It depends on the jurisdiction. Most places require some artistry, creativity, creation to go into a production of something for it to qualify for protection, and a technical reproduction in the form of a full-frame scan of a 2D-document is unlikely to fullfill that criteria.
It requires *expertise* and it is a lot of *work* to make it, but you're not creatively creating, infact you're doing your darnest to keep the work as close to the original as possible. (i.e to *AVOID* significantly adding or subtracting from the original work)
Wikipedias position, for example, is that full-frame head-on technical reproductions of 2D works in the public domain are ineligible for copyright, and can freely be uploaded. Offcourse in the end the opinion of judges is what counts, but Wikipedia *has* sought competent legal advice for this position.
False positives is a bigger problem than false-negatives when something is rare.
If one-in-a-million air-traveller is a terrorist, and your test has a 1% false-positive rate, then when a million people go trough, 10.001 will get stopped, and 10.000 of them will be non-terrorists. You'll inconvenience a hell of a lot of people, and cause enormous costs, and almost everyone who's stopped is innocent.
On the other hand, a test with 10% false-negative rate would still be very useful. Sure, there's some risk a terrorist would get lucky and sneak trough, but nevertheless the test would stop 9 out of ever 10, which is certainly a good start.
Asking a different price for a different service is fine. I do too.
Rate 1, the cheapest one, is for custom-made-software where I can use open-source foundations, and where I can do whatever I want with the end-result, the customer gets a copy under the GPL and can do what he want with the software, subject to the restrictions in that license (which are few)
Rate 2, more expensive, for software where the customer retains full rights to the end-result, this means I can't use open-source foundations unless they're under a license that permits taking things propriertary, and it also means I cannot turn around and sell the end-result to additional customers. For that reason, the hourly rate is higher.
It's perfectly fine for a wedding-photographer (or anyone else) to say: "I'm $200/hour, or $250/hour if you want the copyright for the end-results"
Actually, in my jurisdiction there's no significant difference between the two, because personality-rights would prevent you from selling portraits of us without a model-release. Thus you can't actually sell copies of the pictures to third parties, even if you retain copyright. (well, you could sell those pictures that for example depict the venue or the wedding-cake, but my guess is you'd have few takers)
But no, if you could, I do -not- think it'd be fair. I *paid* you a fair price for the production of those images, that's it, you do not get to first be paid, then be paid AGAIN.
As for retouching, I may or may not (that's my choice!) want to purchase those services for you. If I do, that's mostly done in photoshop these days, and doesn't preclude transfering ownership of the end-result.
Hi, and it's my pictures -- if I want to print them on a monochrome dot-matrix-printer onto toilet-paper, that's *also* my choice.
I'm so sick and tired of people who're not -thinking-, and this goes for both sides of the table. People hire a wedding-photographer, and then they're shocked when they discover that despite paying for the work, the end-result (i.e. the high-quality digital files) don't belong to them, and that they need to pay exorbitant fees for each additional copy.
Or worse, "professional" photographers who look at you as if they don't understand the question when you request a certain job -- WITH a copy of the digital files and sufficient rights to be allowed to use them as I see fit.
I don't have a problem paying for the job. Infact I gladly pay a few hundred extra for a photographer with a clue. But when I pay for the creation of a file, at whichever hourly rate you demand (obviously, if you demand TOO much, I'll pick another photographer, but hi, that's business!), then the end-result is mine for me to do what I want with, when I spesifically ask for this, I *do* expect a photographer that calls himself a "professional" to be able to deal with it.
Online backup is great, but only if your bandwith is reasonable in relation to your backup-needs.
I've got 10Mbps symetrical, and currently backup around 50GB. (around half/half pictures and music, ignorable amounts of code and documents) 10Mbps in practice tends to work out to slightly above 1MB/s, around 4GB/hour.
So a full backup takes 12 hours, and a restore would too. I use rsync for backup though, so a normal (nightly) backup only transfers what has been changed, that is rarely more than a small fraction of the data, thus 9 times out of 10 the nigthly backup is done in less than half an hour, which is more than fast enough to be practical.
I would say, if your bandwith is sufficient to upload the data-amount you want to backup in less than 24 hours, then it's practical, otherwise not. It's *really* hassle-free though, zero-admin normally. And it brings additional advantages, like getting access to my complete data anywhere with ssh-client.
