Quoting a friend "if the students want to gring their network to a hault trading music and videos, let them, it's fine with us."
I'm glad those admins don't work anywhere near me. I sure hope they aren't being paid much, because that should not be the attitude of the people who are supposed to be maintaining a network of any kind. The goal of any netadmin should be to keep the network running reliably for all users - not just the faculty and staff. If someone is using an unusual amount of bandwidth, they should be investigated and shut down if their activities violate school policies and/or the law. If an activity is questionable legally and is interfering with more legitimate uses of the network (at a college that would be academic use), that activity should be limited. Napster is blocked here at WPI because 5 T1 lines can't support both academic use and Napster use at the same time. Napster will be allowed (with a bandwidth cap) only when:
A. The T3 is up and running, and
B. Napster is cleared in court.
Until then, if you want to download a song with Napster, you need to show the network manager proof that you have permission from the copyright holder to download the song. This isn't censorship, it's network management, which is what the netadmins here get paid to do. The only person who has expressed problems with this policy was some moron who thought he owned the network because some of his (parents') money paid for network access. After whining about free speech, he was promptly flamed into the ground.
So now you have to show your ID when you have your wallet out anyway to pay for violent games. As other people here have said, big [insert expletive of your choice] deal. This will only affect kids, who will now have to tell their parents to buy the games for them. Kids also (in theory) can't get into an R-rated movie, can't drive (until 15 or 16), can't buy porn, can't buy tobacco, can't buy alcohol (until 21), can't vote, can't rent a car, etc. [Insert supreme being of your choice] forbid parents should actually have to get a clue about what their kids do with their time and money.
Here's what you do: hire another employee, preferably a nice conservative retiree. Position the employee to have full view of all computer monitors (use mirrors and cameras as necessary. Give this employee a ruler, wet noodle, wooden cane, or some other non-lethal weapon. Instruct employee to hit underage customers over the head when they view porn. Problem solved.
Your analogy is only slightly flawed (aside from dealing with physical property vs. information, but we'll overlook that for now) - confiscating stolen property and prosecuting someone for possession of stolen property are different issues. Here's a more accurate situation:
You work at CompUSA and your friend Al, who owns Al's Computer Shack, wants to sell Whiz-Bang computers but isn't certified to sell new Whiz-Bang products and can't afford them anyway. Being a kind and generous person, you grab a few new Whiz-Bangs from the back room at CompUSA and take them over to Al's Computer Shack and say, "Hey Al, I just stole these brand new Whiz-Bang computers for you." Al then goes on to sell the computers, knowing that they are stolen property.
A few days later CompUSA connects you to the theft, fires you, and notifies the police. The police find out about Al, and both of you are beaten senseless and thrown into jail. When you go to trial, you don't really have any defense thanks to the security cameras that taped the entire theft. Al can claim that he didn't know that the computers were stolen, but he would have to be completely brain dead not to realize that half a dozen brand new factory sealed Whiz-Bang computers obtained from some low-life CompUSA ex-employee were stolen property. After the jury hears the message found on Al's answering machine that includes you saying that you had some stolen computers, Al is found guilty on all charges and spends a few years learning what it is like to be a prison bitch.
So how does that apply to Apple suing people who distributed information obtained through a violation of an NDA or other such agreement? It doesn't really, there are other laws that apply in that case.
I just happen to be reading Michael Crichton's 1983 book Electronic Life: How to Think About Computers, and it contains many views that are still relevant today, particularly regarding copyright:
"Whatever the courts decide in the short term, it will eventually be obvious that there is no way to regulate widespread copying in an electronic information society. The technology can't be stopped; consumer preference for videotape over laser disks means, bluntly, that people want to copy."
And later:
"The only solution is to accept instantaneous dissemination as a fact of electronic life. The creators of a movie, a musical composition, or a computer program will come to recognize only two stages of its existence - absolute private ownership during development, and absolute public ownership at the moment of release. The dividing line will be sharply defined, and the creator will receive all of his compensation when he crosses it."
And the conclusion:
"It is by no means clear how these legal issues will be resolved. But it seems inevitable that our ideas of ownership and copying of information will undergo radical revision in the coming years. Because they have to."
