> You also don't need to buy a subscription when buying a tivo. You can purchase > just the hardware if you want. Of course not having the program listings and > scheduling features kinda defeats the main benefit of PVRs.
If you plunk down $300 for the hardware, may as well plunk down the $250 for a lifetime subscription as well.
Just pretend the hardware costs $550, but in this way you will have full guide listings and no monthly fee.
> How would you go about building the perfect low-budget PVR?
The problem is "perfect" and "low-budget" do not go together.
If you want perfect, do it right and spend the cash, be it for good hardware on your own system, or a pre-built unit.
If you want low-budget, find the cheapest USB video capture device you can, a cheap old video card that does video-out, a remote reader (dont recal if these are serial or usb) so you can use 'misc IR remote control', and spend a few weeks/months coding up all the glue and menuing systems and whatnot you will need.
Re:A little ironic, don't you think?
on
Kazaa-lite Shut Down
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> You can smoke tobacco in a bong, but that dosen't mean that most bong owners are > smoking tobacco.
> So let me get this straight: > A few volunteers decide they don't like the changes being made. They leave, and > decide to open up a new site under exactly the same name, even using the same > logo.
Nope, that is totally incorrect.
> And you think that should just be okay?
Of course not, but that isnt what happened.
Hmm.. the rest of your post is based on that one incorrect fact too, so no need to quote any of it and reply, as it has no relation to reality.
So to bring you up to date, replace the quoted 'misunderstanding' you thought above with this:
The volunteers created linux gazette. They hosted it at SSC instead of the millions of other ISPs, because the price was right ($0/month)
Now SSC, being the hosting provider, filed for a trademark over their clients name and logo, and are now claiming to own it because they hosted it.
Fact of the matter is, no ISP or webhost owns their clients content as long as the ISP did not make the content.
That is what happened here.
Its a simple case of the web host thinking they own what other people upload to their site.
Personally I think the linux gazette volunteers need to sue SSC for copyright voilations (im sure they have past issues online) and in effect get most of the.com site removed.
> For that matter where did html/http (And the Internet itself for that matter) > come from? I forget if it was academic or from DARPA. Not that I'd describe > DARPA as corporate.
DARPA created the IP protocols and later when they gave the network away to corps it was renamed the Internet.
The web was made at Cern, which is a particle physics lab in Switzerland (For all of the past, and still now, the largest lab.)
> Has anyone had similar experiences with lie detectors
[off topic]
I read an article on a new method some company discovered that can detect a specific kind of lie, and is actually based 100% in science.
Aparently there is a specific reaction in the brain, that happens when a thought triggers a memory, and they seemingly know how to detect this now.
The idea is they can have a number of objects on a table, one of which being say for example the exact murder weapon.
If you are the murderer, when you saw that weapon, your mind would remember it, and trigger the reaction they can detect. Atleast if you claimed you never saw it before, this will prove you lied. Same if you lied about seeing it before I would imagine.
This was probably 6-9 months ago, and they were just then getting out of the exparamental stage proving it does work. I'm sure this wont be common use for quite some time.
Just thought it was really interesting application of the science and medical fields.
> Great idea! > > Now try to find a team of lawyers that can successfully prosecute such a case in > Romania, China or Russia! > > These sorts of scams generally do not originate in places like the US or UK.
No need to find them. You already have them!
If MasterCard or AmEx wants their money back, they will send their own HUGE lawyer teams whereever its needed. Its that or they get stuck with the bill. I'm sure they have a limit that if the fradulant charge was under they wont sue and they just eat the loss, but if that happens one hundred fold from what it does now, I think they will start to change their mind on that limit and lower or remove it.
Two of my three credit cards have contracts with them that state I am not at all responsible for fradulant charges, nor do they charge extra for this.
> Using DNS to cache a dozen or two kilobytes (or less, or more) where it's only > meant to handle a few BYTES is likely to cause all sorts of problems
The DNS spec states that the TXT record string can be up to 255 bytes.
255 > few, and the spec in RFC is what it was meant to handle.
> Why we don't have a cure for cancer... The greatest minds of our generation > are too busy trying to get animatronic fish to sing, "Livin' La Vida Loco!"
I can't tell if you were joking or not, but since you are modded +5 insightful, I figured a serious response was in order.
I myself am into computers and electronics, and have done my share of hardware hacking as well. I know squat about biology. The two fields have very little to do with eachother.