Excellent point. If your bank erroneously claims you owe $783, and you have no resources to fight the claim, you may very well end up losing that money.
If your bank erroneously claims that you owe $23.781.221.057.355.142.880,12 it doesn't pass the laugh-test, and there's absolutely no way whatsoever you could be left with that bill. The amount is such that it's obvious bullshit to the first PERSON that actually looks at it, be that a bank-manager, a judge, or whomever.
Having someone make a false-but-plausible claim against you might be harmful.
Having someone make a false-and-obviously-batshit-insane claim against you, only exposes the one making the claim as batshit insane.
It seems to be working very well. Listen, this ain't the apocalypse, it's a recession. Neither the first, nor the last. It's not as if the recession in the 30ies prevented society from being wealthier in 1950 than it was in 1920. In the larger scheme of things, recessions are speedbumps.
Now that you mention it, gold is also valuable mainly because people *believe* it to be valuable, so you could fairly claim that that's "backed by faith" too.
Seems to me that for high-security stuff, you just plain can't trust peoples computers.
So, have something outside the computer for verification, it's not that hard, my bank already has it, infact you can pick between *3* different external verifications.
First, they can send you a plastic-card, size of a credit-card, with 100 different one-time-passwords on it. The bank-website will say: "please enter code 37", and you have to type it in from the card. Yes it adds a little to the hassle, but it does prevent a keylogger or malware from learning anything useful. (offcourse it could sniff code 37, but that's no help, because next time another code will be needed, and when all codes are used, I get a new card)
Secondly, they can send you a one-time-password by SMS. Certainly, your phone could be hacked. But the thing is, now a cracker needs to have hacked your computer AND your mobile phone to learn anything worthwhile, and that's a lot less likely than simply some malware on the computer.
Third, you can get a credit-card-sized gizmo that spits out one-time-passwords and prints it on a small lcd. This is the same as the first option really, except you don't need a new one when you've logged in 100 times, but on the other hand it's sligthly thicker and less wieldy than the credit-card-thing. (so better if you use it often, worse if you use it seldom)
Either of these 3 techniques will thwart someone with malware on your computer, or a keylogger.
Are you saying that the conversion from 120V ac to 3V-dc wastes is 0.05 % efficient ? Because the factor between 0.5 mw and 1w is 2000.
I'm not talking only lightbulbs. Tvs and similar equipment with a stand-by mode also typically draw anything from 1w to 5w while doing so, which seems hugely wasteful when literally one thousanth of this should be sufficient.
True, though it could be a lot less. I've got a wireless (RF) battery-operated doorbell. Logically, the receiving-end must be "on", listening for an incoming signal all the time, despite this a single pair of AA-batteries last for literally a year. Those have perhaps 1500 mAh, and are at 1.5V, so 2 of them deliver aproximately 5 watt-hours.
To have 5 watt-hours last for a year, the powerdraw can be no more than 0.5mw
Frankly, if all lightbulbs did that, the effect would be ignorable, even someone having 100 such lightbulbs for a year would waste only 0.5 Kwh.
Not if you've got a link. Are you american ? Okay, so that was under the beltline, ignore:-)
(but there's some truth to it, --- I've got only 10Mbps upload, but that's because I've got the -slowest- link offered by my isp, the other options are 25 or 100.
Actually, spelling grammar and punctuation was always horrible. It's just that 15 years ago, the 90% of people who are the poorest language-users, didn't usually publicize a lot of text. The Internet didn't make people worse -- it just made them a lot more visible.
Also, it reduced geographical boundaries, english is my third language, it's not reasonable to expect the same knowledge of ones third language as a mother-tongue. Yeah, I make more mistakes than many native english-speakers, but no, it's not because I'm particularily lazy.
http://valerieaurora.org/hash.html Pay special attention to the reaction of the "slashdotter" to "minor weakness found", and compare it to your reaction. Remember, attacks always gets better, never worse. The first attack that weakens an algorithm *is* a big deal.
Oh, and reducing complexity from 2^128 to 2^110 isn't as it may appear a reduction of 10% in time-to-break, infact it's a reduction of 2^18 or about a factor of a million, so it's more like if before it took a million years, now it takes ONE year. Luckily for you, AES256 was at a lot more than a million years before the break, so there's still some air left in it.
