As we saw with prohibition, it's really hard to take a popular drug that is legal and make it illegal. Cigarettes are way worse than weed, but it would be extremely difficult and probably ineffective to ban them. Weed on the other hand is already illegal, so the government can keep it illegal if they want to.
People have to be somewhat computer savy to use the work-arounds mentioned here. While people who read slashdot could easily circumvent these DNS restrictions, the typical Internet user would struggle to do so. This kind of law would put a dent in the piracy, but it would not stop it. Any computer-savy pirate could circumvent the laws, but not everyone could.
It's not like Google came around with a potential competitor and Facebook banned exporting friends out of fear. Facebook has always banned any application that allowed you to export friends. Maybe they do it out of fear, but they wrote it into their TOS. Banning the Google application is the rule, not the exception.
It doesn't make it any stronger, but it means that it takes longer to brute-force (since if it takes you longer to hash the password, it will take the person brute-forcing it that much longer to hash each potential password).
Just make the hashing algorithm slower. For example, let's say you use md5 to hash the passwords. Hash the password 1000 times with md5 instead of just once. This will increase the time it takes to crack the passwords by a factor of around 1000.
We have one of the best university systems in the world. We train many Americans and foreign students in numerous fields. So why, when those same foreign students want to stay in America to help our economy, we kick them out. By restricting highly-skilled foreign workers from working in America, we are giving up the opportunity for them to help our own economy and start new businesses that will create many jobs.
I don't understand why this isn't more clear cut. He broke the law by releasing classified documents. If someone who worked for your billion dollar company suddenly decided that he was pissed off and would open-source all of your proprietary code, people shouldn't suddenly say that he is innocent.
Now he's also in the military and the laws in the military are way more strict about doing anything harmful to your country. He broke the law and now he will be punished for it.
Prosecuting Assange is a much less clear-cut case because it is unclear whether or not he broke a US law.
When comparing salary, the median salary is often more representative than the mean. This is because the mean will get skewed by the people who make a ton of money (such as wall street bankers), whereas the median will describe a typical salary.
Anyone else think this has anything to do with Apple's Lala acquisition? Lala was about storing your music in the cloud. When Apple acquired it, Apple promptly shut down Lala. Maybe this data center will help users store their music in the cloud.
The difference between Facebook's privacy problems and Google's is that you knew Facebook's problems when you made the account. Google Buzz pretty much disclosed your frequently emailed contacts without the user doing anything. If Facebook automatically friended you to certain people, it would get sued for the same reason.
Do you believe that every single Christian has the same goals in life and shares the same beliefs? Do you believe that every single Christian is working together for an agreed-upon agenda?
Creative works used to be funded by either patronage or live performances
If you think about it, they still are. The recording industry are those patrons. However, the patrons these days are businesses. They fund a lot of people who end up failing, but they try to make up for their losses by making fortunes off of the few who succeed.
You just "composed" the above comment. FOR FREE. Why?
People volunteer all of the time. But they have a side job that they need to make money. Much less music would get composed if composers could not earn a living.
The music industry would be tiny. Etc.
Here's the part where you're supposed to explain why that's a bad thing.
Do you enjoy listening to music? Do you enjoy having a huge selection of songs to choose from?
I wonder how hard it would be to computer generate every possible combination of music in music sheet form.
Let's assume that the smallest increment used was a 16th note and the range is that of a piano (88 notes). In one measure of only 16th notes, there are 88^16 possibilities (about 10^31). If each note took up 2 bytes (note and length taken into account), then that one simple measure would take up about 2*10^22 gigabytes. Where are you ever going to find that space? Now let's vary that measure with quarter notes, half notes, triplets, etc. And also add multiple notes at a time (harmonies). The possibilities are endless. Combine that with mixing/matching measures, having many measures in a song, and adding every possible combination of lyrics, and there is not enough space on the surface of the earth to store the harddrives required for this task.
DRM usually works on a license. You can copy the file as many times as you want, but you can only authorize a finite number of copies. If that number was 1, you can give a copy to your friend and then deauthorize your own. Then it is legal.
There are very few inalienable rights. I do not see why this is relevant
Copyright is a recent concept. As recent as the Renaissance.
For someone trying to cite history in your argument, you sure know little about it. All of the inalienable rights as we know them today derived from the Enlightenment which was centuries after the Renaissance. The term "inalienable right" was coined in the 1600s.
Before that, you could own physical property, but Ideas were free. If you created a magnanimous work of art, that work of art belonged to the human kind. Then, you could earn a living by performing live, doing work for hire, etc.
Yes, and the playwrights were dirt-poor.
The motive: To ban unwanted books. In a word: Censorship. This concept of owning ideas and controlling what you did with them was nothing but lies, just like the rest of christianity.
Yes, the Catholic Church wanted censorship. But copyright has nothing to do with censorship. The Catholic Church was trying to stop the spread of new ideas, ideas that might threaten them. Copyright law allows the spread of new ideas, but does not allow the unauthorized replication of old ideas.