Please stop telling the electronic engineers of the world that they have picked a stupid thing to be interested in , and to go work on biology which they may very well hate.
You yourself have a trade, and I hope it is related to something you enjoy doing as well. You have the exact same potential to go learn how to cure cancer as anyone else, especially when that is a field you arnt interested in either.
If you are that concerned about cancer, you can go devote your life to that study instead of doing all the things you enjoy, cure cancer, and stop your bitching.
When some doctor does find a cure for cancer, are you going to dismiss that and complain that they didnt also solve the worlds energy problems and single handedly killed SCO too?
> You know, makes me want to patent some of my ideas, not to sue people, but just > to make sure people don't sue me or my company. Patenting to defend > yourself...hrm, maybe I could patent that?
heh thats an interesting way to look at it.
Buying protection from the government, to protect you aginst the laws -by- that government. Unfortunatly yes, racketering is a very old idea indeed.
> How long will it be before this "feature" will be used to disallow any > non-Windows machine from connecting to the network?
The same day non-windows friendly ISPs start advertising that as a 'feature'
> How long will it be before non-DRM enabled hardware is disallowed from network > access.
The day that every last single network admin in the world agrees with and fully loves DRM. This will be never.
Replace the backbone with people to enforce this type of restriction to not let ANYONE resell service without being authorized, and the current internet will simply die with noone to run it. A new network will form and be free of this restriction and either take the now unused name of Internet, or make some new name.
> Why would I as someone who purchased or was even give a product from a comercial > entity be worried about being sued if the comercial entity was using tech in > violation of a patent?
To answer that, the question can actually be shortened to this:
# Why would I as someone who purchased or was even give a product from a comercial # entity be worried about being sued
Someone can sue anyone for anything. Winning is up to the lawyers and judge. Reasons for being sued dont play too much into things for most of the people that would be sued.
If you sued me for example, I could only afford to pay for legal defense for a short time. So if your reason for suing me wasnt outright incorrect or already covered in a different legal case, then I can only fight for a short time. Compared to the companys doing the suing, who can afford to do so as long as needed, I would lose the case.
Once I can no longer defend myself with a person that knows all the details of every law (IE a lawyer) then the lawyers of the company doing the suing will do everything possible to find technicalitys that have no bearing to the issue, yet are legal none the less.
Imagine that hard ass teacher from school that you would expect a "Two of your five hundred I's are not dotted. zero credit for the paper!" Judges have to follow the stupid laws in those cases, and only a person who choses law for his/her career can hope to know them all. This is by design and on purpose.
If it was truly left to being right and wrong, there would be no problems.
I'm sure i'm oversimplifying things too, but for the most part that is the reason.
> Does this include dumpster diving for trade secrets?
If it was a secret, it should not have been discarded to be removed not by you but by the city, to go to a place that is not secure what so ever.
A company will spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars for a building with locks on the doors to keep whats inside secret. $50 for a paper shreader is not an unreasonable expense to provide for.
> Of course, you do not learn it is not supported until after it's broken
Yea, the big 'mac-only' label on the front of the box, and the 'do not connecto to a windows system, it will format and erase the ipod' doesnt clue you in that you probably should listen to it?
If all of those labels right on the box are still concidered "you do not learn it is not supported until after its broken", then you have more problems than needing to worry about your iPod... You may accidentally kill yourself by eating some poison that says 'do not eat' on the front or something..
> but it's somewhat fun to see all these hypocrites justify their biases.
Sorry, but if you kill yourself by drinking draino, i blame only you. The guy that did this to his ipod is exactly that.
He is the same person that would throw his palm pilot down the stairs and demand palm replace it for free because they make shitty hardware that cant survive a slam down the stairs.
Nothing hypocritical about that. I have always and always will feel stupid people that damange themselfs and their own belongings deserve what they get.
> It's not a bad idea - but you'd then have to convince them that it wasn't the > actual file, but just encrypted > They'd have you in a dark room, beating you, shouting "What's the key, what's > the key?!" for weeks before they dug up your post.
Good point./dev/zero may be a better choice than/dev/urandom for this.
Being america, where its now aparently legal* for the government to kidnap and torture people, its definatly something I wouldnt want to chance.
(*) Its not actually legal, but its done and kept secret. Same difference in the end.
