It's interesting that the kernel is reporting a Genuine Intel MMX, since it's neither Genuine Intel (the 'chip' being emulated is something akin to a RISC version of an x86) nor supports MMX.
Or how about a series of plastic stents with coils of copper filament around them, and generate electricity through induction (since you're just pushing all that iron around anyway)?
Nexus One is supported, so it definitely can't a hardware issue. My guess it's a problem with the carriers. Sprint devices comprise 4/5 of that list, and the Nexus One isn't locked to a carrier, so there wouldn't be a need for carrier approval (read: won't charge for bandwidth what Netflix isn't willing to pay.)
D'oh! (For the record, I actually did find that distinction while I was looking up the SoL's for my first post, but it was always in the context of "in practice, it's from the date of the latest infringement.")
Okay - for the sake of argument, say they discover when I sign up for Google Music that I have a trove of music that I allegedly downloaded off of Napster back in 1999.
They then have to prove the allegation that I obtained it by infringement. This, of course, would have to be proven by evidence they obtained only after they discovered my collection - otherwise their claim to have discovered it from my Google Music account would be false. And who exactly is it that collected this evidence and then sat on it for twelve years? What was their motivation? Is their chain-of-custody unimpeachable, and can it be proven that the evidence was never given to the plaintiff prior to the discovery of my Google account? And even if all of that can be answered satisfactorily, why were they collecting evidence of copyright infringement if my alleged infringement wasn't discovered until twelve years later?
But I'd be willing to bet that the RIAA lawyers can convince a judge that putting the music on this service is actually sharing it (with yourself) and therefore constitutes the latest infringing act.
The real question would be in this case how could they tell if the music was pirated or just a copy you ripped yourself?
But Google isn't distributing anything in an infringing manner. They're simply storing files that the users upload, and allowing those same users to download only what they've uploaded. This is the fight the RIAA is going to have to fight, and Google and Amazon are clearly confident that they'll win it in court.
I agree that individuals who open their accounts to multiple people are probably ripe for the picking in the RIAA's eyes, but they're going to have to be really bald-faced and vocal about it for the RIAA to catch wind of it.
And you're right; these services are a great test of fair use. I think fair use pretty clearly encompasses streaming on the internet for personal use, especially if the CD itself is unused at the time. Bear in mind, it's up to the RIAA to prove infringement on their copyright, not for the individual to prove compliance. If you're making exclusive use of the product you purchased, where exactly is the infringement?
From the RIAA website, copying music from CDs to computers and portable music players is okay provided:
The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying
My point wasn't that Google should buy out the industry. Google has the resources to actually fight the RIAA in court, so the RIAA actually has to have the law on its side if they're going to get what they want. They're going to find that suing Google is a much different ballgame than bullying individual file-sharers into settlement.
You clearly made a copy when you put it on this new Google Service so that would be the most recent infringement date. Not only did you make a copy, you clearly distributed it (albeit to yourself).
...which you're allowed to do, so no, it's not infringement.
Then how will the RIAA know what I have there, what is the basis for the subpoena?
Also, how will the RIAA know when you obtained the pirated music? The statute of limitations clock in many cases is pinned to the last infringing act - so not only would they have to prove you had the files and obtained the music files through copyright infringement, they would have to prove that they were still inside the statute of limitations (three years for civil suits, five for criminal), which means proving you downloaded the music or shared it with someone else during a specific period of time.
Except that Google has the wherewithal to buy the music industry outright. The RIAA would actually have to sue and win (as opposed to litigating a smaller opponent into bankruptcy), which might be rather difficult, seeing as how these cloud-storage services merely give users the ability to store their own files for later retrieval and don't really facilitate piracy.
They could threaten to kill themselves if forced to sign it. If they were clever about it, they could use it as leverage to force better conditions in the work place. That is assuming it wouldn't be cheaper for Foxconn to just hire a whole new staff. Deadlines may not make that possible though for Foxconn.
I doubt that would work.
FC Manager: Sign this pact that you won't commit suicide. Employee: No. If you try to make me, I'll commit suicide. FC Manager: You're fired. Get out.
FC Spokesperson: We are deeply saddened to learn that former employee #1785598 took his own life yesterday. He had a history of erratic behavior, even threatening to commit suicide at one point to his manager. In that same conversation, the manager tried to make him promise he would not take his own life, but sadly, was unable to reach him. Toodles!
Slashdot Mirror
Netcraft confirms that BSD on the browser is dead.
...which means someone will eventually have network support up and running, and from there, apt-get (or the like). =)
I look forward to the day when someone manages to bootstrap Gentoo in the browser.
