This is an interesting point about encouraging creativity by forcing inventors to work around patents, but I hardly believe that was meant to be the driving force behind "promoting the useful arts and sciences." The incentive to innovate was supposed to be that you are granted a temporary monopoly on your ideas, in exchange for putting the ideas out there for the world to see and learn from.
The point was NOT to grant monopolies on obvious ideas to make people work around them. If the typical programmer would sit down and write something in a way that would infringe on someones software patent, completely independently, then that patent is bullshit. The person who filed for that patent isn't promoting innovation, the obvious idea would have existed with or without them, they are only leeching off the work of the true innovators who are forced to either compromise their product, or pay protection money to patent holders.
Really? Afghanistan declared war on America? They ordered the 9/11 attacks? Were any of the hijackers even afghani? NO. Afghanistan was just a convenient shithole to hideout in. Just like Pakistan now. Totally agree that Iraq was unjustified, but why do you think your meddling in Afghanistan is any better?
Interesting. I had never thought of that distinction (kinda like the two meanings of "free"). I'm curious, how would the french say "you have the right," in the sense of having a privilege or liberty?
The original context of this thread was that someone is being fined for copyright infringement, and the question was: what should happen to the money collected as punishment? In this case the infringer is going to lose that money no matter where it goes, so we can ignore their loss.
You then claimed that burning the money would hurt everyone, and that it would destroy wealth. I would argue that this is wrong.
First of all, burning cash actually helps everyone (except the burner). This was the point made by the OP you replied to, and I agree with them. Fewer dollars in circulation will increase their scarcity, and thus increase the value of every other dollar in the economy.
Secondly, burning cash does not destroy wealth, because it is not destroying anything with real value. If I made a Something to earn that money, then that Something is still owned by whomever I sold it to, including the value added by my labor. Yes, I lost the cash I received in exchange, but that was something I was going to lose anyway due to the copyright infringement fine. Fiat currency (cash) is NOT wealth. It represents wealth based on our society's mutual acceptance that it has value. However the point of my analogy of burning cash vs. burning physical goods, is that there is a fundamental difference between destroying paper with no inherent value, versus destroying scarce goods which have inherent value. Destroying physical goods reduces the amount of Stuff that exists in the world, and thus actually hurts everyone. It is not clear to me that destroying paper has the same sort of negative impact.
And since work had to be done somewhere along the line to earn the cash, destroying it when its in the private sector erases the wealth created by doing work and that hurts everyone.
How does burning cash destroy wealth? Whatever work was done to earn that cash is still done. Physical goods were created, and still exist. The only thing destroyed is an essentially worthless piece of paper.
I've wondered about this before. What is the economic impact of burning $100 cash, versus buying $100 worth of of widgets and then burning those widgets?
One might think that buying (and burning) the widgets helps the economy more, since another person is employed to create the widgets, and that person now has cash that they can spend on other things. However, if you think of the value of an economy as the total amount of valuable stuff that exists within it, then burning the widgets destroys actual value. Whereas burning the cash does not actually destroy anything of value, but merely affects our artificial valuations of things.
IANAE. Would love some insight from someone in the know on the economic difference between burning cash and burning items bought with cash...
This seems to be a very good point!! I think you are right that this key could be used to create a virtual display driver which appears to be HDCP complaint, but actually dumps the unencrypted data.
However, this is in conflict with the comment by Intel that hardware would be required for this key to become useful. What I'm not sure about is whether it will work in windows without a display driver signed by microsoft. I'm not sure what requirements software players enforce before playing back content.
That's fine if you want to be "realistic" about it, but the OP you were replying to does not fall into that category of apathetic people. He was advocating that the citizens organize and fight back, and your response was to forget about it, that it would be a pointless effort.
Maybe I shouldn't have made it personally against you, but that kind of attitude really does piss me off. FUCK DEFEATISM!
In my opinion making an idea illegal is absolutely ridiculous, and holocaust denial is a perfect example of that. Holocaust deniers are idiots, but that doesn't mean they should be legally silenced. They should be simply ignored!
Personally I find the lack of free speech in germany to be extremely offensive, and cowardly.
And that defeatist attitude is one of the main reasons that they can get away with this kind of crap. On behalf of everyone who gives a shit... FUCK YOU!
If their goal was to keep the page uncluttered and focused on search, they definitely failed!