> Congratulations to those hackers/crackers who have likely now put those > individuals out of work.
Funny, last I saw it was Ritz that priced these things under cost, not us hackers.
If McDonalds spent $5 per cheese burger for all that is needed, and only charged $2, would you blame every person that just wants to order a cheese burger for the loss of the McDonalds workers jobs? Aparently so.
Blame the person that didnt realize if ( cost > gain ) failed_business();
> The music file with DRM is justa copy of the work of art. Harlequin romance > novels printed on cheap-ass paper won't last long enough to make it into PD > status. Who knows if your CD collection will be playable in 70 years. Or the > music on 8-track tapes, or cassette tapes. Most of my parents records are > scratched. Are the copyright holders trying to steal from the public domain by > using those mediums as well?
Not at all. I can take the real work that is on the mediums you listed, and put it on any other medium, no matter what the reason for doing so is. I can do it because a new medium is used more commonly (8track->tape->cd->?) or I can do it due to wear on the old medium (old tape -> new, worm melted record -> cd) Also, even with all the mediums you listed, the fact remains the medium isnt under question here. The work of art that is copyrighted is in question.
Using a CD does not stop me from using a CD player to play it. DRM does exactly that. DRM stops you from using the -intended- reader hardware to access that work.
To copyright a work, you MUST copyright it. And you cant copyright something that is not able to be put in the public domain.
There are only two ways for a work to be DRM and copyright. 1) Change copyright law (which is what was done)
If laws aginst murder were changed, im sure you would complain just as loud if i told you to stop murderering people. 2) Submit a non-drm copy of the work to the library of congress for safe keeping, until the copyright expires. At that point, it doesnt matter if the DRM version is unreadable, once the copyright expired the LoC can release their copy and everyone will use it.
To further kill your argument: > Harlequin romance novels printed on cheap-ass paper won't last long enough to > make it into PD status
That statement is 100% pointless and makes no sense. A piece of paper cant possibly be PD, you cant copyright a sheet of paper. Its the words on the paper you copyright. Its irrelivant if the paper wont last, the words do. The words are what is protected, and the words are what is desired to be kept. The paper doesnt matter. The words can be *COPIED* (wow, imagine that, they call it copyright because it involves the right to copy things) onto ANY MATIERAL.
You can write a book on tissues if you wanted, but that still doesnt mean i shouldnt have the right to copy that onto a different material once your copyright expired.
Also, if you intended to go buy a car and never pay them, but lie and say you will once the bills come, that is fraud. Its the same thing when you lie to us and say you will pay us for allowing you a temp monopoly on your work, and you knew you never intended to allow that. Its fraud and you should be sued for it. If the courts wernt run by money, disney would have lost their copyright case and copyright would still expire and serve some sort of purpose in the world today. Unfortunatly that is not the case.
> Just so you know, Knoppix is based on Debian, and I've heard nothing but good > about Knoppix, even from people who usually say they hate Linux.
Knoppix, and its cousin using gnome instead of kde, gnoppix, are both very nice live CDs.
THe only single one complaint I have about them is the english translation is not quite there yet (I believe knoppix atleast is german based.. no idea about gnoppix)
But it rarly pops up, and I heard they released a new version in the past couple weeks that I havent checked. Once the translaters get at it, it will be a very nice distro indeed.
> I see no reason why they shouldn't trust people who have shown time and time > again that they'll happily make copyrighted material available to everyone for > free.
No, the copyright holder decided to make their work availble to the public for free after their limited time monopoly on the work by copyrighting it in the first place.
A work of art with DRM by definition is not intended to ever make it into the public domain, and thus the copyright holders are stealing copyright from us the public. DRM work, by the spirit of copyright itself, can not be copyrighted at all.
You also have to keep in mind, even though it is indeed wrong to not give all artists the benifit of the doubt and willingly give them their limited time (Which is unfortunatly what most people on kazaa and the like are doing) but it was a very noticable percentage of copyright holders that have been invalidating their copyright deals from the past by not giving those works to us NOW as they aggreed to do. They have stolen from us (the copyright protection) and have not paid us for it. Services have been rendered, and they skipped on the bill.
These copyright holders are NOT to be trusted EVER. They have stolen from us in the past using copyright and they will do it again as long as we let them.
