Maybe it's just me, but I have a problem with police-like entities prowling my neighbourhood for the smallest infractions of the law. Meter-maids are annoying enough, but at least if you park in a Fire Route you *could* kill someone. However, it's absolutely overkill when the "crime" is nothing more than copyright infringement at worst. Nobody dies, nobody gets physically hurt, and a couple of nuts might get emotionally worked up about it. Big deal.
You're probably not aware, but I've spent over 6 months of my life in the UK, that's how I know her so well. Worse than that, the last month of those 6 was spent there just a couple of years ago. I know what the BBC is like. It was incredibly BORING. Unfortunately, it was a family visit so I had more than enough time to watch a LOT of TV.
Of the four channels available, as a ratio, IIRC, I spent the following time watching the stations:
I might have ITV and Granada mixed up. Which one shows Banzai and that crazy Breakfast TV show? Those are some awesome shows. Too bad they weren't made by that oh-so-holy BBC.
>They are ad supported, but not by design, which breaks the continuity (no mini-build up just before the ad to keep you hooked) and destroys the quality (ever found a program to be more interesting with TiVo than without? Hell yes!) There just isn't the variety in the USA - here they're repeated several times a day, several days a week (if I ever see Parkinson interviewing Russel Crowe or Cher again...)
As a resident of Canada who has enjoyed American TV in the past, that's totally incorrect. American TV has many shows worth watching and a lot of stations (far more than 2) without commercials worth enjoying. A minimum of 1 is available for absolutely no yearly fees throughout most of America, and in my part of Canada it was two (PBS and TVOntario). Both of these stations included far more educational programming combined than even 1 hour of the BBC. Between Masterpiece Theatre and Imprint TVOntario has BBC beat by a mile for "hoity-toity" content.
>And they're showing programs not originally targetted at Americans, and yes different nationalities have different tastes.
True.
>Unfortunately, that is exactly what people who have only ever seen BBC America are bound to do.
Yup. That's why I spent some time watching the BBC in the UK. The funniest thing is, the only FREE thing the BBC gives away (their radio channels) are the only things worth enjoying! Radio 1 kicks ass.
BBC America is enough of a taste and reminder of BBC UK for me that it snaps me back into reality any time I am thinking of being more socialist.
>Oh no! People are required to pay a direct tax for a state sponsored service! Oh no!
So, why isn't Canada paying for my 3 mbit DSL line? There's another zillion things I could come up with that other people should be paying for. Why? Because I USE THEM, THEREFORE EVERYONE MUST PAY!
>Oh no! Tax avoidence is being detected!
By white vans prowling the neighbourhood. Very strange. SOCAN doesn't drive around in white vans checking for the LO of TVs in my store, even though technically if I play one for customer use rather than my own I have to pay taxes.
>Oh no! The tax may occasionally be used to pay for a service I do not directly require!
Nobodyrequires TV. That's asinine.
>People pay thousands of pounds in taxes every year, and it doesn't mean those people are living in Police States.
Yup. They live outside the UK. How's them CCD police cameras working for you? Reducing crime? No? Violent crimes involving guns are at an all time high? Maybe the resolution on the CCD isn't high enough to see a gun.
>The only difference between the Television Licence and an indirect Tax is that the TV Licence is collected directly and with much less overhead than an indirectly collected tax.
No tax should be required. The US has shown the world a model of TV service that not only ameliorates the problem of a tax funded station going out of control and no long doing as the tax payer requires, but also encourages competition and better TV.
Before you say it, when there's hundreds of channels available, even if only 5% of American TV is good (and it is) that's a hell of a lot more than 4 stations. Proving once again that capitalism delivers the goods when it comes to luxuries (like TV).
PBS has demonstrated that all three of those (Information, Education and Entertainment) can be provided at no cost to the government while retaining the television owner's freedom to pay for only stations they wish to watch.
>Maybe you should be asking why more Governments do not consider publicly funded television important?
Maybe the UK should ask PBS how it operates. I'm sure PBS would be more than happy to explain.
>Therefore, assuming a constant current, the 300 watts at 12 volts (what the rating on your computer's power supply means) is going to be 30 watts at 120 volts coming out of the wall (probably with a small drain for AC->DC conversion, I'm not very familiar with power conversion though, maybe you can help out here).