Europe isn't homogenous. Spain have salaries like you say, where 2000 is a pretty decent salary, whereas some places are significanly poorer (in Poland, 1000 is a pretty decent salary) and some places are significantly richer (here in Norway 5000 is a pretty decent salary)
I've got a 4 year university-degree, and 5 years of experience in programming, my wife has a similar-length degree and a couple of years more experience in financials, and we both earn aproximately 5000/month. Those are *good* as in above-average salaries, but not HIGH salaries. (my guess would be around a quarter of the people here earn more)
USA is a democracy. It makes sense, to some degree, to blame the American people for letting someone like Bush come to power, and to make them, to some degree, responsible for the foreign policies of same.
It -is- a problem if you frequently make small changes to large files, but do you ?
Only you can answer that for you, but I personally find that the largest files I have are DVD-images (i.e. iso-files), recorded movies from my videocamera and certain large software-packages (such as eclipse). I never ever make *changes* to any of those files though, and I guess that's true for many of us.
A single candle is a little optimistic, but sure it's realistic to heat homes in all but the most extreme of climates using nothing more than body-heat plus the waste-heat from machinery we use for other purposes (such as computers, televisions, fridges, lights and dishwashers)
A one-family detatched house (apartment-blocks need less due to less external walls) built to standard norwegian building-code, requires 100Kwh/year pro square meter, for an entire year. That works out to an average capacity of 23W if you assume that heating is only needed for half the year. But even a 15% increase in building-costs is enough to build a house that requires only about 30Kwh/year rather than 100, and that means you're down to 7W/m^2
That means a family-home with 140 square meters need aproximately 1KW to stay warm. Human body-heat is around 100W, so a family of 3-4 will provide 300-400W of body-heat. Add in the fridge, a tv and a dishwasher, and the house stays warm with more or less zero active heating.
Most such houses still have a single space-heater somewhere central, for use on the 5 coldest days in the year, and for making the house quickly comfortable after say a 2-week christmas-vacation.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a safe assumption that everyone who isn't living in a large city is a farmer or fisher.
Insane. My wife and I pay $0/month for 200 minutes and 200 text-messages a month.
You're doing it wrong. I had my wedding paid for by my wife, and nevertheless 3 kids. ,-)
It depends on the jurisdiction. Most places require some artistry, creativity, creation to go into a production of something for it to qualify for protection, and a technical reproduction in the form of a full-frame scan of a 2D-document is unlikely to fullfill that criteria.
It requires *expertise* and it is a lot of *work* to make it, but you're not creatively creating, infact you're doing your darnest to keep the work as close to the original as possible. (i.e to *AVOID* significantly adding or subtracting from the original work)
Wikipedias position, for example, is that full-frame head-on technical reproductions of 2D works in the public domain are ineligible for copyright, and can freely be uploaded. Offcourse in the end the opinion of judges is what counts, but Wikipedia *has* sought competent legal advice for this position.
False positives is a bigger problem than false-negatives when something is rare.
If one-in-a-million air-traveller is a terrorist, and your test has a 1% false-positive rate, then when a million people go trough, 10.001 will get stopped, and 10.000 of them will be non-terrorists. You'll inconvenience a hell of a lot of people, and cause enormous costs, and almost everyone who's stopped is innocent.
On the other hand, a test with 10% false-negative rate would still be very useful. Sure, there's some risk a terrorist would get lucky and sneak trough, but nevertheless the test would stop 9 out of ever 10, which is certainly a good start.
Asking a different price for a different service is fine. I do too.
Rate 1, the cheapest one, is for custom-made-software where I can use open-source foundations, and where I can do whatever I want with the end-result, the customer gets a copy under the GPL and can do what he want with the software, subject to the restrictions in that license (which are few)
Rate 2, more expensive, for software where the customer retains full rights to the end-result, this means I can't use open-source foundations unless they're under a license that permits taking things propriertary, and it also means I cannot turn around and sell the end-result to additional customers. For that reason, the hourly rate is higher.
It's perfectly fine for a wedding-photographer (or anyone else) to say: "I'm $200/hour, or $250/hour if you want the copyright for the end-results"
Actually, in my jurisdiction there's no significant difference between the two, because personality-rights would prevent you from selling portraits of us without a model-release. Thus you can't actually sell copies of the pictures to third parties, even if you retain copyright. (well, you could sell those pictures that for example depict the venue or the wedding-cake, but my guess is you'd have few takers)
But no, if you could, I do -not- think it'd be fair. I *paid* you a fair price for the production of those images, that's it, you do not get to first be paid, then be paid AGAIN.