The problem is, the other copyright holders that DO intend to play according to the rules and spirit of the law, who are being hurt by not getting their limited time. The problem is these groups are not equal in what they provide, not equal in what they pay for the act of copyright from us, and the law is not treating them different like it should. Those that break copyright laws like disney and the RIAA and most of their members, need punished for it. They owe the public BIG for what has been stolen from us.
Until that is fixed, and the law treats all copyright holders the same, it is very hard for the public to do any different.
Most copyright holders fucked the public on the deal, and so the public isnt making that deal for them at all anymore. Only the slow reacting law is behind on what everyone (copyright holders and public a like) want.
This is why it appears the public assumes all copyright holders will fuck us and not pay us for the service we are rendering first.
> Trust has to be earned.
Yes, it was earned by both sides at one point. A good chunk of the copyright holders side totally ruined that trust by stealing from the public. Most of the public relates this in their mind as 'all copyright holders' and not just the ones actually doing wrong, and thus dont trust any of them.
Now the copyright holders claim they dont trust us, the ones they have stolen from for so long. It isnt us that started this breaking of laws and deals. It was them.
And this problem is not going to be fixed until BOTH sides come to reason, or both sides are totally eliminated by the removal of copyright all together.
Yes, X11 is seperate, and runs within the native mac os x interface (Aqua?) just like you can install an X11 server on windows interface (win32 api? dunno what you would want to call it)
The poster above you was incorrectly implying "Mac OS X" had something to do with "X11", which it doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
> You also don't need to buy a subscription when buying a tivo. You can purchase
> just the hardware if you want. Of course not having the program listings and
> scheduling features kinda defeats the main benefit of PVRs.
If you plunk down $300 for the hardware, may as well plunk down the $250 for a lifetime subscription as well.
Just pretend the hardware costs $550, but in this way you will have full guide listings and no monthly fee.
> How would you go about building the perfect low-budget PVR?
The problem is "perfect" and "low-budget" do not go together.
If you want perfect, do it right and spend the cash, be it for good hardware on your own system, or a pre-built unit.
If you want low-budget, find the cheapest USB video capture device you can, a cheap old video card that does video-out, a remote reader (dont recal if these are serial or usb) so you can use 'misc IR remote control', and spend a few weeks/months coding up all the glue and menuing systems and whatnot you will need.
> You can smoke tobacco in a bong, but that dosen't mean that most bong owners are
> smoking tobacco.
Bongs are not illegal to own or buy either.
> So let me get this straight:
/month)
.com site removed.
> A few volunteers decide they don't like the changes being made. They leave, and
> decide to open up a new site under exactly the same name, even using the same
> logo.
Nope, that is totally incorrect.
> And you think that should just be okay?
Of course not, but that isnt what happened.
Hmm.. the rest of your post is based on that one incorrect fact too, so no need to quote any of it and reply, as it has no relation to reality.
So to bring you up to date, replace the quoted 'misunderstanding' you thought above with this:
The volunteers created linux gazette. They hosted it at SSC instead of the millions of other ISPs, because the price was right ($0
Now SSC, being the hosting provider, filed for a trademark over their clients name and logo, and are now claiming to own it because they hosted it.
Fact of the matter is, no ISP or webhost owns their clients content as long as the ISP did not make the content.
That is what happened here.
Its a simple case of the web host thinking they own what other people upload to their site.
Personally I think the linux gazette volunteers need to sue SSC for copyright voilations (im sure they have past issues online) and in effect get most of the
> For that matter where did html/http (And the Internet itself for that matter)
> come from? I forget if it was academic or from DARPA. Not that I'd describe
> DARPA as corporate.
DARPA created the IP protocols and later when they gave the network away to corps it was renamed the Internet.
The web was made at Cern, which is a particle physics lab in Switzerland (For all of the past, and still now, the largest lab.)
> Has anyone had similar experiences with lie detectors
[off topic]
I read an article on a new method some company discovered that can detect a specific kind of lie, and is actually based 100% in science.
Aparently there is a specific reaction in the brain, that happens when a thought triggers a memory, and they seemingly know how to detect this now.
The idea is they can have a number of objects on a table, one of which being say for example the exact murder weapon.
If you are the murderer, when you saw that weapon, your mind would remember it, and trigger the reaction they can detect.
Atleast if you claimed you never saw it before, this will prove you lied.
Same if you lied about seeing it before I would imagine.