No problem.
Watts are just usable power. If you were to compare it to kinetic energy, think of it this way:
Wether you lift a 100 LB stone to the top of a cliff quickly or slowly, the amount of energy available from that stone falling is identical. This is like your power/watts. When you drop that stone, it's going to fall at the same rate and cause the same amount of damage wether you've lifted it with a forklift or a block and tackle.
Therefore, if a device uses 100 watts, it will use 100 watts at 10 volts, or 100 watts at 100 volts. The current will vary to suit the equation.
That means 300 watts at 12 volts (which uses 25 amps) would use, assuming perfectly efficient power coversion (not likely, but no sense making this more complicated than necessary) 300 watts at 120 volts (which uses 2.5 amps). A device cannot "take" more current than it is designed to. A device will, however, always use all the available voltage (it has to).
That's why hooking up a ghetto blaster to a car battery is just as safe as using AA batteries. The car battery can't "force" more current into the device. The only way to do that is to increase voltage.
Hope that helps.
>That's exactly how I arrived at the original 40-watt figure. Allow for some margin of error on the exact figure, as I checked at the mains coming into the circuit, got 6.6 amps (at 120 VAC), and divided by the 20 machines on the circuit (all have fairly similar specs, the variation is just RAM and disk sizes) to get 39.6 watts per machine (which I rounded up to 40, so sue me:)).
Okay. Well, I would say either the meter isn't displaying the correct current usage, or you are a special case... Which is totally possible. Computers do tend to use less current when idle, but 40 watts seems low considering a laptop battery holds up to 6 AH at 6 volts (that's a life of 1 hour at 36 watts draw). I sorta doubt a desktop machine uses the same power as a laptop, but anything is possible!:-)
>This means it is rated for a maximum of 300 watts at 12 volts, which would be a draw of 30 watts at 120 volts (assuming it is maxed).
There's your error.
Watts are a measurement of power. Volts are a measurement of "pressure". Amps (not mentioned) are a measurement of speed.
100 Watts at 120 volts, 12 volts, or 1 volt will provide exactly the same amount of power.
Considering a modern athlon computer is likely to blow up a 200 watt PSU, and work OK on a 300 watt PSU, I'd say a safe guess is about 250 watts of output power used on a personal PC. Which means, counting in inefficiencies, about 300 - 350 watts of power drawn from the outlet.
>Remember, watts = volts / amps
Sorry, resistance = Volts / Amps...:-)
If you used a clamp on Ammeter, you need to multiply the figure displayed by your local voltage (probably 120 volts) to get watts.
Has a white van visited your neighbourhood yet, checking to see if you own an illegal TV?
And what if you don't like the Beeb? Most people in North America can get it, but almost none of them have ever tuned it in (nothing worth watching). Oh yeah, that's right -- this isn't opt-out -- it's like spam. An unwanted cost for crap you would rather delete.
And yeah, Canada sucks for the same reason (oh how I loathe the CRTC and CBC). Except for the police state stuff. The government doesn't drive around with white vans looking for US satellite equipment.
>btw since when are cars modified to go over 250 km/h outlawed
Never outlawed, just that most companies limit them this way so that fast cars don't *get* outlawed.:)
That way only people smart enough to tinker with their cars (not me) are able to drive them at speeds fast enough to kill dozens, maybe hundreds of people.
>Ah.. so whenever a binary distribution of some bit of GPL software is downloaded, the hosting site (beign the effective distributor) has to send the downloaded a written notice that they can get the source?
No, they can choose the other option; which is to offer the source along with the binary.
>I am very sure this is not the intention of the paragraph, which means that there is definitely gonna be a way in which electronic notices will be allowed.
Yup, the "electronic notice" would simply be supplying the source with the binary.
That's why you should give the FSF rights to your GPL software. Then it doesn't cost a dime to protect your freedoms.
Then again, since I'm not a developer, perhaps there's other philosophical issues apart from the legal issues that keep authors from signing their rights over to the FSF.
>By requiring people to file claims through the court, as would normally happen, people are much less able to make phony claims.
If it workes for Bill Gates, why can't it work for anyone?
You don't get it both ways, Microsoft. Either you let everyone lie to the courts, or you don't. Which one they prefer -- they've already made your own bed of nails on that one -- doesn't matter.