Nobody owns ideas. Nobody owns art. They belong to the human kind. Period. Any attempt to control ideas is nothing but another fascist atempt at control of this Orwellian society.
It is true that no one can own ideas like they can own a screwdriver. That is why copyright law was invented. The idea is to give incentive to create. If no one paid for ideas, then no one could make a living off coming up with those ideas. The only composers would be rich people who could live off of their savings. The music industry would be tiny. Etc.
Now, there is a hugI de difference between the NEED to make a living, and some stupid god-given right to be given money just because we create.
Wow. I don't even have a response to that. Just wow...
I do believe, like many other creators, that our creations are like our childs. You don't own your children. You have to feed them, care for them, and protect them until they are mature enough to have a life on their own. And then they are gone. They are as free as you are.
Yes, you are right. And that is why copyrights expire, just like children grow up.
A more valid analogy here would be if you made a house that was a replica of the house your friend was building. And it would be totally ok.
Your friend put so much work into making that design for the house. He spent hours and hours. Time that he could have spent building houses and making more money. Now you come along and take his design without compensation. You didn't have to spend all of those hours creating the design. It doesn't cost you a penny, but it cost him a lot (remember, time is money). Now is that fair?
But you can't substitute an mp3 for sheet music. You use an mp3 to listen to a song. But if you want to perform a song for a talent show, you need to know all of the notes and rhythms. Unless you have a very well trained ear, you will not be able to easily play all of the notes just from listening to the song (unless you listen to it quite a lot).
You are allowed to share, as long as it is the original copy. That's how libraries work. You are allowed to buy a piece of sheet music and give it to a friend. But you are not allowed to buy a piece of sheet music and give your friend a replica. Then there are 2 copies and you only paid for one.
Without DRM, it is nearly impossible to share music or sheet music legally on the internet. To share it legally would mean deleting your copy when you send it to a friend.
I doubt that will happen. Yes, the data can be quite valuable, but facebook would lose a very large number of users if that happened (devaluing the company).
It's too expensive for Google to roll out cables for a single home. Communities mean that the cables transferring the data are shared, and it is therefore cheaper for Google
Slashdot Mirror
As we saw with prohibition, it's really hard to take a popular drug that is legal and make it illegal. Cigarettes are way worse than weed, but it would be extremely difficult and probably ineffective to ban them. Weed on the other hand is already illegal, so the government can keep it illegal if they want to.
People have to be somewhat computer savy to use the work-arounds mentioned here. While people who read slashdot could easily circumvent these DNS restrictions, the typical Internet user would struggle to do so. This kind of law would put a dent in the piracy, but it would not stop it. Any computer-savy pirate could circumvent the laws, but not everyone could.
It's not like Google came around with a potential competitor and Facebook banned exporting friends out of fear. Facebook has always banned any application that allowed you to export friends. Maybe they do it out of fear, but they wrote it into their TOS. Banning the Google application is the rule, not the exception.
My friend's house burned down a few days ago because of this fire.
Not true. I got an email at 5:30am this morning informing me of the security breach.
Take a look at this article which explains why you want to use a slow hashing algorithm (such as doing md5 1000 times): http://chargen.matasano.com/chargen/2007/9/7/enough-with-the-rainbow-tables-what-you-need-to-know-about-s.html
It doesn't make it any stronger, but it means that it takes longer to brute-force (since if it takes you longer to hash the password, it will take the person brute-forcing it that much longer to hash each potential password).
Just make the hashing algorithm slower. For example, let's say you use md5 to hash the passwords. Hash the password 1000 times with md5 instead of just once. This will increase the time it takes to crack the passwords by a factor of around 1000.
We have one of the best university systems in the world. We train many Americans and foreign students in numerous fields. So why, when those same foreign students want to stay in America to help our economy, we kick them out. By restricting highly-skilled foreign workers from working in America, we are giving up the opportunity for them to help our own economy and start new businesses that will create many jobs.
I don't understand why this isn't more clear cut. He broke the law by releasing classified documents. If someone who worked for your billion dollar company suddenly decided that he was pissed off and would open-source all of your proprietary code, people shouldn't suddenly say that he is innocent. Now he's also in the military and the laws in the military are way more strict about doing anything harmful to your country. He broke the law and now he will be punished for it. Prosecuting Assange is a much less clear-cut case because it is unclear whether or not he broke a US law.
When comparing salary, the median salary is often more representative than the mean. This is because the mean will get skewed by the people who make a ton of money (such as wall street bankers), whereas the median will describe a typical salary.
Anyone else think this has anything to do with Apple's Lala acquisition? Lala was about storing your music in the cloud. When Apple acquired it, Apple promptly shut down Lala. Maybe this data center will help users store their music in the cloud.