This was probably 6-9 months ago, and they were just then getting out of the exparamental stage proving it does work. I'm sure this wont be common use for quite some time.
Just thought it was really interesting application of the science and medical fields.
> Great idea!
>
> Now try to find a team of lawyers that can successfully prosecute such a case in
> Romania, China or Russia!
>
> These sorts of scams generally do not originate in places like the US or UK.
No need to find them. You already have them!
If MasterCard or AmEx wants their money back, they will send their own HUGE lawyer teams whereever its needed. Its that or they get stuck with the bill.
I'm sure they have a limit that if the fradulant charge was under they wont sue and they just eat the loss, but if that happens one hundred fold from what it does now, I think they will start to change their mind on that limit and lower or remove it.
Two of my three credit cards have contracts with them that state I am not at all responsible for fradulant charges, nor do they charge extra for this.
> Using DNS to cache a dozen or two kilobytes (or less, or more) where it's only
> meant to handle a few BYTES is likely to cause all sorts of problems
The DNS spec states that the TXT record string can be up to 255 bytes.
255 > few, and the spec in RFC is what it was meant to handle.
> Why we don't have a cure for cancer ... The greatest minds of our generation
> are too busy trying to get animatronic fish to sing, "Livin' La Vida Loco!"
I can't tell if you were joking or not, but since you are modded +5 insightful, I figured a serious response was in order.
I myself am into computers and electronics, and have done my share of hardware hacking as well.
I know squat about biology.
The two fields have very little to do with eachother.
Please stop telling the electronic engineers of the world that they have picked a stupid thing to be interested in , and to go work on biology which they may very well hate.
You yourself have a trade, and I hope it is related to something you enjoy doing as well. You have the exact same potential to go learn how to cure cancer as anyone else, especially when that is a field you arnt interested in either.
If you are that concerned about cancer, you can go devote your life to that study instead of doing all the things you enjoy, cure cancer, and stop your bitching.
When some doctor does find a cure for cancer, are you going to dismiss that and complain that they didnt also solve the worlds energy problems and single handedly killed SCO too?
> You know, makes me want to patent some of my ideas, not to sue people, but just
> to make sure people don't sue me or my company. Patenting to defend
> yourself...hrm, maybe I could patent that?
heh thats an interesting way to look at it.
Buying protection from the government, to protect you aginst the laws -by- that government.
Unfortunatly yes, racketering is a very old idea indeed.
> How long will it be before this "feature" will be used to disallow any
> non-Windows machine from connecting to the network?
The same day non-windows friendly ISPs start advertising that as a 'feature'
> How long will it be before non-DRM enabled hardware is disallowed from network
> access.
The day that every last single network admin in the world agrees with and fully loves DRM. This will be never.
Replace the backbone with people to enforce this type of restriction to not let ANYONE resell service without being authorized, and the current internet will simply die with noone to run it.
A new network will form and be free of this restriction and either take the now unused name of Internet, or make some new name.
> Why would I as someone who purchased or was even give a product from a comercial
> entity be worried about being sued if the comercial entity was using tech in
> violation of a patent?
To answer that, the question can actually be shortened to this:
# Why would I as someone who purchased or was even give a product from a comercial
# entity be worried about being sued
Someone can sue anyone for anything. Winning is up to the lawyers and judge.
Reasons for being sued dont play too much into things for most of the people that would be sued.
If you sued me for example, I could only afford to pay for legal defense for a short time. So if your reason for suing me wasnt outright incorrect or already covered in a different legal case, then I can only fight for a short time.
Compared to the companys doing the suing, who can afford to do so as long as needed, I would lose the case.
Once I can no longer defend myself with a person that knows all the details of every law (IE a lawyer) then the lawyers of the company doing the suing will do everything possible to find technicalitys that have no bearing to the issue, yet are legal none the less.
Imagine that hard ass teacher from school that you would expect a "Two of your five hundred I's are not dotted. zero credit for the paper!"
Judges have to follow the stupid laws in those cases, and only a person who choses law for his/her career can hope to know them all.
This is by design and on purpose.
If it was truly left to being right and wrong, there would be no problems.
I'm sure i'm oversimplifying things too, but for the most part that is the reason.
> Does this include dumpster diving for trade secrets?
If it was a secret, it should not have been discarded to be removed not by you but by the city, to go to a place that is not secure what so ever.