The problem is that once the fade-in begins, the user's eyes are instantly and involuntarily drawn to the motion of the fade. This is terribly distracting when trying to do a quick search!
This does seem like a very valid concern, but the key point missed in the summary is that there are countries and governments besides America. (shocking, I know)
Just like America has a vested interest in preventing the Russians/Chinese/Terrorists/etc from spying on us by detecting their keyloggers (but whitelisting their own), other countries will similarly want to keep out America's malware.
So I guess the trick is to install two A/V programs, from two different nations.
We have "personal rapid transit" and its called "cars."
Are you suggesting is installing train tracks to every house and business in america? And then people need to wait for a vehicle to pick them up? Or will they own their own? (like a car). Also, how will this system deal with passing, and avoiding obstacles, such as children running out on the tracks (which would now be everywhere, in your trasnportation "utopia").
If your main point was that it should be electric instead of fossil-fuel based, then I agree with you... but in regular cars and using our existing road system.
I agree completely, and what baffles me even more about people accepting Kevin Rose's repsonse is that IT WAS NOT EVEN AN APOLOGY!
Nowhere in it did they admit wrong doing or say "I'm sorry". He only said "we get it." What is that shit??
Not to mention that the digg community would probably not have been mad if they removed posts with the numbers by court order, and were open about the process (like Slashdot did). Instead, they removed references to the numbers which the MPAA had not yet even complained about, and also banned the users! (none of which is required by the DMCA)
And, to add icing to the cake, rather than being open about this and saying "look, we're removing these posts because we have to, we're sorry! write your comgressman about the DMCA." Instead, they deleted stories and posts in secret, and hoped that the truth would not come out.
Why are people so willing to forgive Digg's admins for this offense without even an apology??
Hilbert: "We must know. We will know". Heisenberg[effectively]: We won't know; we cannot know.
Instead of Heisenberg, you should really say Godel... he's the one who actually proved that what Hilbert wanted to know was in fact impossible to know...
I hit the spam button for absolutely every email that was not written specially for me. Any sort of commercial mail: SPAM. I don't give a fuck if they got my email address "legitmately" from some purchase I made or whatever. I NEVER WANT TO RECIEVE ANY MASS EMAIL WHATSOEVER.
The problem with people fighting spam is that they always say "we need to block spam, but still allow legitmate email lists." FUCK THAT! In my opinion, the whole spam problem should be fixed by saying that an email cannot have more than (for example) 40 recipients. This can be enforced at the mail-server level (and is especially easy for big services like gmail and yahoo).
If someone WANTS to opt-in to some mass communication, I would suggest something designed for that, like RSS. Email should be for private 1-on-1 communication, in my opinion. So basically, when you send me mail asking if I want to sign up for that new credit card, don't be surprised when I mark you as spam!
"The square of dirt I happened to be born on is better than yours, so you clearly don't deserve to be here, fuck off!"
Every single person in this country immigrated here at some point in their family's history (other than native americans maybe), so in my opinion it's pretty ridiculous the amount of xenophobia in this "Great American Melting Pot".
The GP's point was that he could SSH tunnel from say, his laptop to his desktop, and all traffic over that would be secure.
The problem is that when he makes a request for www.kiddieporn.com, it goes securely over ssh to the desktop, and then the desktop makes the request in plain text over its cable modem. Which the FBI then sees.
The whole point is that if the govt is monitoring every internet connection, theres no where safe to ssh/vpn to. We can only hope that projects such as freenet and i2p have matured by that time.
Personally I love the idea of this, mostly because this gives economic incentives to solve currently impossible AI problems like scene-regonition.
If there is one thing time has shown on the Internet, it's that anytime some security measure is put in place, hackers are instantly motivated by the challenge. Possibly these are people who would never go down the AI research path, but will throw together some code to register yahoo mail accounts automatically.
Look at the technical skill applied to difficult problems like cracking xbox's. This seems like a good way to harness some of that creative energy for furthering science.
Slashdot Mirror
I read that the same way. Either way, it prevents the exploit, right?
This is an interesting point about encouraging creativity by forcing inventors to work around patents, but I hardly believe that was meant to be the driving force behind "promoting the useful arts and sciences." The incentive to innovate was supposed to be that you are granted a temporary monopoly on your ideas, in exchange for putting the ideas out there for the world to see and learn from.
