making someone go through the tedious boot-up sequence (50 years, Moore's Law, remember?) is a waste. In short, a waste.
Much better to give them code samples of your hello_world.c so they can laugh about how stuff was hard in the past.
Regards
E
P.S. FTG!
This is a perfect example of the data delivery middleman trying to make more money out of delivering the very same product they're already being paid for.
Cellular providers are already being paid to deliver data. Now they are saying "Pay us extra and we won't throttle iPlayer." What's next? "Pay us extra and we won't throttle YouTube"?
Net neutrality is important to all of us. Any "provider" who can't deliver the data should be allowed to quietly go out of business.
Sunlight is feared by all those who would use darkness and ignorance to enslave those who cannot break free.
Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem.
Ehud
Do your best (your question is irrelevant)
and they can always run a live-CD or a USB-live Linux distro
or install Linux and get around your neanderthal filters.
You are obsolete.
If you want to do the right thing remove all Windows and pre-install Linux. At least that way they won't be spreading viruses, worms, malware, botnets, or DoS attacks.
Now shut up and start handing out unsecured laptops to people who don't know any better like a good civil servant.
E
COPPA: The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
This law is not the same COPPA that outlaws digitally morphed images designed to look like children having sex. Rather, it is a much less controversial bill that has to do with protecting children's privacy from online marketers. The law has not been challenged.
Highlights: Penalties are imposed for collecting personal data on children under 13 years old without receiving written parental consent.
...because it seems there is no statute that hasn't been overturned. Please help me to be better educated. Here's the best I could find on short notice...
Next thing he'll say it's "wasteful" to have security checkpoints at every airport in the US. "Why don't we just have them at the border?"
Welcome to the real world. Communities everywhere have realized that we can't count on law enforcement or the military so we HAVE gated communities, closed golf courses, private neighborhoods, etc.
There's no magic panacea where you can declare "The US" to be a secure network "and all the baddies keep out" and no more need for firewalls. We still have corporate espionage, neighbors who want to avoid being persecuted for kiddie porn using other people's connections, and those evil p2p people downloading F10 or U8.10 or something on that evil "Bittorrent" thing.
Firewall granularity has spread IN, not OUT of the end system. We've gone from no filtering, to corporate filtering, to per-system filtering. It's not going to magically disappear because "the government has a plan" (which it doesn't, and couldn't.)
If the military prickyshits* said "The US is safe" the meth-heads are still going to want to come steal the copper off the A/C compressor.
If they said "Your city is safe" the meth-heads are still...
If they said "Your neighborhood is safe" gated communities would still want to keep the riff-raff** out.
"I'm from the government, I'm here to help."
Yeah, and I'm the plumber. I've come to fix the sink. Move aside, let the man go through.***
Ehud
* Credit Joseph Heller, Catch-22
** Riff-raff defined as that micro-community's undesirables of the moment (in my non-gated neighborhood it's meth-heads)
*** Credit Super BonBon
Ignoring a properly formed DMCA takedown request means you lose the ISP safe harbor
Thanks for deleting the part of my post that said that. Next time try and read the second sentence also.
That's a HUGE gamble.
"That" is a huge gamble? What is a "HUGE gamble". Safe harbor is just that. There's NEVER been ANY liability to ISPs. The safe harbor provisions are a false prophilactic.
Stop it. Your fairy tale is funny. Third parties have NEVER been found guilty of liability let alone damages let alone responsible for legal fees.
...
The big question in this case is if the takedown is properly formed.
No, that's a red herring used by DMCA proponents to pretend that if the takedown request is formed ok then it must be complied with and otherwise it isn't.
Sorry, bud, it doesn't matter if it's "properly formed" *lol*. It matters if it's valid and whether the 3rd parties wish to respond to it.
AS I SAID: the fallacy is that one MUST respond to it. One DOES NOT NEED TO. One merely gives up the "Safe Harbor" which isn't needed since the courts have not found third parties liable.
...
This is one of the things wrong with the DMCA.
The DMCA is a big piece of crap designed to fool stupid people into doing stupid things.
I'll say it again for a third time. THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS TO TAKE DOWN CONTENT. IF YOU DON'T TAKE DOWN SOMEONE ELSE'S CONTENT YOU GIVE UP THE SAFE HARBOR PROVISIONS. Courts have never found third parties liable so giving a "safe harbor" to a nonliable party is a joke.
Like I said. It's US law. I don't know what "uppon" is and it was created by an act of Congress after lobbying by the MPAA and RIAA and other "Big Content."
It was SO anti-WIPO that WIPO whined about it for ages.
And... still... foreign law has no effect in the US.
Thanks for agreeing with that.
> Just because you don't want to believe something...
Exactly. Like I said, DMCA is US law not inspired by WIPO, and French law has no impact in the US. Your refusal to believe reality doesn't change that reality.
If you don't respond to a DMCA takedown you merely give up the "Safe Harbor" provision in the DMCA. You incur no "guilt" nor do you "have to" do anything.