A company will spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars for a building with locks on the doors to keep whats inside secret. $50 for a paper shreader is not an unreasonable expense to provide for.
Can't help with a full download, but if you would concider supporting PBS for shows like this, you can buy it on DVD and VHS at the link below.
t alogSearchResultView?storeId=11051&catalogId=10051 &langId=-1&pageSize=20&searchText=elegant+universe
http://shop.wgbh.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Ca
> Of course, you do not learn it is not supported until after it's broken
Yea, the big 'mac-only' label on the front of the box, and the 'do not connecto to a windows system, it will format and erase the ipod' doesnt clue you in that you probably should listen to it?
If all of those labels right on the box are still concidered "you do not learn it is not supported until after its broken", then you have more problems than needing to worry about your iPod... You may accidentally kill yourself by eating some poison that says 'do not eat' on the front or something..
> but it's somewhat fun to see all these hypocrites justify their biases.
Sorry, but if you kill yourself by drinking draino, i blame only you.
The guy that did this to his ipod is exactly that.
He is the same person that would throw his palm pilot down the stairs and demand palm replace it for free because they make shitty hardware that cant survive a slam down the stairs.
Nothing hypocritical about that. I have always and always will feel stupid people that damange themselfs and their own belongings deserve what they get.
> In short, this is a non-event.
:(
Unfortunatly this is what most thought about the DMCA before it passed
> It's not a bad idea - but you'd then have to convince them that it wasn't the
/dev/zero may be a better choice than /dev/urandom for this.
> actual file, but just encrypted
> They'd have you in a dark room, beating you, shouting "What's the key, what's
> the key?!" for weeks before they dug up your post.
Good point.
Being america, where its now aparently legal* for the government to kidnap and torture people, its definatly something I wouldnt want to chance.
(*) Its not actually legal, but its done and kept secret. Same difference in the end.
> Congratulations to those hackers/crackers who have likely now put those
> individuals out of work.
Funny, last I saw it was Ritz that priced these things under cost, not us hackers.
If McDonalds spent $5 per cheese burger for all that is needed, and only charged $2, would you blame every person that just wants to order a cheese burger for the loss of the McDonalds workers jobs?
Aparently so.
Blame the person that didnt realize if ( cost > gain ) failed_business();
> I am just saying that because of these activities, we will all lose freedom.
Attacking someone, and charging them to not do that again, was illegal LONG before this internet thing came to be.
I dont care what so ever if you want the freedom to attack people.
> The music file with DRM is justa copy of the work of art. Harlequin romance
> novels printed on cheap-ass paper won't last long enough to make it into PD
> status. Who knows if your CD collection will be playable in 70 years. Or the
> music on 8-track tapes, or cassette tapes. Most of my parents records are
> scratched. Are the copyright holders trying to steal from the public domain by
> using those mediums as well?
Not at all.
I can take the real work that is on the mediums you listed, and put it on any other medium, no matter what the reason for doing so is.
I can do it because a new medium is used more commonly (8track->tape->cd->?)
or I can do it due to wear on the old medium (old tape -> new, worm melted record -> cd)
Also, even with all the mediums you listed, the fact remains the medium isnt under question here. The work of art that is copyrighted is in question.
Using a CD does not stop me from using a CD player to play it.
DRM does exactly that. DRM stops you from using the -intended- reader hardware to access that work.
To copyright a work, you MUST copyright it. And you cant copyright something that is not able to be put in the public domain.
There are only two ways for a work to be DRM and copyright.
1) Change copyright law (which is what was done)
If laws aginst murder were changed, im sure you would complain just as loud if i told you to stop murderering people.
2) Submit a non-drm copy of the work to the library of congress for safe keeping, until the copyright expires.
At that point, it doesnt matter if the DRM version is unreadable, once the copyright expired the LoC can release their copy and everyone will use it.
To further kill your argument:
> Harlequin romance novels printed on cheap-ass paper won't last long enough to
> make it into PD status
That statement is 100% pointless and makes no sense.
A piece of paper cant possibly be PD, you cant copyright a sheet of paper.
Its the words on the paper you copyright.
Its irrelivant if the paper wont last, the words do. The words are what is protected, and the words are what is desired to be kept. The paper doesnt matter.
The words can be *COPIED* (wow, imagine that, they call it copyright because it involves the right to copy things) onto ANY MATIERAL.