As for retouching, I may or may not (that's my choice!) want to purchase those services for you. If I do, that's mostly done in photoshop these days, and doesn't preclude transfering ownership of the end-result.
Hi, and it's my pictures -- if I want to print them on a monochrome dot-matrix-printer onto toilet-paper, that's *also* my choice.
Good ! Excellent !
I'm so sick and tired of people who're not -thinking-, and this goes for both sides of the table. People hire a wedding-photographer, and then they're shocked when they discover that despite paying for the work, the end-result (i.e. the high-quality digital files) don't belong to them, and that they need to pay exorbitant fees for each additional copy.
Or worse, "professional" photographers who look at you as if they don't understand the question when you request a certain job -- WITH a copy of the digital files and sufficient rights to be allowed to use them as I see fit.
I don't have a problem paying for the job. Infact I gladly pay a few hundred extra for a photographer with a clue. But when I pay for the creation of a file, at whichever hourly rate you demand (obviously, if you demand TOO much, I'll pick another photographer, but hi, that's business!), then the end-result is mine for me to do what I want with, when I spesifically ask for this, I *do* expect a photographer that calls himself a "professional" to be able to deal with it.
Online backup is great, but only if your bandwith is reasonable in relation to your backup-needs.
I've got 10Mbps symetrical, and currently backup around 50GB. (around half/half pictures and music, ignorable amounts of code and documents)
10Mbps in practice tends to work out to slightly above 1MB/s, around 4GB/hour.
So a full backup takes 12 hours, and a restore would too. I use rsync for backup though, so a normal (nightly) backup only transfers what has been changed, that is rarely more than a small fraction of the data, thus 9 times out of 10 the nigthly backup is done in less than half an hour, which is more than fast enough to be practical.
I would say, if your bandwith is sufficient to upload the data-amount you want to backup in less than 24 hours, then it's practical, otherwise not.
It's *really* hassle-free though, zero-admin normally. And it brings additional advantages, like getting access to my complete data anywhere with ssh-client.
Excellent point. If your bank erroneously claims you owe $783, and you have no resources to fight the claim, you may very well end up losing that money.
If your bank erroneously claims that you owe $23.781.221.057.355.142.880,12 it doesn't pass the laugh-test, and there's absolutely no way whatsoever you could be left with that bill. The amount is such that it's obvious bullshit to the first PERSON that actually looks at it, be that a bank-manager, a judge, or whomever.
Having someone make a false-but-plausible claim against you might be harmful.
Having someone make a false-and-obviously-batshit-insane claim against you, only exposes the one making the claim as batshit insane.
It seems to be working very well. Listen, this ain't the apocalypse, it's a recession. Neither the first, nor the last. It's not as if the recession in the 30ies prevented society from being wealthier in 1950 than it was in 1920. In the larger scheme of things, recessions are speedbumps.
Now that you mention it, gold is also valuable mainly because people *believe* it to be valuable, so you could fairly claim that that's "backed by faith" too.
True enough. Some of the time you've got no choice.
And this is all worth it why ?
If I wanted to live my life in fear in a war-zone, I'd move to Iraq or something.
Seems to me that for high-security stuff, you just plain can't trust peoples computers.
So, have something outside the computer for verification, it's not that hard, my bank already has it, infact you can pick between *3* different external verifications.
First, they can send you a plastic-card, size of a credit-card, with 100 different one-time-passwords on it. The bank-website will say: "please enter code 37", and you have to type it in from the card. Yes it adds a little to the hassle, but it does prevent a keylogger or malware from learning anything useful. (offcourse it could sniff code 37, but that's no help, because next time another code will be needed, and when all codes are used, I get a new card)
Secondly, they can send you a one-time-password by SMS. Certainly, your phone could be hacked. But the thing is, now a cracker needs to have hacked your computer AND your mobile phone to learn anything worthwhile, and that's a lot less likely than simply some malware on the computer.
Third, you can get a credit-card-sized gizmo that spits out one-time-passwords and prints it on a small lcd. This is the same as the first option really, except you don't need a new one when you've logged in 100 times, but on the other hand it's sligthly thicker and less wieldy than the credit-card-thing. (so better if you use it often, worse if you use it seldom)
Either of these 3 techniques will thwart someone with malware on your computer, or a keylogger.