>Besides all the paranoia, *I* paid for this connection. If I want to let passers by use it I'll put up a sign. The Canadian government's casual attitude toward personal property and an individual's freedoms is what -really- separates us from the Americans. I had more rights and freedoms as an immigrant in the USA than I do as a citizen in Canada.
Uhhh, just to let you know, it was COPS (the American TV shows) that originally gave me the impetus to look up tresspass law.
It's the same in the US. Unless you let the person know, it's considered public property. And that's how it should be. Anything else would be oppressive.
>just a quick look on statistic canada: Nearly half (48.7%) of all regular home Internet-use households had a high-speed Internet connection in 2001
Thanks for backing me up!
shepd previously saith:
By population, we probably have a solid 50% or more that have access to high speed internet, excluding satellite (not an option for the reason listed below).
Thanks!:)
Re:I saw one at McDonalds this weekend also
on
Public BSOD Sightings?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Smiles might be on the menu for free, but you don't have to order them if you say "please", "thank you", and "sorry".
Amazing how those simple words, even at the drive thru, get you the correct change and a good meal each time, with the condiments in the bag.
Which reminds me of how amazed the local video store was when I said "Yeah, I returned a couple of videos late last time. Could you tell me how much extra that will be, please?" The clerk literally thought I was from another planet.
Any place with a decent set of fire codes, and people who are actually following them, shouldn't be worrying. FT-5/Plenum cable is simply not a danger.
Now, if residential "wood burns faster so who cares" FT-1 vinyl cable is used, you get what you pay for. That being said, if the fire inspector ever sees that stuff, you'll probably be looking at a really juicy fine.
>The easy way to avoid either penalty is to STOP STEALING.
Actally the easiest (and cheapest!) way to avoid those penalties is to start stealing.
Shoplifting a CD from a record store carries far, far, far fewer penalties than downloading even a single track from the same disc. Even if they hit you with the maximum the law allows you're still way ahead of what most people get for settling out of court with the RIAA.
Think about it. Who's really doing the stealing here?
>Plus, the market is already crowded with cable, DSL, satellite, and wireless carriers (Sprint) providing WiFi ISP coverage.
Not really. I'd say 99% of Canada, by area, still hasn't anything but 28.8k internet access (if that).
By population, we probably have a solid 50% or more that have access to high speed internet, excluding satellite (not an option for the reason listed below).
Powerline solutions like this are perfect for the many areas (many of which are, surprisingly, in large cities!) that Bell ran phone cables to haphazardly, and areas which never got sucked into the cable craze.
Satellite internet access isn't an option in Canada at $100 per GB (ask ExpressVU), and wireless carriers such as LookTV are absolutely inept at running a business.
Powerline access could be the saviour for "rurbanites".
>Using a wifi is a two-way transaction--he is sending packets to the business' WAP and forcing it to steal bandwidth from the business.
Bingo! The effective word being "force".
He didn't "force" the WAP to accept his packets. The WAP was configured to willingly accept them. He didn't break any encryption, and he didn't break any logins.
>I don't know if the legal system sees that the same as physically entering a building, but I would guess if you robbed a store remotely using magnets the law would find something...
Actaully, the law on trespass in both Canada and the US pretty much requires there either be a warning sign that the property is private, or that the "offender" has previously been personally warned that he may not access the property.
There is no offence of "entering", only "Break and Enter", if no property is stolen. Leaving your door open to your house, having someone enter, and them having them leave with nothing physical would come under trespass law, AFAIK. Yes, the "robber" could probably even use your phone without permission -- this could be wrong, though. The fact is nobody is so dumb to have done this, so there's no case law on this point (or, I hope to God there isn't any).
The WAP neither warned the user that it was only for private use (perhaps with a primary webpage stating it was for that purpose, or perhaps it not handing out DHCP leases) nor did it prevent the user from entering it through encryption or logins.
I hope to hell the guy gets busted on the child porno charges, but it would scare me if he is busted for using an open WAP. Otherwise, there'll be people filling the court rooms every time their log shows an "intruder" getting a DHCP lease by accident.
>Yeah, because burning the files to a CD and playing that CD in a computer or stereo is just too hard to do.
Yeah, because rather than abiding by the intent of the DRM, let's just circumvent it.
Oh, shit, isn't that what this utility does?
