So isn't this just like MS telling all their employees to vote for Microsoft in that last poll?
Um, only if you receive your livelihood from slashdot and also had reason to believe that a failure to vote "correctly" would impact your career. The issue is not that Microsoft tells its people about a poll. The issue is, Microsoft can -- implicitly, at least -- coerce them to vote a certain way.
It is the right of the producer, not the consumer, to set price.
Umm, no. The price of something is set by the interplay of what the producer wants for it and what the consumer is will to pay for it. The producer can set his/her "asking price", but all they are doing is that, asking. The consumer sets his/her buying price. Until these agree, the sale does not occur and the thing in question is essentially without value.
We act as if only one side or the other is important here. Although I see slashdotters go whole hog for their way, the trend started on the other side: The Content Cartel wants you to believe that there is no copyright bargain; that copyright means only the rights and powers held by the producer and that the recipient is a powerless and valueless pawn, good only to consume. It ain't so.
There is a dialog between the two. Right now it's mostly drowned out by cries of havoc and disaster, but behind the scenes, the two sides will reach some accommodation through the dead hand of Adam Smith, should we fail to excercise our intellects.
However, if that person who downloads music for free would have bought the CD had it not been available for download, then yes, the artist has lost something.
What is this "would have"? How can we argue about realities, as if you or I could say what someone would do if the world were different.
Under the "They would have bought the CD, so I lost money" argument, you could also sue say, Ford Motors, for laying off someone who -- if he hadn't lost his job -- "would have" bought the CD. Hey, that's a lost sale; and it's Ford's fault. So pay up!
The argument shouldn't be framed in terms of property being "stolen", because no property is stolen, because intellectual output is not property. The debate should be framed in terms of "How can we offer sufficient incentive to an artist to continue to do art, if they cannot derive revenue from controlling the publication?"
Article 1, Section 8 says (paraphrased) "Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". It doesn't say Congress must. It doesn't say this is the only way to achieve that aim. For goodness sakes, six billion people on this planet, can't someone come up with a mechanism that rewards artists and breaks the stranglehood of artificial distribution monopolies?
Proof that Americans can't remember what happened in the entertainment industry for very long.
Actually, it's simply proof that Hollywood believes that its own members can't remember what happened for very long. Since Oscar-qaulity movies are all held back until late -- to gain a bump just before nominations -- we don't have a lot to compare to.
Or perhaps you think Family Feud's "Survey Says" always revealed true fact.
When did the whole notion of buying software die, makeing licensing become necessary?
I think we could argue that it has never been necessary... If instead we talk about when it became commonplace, I think it dates back to mainframes. IBM, at least, never sold a mainframe to a customer. They leased it, guaranteeing support but retaining control. The software, in those days, came bundled on the Big Iron and didn't really run anywhere else, so it was included in the lease. I believe -- but have no actual facts to back me up:) -- that the habit of licensing software arose then.
Soon you will have to have a license to see each show, payed monthly and a show code keyed into your TV. And Just to spite you the people who OWN the content will make you buy a different code for each set!... but at least you will get it commercial free.
Or maybe I'll just not watch and recover that time in my life. In fact maybe a lot of people will... no matter what they try to convince you, Big Media absolutely depends on your watching. You, on the other hand, do not depend on them...
scanning tunnelling microsope / atomic force microscope : 1980s
high-temperature superconductors: 1980s
genome sequencing: 1990s
We're doing OK. Sure, some of these things aren't commonplace market realities yet, but I don't want to hear it: If the Apollo program (moon landing: 1969) is accepted as "1940s" technology, then a gap of a few decades is apparently OK.
Although it might be true that someone from 1950 could recognize more of life in 2002 than someone in 1900 could have of 1952, that's a temporary anomaly. In fifyy years, the world will look nothing like it does today. The past looks richer because you're far enough to see what turned out to be actually significant.
In its plan for the federal judiciary, the Congress in 1789
divided the nation into thirteen judicial districts that served
as the basic organizational units of the federal courts. In
each district, a U.S. district court served as the federal
trial court for admiralty and maritime cases as well as for
some minor civil and criminal cases. Congress authorized the
district judge to appoint a clerk in each district to assist
in the administration of the district and circuit courts, and authorized the president to appoint in each district a
marshal and federal prosecutor, then called a "district
attorney." The court's jurisdiction was limited to cases
arising within the district, and the judges were required to
reside in their districts. The original districts outlined by Congress coincided with the borders of the eleven states
that had ratified the Constitution, with separate districts
for Maine and Kentucky, which were still a part of Massachusetts
and Virginia, respectively.