Earlier in the book he clearly describes what is wrong with people like Time Warner's president:
"Change means stress. Change makes us uncomfortable and fearful.... There's a fundamental truth here: human beings don't like change."
17 years ago someone saw this mess coming. Today, the people in charge still don't have a clue.
I thought it was interesting that the question of whether or not to censor was not an issue - no opponents to censorship were even allowed to speak. That is the fundamental decision to be made in this issue, and all of the salesmen there knew it. They constantly dodged the issue by claiming that their products were absolutely perfect, without actually offering any proof. Everyone mixed buzzwords and "99% effective" statements into speeches that were pure propoganda. How could you possibly be against something so infallible? Here's how the progression of sales pitches goes: "It can tell the difference between art and porn!" "It only incorrectly blocks normal pictures a measly one out of every SIX times!" "It will block messages that contain innuendo!" "It will block any mention of or depiction of sex, violence, free thought, alternative ideas, criticism, or logic!" "It will prevent your children from having evil thoughts!" "When you install it with a camera, it will watch your children and give them a mild extremely painful shock when they start to do anything you don't approve of!" "Don't know anything about parenting? Who cares? Just buy our software and your children will grow up to be perfect angels!" "Step right up folks and see the most incredible, amazing, astounding sight of the modern era. It's a tech-no-logical marvel, a triumph over perversion and depravity, the one, the only, CENSOR-ALL 9000!" "Think only happy thoughts. Evil thoughts must be purged. Please report to the re-education facility." "Censorship is doubleplusgood!"
OK. I had my first experience with Linux 2 weeks ago. Coming from a mixed Mac/Unix/Windows background it seemed incomprehensible that it would take me 20 minutes to figure out how to get a GUI that didn't display everything in Chinese or even longer to restart the computer. I don't find the OS intuitive at all and feel it's restrictive to the point of being useless. Most people that "love" Linux are practically married to it (why I don't know). So far, I find MacOS much easier to get around.
Unless I have my history wrong, didn't human evolution take place long before there were technical fields for women to not be interested in? You need to apply something called "intelligent thought" to the situation before you can just dismiss the genetic aspect. The cause of the lack of interest in technical fields is what you would have to debate the evolutionary advantages of, not the resulting effect. There's no evolutionary advantage to being able to fill out a bra either, but women tend to be a lot better at it than men - does this mean that this is due to social influences (aside from the creation and use of the bra, which has nothing to do with ones ability to fill it)?
Yes, there is something wrong with them. Like many males, they suffer from a condition commonly known as "being a dumbass." Unfortunately, this is a highly contagious disease. Affected males commonly spread it to other males through peer pressure and intimidation while also creating a similar disorder in females through self-esteem reduction and a lowering of expectations. Unaffected males are less visible in the population but do exist. They tend to be reclusive, creative, and in many cases sensitive. However, the nature of those affected by the dumbass condition is to spread the disease as much as possible. This causes unaffected males to hide their non-dumbass characteristics and also causes unaffected females to become very frustrated. Currently, the only short-term treatment for males stricken with this malady is a swift knee to the groin; there is no cure.
So what if network admins on a private network decide that Napster et. al. isn't the best way to utilize network resources? They have every right to control what goes over their network. The admins at my school had the guts to just block Napster instead of messing with prioritization. A few lusers started whining about first ammendment rights on our local flame newsgroup, but they were quickly flamed into submission. If it takes blocking Napster and the like to keep legitimate uses of an academic network going smoothly, then I'm all for it. As for getting more bandwidth, most decent admins at schools that aren't swimming in money are constantly trying to increase bandwidth. The problem is that there isn't always enough money at small schools for high speed connections between buildings and T3 lines to the outside world - even at a tech school we can't get all of these things at once (new fiber links went in two years ago, a T3 is always on the horizon). If we all had infinite bandwidth, Napster would be left to the lawyers (we need something to keep half the world's lawyers busy).