I'm so fucking tired of hypocrites. You circumvent the DRM or you don't. Doing it in a manner that doesn't require cracking doesn't make that fact any different.
If only people were honest and did what they were told. Which is make the (up to ) 5 copies of the CD and decided to only play them in their stereos and not computers. Because that's what they're clearly inteded for. The fact is most people don't understand the concept of "spirit of the contract" vs. "letter of the contract". All they know is how they can break the contract without actually going to court. Until people develop the moral character to follow the "spirit of the contract", DRM will not be needed.
>a) HOW??? how do we lose if a decent DRM model that gives the user rights but prevents someone who didnt pay for said music from playing it is created? You say we lose but dont back it up with anything.
Simple: Only a DRM model so lax it is completely useless would permit users to have complete rights.
There will always be exceptions to the rule (maybe you have more than 5 CD carousel players, in the case of Apple's DRM) that DRM cannot handle. That's how you lose. You lose rights you had.
>b) ok the reson cell ranges where banned was because it promoted easdropping, The US has a lot of rules against easdropping fo you can feel safe that 99% of the time someone isnt listening in. (despite all the conspiricy minded people might want you to think)
Exactly. It's nothing but a feel good law that doesn't actually prevent what's intended (keeping wackos from listening in). It's like the laws against satellite piracy. They're laughably ineffective.
Rather, they end up preventing the people who had a valid reason for using such equipment (in the case of cell scanners, legally and easily recording your old AMPS phone conversation) from doing what was their right.
>long story short, the guy who did the easdropping saw my aunt and asked how the child was coming along... 2 weeks after her fourth misscarage. yes you can guess how that went., The guys wife ended up destroying the scanner and threatened to turn the guy in if he ever did it again.
Rather than locking out valid uses (such as I've described) in Canada we've simply made it an offence to do what that guy did (divulge private conversations he wasn't an intended party to). Which is what copyright law does vs. DRM. Copyright law protects people against wholesale abuse of their creation after the fact, whereas DRM prevents one from doing it at all costs.
It's the difference between being assumed innocent, and being presumed to break the law. If your government can't even trust you not to copy a CD illegally, you're fucked.
>Last but not least your canadian, iTunes doesnt work for you unless you have a US billing address, SO since you havent tried it, you have no right to complain about a DRM you haven't even experienced.
Good point. I gather what makes this DRM effective from reviews by others. From what I know:
- You can only make 5 CD-Rs of your iTunes music.
- You can only play the AAC files on 3 computers.
If any of those are wrong, please let me know!
As I've never tried it, I had no idea the service is not availble in Canada. That being said, it's common for Canadians to adopt a US address to access services banned in this country.
>They couldnt win if Apple proved a DRM model could work and still could give the users the rights they where garenteed to have.
No, everyone but the RIAA loses if that happens.
>If we want a feasable working internet media model that allows us to have films and music, and anything else, we have to make sacrafices.
*shudder* This is the same sort of argument that got the cell ranges on American scanners banned, and, subsequently, made getting a decent scanner in my country expensive.
>So what do some of us do, PROVE that the whole lot of us are diviants and hack the freaking DRM, PROVING the RIAA right that they shoulkd have tighter control.
I consider it proving my right, as a Canadian, to let my friends have perfect copies of any copyrighted music I own.
My willingness to exercise that right (and my preference to pay less and get more by purchasing the same music on a real CD) have prevented me from making any iTunes purchases.
>The music industry can't do these kind of tactics directly, so partically no one "leaves a tip," ergo they can't trust you, because you've proven untrustable.
??? Copyright law anyone?
Why spit in someone's soup when you can simply declare ownership of their home and car?
Slashdot Mirror
>Sigh, -1 troll.
Maybe it's just me, but I have a problem with police-like entities prowling my neighbourhood for the smallest infractions of the law. Meter-maids are annoying enough, but at least if you park in a Fire Route you *could* kill someone. However, it's absolutely overkill when the "crime" is nothing more than copyright infringement at worst. Nobody dies, nobody gets physically hurt, and a couple of nuts might get emotionally worked up about it. Big deal.
You're probably not aware, but I've spent over 6 months of my life in the UK, that's how I know her so well. Worse than that, the last month of those 6 was spent there just a couple of years ago. I know what the BBC is like. It was incredibly BORING. Unfortunately, it was a family visit so I had more than enough time to watch a LOT of TV.