So the federal district system dates back as far as the Constitution itself. Early in the Republic, the Supreme Court justices also rode the circuit, so perhaps that's what the poster was remembering.
Everyone that markets software soon learns of the bafoonery of overworked, inexpert reviewers on a deadline, and either learns to manage them or dies.
But then the reviewer gets a reputation for being clueless, people stop referring to his/her opinion, and the reviewer (or the reviewer's employer) suffers. Isn't that the way the supposed free market is supposed to work? Aren't restrictions like NA's more or less intended to subvert the market by removing information from the hands of customers?
Much as I hate to say it, our long-term freedom depends on ditching the volunteer army and going to an all- draft army, even in peacetime. Otherwise the army becomes an object for political manipulation, and later a political force in its own right, and finally a kingmaker institution. We're dangerously deep in the first stage already.
Interesting theory. It's not actually backed by anything in history, as far as I've ever seen, but interesting... I find it odd to assert that a conscript army would be more reliable, or more friendly to democratic institutions, than a volunteer one. The move toward volunteer armies has, in general, made armies more professional and less easily swayed to seize power for themselves.
I guess it's OK to worry about the potential for the American legions to declare a President -- something that had uncomfortable echoes ringing in my head during the oversea-ballot mini-debacle inside the 2000 general election meltdown -- but truth be told, the American army has proven remarkably resistent to the temptation of king-making.
Consider: During Watergate, every civil authority told President Nixon that he had to surrender his tapes, and he refused. The man controlled the world's most potent stockpile of nuclear weapons; a vast and effective intelligence apparatus; and millions of servicepeople looking to him as Commander-in-Chief. Some of those people were in the 101st Airbone and 82nd Airborne, elite strike troops; some were stationed quite near DC and the centers of power. It had to have crossed his mind how easily the armed forces of the United States could assume control, since -- NRA notwithstanding -- the American homeland is essentially demilitarized.
Yet, when the rubber met the road and the Supreme Court -- nine old guys in black robes -- told the Presdident of the United States, "Mr. President, you must surrender the tapes", Nixon didn't call in an airstrike; he didn't mobilize the troops; he didn't even huff and puff in that direction. Instead, he handed over the tapes. Why? Because Dick Nixon was such a firm believer in the smooth operation of justice? Nonsense.
He did it because he knew that if he issued those orders, they would not be obeyed. The American military really does see itself as properly subordinate to the civilian authority. They really do see their mission as to protect, not to rule. And why is that? Because at the heart they see themselves as citizens first, who happen to be serving. Not as some separate class called "soldier" with different priveleges and responsibilities, distinct from the general populous.
Think how astoning that is -- an army, a nation, full of modern-day Cincinatti. It boggles the mind.
Finally, there is almost never a neutral or even adversarial third party with oversight.
Are you asserting that, in building a bridge, there exists no pressure to finish on time, or better, early? To hold down costs? To maximize profits?
Of course there is. Why then don't most bridges fall down? Because the law clearly stipulates who would be held liable -- the company that cut corners, that used substandard materials, that ignored the advice of its professionals. One of my points is, we don't hold software companies liable for the failure of their software. You can cry "special circumstance" all you want, but this lack of responsibility contributes a lot (IMHO) to the relatively immature state of software engineering.
The bridges are not better designed than computers, they are simply less frequently attacked.
The last part of that sentence is true. The first is absurd. Bridges most certainly are better designed than (most) software: Bridges fulfill their intended function under heavy load and do not collapse. Software, even when properly installed and run, blows up with distressing regularity.
And when people attack bridges, they assault the physical integrity of the structure; they don't explot design flaws. Very rarely, if ever, does a terrorist say "Hey, look here. They forgot to count the rivets. If I pull one it falls apart." Compare that to, say, the number of buffer overrun exploits out there.