It is FAR less costly to ignore DMCA takedowns and let the burden of proof remain with the plaintiff than to blindly obey requests and make it the burden of the recipient.
As always, I'm not licensed to practice law in your area, so consult a lawyer for legal advise or read the freakin' statute.
It's cute that you say this but reality says differently. The DMCA _was_ created by the US. Foreign law does _not_ have effect in the US. People who make up stuff on Slashdot postings do _not_ create new law.
I've read the PDFs. Sometimes there are things that make a Sunday Morning Sunrise seem happier, with better glow, and the light of truth spreads across the land.
SOMEONE KNOWS. Therefore there is a set of people who know. We'll call them "SOMEONE".
WP: NOBODY KNOWS. Therefore according to the WP the set of those who know are NOBODY.
There are several possible and alternative conclusions:
1. The WP is wrong. Since NOBODY isn't SOMEONE they are just plain wrong.
2. The WP is egocentric, and when they say "Nobody knows" they're saying it's not worth knowing, which is akin to your "entity of no consequence" which means that the WP is the entity of no consequence, or in their own words, NOBODY.
> If you don't know formal logic, don't even try using it in discussions
If you have a need to create rules for other people to communicate with you you can go form your own society. This one already has rules, and that one isn't in it.
E
P.S. "Dumber" isn't a word. "Dumb" is the inability to speak. It has no superlatives. Cheers and all that,
Slashdot Mirror
Ehud
May I subscribe to your journal?
Seriously, this is an exercise in futility. Talk "odds" all you want, but power systems WILL change and I don't know if it's 10 years down the road or 20 or 50 but they must and they will. There's too much inefficiency in the current delivery mechanism for it to last once the greenies have their way.
Ehud
@Previous poster: Yes, my bad. It's not 2^7, it's 7^2, and indeed 2^4+2^3+2^1 covers it within O(2^5).
The "method of sequential steps to start a personal computer" (should such a thing exist in 2059) will be far far different than what it is today. I brought Moore's Law into it to give an example of the orders of magnitude of difference that 50 years can bring. 2^7 is 49. That's 7 generations of change as per Moore's law [for CPU usage] in less than 50 years. There will be significant REVOLUTIONARY changes.
Ehud
"US Power" is not a defined term. Even if you went to the effort of saying "The two leads need to be supplied with a sine-wave alternating current peaking at 115 Volts" you have no way of knowing that in 50 years they'll be using Volts, AC, two leads, or know what a sine-wave is. I like the previous poster's suggestion of a laptop with a solar charger. Of course this makes an assumption that there will be sunlight in the right frequencies and not the bad evil sunshine frequencies. Who knows what 50 years of industrial evolution, weather changes, and clouds will bring. Heck, what if they try and start it up in Seattle and all they have is clouds? Finally, EVEN IF they did start it up, the point of a time capsule is to provide a glimpse of the past, not to ANNOY AND IRRITATE THE FUTURE. That means whatever OS you install on there is a waste. Making someone go through the tedious boot-up sequence (50 years, Moore's Law, remember?) is a waste. In short, a waste. Much better to give them code samples of your hello_world.c so they can laugh about how stuff was hard in the past. Regards E P.S. FTG!
Don't worry. There are women who think small and stupid is just right. Go find them and be happy.
E
Cellular providers are already being paid to deliver data. Now they are saying "Pay us extra and we won't throttle iPlayer." What's next? "Pay us extra and we won't throttle YouTube"?
Net neutrality is important to all of us. Any "provider" who can't deliver the data should be allowed to quietly go out of business.
E
E
Sunlight is feared by all those who would use darkness and ignorance to enslave those who cannot break free. Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem. Ehud
Do your best (your question is irrelevant) and they can always run a live-CD or a USB-live Linux distro or install Linux and get around your neanderthal filters. You are obsolete. If you want to do the right thing remove all Windows and pre-install Linux. At least that way they won't be spreading viruses, worms, malware, botnets, or DoS attacks. Now shut up and start handing out unsecured laptops to people who don't know any better like a good civil servant. E
COPPA: The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
This law is not the same COPPA that outlaws digitally morphed images designed to look like children having sex. Rather, it is a much less controversial bill that has to do with protecting children's privacy from online marketers. The law has not been challenged. Highlights: Penalties are imposed for collecting personal data on children under 13 years old without receiving written parental consent.
Interesting.
E
COPA, CIPA, COPPA, etc.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39748-2002May31?language=printer http://www.raphkoster.com/2008/07/23/child-online-protection-act-overturned/
Why did Sony/BMG really pay money?
E P.S.Sony/BMG when you send me your cute litle notes, do it on letterhead with a real signature. Automated PGP sigs have no validity.
That said, I hope you crawl back in your little hole and quit telling Slashdot what it should be about.
Come on RIAA, come sue me, pigs. I'll be your Huckleberry. Pigs.
E
MOD THIS POST UP!!! What an amazing summary of American Football we have here! He's no troll!