Of the four channels available, as a ratio, IIRC, I spent the following time watching the stations:
BBC-1 and BBC-2 -- 5%
ITV -- 35%
Ch 4 / Granada -- 60%
I might have ITV and Granada mixed up. Which one shows Banzai and that crazy Breakfast TV show? Those are some awesome shows. Too bad they weren't made by that oh-so-holy BBC.
>They are ad supported, but not by design, which breaks the continuity (no mini-build up just before the ad to keep you hooked) and destroys the quality (ever found a program to be more interesting with TiVo than without? Hell yes!) There just isn't the variety in the USA - here they're repeated several times a day, several days a week (if I ever see Parkinson interviewing Russel Crowe or Cher again...)
As a resident of Canada who has enjoyed American TV in the past, that's totally incorrect. American TV has many shows worth watching and a lot of stations (far more than 2) without commercials worth enjoying. A minimum of 1 is available for absolutely no yearly fees throughout most of America, and in my part of Canada it was two (PBS and TVOntario). Both of these stations included far more educational programming combined than even 1 hour of the BBC. Between Masterpiece Theatre and Imprint TVOntario has BBC beat by a mile for "hoity-toity" content.
>And they're showing programs not originally targetted at Americans, and yes different nationalities have different tastes.
True.
>Unfortunately, that is exactly what people who have only ever seen BBC America are bound to do.
Yup. That's why I spent some time watching the BBC in the UK. The funniest thing is, the only FREE thing the BBC gives away (their radio channels) are the only things worth enjoying! Radio 1 kicks ass.
BBC America is enough of a taste and reminder of BBC UK for me that it snaps me back into reality any time I am thinking of being more socialist.
>Oh no! People are required to pay a direct tax for a state sponsored service! Oh no!
So, why isn't Canada paying for my 3 mbit DSL line? There's another zillion things I could come up with that other people should be paying for. Why? Because I USE THEM, THEREFORE EVERYONE MUST PAY!
>Oh no! Tax avoidence is being detected!
By white vans prowling the neighbourhood. Very strange. SOCAN doesn't drive around in white vans checking for the LO of TVs in my store, even though technically if I play one for customer use rather than my own I have to pay taxes.
>Oh no! The tax may occasionally be used to pay for a service I do not directly require!
Nobody requires TV. That's asinine.
>People pay thousands of pounds in taxes every year, and it doesn't mean those people are living in Police States.
Yup. They live outside the UK. How's them CCD police cameras working for you? Reducing crime? No? Violent crimes involving guns are at an all time high? Maybe the resolution on the CCD isn't high enough to see a gun.
>The only difference between the Television Licence and an indirect Tax is that the TV Licence is collected directly and with much less overhead than an indirectly collected tax.
No tax should be required. The US has shown the world a model of TV service that not only ameliorates the problem of a tax funded station going out of control and no long doing as the tax payer requires, but also encourages competition and better TV.
Before you say it, when there's hundreds of channels available, even if only 5% of American TV is good (and it is) that's a hell of a lot more than 4 stations. Proving once again that capitalism delivers the goods when it comes to luxuries (like TV).
PBS has demonstrated that all three of those (Information, Education and Entertainment) can be provided at no cost to the government while retaining the television owner's freedom to pay for only stations they wish to watch.
>Maybe you should be asking why more Governments do not consider publicly funded television important?
Maybe the UK should ask PBS how it operates. I'm sure PBS would be more than happy to explain.
>Therefore, assuming a constant current, the 300 watts at 12 volts (what the rating on your computer's power supply means) is going to be 30 watts at 120 volts coming out of the wall (probably with a small drain for AC->DC conversion, I'm not very familiar with power conversion though, maybe you can help out here).
:)).
:-)
No problem.
Watts are just usable power. If you were to compare it to kinetic energy, think of it this way:
Wether you lift a 100 LB stone to the top of a cliff quickly or slowly, the amount of energy available from that stone falling is identical. This is like your power/watts. When you drop that stone, it's going to fall at the same rate and cause the same amount of damage wether you've lifted it with a forklift or a block and tackle.