Software Engineering not yet Engineering
on
Why Coding Is Insecure
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Software often blows up. Bridges tend not to fall down. Why? Because the field of civil engineering has matured greatly. We know a lot about why bridges falls down and how to avoid it. There are standard tools, standard analyses, and standard, well, standards. We also have some regulatory oversight over construction projects -- construction code and occupancy code. These don't guarantee success, but they usually throw a spotlight onto cost-cutting and corner-cutting as causes for failure.
Consider, however, software engineering. The platform you use, the language you speak, the tools you employ -- they all evolve over short time scales. None have had a century or more of Darwinian pressure applied. No one expects them to work, fully. The liability for failure rests with the company or person using the software, not with the company or person writing it. We haven't had the time to develop the technical or social methods for preventing bad software and reinforcing good software.
How many computer programmer professional societies require rigorou entrance exams and periodic proof of competency?
This will continue until the costs are brought back to the companies that write insecure code. This can happen through government regulation -- the creation of a "software building code" -- or through the dead hand of Adam Smith -- companies start to avoid purchasing insecure software.
The greatest sign that this sort of sea change might be a-coming? The fact that Microsoft feels there is enough market interest to attempt, at the very least, to jump onboard a PR train.
Oh, and finally, this is NOT STEALING, call it illegal copying if you will (though I don't agree), but it's not stealing.
Why not call it what it is, which is "copyright infringement"? Not theft. Not piracy. "Copyright infringement". You want to know why the Content Cartel will not call it what it is, why they resort to distortions of language?
Because "copyright infringement" is a dry, technical term born of a dry, technical field -- copyright law -- and the Content Cartel know that to make your case, you need pizzazz. You need something sexier than "copyright infringement" to connect with the masses, to make them consider the crime as anything more than a passionless pursuit of cash through arcane usage restrictions that hardly speak to the common person. Label it "copyright infringement" and the ordinary bloke will think that it isn't really important, that it's not a "real" crime.
Now, do you want to know the really big dirty secret of the Content Cartel? The one thing they don't want you, or anyone else, to realize? Here it is: The ordinary bloke is right. It isn't a real crime, on the order of murder, or extortion, or speeding. It's a passionless pursuit of cash through arcane usage restrictions that hardly speak to the common person. It's a legal game.
Does anyone really believe that music consumers "backup" thier discs to mp3 for purely "personal" use? Let's at least be adult enough not to sugar coat this: we want to get around Cactus Data Shield because we want to "share" [or steal] music.
Um, this consumer backs up his CDs to MP3 for purely personal use. I have only downloaded one album that I did not (then) own. I'm a little ashamed to admit it was the Tron soundtrack:), which I did once own on LP(!) but which disappeared during a move. I figured, I'd already paid for it, so why not at least get to hear it?
You know what? Within a week or so I deleted the MP3s. I don't need to make the RIAA's point for them, and I do have a legitimate use. From then on, the only MP3s I have had are the ones I ripped from my own CDs. I now listen to the MP3s, since
I can store my collection on one hard drive instead of scores of CDs
I can listen to my collection from my computer without occupying my CD-ROM
I can listen to the MP3s -- which essentially cannot wear out -- and preserve the originals -- which could.
I can move my MP3s to my laptop at work and listen to my collection there. Heck, I can also bring CDs to work (since the laptop HD is not as large) and not have to cart them back and forth.
So yes, some consumers really do stay within the bounds of personal use and fair use. Of course I won't buy any so-called CDs that sport copy protection, as the inability to control the site of playing lowers the value of the CD. A CD that costs $20 and that I can space-shift is worth more than one that costs $20 and prevents me. The copy protection, in fact, lowers the benefit -- or raises the effective price -- beyond what I'd be willing to pay.
Final irony: When Disney finally released Tron on CD -- just this week -- I went out and bought it. Had I not refreshed my memory via the MP3s, I almost certainly would not. So that bit of "piracy" actually netted Disney a sale. In other words, the record companies are dinosaurs that don't understand all these newfangled furry things running around their feet.
but if Big Media were to make it clear that they would only use technological measures "against" their customers and never call down the lawyers for piracy/DRM issues, I figure that's almost a fair deal.