Ehud
It doesn't "target Firefox", it targets "Firefox on Windows 32 systems" This does not affect Linux, Mac, or other systems. Ehud
Next thing he'll say it's "wasteful" to have security checkpoints at every airport in the US. "Why don't we just have them at the border?"
Welcome to the real world. Communities everywhere have realized that we can't count on law enforcement or the military so we HAVE gated communities, closed golf courses, private neighborhoods, etc.
There's no magic panacea where you can declare "The US" to be a secure network "and all the baddies keep out" and no more need for firewalls. We still have corporate espionage, neighbors who want to avoid being persecuted for kiddie porn using other people's connections, and those evil p2p people downloading F10 or U8.10 or something on that evil "Bittorrent" thing.
Firewall granularity has spread IN, not OUT of the end system. We've gone from no filtering, to corporate filtering, to per-system filtering. It's not going to magically disappear because "the government has a plan" (which it doesn't, and couldn't.)
If the military prickyshits* said "The US is safe" the meth-heads are still going to want to come steal the copper off the A/C compressor. If they said "Your city is safe" the meth-heads are still... If they said "Your neighborhood is safe" gated communities would still want to keep the riff-raff** out.
"I'm from the government, I'm here to help."
Yeah, and I'm the plumber. I've come to fix the sink. Move aside, let the man go through.***
Ehud
* Credit Joseph Heller, Catch-22
** Riff-raff defined as that micro-community's undesirables of the moment (in my non-gated neighborhood it's meth-heads)
*** Credit Super BonBon
Shh. Adults are talking. E
Shhh. Adults are talking. E
I guess we read simple English differently.
You think that foreign law has effect and jurisdiction here. I don't.
You think that a statute here is "caused by" foreign laws. I don't.
You're repeating yourself. I'm not needing to. You can't convince the prejudged ignorant.
Have a nice day :)
E
Ignoring a properly formed DMCA takedown request means you lose the ISP safe harbor
Thanks for deleting the part of my post that said that. Next time try and read the second sentence also.
That's a HUGE gamble.
"That" is a huge gamble? What is a "HUGE gamble". Safe harbor is just that. There's NEVER been ANY liability to ISPs. The safe harbor provisions are a false prophilactic.
Stop it. Your fairy tale is funny. Third parties have NEVER been found guilty of liability let alone damages let alone responsible for legal fees.
The big question in this case is if the takedown is properly formed.
No, that's a red herring used by DMCA proponents to pretend that if the takedown request is formed ok then it must be complied with and otherwise it isn't.
Sorry, bud, it doesn't matter if it's "properly formed" *lol*. It matters if it's valid and whether the 3rd parties wish to respond to it.
AS I SAID: the fallacy is that one MUST respond to it. One DOES NOT NEED TO. One merely gives up the "Safe Harbor" which isn't needed since the courts have not found third parties liable.
This is one of the things wrong with the DMCA.
The DMCA is a big piece of crap designed to fool stupid people into doing stupid things.
I'll say it again for a third time. THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS TO TAKE DOWN CONTENT. IF YOU DON'T TAKE DOWN SOMEONE ELSE'S CONTENT YOU GIVE UP THE SAFE HARBOR PROVISIONS. Courts have never found third parties liable so giving a "safe harbor" to a nonliable party is a joke.
Regards,
Ehud
It was SO anti-WIPO that WIPO whined about it for ages.
And... still... foreign law has no effect in the US. Thanks for agreeing with that.
> Just because you don't want to believe something...
Exactly. Like I said, DMCA is US law not inspired by WIPO, and French law has no impact in the US. Your refusal to believe reality doesn't change that reality.
Ehud
It is FAR less costly to ignore DMCA takedowns and let the burden of proof remain with the plaintiff than to blindly obey requests and make it the burden of the recipient.
As always, I'm not licensed to practice law in your area, so consult a lawyer for legal advise or read the freakin' statute.
Ehud
Cheers and all that.
Ehud
Thank you Mr. Beckerman.
Sir, you rock.
Ehud
Tucson AZ
Let me use smaller words.
SOMEONE KNOWS. Therefore there is a set of people who know. We'll call them "SOMEONE".
WP: NOBODY KNOWS. Therefore according to the WP the set of those who know are NOBODY.
There are several possible and alternative conclusions: 1. The WP is wrong. Since NOBODY isn't SOMEONE they are just plain wrong.
2. The WP is egocentric, and when they say "Nobody knows" they're saying it's not worth knowing, which is akin to your "entity of no consequence" which means that the WP is the entity of no consequence, or in their own words, NOBODY.
> If you don't know formal logic, don't even try using it in discussions
If you have a need to create rules for other people to communicate with you you can go form your own society. This one already has rules, and that one isn't in it.
E
P.S. "Dumber" isn't a word. "Dumb" is the inability to speak. It has no superlatives. Cheers and all that,
When you next have something to say, attach proof or it shall be given the attention it earns -- namely none.
Sorry you use a different dictionary. We don't all live in your hole. Get used to it.
E