Therefore, if a device uses 100 watts, it will use 100 watts at 10 volts, or 100 watts at 100 volts. The current will vary to suit the equation.
That means 300 watts at 12 volts (which uses 25 amps) would use, assuming perfectly efficient power coversion (not likely, but no sense making this more complicated than necessary) 300 watts at 120 volts (which uses 2.5 amps). A device cannot "take" more current than it is designed to. A device will, however, always use all the available voltage (it has to).
That's why hooking up a ghetto blaster to a car battery is just as safe as using AA batteries. The car battery can't "force" more current into the device. The only way to do that is to increase voltage.
Hope that helps.
>That's exactly how I arrived at the original 40-watt figure. Allow for some margin of error on the exact figure, as I checked at the mains coming into the circuit, got 6.6 amps (at 120 VAC), and divided by the 20 machines on the circuit (all have fairly similar specs, the variation is just RAM and disk sizes) to get 39.6 watts per machine (which I rounded up to 40, so sue me
Okay. Well, I would say either the meter isn't displaying the correct current usage, or you are a special case... Which is totally possible. Computers do tend to use less current when idle, but 40 watts seems low considering a laptop battery holds up to 6 AH at 6 volts (that's a life of 1 hour at 36 watts draw). I sorta doubt a desktop machine uses the same power as a laptop, but anything is possible!
>This means it is rated for a maximum of 300 watts at 12 volts, which would be a draw of 30 watts at 120 volts (assuming it is maxed).
:-)
There's your error.
Watts are a measurement of power. Volts are a measurement of "pressure". Amps (not mentioned) are a measurement of speed.
100 Watts at 120 volts, 12 volts, or 1 volt will provide exactly the same amount of power.
Considering a modern athlon computer is likely to blow up a 200 watt PSU, and work OK on a 300 watt PSU, I'd say a safe guess is about 250 watts of output power used on a personal PC. Which means, counting in inefficiencies, about 300 - 350 watts of power drawn from the outlet.
>Remember, watts = volts / amps
Sorry, resistance = Volts / Amps...
If you used a clamp on Ammeter, you need to multiply the figure displayed by your local voltage (probably 120 volts) to get watts.
Great...
Nothing beats living in a police state, does it?
Has a white van visited your neighbourhood yet, checking to see if you own an illegal TV?
And what if you don't like the Beeb? Most people in North America can get it, but almost none of them have ever tuned it in (nothing worth watching). Oh yeah, that's right -- this isn't opt-out -- it's like spam. An unwanted cost for crap you would rather delete.
And yeah, Canada sucks for the same reason (oh how I loathe the CRTC and CBC). Except for the police state stuff. The government doesn't drive around with white vans looking for US satellite equipment.
>btw since when are cars modified to go over 250 km/h outlawed
:)
Never outlawed, just that most companies limit them this way so that fast cars don't *get* outlawed.
That way only people smart enough to tinker with their cars (not me) are able to drive them at speeds fast enough to kill dozens, maybe hundreds of people.
They might be able to exceed the speed limit, but how many can go over 250 km/h without being modified? :-)
>Ah.. so whenever a binary distribution of some bit of GPL software is downloaded, the hosting site (beign the effective distributor) has to send the downloaded a written notice that they can get the source?
:)
No, they can choose the other option; which is to offer the source along with the binary.
>I am very sure this is not the intention of the paragraph, which means that there is definitely gonna be a way in which electronic notices will be allowed.
Yup, the "electronic notice" would simply be supplying the source with the binary.
HTH!
>Maybe they do, have you looked to see that there is no README on the flash card that the binary kernel is on?
:-)
Allow me to help repeat...
written offer. As in with the ink on the paper, you know?
>... Then wouldn't a scanner with OCR software be considered a machine??
0n, ye5 l an 5une 1L w0u1d oe c0n51dened o na(n1me!
>"... or else what? A bunch of college kids are going to sue us? Not bloody likely."
No, the free software foundation would take care of that. Perhaps also the ACLU would like to help out.
That's why you should give the FSF rights to your GPL software. Then it doesn't cost a dime to protect your freedoms.
Then again, since I'm not a developer, perhaps there's other philosophical issues apart from the legal issues that keep authors from signing their rights over to the FSF.
>By requiring people to file claims through the court, as would normally happen, people are much less able to make phony claims.