Nah. The volume of water in a cloud weighing the same as 100 elephants is pretty much identical to the volume of the same 100 elephants.
This follows because elephants and water have similar density (both around 1000kg/m^3)
Are you saying that the conversion from 120V ac to 3V-dc wastes is 0.05 % efficient ? Because the factor between 0.5 mw and 1w is 2000.
I'm not talking only lightbulbs. Tvs and similar equipment with a stand-by mode also typically draw anything from 1w to 5w while doing so, which seems hugely wasteful when literally one thousanth of this should be sufficient.
True, though it could be a lot less. I've got a wireless (RF) battery-operated doorbell. Logically, the receiving-end must be "on", listening for an incoming signal all the time, despite this a single pair of AA-batteries last for literally a year. Those have perhaps 1500 mAh, and are at 1.5V, so 2 of them deliver aproximately 5 watt-hours.
To have 5 watt-hours last for a year, the powerdraw can be no more than 0.5mw
Frankly, if all lightbulbs did that, the effect would be ignorable, even someone having 100 such lightbulbs for a year would waste only 0.5 Kwh.
Not if you've got a link. Are you american ? Okay, so that was under the beltline, ignore :-)
(but there's some truth to it, --- I've got only 10Mbps upload, but that's because I've got the -slowest- link offered by my isp, the other options are 25 or 100.
Actually, spelling grammar and punctuation was always horrible. It's just that 15 years ago, the 90% of people who are the poorest language-users, didn't usually publicize a lot of text.
The Internet didn't make people worse -- it just made them a lot more visible.
Also, it reduced geographical boundaries, english is my third language, it's not reasonable to expect the same knowledge of ones third language as a mother-tongue. Yeah, I make more mistakes than many native english-speakers, but no, it's not because I'm particularily lazy.
http://valerieaurora.org/hash.html
Pay special attention to the reaction of the "slashdotter" to "minor weakness found", and compare it to your reaction.
Remember, attacks always gets better, never worse. The first attack that weakens an algorithm *is* a big deal.
Oh, and reducing complexity from 2^128 to 2^110 isn't as it may appear a reduction of 10% in time-to-break, infact it's a reduction of 2^18 or about a factor of a million, so it's more like if before it took a million years, now it takes ONE year. Luckily for you, AES256 was at a lot more than a million years before the break, so there's still some air left in it.
I actually think you'll manage just fine to keep holodeck and reality apart.
Europe isn't homogenous. Spain have salaries like you say, where 2000 is a pretty decent salary, whereas some places are significanly poorer (in Poland, 1000 is a pretty decent salary) and some places are significantly richer (here in Norway 5000 is a pretty decent salary)
I've got a 4 year university-degree, and 5 years of experience in programming, my wife has a similar-length degree and a couple of years more experience in financials, and we both earn aproximately 5000/month. Those are *good* as in above-average salaries, but not HIGH salaries. (my guess would be around a quarter of the people here earn more)
USA is a democracy. It makes sense, to some degree, to blame the American people for letting someone like Bush come to power, and to make them, to some degree, responsible for the foreign policies of same.
True, but in practice that's often not a problem.
It -is- a problem if you frequently make small changes to large files, but do you ?
Only you can answer that for you, but I personally find that the largest files I have are DVD-images (i.e. iso-files), recorded movies from my videocamera and certain large software-packages (such as eclipse). I never ever make *changes* to any of those files though, and I guess that's true for many of us.
A single candle is a little optimistic, but sure it's realistic to heat homes in all but the most extreme of climates using nothing more than body-heat plus the waste-heat from machinery we use for other purposes (such as computers, televisions, fridges, lights and dishwashers)
A one-family detatched house (apartment-blocks need less due to less external walls) built to standard norwegian building-code, requires 100Kwh/year pro square meter, for an entire year. That works out to an average capacity of 23W if you assume that heating is only needed for half the year. But even a 15% increase in building-costs is enough to build a house that requires only about 30Kwh/year rather than 100, and that means you're down to 7W/m^2
That means a family-home with 140 square meters need aproximately 1KW to stay warm. Human body-heat is around 100W, so a family of 3-4 will provide 300-400W of body-heat. Add in the fridge, a tv and a dishwasher, and the house stays warm with more or less zero active heating.
Most such houses still have a single space-heater somewhere central, for use on the 5 coldest days in the year, and for making the house quickly comfortable after say a 2-week christmas-vacation.