I see no suppression. Please refrain from hyperbole.
As for being "relegated to a certain area", that's not a good analogy. It's more like the content is being tagged, and then anyone who wants to can block based on the tag. This is very similar to what RBLs do to maintain lists of spammers, so that those who wish to may block based on the list.
HTTP 300 codes. They cause redirection. Makes it real easy to redirect from your old domain to your new site.
That said, the 'freedom of speech' issue on this strikes me as a little weird. Is slashdot.org restricting my freedom of speech by not letting me host whatever I want on their front page? Originally, TLDs had specific purposes and they were restricted to those purposes. Is that a restriction on freedom of speech?
The tags allow you to, at a glance, have an idea of what is present at the site..org told you that it was a nonprofit organization..net told you that it was a service provider. If.xxx existed at the time, you'd know at a glance that there was porn there. It's only restricting speech if you actively block addresses at that site through a law. This site makes it easier to execute such a law, but it doesn't prevent such laws from being passed.
It's mostly problematic because of the annoyance in rebranding and in user-created content. If you've spent years being, say, attrition.org and all of a sudden you're required to move to attrition.xxx just because some of your content is obscene (not necessarily sexually explicit) then moving is going to be painful (though you can certainly also own attrition.org and redirect--this won't get around filters). For sites like Youtube, Livejournal, etc. they suddenly have to split or censor their content. It's unworkable if only for that last reason--almost all of the currently most popular websites would have this problem.
That said, it would certainly make it feasible to whitelist sites you want to see rather than the more difficult task of blacklisting sites which display content you don't want to see. I wish there was a magic bullet for this problem. Unfortunately, there isn't one.
I thought there were laws against this? I'm absolutely certain that I've read that the law requires cancellation to be possible any way that subscription is possible. If you sign up over the phone, you must not be required to show up in person in order to cancel.
I like to spread it out over the year. Every four months, I request a new credit report fron one of the agencies. It's fairly rare for something to be reported to only one of the agencies, so this helps keep tabs on any identity fraud that may be occurring.
If a large corporation delays filing a complant until *after* the technology has been adopted and is in wide use "oh, gee, you owe us money" i think they should lose most their rights for compensation. ( notice i said most, not all )
I can agree with that.
They knew it was in violation in the beginning, they should have spoke up long ago.
How do you know that they knew? Have you read up on this subject at all?
The patents on which "Bluetooth" (or rather, "specific implementations of Bluetooth in the current market") infringes are RF patents. Bluetooth can be implemented without using those patented RF methods. It's fairly likely that the plaintiffs didn't realize that their particular patent was being infringed upon by this specific implementation of Bluetooth because they didn't patent technology on which Bluetooth necessarily depends.
Your point is valid, but you may be misdirecting your emotions onto innocent people.
Bluetooth is a fairly loose protocol in a lot of ways. It's conceivable that certain implementations of Bluetooth could infringe on patents. In fact, the article supports this:
"You can find a way to do it [use Bluetooth] that doesn't infringe on the patents, or you can buy it from Broadcom. That's why WRF is not going to sit back and let it go without it being addressed," Lisa said. Seems obvious that a specific implementation of Bluetooth could infringe on patents filed after the Bluetooth standard was created.
This isn't necessarily bad behavior. It is distinctly uneven, but not necessarily bad.
If the tracker has a lot of people who seed more than they download, then a few people using this client will help increase the total number of seeders, meaning that there are more people capable of providing a specific portion of the torrent, which should allow for maximum download speeds for whoever is left.
If the tracker has a lot of people who seed less than they download, it means that there will be more load on the people who do stick around to seed, and less chance of maximizing the download speeds for whoever is left.
It's hard to say what the effect will be (even the researchers who created the client don't really know) because it's so situationally dependant. And even with completely 'fair' clients, slower uploaders (and thus slower downloaders) will probably not get the whole torrent if faster up/downloaders grab it and disconnect from the torrent. It seems that the new client just makes the entire process a bit faster overall, whether the end result is everyone being happy or only a few people being happy.