Let me guess, you're trying to use alkalines in your digital camera, right? If so, then don't blame the batteries for your mistake. With decent (1400-1600mAH) NiMH batteries you can usually get at least an hour or two of continuous use out of most digital cameras. When they run down, you just swap them out and recharge them. Two sets of batteries and a good charger (like the Maha C204F) can easily meet your power needs with a digital camera for about 500 charges each. In my experience, the Microdrive has had very little impact on battery life - I can still get between 50 and 100 pictures with the LCD on continuously and normal flash, zoom, and autofocus use. For batteries and chargers, go to Thomas Distributing. You may also want to look at the Batteries message board at the Digital Camera Resource Page or Andy Baird's batteries page.
By the comments made so far, it appears that not too many people here know much about digital cameras. Here is some information you may find useful.
Sony's CD-R camera is actually the fourth recent attempt at more economical mass storage for digital cameras. The first was Iomega's Click drive, which copies the contents of 32MB or smaller Compact Flash cards or 16MB or smaller SmartMedia cards onto cheap 40MB Click disks. This is almost as useless as it sounds, but it was the first alternative to flash cards. Next came IBM's 170MB and 340MB Microdrives. These are hard drives in the Compact Flash Type II form factor, which is essentially only physically thicker than Type I. Since only a few cameras have Type II Compact Flash slots, this isn't a universal solution. However, Minds@Work (http://www.mindsat.com/) developed the Digital Wallet, a device that copies the contents of Compact Flash and SmartMedia cards onto a 6GB hard drive. The only advantage Sony's creation has over something like the Digital Wallet is the whole "no cables to fuss with" mentality, while the disadvantages are numerous - cost, size, speed, etc.
Many people have declared their eternal love of Mavicas because of advantages like the above mentioned "no cables to fuss with" ease of use. In reality, a USB equipped camera only needs a small cable and a driver. Once the driver is loaded, all you have to do is plug the large end of the cable into a USB port on a computer or USB hub and plug the small end into the camera. This should be well within the ability of anyone who can handle complex tasks like walking or opening a newspaper. Alternatively, you can use a card reader which, after being installed, simplifies the task to putting a card into a slot. Next there's the low cost of floppies. A pack of 250 floppies may be cheaper than a 340MB Microdrive or 6GB Digital Wallet, but it is considerably larger and requires a more expensive and bulkier camera. Finally, there's the "but I only want to e-mail pictures or put them on the web" argument. Most digital cameras are able to take pictures of at least two different sizes - 1600x1200 and 800x600 for example. Also , it is quite easy to crop and/or resize a picture in software. By starting with a small size, you have less quality to work with and are limited to e-mail and web use - don't even think about printing out an 8x10. These are just some of the many reasons why a lot of people prefer real digital cameras to Mavicas.
Next up: digital vs. film. If you consider yourself a true "professional," then you will probably want to stick with film for another year or so. High resolution SLR digital cameras are still rather expensive, but that should change soon. Digital cameras do offer many advantages however. First, there's no film to deal with. This eliminates the bulk of film as well as the need for developing, scanning, etc. Digital pictures can always be printed, and the latest inks and papers can resist fading for 10-20 years or more, with even better inks and papers always on the horizon. With proper backup and duplication techniques, the digital original could easily outlive the photographer. Digital cameras also have the advantage of immediate viewing of a picture. Instead of either hoping a picture comes out or spending years becoming an expert photographer, you can try different settings and features with instant feedback, which makes advanced photography accessible to people who don't want to deal with large quantities of equipment or film developing. Film cameras require less battery power, but even using the flash, zoom, autofocus, and having the LCD display on for extended periods of time, I have been able to get 50 to 100 pictures on a set of batteries. With 2 or 3 sets of batteries and a charger, battery use is hardly an issue. Film also produces slightly higher quality, but if people are satisfied with prints made from a Mavica, I think a 3.3 megapixel image should be at least tolerable.