The point was NOT to grant monopolies on obvious ideas to make people work around them. If the typical programmer would sit down and write something in a way that would infringe on someones software patent, completely independently, then that patent is bullshit. The person who filed for that patent isn't promoting innovation, the obvious idea would have existed with or without them, they are only leeching off the work of the true innovators who are forced to either compromise their product, or pay protection money to patent holders.
Really? Afghanistan declared war on America? They ordered the 9/11 attacks? Were any of the hijackers even afghani? NO. Afghanistan was just a convenient shithole to hideout in. Just like Pakistan now. Totally agree that Iraq was unjustified, but why do you think your meddling in Afghanistan is any better?
Interesting. I had never thought of that distinction (kinda like the two meanings of "free"). I'm curious, how would the french say "you have the right," in the sense of having a privilege or liberty?
I still disagree with your analysis.
The original context of this thread was that someone is being fined for copyright infringement, and the question was: what should happen to the money collected as punishment? In this case the infringer is going to lose that money no matter where it goes, so we can ignore their loss.
You then claimed that burning the money would hurt everyone, and that it would destroy wealth. I would argue that this is wrong.
First of all, burning cash actually helps everyone (except the burner). This was the point made by the OP you replied to, and I agree with them. Fewer dollars in circulation will increase their scarcity, and thus increase the value of every other dollar in the economy.
Secondly, burning cash does not destroy wealth, because it is not destroying anything with real value. If I made a Something to earn that money, then that Something is still owned by whomever I sold it to, including the value added by my labor. Yes, I lost the cash I received in exchange, but that was something I was going to lose anyway due to the copyright infringement fine. Fiat currency (cash) is NOT wealth. It represents wealth based on our society's mutual acceptance that it has value. However the point of my analogy of burning cash vs. burning physical goods, is that there is a fundamental difference between destroying paper with no inherent value, versus destroying scarce goods which have inherent value. Destroying physical goods reduces the amount of Stuff that exists in the world, and thus actually hurts everyone. It is not clear to me that destroying paper has the same sort of negative impact.
And since work had to be done somewhere along the line to earn the cash, destroying it when its in the private sector erases the wealth created by doing work and that hurts everyone.
How does burning cash destroy wealth? Whatever work was done to earn that cash is still done. Physical goods were created, and still exist. The only thing destroyed is an essentially worthless piece of paper.
I've wondered about this before. What is the economic impact of burning $100 cash, versus buying $100 worth of of widgets and then burning those widgets?
One might think that buying (and burning) the widgets helps the economy more, since another person is employed to create the widgets, and that person now has cash that they can spend on other things. However, if you think of the value of an economy as the total amount of valuable stuff that exists within it, then burning the widgets destroys actual value. Whereas burning the cash does not actually destroy anything of value, but merely affects our artificial valuations of things.
IANAE. Would love some insight from someone in the know on the economic difference between burning cash and burning items bought with cash...
This seems to be a very good point!! I think you are right that this key could be used to create a virtual display driver which appears to be HDCP complaint, but actually dumps the unencrypted data.
However, this is in conflict with the comment by Intel that hardware would be required for this key to become useful. What I'm not sure about is whether it will work in windows without a display driver signed by microsoft. I'm not sure what requirements software players enforce before playing back content.
Anyone know if this is actually feasible?
That's fine if you want to be "realistic" about it, but the OP you were replying to does not fall into that category of apathetic people. He was advocating that the citizens organize and fight back, and your response was to forget about it, that it would be a pointless effort.
Maybe I shouldn't have made it personally against you, but that kind of attitude really does piss me off. FUCK DEFEATISM!
Why was I modded troll??
In my opinion making an idea illegal is absolutely ridiculous, and holocaust denial is a perfect example of that. Holocaust deniers are idiots, but that doesn't mean they should be legally silenced. They should be simply ignored!
Personally I find the lack of free speech in germany to be extremely offensive, and cowardly.
And that defeatist attitude is one of the main reasons that they can get away with this kind of crap. On behalf of everyone who gives a shit... FUCK YOU!
yes
If their goal was to keep the page uncluttered and focused on search, they definitely failed!
The problem is that once the fade-in begins, the user's eyes are instantly and involuntarily drawn to the motion of the fade. This is terribly distracting when trying to do a quick search!