I dunno. It seems likely that bandwidth (or rather, throughput) and movie size will probably grow at similar rates, if at dissimilar increments. By the time we have 50mbps to the home, digital media might have grown even larger in size. Of course, this probably depends quite a bit on how the next-gen-DVD wars play out.
On-disk passwords simply aren't secure. If you need automation, you want to secure the systems as much as possible.
That said, salted hashes are pretty tough to crack. Changing the passwords regularly will make it unrealistic for a cracker to obtain the passwords through brute force.
Except that there's a flag on the disc which tells the player to degrade the signal if it isn't going through a protected path (HDCP). Right now, the flags aren't set, but they eventually will be.
Trusted Computing solves this 'problem'. Debuggers won't be allowed to run on 'protected' programs, and this will be enforced on the hardware level (each program will effectively have to ask for permission to run).
For right now, not everything has TPM. We'll see how this changes in a few years (almost all new computers do include the TPM chip).
The fallout from that would be pretty big. Even though only a few people have next-gen players (compared to, say, DVD or VHS) if people find out that the format was killed and replaced very quickly, they'll be hesitant to buy into the second format. Why should they, if the industry is so quick to obsolecense?
This is dangerous timing for all parties involved. The content providers want to make sure the format is secure, but they don't want to have to scrap it so soon. Revokable keys supposedly fixed this, but time will tell. PC players will always be crackable, if someone wants to spend the time to do it.
A more likely scenario is that they revoke the PowerDVD (if that's what he used) keys and refuse to reissue. Kill the PC format, settle the inevitable lawsuit (the cost to do this will be considered less than the piracy losses) and move on. Leave DVDs for PCs and next gen formats for standalone players that are far harder to crack. They shouldn't need to change the entire format.
That/must/ be a bank thing. My debit transactions can still take a day to show online. I'll see the total amount I have available drop, but it may be 24 hours before I see where the transaction was made.
I imagine there are some banks out there which can do the same for a credit card.
Why should they? The settlements are working so well.
The RIAA's goal in these suits is to stop copyright infringement by making an example out of people. A couple of million dollar judgements isn't likely to be more effective than dozens of multi-thousand dollar settlements, and it's going to cost a hell of a lot more.
Furthermore, there's always the chance that they'd lose. A loss would be devestating, because they would start seeing more and more people fighting the allegations, which they don't want.
That's fine. p2p (and Bittorrent, specifically) solves a major bandwidth issue for content distribution. In fact, releasing these shows on common p2p services would really make it difficult to discern legal from illegal content on these services. How do I know if the Dr. Who I'm downloading is authorized or not? How do I know if BBC authorized Dr. Who at all?
They already talked about using IM to spread IP addresses. Ultimately, the problem is that there is no way to distinguish the 'good guys' from the 'bad guys'. Otherwise, you could just never send the IP information to the 'bad guys'.
The brute-force solution to the problem is to get everyone using anonymizing software like this, so that the options are to block all outside access (i.e. China blocks international IPs altogether) or to effectively let everyone have access to all the information.
Of course, the difficulty of doing this is extreme. Microsoft could pull it off by putting Tor into all of its products, but few other companies have any shot of getting anonymizing software on their computers. Of course, the anonymization itself has disadvantages: logging becomes useless (where'd that attack come from? A Tor exit node!), laws regarding the Internet become useless... effectively, the Internet becomes even more like the wild west, only you can't even have vigilante justice.
The woman was not driving, she was in the back seat. The car was at rest when she was burned. Given that the car was at rest, I doubt (but have no reference for) your supposed 'fact' that she kept going for 20-30 minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
I see no suppression. Please refrain from hyperbole.
As for being "relegated to a certain area", that's not a good analogy. It's more like the content is being tagged, and then anyone who wants to can block based on the tag. This is very similar to what RBLs do to maintain lists of spammers, so that those who wish to may block based on the list.
Can you remind me of how free speech is sacrificed in this scenario?
HTTP 300 codes. They cause redirection. Makes it real easy to redirect from your old domain to your new site.