I recently took a 2.1 megapixel camera and 340MB Microdrive on a 2 week vacation, and I wouldn't have wanted anything else (except maybe a Digital Wallet, but those weren't available). Everything worked perfectly, the pictures came out great, and I'll have a detailed web site up in a few weeks instead of months (in my spare time). Digital photography is here to stay, but Sony's latest contraption is destined to fail. A CD as primary storage is a bad idea. As a secondary system, like the Click drive or Digital Wallet, the idea might work. Otherwise, Sony has only succeeded in building a unique oddity.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad those admins don't work anywhere near me. I sure hope they aren't being paid much, because that should not be the attitude of the people who are supposed to be maintaining a network of any kind. The goal of any netadmin should be to keep the network running reliably for all users - not just the faculty and staff. If someone is using an unusual amount of bandwidth, they should be investigated and shut down if their activities violate school policies and/or the law. If an activity is questionable legally and is interfering with more legitimate uses of the network (at a college that would be academic use), that activity should be limited. Napster is blocked here at WPI because 5 T1 lines can't support both academic use and Napster use at the same time. Napster will be allowed (with a bandwidth cap) only when:
A. The T3 is up and running, and
B. Napster is cleared in court.
Until then, if you want to download a song with Napster, you need to show the network manager proof that you have permission from the copyright holder to download the song. This isn't censorship, it's network management, which is what the netadmins here get paid to do. The only person who has expressed problems with this policy was some moron who thought he owned the network because some of his (parents') money paid for network access. After whining about free speech, he was promptly flamed into the ground.
So now you have to show your ID when you have your wallet out anyway to pay for violent games. As other people here have said, big [insert expletive of your choice] deal. This will only affect kids, who will now have to tell their parents to buy the games for them. Kids also (in theory) can't get into an R-rated movie, can't drive (until 15 or 16), can't buy porn, can't buy tobacco, can't buy alcohol (until 21), can't vote, can't rent a car, etc. [Insert supreme being of your choice] forbid parents should actually have to get a clue about what their kids do with their time and money.
Here's what you do: hire another employee, preferably a nice conservative retiree. Position the employee to have full view of all computer monitors (use mirrors and cameras as necessary. Give this employee a ruler, wet noodle, wooden cane, or some other non-lethal weapon. Instruct employee to hit underage customers over the head when they view porn. Problem solved.
You work at CompUSA and your friend Al, who owns Al's Computer Shack, wants to sell Whiz-Bang computers but isn't certified to sell new Whiz-Bang products and can't afford them anyway. Being a kind and generous person, you grab a few new Whiz-Bangs from the back room at CompUSA and take them over to Al's Computer Shack and say, "Hey Al, I just stole these brand new Whiz-Bang computers for you." Al then goes on to sell the computers, knowing that they are stolen property.
A few days later CompUSA connects you to the theft, fires you, and notifies the police. The police find out about Al, and both of you are beaten senseless and thrown into jail. When you go to trial, you don't really have any defense thanks to the security cameras that taped the entire theft. Al can claim that he didn't know that the computers were stolen, but he would have to be completely brain dead not to realize that half a dozen brand new factory sealed Whiz-Bang computers obtained from some low-life CompUSA ex-employee were stolen property. After the jury hears the message found on Al's answering machine that includes you saying that you had some stolen computers, Al is found guilty on all charges and spends a few years learning what it is like to be a prison bitch.
So how does that apply to Apple suing people who distributed information obtained through a violation of an NDA or other such agreement? It doesn't really, there are other laws that apply in that case.
"Whatever the courts decide in the short term, it will eventually be obvious that there is no way to regulate widespread copying in an electronic information society. The technology can't be stopped; consumer preference for videotape over laser disks means, bluntly, that people want to copy."
And later:
"The only solution is to accept instantaneous dissemination as a fact of electronic life. The creators of a movie, a musical composition, or a computer program will come to recognize only two stages of its existence - absolute private ownership during development, and absolute public ownership at the moment of release. The dividing line will be sharply defined, and the creator will receive all of his compensation when he crosses it."
And the conclusion:
"It is by no means clear how these legal issues will be resolved. But it seems inevitable that our ideas of ownership and copying of information will undergo radical revision in the coming years. Because they have to."
Earlier in the book he clearly describes what is wrong with people like Time Warner's president:
"Change means stress. Change makes us uncomfortable and fearful. ... There's a fundamental truth here: human beings don't like change."