I have felt, for a long time, that the role of encryption and copyright needs to be rebalanced along the following lines: EITHER
You publish everything "in the clear" without any technological access controls, and retain full access to the court system and civil penalties; OR
You wrap everything inside access control mechanisms, but whatever you publish is automatically in the public domain. If someone manages to crack your protection scheme, tough luck... you don't have the legal right to sue them, because you have voluntarily surrendered copyright by encrypting the material.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way and, with Big Media and the Content Cartel holding all the cards, especially the rectangular green ones, it's unlikely it's ever going to work that way.
I don't doubt there are objects at orbits larger than GEO. I believe, however, that they are space junk... objects accidentally or intentionally lifted out of GEO, perhaps to "park" them and open up another orbital slot at GEO. I don't know if any useful orbit that requires a period more than 24 hours or that gains any advantage over GEO, and further out = more money to reach.
But I could be wrong. It certainly has precedent.:)
There are several errors in your response. Don't take as a flame, but It Ain't So as you say so.
GEO is geosynchronous orbit; that is, an orbit that is synchronous with the Earth's rotation. A satellite in GEO will appear to remain fixed above a point on the equator, as it would by definition have an orbital period of one day. Obviously, the rotation of the Earth has an awfully lot to do with GEO, since it sets the period and therefore the orbital radius. (Relatively simple physics tells that, if the centripetal acceleration must be provided by the Earth's gravity only, then T^2 is proportional to r^3, and so there is exactly one radius that can yield a circular orbit of given period T).
Minor disclaimer: I believe the definition of GEO also states that the satellite orbit in the equatorial plane of the Earth, so as to remain "fixed" in the sky. Other orbits with period 24 hours can be imagined, but the Earth would "rotate under" them in a complicated -- probably Lissajou -- figure.
Here's the real rub: The actual radius that comes out is huge... about 36,000 km, IIRC. That's a helluva lot farther than, say, the Shuttle orbits (around 300 km off the Earth, or 6700 km from the center). The atmosphere can be well-modeled as exponentially decaying in density. That means if air is rarefied at the Shuttle's orbit (and it is), it is more or less non-existent at GEO. Conclusion: atmospheric drag is negliglible. The time scale for a GEO satellite to decay is, I believe, millions of years. There is a slight issue with gravitational radiation but I'd bet real money that it is even more negligible.
Finally, as an aside, the Moon is not spiralling into the Earth. In fact, quite the opposite is occuring: The Moon is receding, making up for the angular momentum lost in the Earth-Moon system due to the tidal slowing of the Earth.
Also I suspect this satellite wasn't in a geosynchronous orbit but was in a higher orbit (I could be wrong).
Yes abd no, in one breath. EUVE certainly is not in GEO, which is why it's falling back. Stuff in GEO tends to stay there forever, as there is essentially no atmospheric drag. EUVE is, if I recall correctly, in Low Earth Orbit, almost certainly about the same as the Shuttle. Drag is strong enough to deorbit things on short time scales in LEO.
There really aren't meaningful orbits higher than GEO, unless you're leaving Earth entirely.
I'm sorry, that should be "Let me guess -- are you are grammar teacher, too?":)
In all seriousness, chill out. It seems clear to me that the original respondent was only trying to be funny -- notice "The correct misspelling", as if any misspelling could be correct -- and was not launching any sort of personal attack. We all screw up spelling, especially online, especially-squared on slashdot. That doesn't mean it should be glossed over.
We are at a point in history when the soviet east is rushing toward freedom and democracy and the free west is rushing toward state control.
Well, ironically enough, during the Cold War, one plausible resolution was believed to be a steady convergence of capitalism and communism... I guess no one saw it happening quite this way, though.:)
As much as I hate the principle of this thing, I don't think we can complain on grounds of it decreasing the audio/video quality of our shows.
The audio or video quality, no. The dramatic quality (such as it is) is another thing entirely. I don't know if losing one frame out of 44 can really alter our perception of a dramatic pause -- are there any editor/director types who claim that sort of precision? But that's not the issue.
It's another 30 seconds out of 30 minutes that you're not watching the program. It stretches out the commercial breaks by padding them even more. This in turn adds to the break in dramatic continuity and of course makes it even more tempting to just walk away and do something else during the commercial break -- perhaps indeed during the rest of the show.