.org told you that it was a nonprofit organization. .net told you that it was a service provider. If .xxx existed at the time, you'd know at a glance that there was porn there. It's only restricting speech if you actively block addresses at that site through a law. This site makes it easier to execute such a law, but it doesn't prevent such laws from being passed.
That said, the 'freedom of speech' issue on this strikes me as a little weird. Is slashdot.org restricting my freedom of speech by not letting me host whatever I want on their front page? Originally, TLDs had specific purposes and they were restricted to those purposes. Is that a restriction on freedom of speech?
The tags allow you to, at a glance, have an idea of what is present at the site.
It's mostly problematic because of the annoyance in rebranding and in user-created content. If you've spent years being, say, attrition.org and all of a sudden you're required to move to attrition.xxx just because some of your content is obscene (not necessarily sexually explicit) then moving is going to be painful (though you can certainly also own attrition.org and redirect--this won't get around filters). For sites like Youtube, Livejournal, etc. they suddenly have to split or censor their content. It's unworkable if only for that last reason--almost all of the currently most popular websites would have this problem.
That said, it would certainly make it feasible to whitelist sites you want to see rather than the more difficult task of blacklisting sites which display content you don't want to see. I wish there was a magic bullet for this problem. Unfortunately, there isn't one.
I thought there were laws against this? I'm absolutely certain that I've read that the law requires cancellation to be possible any way that subscription is possible. If you sign up over the phone, you must not be required to show up in person in order to cancel.
Which, of course, is a ridiculous arbitrary limit. Once you have the CD, you can make infinite digital copies, just not using an iTunes playlist.
I like to spread it out over the year. Every four months, I request a new credit report fron one of the agencies. It's fairly rare for something to be reported to only one of the agencies, so this helps keep tabs on any identity fraud that may be occurring.
If a large corporation delays filing a complant until *after* the technology has been adopted and is in wide use "oh, gee, you owe us money" i think they should lose most their rights for compensation. ( notice i said most, not all )
I can agree with that.
They knew it was in violation in the beginning, they should have spoke up long ago.
How do you know that they knew? Have you read up on this subject at all?
The patents on which "Bluetooth" (or rather, "specific implementations of Bluetooth in the current market") infringes are RF patents. Bluetooth can be implemented without using those patented RF methods. It's fairly likely that the plaintiffs didn't realize that their particular patent was being infringed upon by this specific implementation of Bluetooth because they didn't patent technology on which Bluetooth necessarily depends.
Your point is valid, but you may be misdirecting your emotions onto innocent people.
Bluetooth is a fairly loose protocol in a lot of ways. It's conceivable that certain implementations of Bluetooth could infringe on patents. In fact, the article supports this:
"You can find a way to do it [use Bluetooth] that doesn't infringe on the patents, or you can buy it from Broadcom. That's why WRF is not going to sit back and let it go without it being addressed," Lisa said. Seems obvious that a specific implementation of Bluetooth could infringe on patents filed after the Bluetooth standard was created.
That sort of behavior really seems to belong in the OS or at the firewall, but that upload rate sounds awful. Are you using GPRS for torrenting?
This isn't necessarily bad behavior. It is distinctly uneven, but not necessarily bad.
If the tracker has a lot of people who seed more than they download, then a few people using this client will help increase the total number of seeders, meaning that there are more people capable of providing a specific portion of the torrent, which should allow for maximum download speeds for whoever is left.
If the tracker has a lot of people who seed less than they download, it means that there will be more load on the people who do stick around to seed, and less chance of maximizing the download speeds for whoever is left.
It's hard to say what the effect will be (even the researchers who created the client don't really know) because it's so situationally dependant. And even with completely 'fair' clients, slower uploaders (and thus slower downloaders) will probably not get the whole torrent if faster up/downloaders grab it and disconnect from the torrent. It seems that the new client just makes the entire process a bit faster overall, whether the end result is everyone being happy or only a few people being happy.
I dunno. It seems likely that bandwidth (or rather, throughput) and movie size will probably grow at similar rates, if at dissimilar increments. By the time we have 50mbps to the home, digital media might have grown even larger in size. Of course, this probably depends quite a bit on how the next-gen-DVD wars play out.