17 years ago someone saw this mess coming. Today, the people in charge still don't have a clue.
I thought it was interesting that the question of whether or not to censor was not an issue - no opponents to censorship were even allowed to speak. That is the fundamental decision to be made in this issue, and all of the salesmen there knew it. They constantly dodged the issue by claiming that their products were absolutely perfect, without actually offering any proof. Everyone mixed buzzwords and "99% effective" statements into speeches that were pure propoganda. How could you possibly be against something so infallible? Here's how the progression of sales pitches goes: "It can tell the difference between art and porn!" "It only incorrectly blocks normal pictures a measly one out of every SIX times!" "It will block messages that contain innuendo!" "It will block any mention of or depiction of sex, violence, free thought, alternative ideas, criticism, or logic!" "It will prevent your children from having evil thoughts!" "When you install it with a camera, it will watch your children and give them a mild extremely painful shock when they start to do anything you don't approve of!" "Don't know anything about parenting? Who cares? Just buy our software and your children will grow up to be perfect angels!" "Step right up folks and see the most incredible, amazing, astounding sight of the modern era. It's a tech-no-logical marvel, a triumph over perversion and depravity, the one, the only, CENSOR-ALL 9000!" "Think only happy thoughts. Evil thoughts must be purged. Please report to the re-education facility." "Censorship is doubleplusgood!"
OK. I had my first experience with Linux 2 weeks ago. Coming from a mixed Mac/Unix/Windows background it seemed incomprehensible that it would take me 20 minutes to figure out how to get a GUI that didn't display everything in Chinese or even longer to restart the computer. I don't find the OS intuitive at all and feel it's restrictive to the point of being useless. Most people that "love" Linux are practically married to it (why I don't know). So far, I find MacOS much easier to get around.
Unless I have my history wrong, didn't human evolution take place long before there were technical fields for women to not be interested in? You need to apply something called "intelligent thought" to the situation before you can just dismiss the genetic aspect. The cause of the lack of interest in technical fields is what you would have to debate the evolutionary advantages of, not the resulting effect. There's no evolutionary advantage to being able to fill out a bra either, but women tend to be a lot better at it than men - does this mean that this is due to social influences (aside from the creation and use of the bra, which has nothing to do with ones ability to fill it)?
Yes, there is something wrong with them. Like many males, they suffer from a condition commonly known as "being a dumbass." Unfortunately, this is a highly contagious disease. Affected males commonly spread it to other males through peer pressure and intimidation while also creating a similar disorder in females through self-esteem reduction and a lowering of expectations. Unaffected males are less visible in the population but do exist. They tend to be reclusive, creative, and in many cases sensitive. However, the nature of those affected by the dumbass condition is to spread the disease as much as possible. This causes unaffected males to hide their non-dumbass characteristics and also causes unaffected females to become very frustrated. Currently, the only short-term treatment for males stricken with this malady is a swift knee to the groin; there is no cure.
You might want to look up a guy named Fourier, I think he did some work in this area...
Photons don't exist; everything is a wave.
So what if network admins on a private network decide that Napster et. al. isn't the best way to utilize network resources? They have every right to control what goes over their network. The admins at my school had the guts to just block Napster instead of messing with prioritization. A few lusers started whining about first ammendment rights on our local flame newsgroup, but they were quickly flamed into submission. If it takes blocking Napster and the like to keep legitimate uses of an academic network going smoothly, then I'm all for it. As for getting more bandwidth, most decent admins at schools that aren't swimming in money are constantly trying to increase bandwidth. The problem is that there isn't always enough money at small schools for high speed connections between buildings and T3 lines to the outside world - even at a tech school we can't get all of these things at once (new fiber links went in two years ago, a T3 is always on the horizon). If we all had infinite bandwidth, Napster would be left to the lawyers (we need something to keep half the world's lawyers busy).