I mean, I already notice how excruciatingly long commercial breaks are now. It's getting to where you can forget what you're watching, for the love of Pete. This is just another way for broadcast TV to commit suicide in slow motion.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, only if you receive your livelihood from slashdot and also had reason to believe that a failure to vote "correctly" would impact your career. The issue is not that Microsoft tells its people about a poll. The issue is, Microsoft can -- implicitly, at least -- coerce them to vote a certain way.
No, I know what "if" means. I was denying the tacit assumption that the proposed hypothetical had any relevance, moral or otherwise, to the argument.
Umm, no. The price of something is set by the interplay of what the producer wants for it and what the consumer is will to pay for it. The producer can set his/her "asking price", but all they are doing is that, asking. The consumer sets his/her buying price. Until these agree, the sale does not occur and the thing in question is essentially without value.
We act as if only one side or the other is important here. Although I see slashdotters go whole hog for their way, the trend started on the other side: The Content Cartel wants you to believe that there is no copyright bargain; that copyright means only the rights and powers held by the producer and that the recipient is a powerless and valueless pawn, good only to consume. It ain't so.
There is a dialog between the two. Right now it's mostly drowned out by cries of havoc and disaster, but behind the scenes, the two sides will reach some accommodation through the dead hand of Adam Smith, should we fail to excercise our intellects.
What is this "would have"? How can we argue about realities, as if you or I could say what someone would do if the world were different.
Under the "They would have bought the CD, so I lost money" argument, you could also sue say, Ford Motors, for laying off someone who -- if he hadn't lost his job -- "would have" bought the CD. Hey, that's a lost sale; and it's Ford's fault. So pay up!
The argument shouldn't be framed in terms of property being "stolen", because no property is stolen, because intellectual output is not property. The debate should be framed in terms of "How can we offer sufficient incentive to an artist to continue to do art, if they cannot derive revenue from controlling the publication?"
Article 1, Section 8 says (paraphrased) "Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". It doesn't say Congress must. It doesn't say this is the only way to achieve that aim. For goodness sakes, six billion people on this planet, can't someone come up with a mechanism that rewards artists and breaks the stranglehood of artificial distribution monopolies?
Actually, it's simply proof that Hollywood believes that its own members can't remember what happened for very long. Since Oscar-qaulity movies are all held back until late -- to gain a bump just before nominations -- we don't have a lot to compare to.
Or perhaps you think Family Feud's "Survey Says" always revealed true fact.
I think we could argue that it has never been necessary... If instead we talk about when it became commonplace, I think it dates back to mainframes. IBM, at least, never sold a mainframe to a customer. They leased it, guaranteeing support but retaining control. The software, in those days, came bundled on the Big Iron and didn't really run anywhere else, so it was included in the lease. I believe -- but have no actual facts to back me up
Or maybe I'll just not watch and recover that time in my life. In fact maybe a lot of people will... no matter what they try to convince you, Big Media absolutely depends on your watching. You, on the other hand, do not depend on them...
And that's what they fear.
We're doing OK. Sure, some of these things aren't commonplace market realities yet, but I don't want to hear it: If the Apollo program (moon landing: 1969) is accepted as "1940s" technology, then a gap of a few decades is apparently OK.
Although it might be true that someone from 1950 could recognize more of life in 2002 than someone in 1900 could have of 1952, that's a temporary anomaly. In fifyy years, the world will look nothing like it does today. The past looks richer because you're far enough to see what turned out to be actually significant.
I honestly didn't know, but google to the rescue: From the site, Federal Judicial Center History of the Federal Courts, we have
So the federal district system dates back as far as the Constitution itself. Early in the Republic, the Supreme Court justices also rode the circuit, so perhaps that's what the poster was remembering.
I might be wrong, but I believe there is in fact only one higher court, the United States Supreme Court.
But then the reviewer gets a reputation for being clueless, people stop referring to his/her opinion, and the reviewer (or the reviewer's employer) suffers. Isn't that the way the supposed free market is supposed to work? Aren't restrictions like NA's more or less intended to subvert the market by removing information from the hands of customers?
Interesting theory. It's not actually backed by anything in history, as far as I've ever seen, but interesting... I find it odd to assert that a conscript army would be more reliable, or more friendly to democratic institutions, than a volunteer one. The move toward volunteer armies has, in general, made armies more professional and less easily swayed to seize power for themselves.