Plus, there have been plenty of Windows Media Player exploits that have gotten a lot of publicity. No one cried, "That's just a user app!" then.
I'll probably get modded down as an MS fanboy (I'm not) or for attacking OS X (I'd own a Mac in a heartbeat if I could afford it) but, meh.
Then again, most people who rite, "I'll probably get modded down" actually get modded up.
That's trusting the client to send correct data. It's laughably easy to spoof the referrer.
On-disk passwords simply aren't secure. If you need automation, you want to secure the systems as much as possible.
That said, salted hashes are pretty tough to crack. Changing the passwords regularly will make it unrealistic for a cracker to obtain the passwords through brute force.
Some sort of user-based tagging could work, too, for sites with user-generated content/links.
Except that there's a flag on the disc which tells the player to degrade the signal if it isn't going through a protected path (HDCP). Right now, the flags aren't set, but they eventually will be.
Trusted Computing solves this 'problem'. Debuggers won't be allowed to run on 'protected' programs, and this will be enforced on the hardware level (each program will effectively have to ask for permission to run).
For right now, not everything has TPM. We'll see how this changes in a few years (almost all new computers do include the TPM chip).
The fallout from that would be pretty big. Even though only a few people have next-gen players (compared to, say, DVD or VHS) if people find out that the format was killed and replaced very quickly, they'll be hesitant to buy into the second format. Why should they, if the industry is so quick to obsolecense?
This is dangerous timing for all parties involved. The content providers want to make sure the format is secure, but they don't want to have to scrap it so soon. Revokable keys supposedly fixed this, but time will tell. PC players will always be crackable, if someone wants to spend the time to do it.
A more likely scenario is that they revoke the PowerDVD (if that's what he used) keys and refuse to reissue. Kill the PC format, settle the inevitable lawsuit (the cost to do this will be considered less than the piracy losses) and move on. Leave DVDs for PCs and next gen formats for standalone players that are far harder to crack. They shouldn't need to change the entire format.
That /must/ be a bank thing. My debit transactions can still take a day to show online. I'll see the total amount I have available drop, but it may be 24 hours before I see where the transaction was made.
I imagine there are some banks out there which can do the same for a credit card.
Why should they? The settlements are working so well.
The RIAA's goal in these suits is to stop copyright infringement by making an example out of people. A couple of million dollar judgements isn't likely to be more effective than dozens of multi-thousand dollar settlements, and it's going to cost a hell of a lot more.
Furthermore, there's always the chance that they'd lose. A loss would be devestating, because they would start seeing more and more people fighting the allegations, which they don't want.
That's going to be a neat trick. How are the servers going to find new clients?
That's fine. p2p (and Bittorrent, specifically) solves a major bandwidth issue for content distribution. In fact, releasing these shows on common p2p services would really make it difficult to discern legal from illegal content on these services. How do I know if the Dr. Who I'm downloading is authorized or not? How do I know if BBC authorized Dr. Who at all?
They already talked about using IM to spread IP addresses. Ultimately, the problem is that there is no way to distinguish the 'good guys' from the 'bad guys'. Otherwise, you could just never send the IP information to the 'bad guys'.
The brute-force solution to the problem is to get everyone using anonymizing software like this, so that the options are to block all outside access (i.e. China blocks international IPs altogether) or to effectively let everyone have access to all the information.
Of course, the difficulty of doing this is extreme. Microsoft could pull it off by putting Tor into all of its products, but few other companies have any shot of getting anonymizing software on their computers. Of course, the anonymization itself has disadvantages: logging becomes useless (where'd that attack come from? A Tor exit node!), laws regarding the Internet become useless... effectively, the Internet becomes even more like the wild west, only you can't even have vigilante justice.
It's a tough problem to solve, indeed.
Please stop the fud.
The woman was not driving, she was in the back seat.
The car was at rest when she was burned.
Given that the car was at rest, I doubt (but have no reference for) your supposed 'fact' that she kept going for 20-30 minutes.
Sites that support my version of events:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1107089
If you have contradicting sites, I'm all eyes.