If it workes for Bill Gates, why can't it work for anyone?
You don't get it both ways, Microsoft. Either you let everyone lie to the courts, or you don't. Which one they prefer -- they've already made your own bed of nails on that one -- doesn't matter.
>Users are going to click "YES" anyway, without reading the warning, then call you later to say they're missing a file and need it restored from tape.
That's the problem with India. Their responses to double negatives are actually correct; unlike North American dialects.
"Would you please not to delete this file?"
What you expect to answer depends on your dialect. I'm dead serious on this.
'Yes' and 'no' agreeing to the form of a question, not just its content --
A: 'You didn't come on the bus?'
B: 'Yes, I didn't.'"
>Besides all the paranoia, *I* paid for this connection. If I want to let passers by use it I'll put up a sign. The Canadian government's casual attitude toward personal property and an individual's freedoms is what -really- separates us from the Americans. I had more rights and freedoms as an immigrant in the USA than I do as a citizen in Canada.
Uhhh, just to let you know, it was COPS (the American TV shows) that originally gave me the impetus to look up tresspass law.
It's the same in the US. Unless you let the person know, it's considered public property. And that's how it should be. Anything else would be oppressive.
>just a quick look on statistic canada: Nearly half (48.7%) of all regular home Internet-use households had a high-speed Internet connection in 2001
:)
Thanks for backing me up!
shepd previously saith:
By population, we probably have a solid 50% or more that have access to high speed internet, excluding satellite (not an option for the reason listed below).
Thanks!
Smiles might be on the menu for free, but you don't have to order them if you say "please", "thank you", and "sorry".
Amazing how those simple words, even at the drive thru, get you the correct change and a good meal each time, with the condiments in the bag.
Which reminds me of how amazed the local video store was when I said "Yeah, I returned a couple of videos late last time. Could you tell me how much extra that will be, please?" The clerk literally thought I was from another planet.
Any place with a decent set of fire codes, and people who are actually following them, shouldn't be worrying. FT-5/Plenum cable is simply not a danger.
Now, if residential "wood burns faster so who cares" FT-1 vinyl cable is used, you get what you pay for. That being said, if the fire inspector ever sees that stuff, you'll probably be looking at a really juicy fine.
>The easy way to avoid either penalty is to STOP STEALING.
Actally the easiest (and cheapest!) way to avoid those penalties is to start stealing.
Shoplifting a CD from a record store carries far, far, far fewer penalties than downloading even a single track from the same disc. Even if they hit you with the maximum the law allows you're still way ahead of what most people get for settling out of court with the RIAA.
Think about it. Who's really doing the stealing here?
>Plus, the market is already crowded with cable, DSL, satellite, and wireless carriers (Sprint) providing WiFi ISP coverage.
Not really. I'd say 99% of Canada, by area, still hasn't anything but 28.8k internet access (if that).
By population, we probably have a solid 50% or more that have access to high speed internet, excluding satellite (not an option for the reason listed below).
Powerline solutions like this are perfect for the many areas (many of which are, surprisingly, in large cities!) that Bell ran phone cables to haphazardly, and areas which never got sucked into the cable craze.
Satellite internet access isn't an option in Canada at $100 per GB (ask ExpressVU), and wireless carriers such as LookTV are absolutely inept at running a business.
Powerline access could be the saviour for "rurbanites".
>Using a wifi is a two-way transaction--he is sending packets to the business' WAP and forcing it to steal bandwidth from the business.
Bingo! The effective word being "force".
He didn't "force" the WAP to accept his packets. The WAP was configured to willingly accept them. He didn't break any encryption, and he didn't break any logins.
>I don't know if the legal system sees that the same as physically entering a building, but I would guess if you robbed a store remotely using magnets the law would find something...
Actaully, the law on trespass in both Canada and the US pretty much requires there either be a warning sign that the property is private, or that the "offender" has previously been personally warned that he may not access the property.
There is no offence of "entering", only "Break and Enter", if no property is stolen. Leaving your door open to your house, having someone enter, and them having them leave with nothing physical would come under trespass law, AFAIK. Yes, the "robber" could probably even use your phone without permission -- this could be wrong, though. The fact is nobody is so dumb to have done this, so there's no case law on this point (or, I hope to God there isn't any).