Let me guess, you're trying to use alkalines in your digital camera, right? If so, then don't blame the batteries for your mistake. With decent (1400-1600mAH) NiMH batteries you can usually get at least an hour or two of continuous use out of most digital cameras. When they run down, you just swap them out and recharge them. Two sets of batteries and a good charger (like the Maha C204F) can easily meet your power needs with a digital camera for about 500 charges each. In my experience, the Microdrive has had very little impact on battery life - I can still get between 50 and 100 pictures with the LCD on continuously and normal flash, zoom, and autofocus use. For batteries and chargers, go to Thomas Distributing. You may also want to look at the Batteries message board at the Digital Camera Resource Page or Andy Baird's batteries page.
Sony's CD-R camera is actually the fourth recent attempt at more economical mass storage for digital cameras. The first was Iomega's Click drive, which copies the contents of 32MB or smaller Compact Flash cards or 16MB or smaller SmartMedia cards onto cheap 40MB Click disks. This is almost as useless as it sounds, but it was the first alternative to flash cards. Next came IBM's 170MB and 340MB Microdrives. These are hard drives in the Compact Flash Type II form factor, which is essentially only physically thicker than Type I. Since only a few cameras have Type II Compact Flash slots, this isn't a universal solution. However, Minds@Work (http://www.mindsat.com/) developed the Digital Wallet, a device that copies the contents of Compact Flash and SmartMedia cards onto a 6GB hard drive. The only advantage Sony's creation has over something like the Digital Wallet is the whole "no cables to fuss with" mentality, while the disadvantages are numerous - cost, size, speed, etc.
Many people have declared their eternal love of Mavicas because of advantages like the above mentioned "no cables to fuss with" ease of use. In reality, a USB equipped camera only needs a small cable and a driver. Once the driver is loaded, all you have to do is plug the large end of the cable into a USB port on a computer or USB hub and plug the small end into the camera. This should be well within the ability of anyone who can handle complex tasks like walking or opening a newspaper. Alternatively, you can use a card reader which, after being installed, simplifies the task to putting a card into a slot. Next there's the low cost of floppies. A pack of 250 floppies may be cheaper than a 340MB Microdrive or 6GB Digital Wallet, but it is considerably larger and requires a more expensive and bulkier camera. Finally, there's the "but I only want to e-mail pictures or put them on the web" argument. Most digital cameras are able to take pictures of at least two different sizes - 1600x1200 and 800x600 for example. Also , it is quite easy to crop and/or resize a picture in software. By starting with a small size, you have less quality to work with and are limited to e-mail and web use - don't even think about printing out an 8x10. These are just some of the many reasons why a lot of people prefer real digital cameras to Mavicas.
Next up: digital vs. film. If you consider yourself a true "professional," then you will probably want to stick with film for another year or so. High resolution SLR digital cameras are still rather expensive, but that should change soon. Digital cameras do offer many advantages however. First, there's no film to deal with. This eliminates the bulk of film as well as the need for developing, scanning, etc. Digital pictures can always be printed, and the latest inks and papers can resist fading for 10-20 years or more, with even better inks and papers always on the horizon. With proper backup and duplication techniques, the digital original could easily outlive the photographer. Digital cameras also have the advantage of immediate viewing of a picture. Instead of either hoping a picture comes out or spending years becoming an expert photographer, you can try different settings and features with instant feedback, which makes advanced photography accessible to people who don't want to deal with large quantities of equipment or film developing. Film cameras require less battery power, but even using the flash, zoom, autofocus, and having the LCD display on for extended periods of time, I have been able to get 50 to 100 pictures on a set of batteries. With 2 or 3 sets of batteries and a charger, battery use is hardly an issue. Film also produces slightly higher quality, but if people are satisfied with prints made from a Mavica, I think a 3.3 megapixel image should be at least tolerable.
I recently took a 2.1 megapixel camera and 340MB Microdrive on a 2 week vacation, and I wouldn't have wanted anything else (except maybe a Digital Wallet, but those weren't available). Everything worked perfectly, the pictures came out great, and I'll have a detailed web site up in a few weeks instead of months (in my spare time). Digital photography is here to stay, but Sony's latest contraption is destined to fail. A CD as primary storage is a bad idea. As a secondary system, like the Click drive or Digital Wallet, the idea might work. Otherwise, Sony has only succeeded in building a unique oddity.