I'm quite amazed that no music player I know of does something like this by default (or makes it easy to do)
Amarok does it. Settings > Configure Global Shortcuts. I use the windows key as my shortcut instead of ctrl-alt-shift like you but same idea.
Gotta love Amarok!! (now if only I could use the Amarok 1 interface with MPD backend... that would be the holy grail!)
This is (roughly) the idea behind LifeSharers. Personally I think this is exactly the way to go:
http://www.lifesharers.com/
This does seem like a very valid concern, but the key point missed in the summary is that there are countries and governments besides America. (shocking, I know)
Just like America has a vested interest in preventing the Russians/Chinese/Terrorists/etc from spying on us by detecting their keyloggers (but whitelisting their own), other countries will similarly want to keep out America's malware.
So I guess the trick is to install two A/V programs, from two different nations.
We have "personal rapid transit" and its called "cars."
Are you suggesting is installing train tracks to every house and business in america? And then people need to wait for a vehicle to pick them up? Or will they own their own? (like a car). Also, how will this system deal with passing, and avoiding obstacles, such as children running out on the tracks (which would now be everywhere, in your trasnportation "utopia").
If your main point was that it should be electric instead of fossil-fuel based, then I agree with you... but in regular cars and using our existing road system.
I agree completely, and what baffles me even more about people accepting Kevin Rose's repsonse is that IT WAS NOT EVEN AN APOLOGY!
Nowhere in it did they admit wrong doing or say "I'm sorry". He only said "we get it." What is that shit??
Not to mention that the digg community would probably not have been mad if they removed posts with the numbers by court order, and were open about the process (like Slashdot did). Instead, they removed references to the numbers which the MPAA had not yet even complained about, and also banned the users! (none of which is required by the DMCA)
And, to add icing to the cake, rather than being open about this and saying "look, we're removing these posts because we have to, we're sorry! write your comgressman about the DMCA." Instead, they deleted stories and posts in secret, and hoped that the truth would not come out.
Why are people so willing to forgive Digg's admins for this offense without even an apology??
Instead of Heisenberg, you should really say Godel... he's the one who actually proved that what Hilbert wanted to know was in fact impossible to know...
I hit the spam button for absolutely every email that was not written specially for me. Any sort of commercial mail: SPAM. I don't give a fuck if they got my email address "legitmately" from some purchase I made or whatever. I NEVER WANT TO RECIEVE ANY MASS EMAIL WHATSOEVER.
The problem with people fighting spam is that they always say "we need to block spam, but still allow legitmate email lists." FUCK THAT! In my opinion, the whole spam problem should be fixed by saying that an email cannot have more than (for example) 40 recipients. This can be enforced at the mail-server level (and is especially easy for big services like gmail and yahoo).
If someone WANTS to opt-in to some mass communication, I would suggest something designed for that, like RSS. Email should be for private 1-on-1 communication, in my opinion. So basically, when you send me mail asking if I want to sign up for that new credit card, don't be surprised when I mark you as spam!
You own the light bouncing off your house?
It comes down to:
"The square of dirt I happened to be born on is better than yours, so you clearly don't deserve to be here, fuck off!"
Every single person in this country immigrated here at some point in their family's history (other than native americans maybe), so in my opinion it's pretty ridiculous the amount of xenophobia in this "Great American Melting Pot".
Aphex twin did this
http://www.bastwood.com/aphex.php
Why is this modded interesting?
The GP's point was that he could SSH tunnel from say, his laptop to his desktop, and all traffic over that would be secure.
The problem is that when he makes a request for www.kiddieporn.com, it goes securely over ssh to the desktop, and then the desktop makes the request in plain text over its cable modem. Which the FBI then sees.
The whole point is that if the govt is monitoring every internet connection, theres no where safe to ssh/vpn to. We can only hope that projects such as freenet and i2p have matured by that time.
Personally I love the idea of this, mostly because this gives economic incentives to solve currently impossible AI problems like scene-regonition.
If there is one thing time has shown on the Internet, it's that anytime some security measure is put in place, hackers are instantly motivated by the challenge. Possibly these are people who would never go down the AI research path, but will throw together some code to register yahoo mail accounts automatically.
Look at the technical skill applied to difficult problems like cracking xbox's. This seems like a good way to harness some of that creative energy for furthering science.
This was always a weakness with torrents... you have to get them from somewhere
I propose we follow usenet's example and start posting torrents in MIME base64 to slashdot!
O:-)