The difference between Facebook's privacy problems and Google's is that you knew Facebook's problems when you made the account. Google Buzz pretty much disclosed your frequently emailed contacts without the user doing anything. If Facebook automatically friended you to certain people, it would get sued for the same reason.
Do you believe that every single Christian has the same goals in life and shares the same beliefs? Do you believe that every single Christian is working together for an agreed-upon agenda?
Creative works used to be funded by either patronage or live performances
If you think about it, they still are. The recording industry are those patrons. However, the patrons these days are businesses. They fund a lot of people who end up failing, but they try to make up for their losses by making fortunes off of the few who succeed.
You just "composed" the above comment. FOR FREE. Why?
People volunteer all of the time. But they have a side job that they need to make money. Much less music would get composed if composers could not earn a living.
The music industry would be tiny. Etc.
Here's the part where you're supposed to explain why that's a bad thing.
Do you enjoy listening to music? Do you enjoy having a huge selection of songs to choose from?
When? When do copyrights expire?
http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm
I wonder how hard it would be to computer generate every possible combination of music in music sheet form.
Let's assume that the smallest increment used was a 16th note and the range is that of a piano (88 notes). In one measure of only 16th notes, there are 88^16 possibilities (about 10^31). If each note took up 2 bytes (note and length taken into account), then that one simple measure would take up about 2*10^22 gigabytes. Where are you ever going to find that space? Now let's vary that measure with quarter notes, half notes, triplets, etc. And also add multiple notes at a time (harmonies). The possibilities are endless. Combine that with mixing/matching measures, having many measures in a song, and adding every possible combination of lyrics, and there is not enough space on the surface of the earth to store the harddrives required for this task.
DRM usually works on a license. You can copy the file as many times as you want, but you can only authorize a finite number of copies. If that number was 1, you can give a copy to your friend and then deauthorize your own. Then it is legal.
Copyright isn't an inalienable right.
There are very few inalienable rights. I do not see why this is relevant
Copyright is a recent concept. As recent as the Renaissance.
For someone trying to cite history in your argument, you sure know little about it. All of the inalienable rights as we know them today derived from the Enlightenment which was centuries after the Renaissance. The term "inalienable right" was coined in the 1600s.
Before that, you could own physical property, but Ideas were free. If you created a magnanimous work of art, that work of art belonged to the human kind. Then, you could earn a living by performing live, doing work for hire, etc.
Yes, and the playwrights were dirt-poor.
The motive: To ban unwanted books. In a word: Censorship. This concept of owning ideas and controlling what you did with them was nothing but lies, just like the rest of christianity.
Yes, the Catholic Church wanted censorship. But copyright has nothing to do with censorship. The Catholic Church was trying to stop the spread of new ideas, ideas that might threaten them. Copyright law allows the spread of new ideas, but does not allow the unauthorized replication of old ideas.
Nobody owns ideas. Nobody owns art. They belong to the human kind. Period. Any attempt to control ideas is nothing but another fascist atempt at control of this Orwellian society.
It is true that no one can own ideas like they can own a screwdriver. That is why copyright law was invented. The idea is to give incentive to create. If no one paid for ideas, then no one could make a living off coming up with those ideas. The only composers would be rich people who could live off of their savings. The music industry would be tiny. Etc.
Now, there is a hugI de difference between the NEED to make a living, and some stupid god-given right to be given money just because we create.
Wow. I don't even have a response to that. Just wow...
I do believe, like many other creators, that our creations are like our childs. You don't own your children. You have to feed them, care for them, and protect them until they are mature enough to have a life on their own. And then they are gone. They are as free as you are.
Yes, you are right. And that is why copyrights expire, just like children grow up.
A more valid analogy here would be if you made a house that was a replica of the house your friend was building. And it would be totally ok.
Your friend put so much work into making that design for the house. He spent hours and hours. Time that he could have spent building houses and making more money. Now you come along and take his design without compensation. You didn't have to spend all of those hours creating the design. It doesn't cost you a penny, but it cost him a lot (remember, time is money). Now is that fair?
But you can't substitute an mp3 for sheet music. You use an mp3 to listen to a song. But if you want to perform a song for a talent show, you need to know all of the notes and rhythms. Unless you have a very well trained ear, you will not be able to easily play all of the notes just from listening to the song (unless you listen to it quite a lot).
You are allowed to share, as long as it is the original copy. That's how libraries work. You are allowed to buy a piece of sheet music and give it to a friend. But you are not allowed to buy a piece of sheet music and give your friend a replica. Then there are 2 copies and you only paid for one. Without DRM, it is nearly impossible to share music or sheet music legally on the internet. To share it legally would mean deleting your copy when you send it to a friend.
I doubt that will happen. Yes, the data can be quite valuable, but facebook would lose a very large number of users if that happened (devaluing the company).
It's too expensive for Google to roll out cables for a single home. Communities mean that the cables transferring the data are shared, and it is therefore cheaper for Google
There are many people who cannot upgrade (i.e. people from big companies who do not have admin privileges on their computers).