You can write a book on tissues if you wanted, but that still doesnt mean i shouldnt have the right to copy that onto a different material once your copyright expired.
Also, if you intended to go buy a car and never pay them, but lie and say you will once the bills come, that is fraud.
Its the same thing when you lie to us and say you will pay us for allowing you a temp monopoly on your work, and you knew you never intended to allow that. Its fraud and you should be sued for it. If the courts wernt run by money, disney would have lost their copyright case and copyright would still expire and serve some sort of purpose in the world today. Unfortunatly that is not the case.
> Just so you know, Knoppix is based on Debian, and I've heard nothing but good
> about Knoppix, even from people who usually say they hate Linux.
Knoppix, and its cousin using gnome instead of kde, gnoppix, are both very nice live CDs.
THe only single one complaint I have about them is the english translation is not quite there yet (I believe knoppix atleast is german based.. no idea about gnoppix)
But it rarly pops up, and I heard they released a new version in the past couple weeks that I havent checked. Once the translaters get at it, it will be a very nice distro indeed.
> I see no reason why they shouldn't trust people who have shown time and time
> again that they'll happily make copyrighted material available to everyone for
> free.
No, the copyright holder decided to make their work availble to the public for free after their limited time monopoly on the work by copyrighting it in the first place.
A work of art with DRM by definition is not intended to ever make it into the public domain, and thus the copyright holders are stealing copyright from us the public.
DRM work, by the spirit of copyright itself, can not be copyrighted at all.
You also have to keep in mind, even though it is indeed wrong to not give all artists the benifit of the doubt and willingly give them their limited time (Which is unfortunatly what most people on kazaa and the like are doing) but it was a very noticable percentage of copyright holders that have been invalidating their copyright deals from the past by not giving those works to us NOW as they aggreed to do.
They have stolen from us (the copyright protection) and have not paid us for it. Services have been rendered, and they skipped on the bill.
These copyright holders are NOT to be trusted EVER. They have stolen from us in the past using copyright and they will do it again as long as we let them.
The problem is, the other copyright holders that DO intend to play according to the rules and spirit of the law, who are being hurt by not getting their limited time.
The problem is these groups are not equal in what they provide, not equal in what they pay for the act of copyright from us, and the law is not treating them different like it should.
Those that break copyright laws like disney and the RIAA and most of their members, need punished for it. They owe the public BIG for what has been stolen from us.
Until that is fixed, and the law treats all copyright holders the same, it is very hard for the public to do any different.
Most copyright holders fucked the public on the deal, and so the public isnt making that deal for them at all anymore. Only the slow reacting law is behind on what everyone (copyright holders and public a like) want.
This is why it appears the public assumes all copyright holders will fuck us and not pay us for the service we are rendering first.
> Trust has to be earned.
Yes, it was earned by both sides at one point.
A good chunk of the copyright holders side totally ruined that trust by stealing from the public.
Most of the public relates this in their mind as 'all copyright holders' and not just the ones actually doing wrong, and thus dont trust any of them.
Now the copyright holders claim they dont trust us, the ones they have stolen from for so long.
It isnt us that started this breaking of laws and deals. It was them.
And this problem is not going to be fixed until BOTH sides come to reason, or both sides are totally eliminated by the removal of copyright all together.
> Yeah, blame it on the "mindless drones" instead of all the corporate lackeys
> working hard to deceive said mindless drones.
I dont think he was trying to blame the drones, just point out they are the next step up the ladder towards the problem.
Open relays arnt the cause of spam, spammers are, but open relays shouldnt be in the first place, let alone helping spammers.
Drones should not exist. Thinkers should. Despite the fact its wrong to exploit them still, its still an aspect that needs removed/fixed.
And yes, the exploiters need dealt with too, as they will find some other way to do their thing. But its a start.
> Anyone know for sure?
Yes, X11 is seperate, and runs within the native mac os x interface (Aqua?) just like you can install an X11 server on windows interface (win32 api? dunno what you would want to call it)
The poster above you was incorrectly implying "Mac OS X" had something to do with "X11", which it doesn't.
Quote from parent post: "Compared to this, I think a plain ordinary nuclear reactor would be lots safer."
Quote from article: "The intensity of each power beam is restricted to 20%, or less, of the intensity of noontime sunlight."
Parent poster has a wierd idea of safe and not safe.