I guess it's OK to worry about the potential for the American legions to declare a President -- something that had uncomfortable echoes ringing in my head during the oversea-ballot mini-debacle inside the 2000 general election meltdown -- but truth be told, the American army has proven remarkably resistent to the temptation of king-making.
Consider: During Watergate, every civil authority told President Nixon that he had to surrender his tapes, and he refused. The man controlled the world's most potent stockpile of nuclear weapons; a vast and effective intelligence apparatus; and millions of servicepeople looking to him as Commander-in-Chief. Some of those people were in the 101st Airbone and 82nd Airborne, elite strike troops; some were stationed quite near DC and the centers of power. It had to have crossed his mind how easily the armed forces of the United States could assume control, since -- NRA notwithstanding -- the American homeland is essentially demilitarized.
Yet, when the rubber met the road and the Supreme Court -- nine old guys in black robes -- told the Presdident of the United States, "Mr. President, you must surrender the tapes", Nixon didn't call in an airstrike; he didn't mobilize the troops; he didn't even huff and puff in that direction. Instead, he handed over the tapes. Why? Because Dick Nixon was such a firm believer in the smooth operation of justice? Nonsense.
He did it because he knew that if he issued those orders, they would not be obeyed. The American military really does see itself as properly subordinate to the civilian authority. They really do see their mission as to protect, not to rule. And why is that? Because at the heart they see themselves as citizens first, who happen to be serving. Not as some separate class called "soldier" with different priveleges and responsibilities, distinct from the general populous.
Think how astoning that is -- an army, a nation, full of modern-day Cincinatti. It boggles the mind.
Are you asserting that, in building a bridge, there exists no pressure to finish on time, or better, early? To hold down costs? To maximize profits?
Of course there is. Why then don't most bridges fall down? Because the law clearly stipulates who would be held liable -- the company that cut corners, that used substandard materials, that ignored the advice of its professionals. One of my points is, we don't hold software companies liable for the failure of their software. You can cry "special circumstance" all you want, but this lack of responsibility contributes a lot (IMHO) to the relatively immature state of software engineering.
The last part of that sentence is true. The first is absurd. Bridges most certainly are better designed than (most) software: Bridges fulfill their intended function under heavy load and do not collapse. Software, even when properly installed and run, blows up with distressing regularity.
And when people attack bridges, they assault the physical integrity of the structure; they don't explot design flaws. Very rarely, if ever, does a terrorist say "Hey, look here. They forgot to count the rivets. If I pull one it falls apart." Compare that to, say, the number of buffer overrun exploits out there.
Consider, however, software engineering. The platform you use, the language you speak, the tools you employ -- they all evolve over short time scales. None have had a century or more of Darwinian pressure applied. No one expects them to work, fully. The liability for failure rests with the company or person using the software, not with the company or person writing it. We haven't had the time to develop the technical or social methods for preventing bad software and reinforcing good software.
How many computer programmer professional societies require rigorou entrance exams and periodic proof of competency?
This will continue until the costs are brought back to the companies that write insecure code. This can happen through government regulation -- the creation of a "software building code" -- or through the dead hand of Adam Smith -- companies start to avoid purchasing insecure software.
The greatest sign that this sort of sea change might be a-coming? The fact that Microsoft feels there is enough market interest to attempt, at the very least, to jump onboard a PR train.
Why not call it what it is, which is "copyright infringement"? Not theft. Not piracy. "Copyright infringement". You want to know why the Content Cartel will not call it what it is, why they resort to distortions of language?
Because "copyright infringement" is a dry, technical term born of a dry, technical field -- copyright law -- and the Content Cartel know that to make your case, you need pizzazz. You need something sexier than "copyright infringement" to connect with the masses, to make them consider the crime as anything more than a passionless pursuit of cash through arcane usage restrictions that hardly speak to the common person. Label it "copyright infringement" and the ordinary bloke will think that it isn't really important, that it's not a "real" crime.
Now, do you want to know the really big dirty secret of the Content Cartel? The one thing they don't want you, or anyone else, to realize? Here it is: The ordinary bloke is right. It isn't a real crime, on the order of murder, or extortion, or speeding. It's a passionless pursuit of cash through arcane usage restrictions that hardly speak to the common person. It's a legal game.