The WAP neither warned the user that it was only for private use (perhaps with a primary webpage stating it was for that purpose, or perhaps it not handing out DHCP leases) nor did it prevent the user from entering it through encryption or logins.
I hope to hell the guy gets busted on the child porno charges, but it would scare me if he is busted for using an open WAP. Otherwise, there'll be people filling the court rooms every time their log shows an "intruder" getting a DHCP lease by accident.
But, that being said, IANAL.
>Yeah, because burning the files to a CD and playing that CD in a computer or stereo is just too hard to do.
Yeah, because rather than abiding by the intent of the DRM, let's just circumvent it.
Oh, shit, isn't that what this utility does?
I'm so fucking tired of hypocrites. You circumvent the DRM or you don't. Doing it in a manner that doesn't require cracking doesn't make that fact any different.
If only people were honest and did what they were told. Which is make the (up to ) 5 copies of the CD and decided to only play them in their stereos and not computers. Because that's what they're clearly inteded for. The fact is most people don't understand the concept of "spirit of the contract" vs. "letter of the contract". All they know is how they can break the contract without actually going to court. Until people develop the moral character to follow the "spirit of the contract", DRM will not be needed.
>a) HOW??? how do we lose if a decent DRM model that gives the user rights but prevents someone who didnt pay for said music from playing it is created? You say we lose but dont back it up with anything.
Simple: Only a DRM model so lax it is completely useless would permit users to have complete rights.
There will always be exceptions to the rule (maybe you have more than 5 CD carousel players, in the case of Apple's DRM) that DRM cannot handle. That's how you lose. You lose rights you had.
>b) ok the reson cell ranges where banned was because it promoted easdropping, The US has a lot of rules against easdropping fo you can feel safe that 99% of the time someone isnt listening in. (despite all the conspiricy minded people might want you to think)
Exactly. It's nothing but a feel good law that doesn't actually prevent what's intended (keeping wackos from listening in). It's like the laws against satellite piracy. They're laughably ineffective.
Rather, they end up preventing the people who had a valid reason for using such equipment (in the case of cell scanners, legally and easily recording your old AMPS phone conversation) from doing what was their right.
>long story short, the guy who did the easdropping saw my aunt and asked how the child was coming along... 2 weeks after her fourth misscarage. yes you can guess how that went., The guys wife ended up destroying the scanner and threatened to turn the guy in if he ever did it again.
Rather than locking out valid uses (such as I've described) in Canada we've simply made it an offence to do what that guy did (divulge private conversations he wasn't an intended party to). Which is what copyright law does vs. DRM. Copyright law protects people against wholesale abuse of their creation after the fact, whereas DRM prevents one from doing it at all costs.
It's the difference between being assumed innocent, and being presumed to break the law. If your government can't even trust you not to copy a CD illegally, you're fucked.
>Last but not least your canadian, iTunes doesnt work for you unless you have a US billing address, SO since you havent tried it, you have no right to complain about a DRM you haven't even experienced.
Good point. I gather what makes this DRM effective from reviews by others. From what I know:
- You can only make 5 CD-Rs of your iTunes music.
- You can only play the AAC files on 3 computers.
If any of those are wrong, please let me know!
As I've never tried it, I had no idea the service is not availble in Canada. That being said, it's common for Canadians to adopt a US address to access services banned in this country.
>They couldnt win if Apple proved a DRM model could work and still could give the users the rights they where garenteed to have.
No, everyone but the RIAA loses if that happens.
>If we want a feasable working internet media model that allows us to have films and music, and anything else, we have to make sacrafices.
*shudder* This is the same sort of argument that got the cell ranges on American scanners banned, and, subsequently, made getting a decent scanner in my country expensive.
>So what do some of us do, PROVE that the whole lot of us are diviants and hack the freaking DRM, PROVING the RIAA right that they shoulkd have tighter control.
I consider it proving my right, as a Canadian, to let my friends have perfect copies of any copyrighted music I own.
My willingness to exercise that right (and my preference to pay less and get more by purchasing the same music on a real CD) have prevented me from making any iTunes purchases.
>The music industry can't do these kind of tactics directly, so partically no one "leaves a tip," ergo they can't trust you, because you've proven untrustable.
??? Copyright law anyone?
Why spit in someone's soup when you can simply declare ownership of their home and car?