So of course you can't call it what it is.
Um, this consumer backs up his CDs to MP3 for purely personal use. I have only downloaded one album that I did not (then) own. I'm a little ashamed to admit it was the Tron soundtrack
You know what? Within a week or so I deleted the MP3s. I don't need to make the RIAA's point for them, and I do have a legitimate use. From then on, the only MP3s I have had are the ones I ripped from my own CDs. I now listen to the MP3s, since
So yes, some consumers really do stay within the bounds of personal use and fair use. Of course I won't buy any so-called CDs that sport copy protection, as the inability to control the site of playing lowers the value of the CD. A CD that costs $20 and that I can space-shift is worth more than one that costs $20 and prevents me. The copy protection, in fact, lowers the benefit -- or raises the effective price -- beyond what I'd be willing to pay.
Final irony: When Disney finally released Tron on CD -- just this week -- I went out and bought it. Had I not refreshed my memory via the MP3s, I almost certainly would not. So that bit of "piracy" actually netted Disney a sale. In other words, the record companies are dinosaurs that don't understand all these newfangled furry things running around their feet.
I have felt, for a long time, that the role of encryption and copyright needs to be rebalanced along the following lines: EITHER
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way and, with Big Media and the Content Cartel holding all the cards, especially the rectangular green ones, it's unlikely it's ever going to work that way.
But I could be wrong. It certainly has precedent.
GEO is geosynchronous orbit; that is, an orbit that is synchronous with the Earth's rotation. A satellite in GEO will appear to remain fixed above a point on the equator, as it would by definition have an orbital period of one day. Obviously, the rotation of the Earth has an awfully lot to do with GEO, since it sets the period and therefore the orbital radius. (Relatively simple physics tells that, if the centripetal acceleration must be provided by the Earth's gravity only, then T^2 is proportional to r^3, and so there is exactly one radius that can yield a circular orbit of given period T).
Minor disclaimer: I believe the definition of GEO also states that the satellite orbit in the equatorial plane of the Earth, so as to remain "fixed" in the sky. Other orbits with period 24 hours can be imagined, but the Earth would "rotate under" them in a complicated -- probably Lissajou -- figure.
Here's the real rub: The actual radius that comes out is huge
Finally, as an aside, the Moon is not spiralling into the Earth. In fact, quite the opposite is occuring: The Moon is receding, making up for the angular momentum lost in the Earth-Moon system due to the tidal slowing of the Earth.
Yes abd no, in one breath. EUVE certainly is not in GEO, which is why it's falling back. Stuff in GEO tends to stay there forever, as there is essentially no atmospheric drag. EUVE is, if I recall correctly, in Low Earth Orbit, almost certainly about the same as the Shuttle. Drag is strong enough to deorbit things on short time scales in LEO.
There really aren't meaningful orbits higher than GEO, unless you're leaving Earth entirely.
I'm sorry, that should be "Let me guess -- are you are grammar teacher, too?"
In all seriousness, chill out. It seems clear to me that the original respondent was only trying to be funny -- notice "The correct misspelling", as if any misspelling could be correct -- and was not launching any sort of personal attack. We all screw up spelling, especially online, especially-squared on slashdot. That doesn't mean it should be glossed over.
Well, ironically enough, during the Cold War, one plausible resolution was believed to be a steady convergence of capitalism and communism... I guess no one saw it happening quite this way, though.
No. Under modern theories, there is indeed a well-defined vacuum state... it's just not empty.
The audio or video quality, no. The dramatic quality (such as it is) is another thing entirely. I don't know if losing one frame out of 44 can really alter our perception of a dramatic pause -- are there any editor/director types who claim that sort of precision? But that's not the issue.
It's another 30 seconds out of 30 minutes that you're not watching the program. It stretches out the commercial breaks by padding them even more. This in turn adds to the break in dramatic continuity and of course makes it even more tempting to just walk away and do something else during the commercial break -- perhaps indeed during the rest of the show.
I mean, I already notice how excruciatingly long commercial breaks are now. It's getting to where you can forget what you're watching, for the love of Pete. This is just another way for broadcast TV to commit suicide in slow motion.