It's interesting that the kernel is reporting a Genuine Intel MMX, since it's neither Genuine Intel (the 'chip' being emulated is something akin to a RISC version of an x86) nor supports MMX.
(Hemoglobin is diamagnetic when bonded to oxygen, and passing a steady stream of it unidirectionally through the coil would create flux.)
Or how about a series of plastic stents with coils of copper filament around them, and generate electricity through induction (since you're just pushing all that iron around anyway)?
Well, obviously, the first thing that's got to happen is they have to make uni.xkcd.com actually run Linux, complete with all the jokes.
You are brilliant, sir! (I'd mod you up, but had already commented in this thread.)
Wait, crap.
Ooh, wait, I know....imagine a Beowulf cluster of nested linux-in-a-browsers.
<body background="natalie-portman-naked-and-petrified-covered-in-hot-grits.jpg">
Nexus One is supported, so it definitely can't a hardware issue. My guess it's a problem with the carriers. Sprint devices comprise 4/5 of that list, and the Nexus One isn't locked to a carrier, so there wouldn't be a need for carrier approval (read: won't charge for bandwidth what Netflix isn't willing to pay.)
As streaming movies requires certain features and specifications, only a select number of devices are supported for now.
The Nexus One is supported, so it's certainly not hardware specs preventing the install on other Android devices.
Many Android phones have HDMI-out, which might be a good compromise.
D'oh! (For the record, I actually did find that distinction while I was looking up the SoL's for my first post, but it was always in the context of "in practice, it's from the date of the latest infringement.")
Okay - for the sake of argument, say they discover when I sign up for Google Music that I have a trove of music that I allegedly downloaded off of Napster back in 1999.
They then have to prove the allegation that I obtained it by infringement. This, of course, would have to be proven by evidence they obtained only after they discovered my collection - otherwise their claim to have discovered it from my Google Music account would be false. And who exactly is it that collected this evidence and then sat on it for twelve years? What was their motivation? Is their chain-of-custody unimpeachable, and can it be proven that the evidence was never given to the plaintiff prior to the discovery of my Google account? And even if all of that can be answered satisfactorily, why were they collecting evidence of copyright infringement if my alleged infringement wasn't discovered until twelve years later?
But I'd be willing to bet that the RIAA lawyers can convince a judge that putting the music on this service is actually sharing it (with yourself) and therefore constitutes the latest infringing act.
The real question would be in this case how could they tell if the music was pirated or just a copy you ripped yourself?
I'll take that bet.
But Google isn't distributing anything in an infringing manner. They're simply storing files that the users upload, and allowing those same users to download only what they've uploaded. This is the fight the RIAA is going to have to fight, and Google and Amazon are clearly confident that they'll win it in court.
And you're right; these services are a great test of fair use. I think fair use pretty clearly encompasses streaming on the internet for personal use, especially if the CD itself is unused at the time. Bear in mind, it's up to the RIAA to prove infringement on their copyright, not for the individual to prove compliance. If you're making exclusive use of the product you purchased, where exactly is the infringement?
From the RIAA website, copying music from CDs to computers and portable music players is okay provided:
My point wasn't that Google should buy out the industry. Google has the resources to actually fight the RIAA in court, so the RIAA actually has to have the law on its side if they're going to get what they want. They're going to find that suing Google is a much different ballgame than bullying individual file-sharers into settlement.
Thats honestly the society you want to live in?
No, but it's the society I do live in.
You clearly made a copy when you put it on this new Google Service so that would be the most recent infringement date. Not only did you make a copy, you clearly distributed it (albeit to yourself).
...which you're allowed to do, so no, it's not infringement.
Can other people see my music?
Then how will the RIAA know what I have there, what is the basis for the subpoena?
Also, how will the RIAA know when you obtained the pirated music? The statute of limitations clock in many cases is pinned to the last infringing act - so not only would they have to prove you had the files and obtained the music files through copyright infringement, they would have to prove that they were still inside the statute of limitations (three years for civil suits, five for criminal), which means proving you downloaded the music or shared it with someone else during a specific period of time.
Except that Google has the wherewithal to buy the music industry outright. The RIAA would actually have to sue and win (as opposed to litigating a smaller opponent into bankruptcy), which might be rather difficult, seeing as how these cloud-storage services merely give users the ability to store their own files for later retrieval and don't really facilitate piracy.
New FC Spokesperson: We are deeply saddened by the deaths of one of our managers and my predecessor, at the hands of our revolting employees.
They could threaten to kill themselves if forced to sign it. If they were clever about it, they could use it as leverage to force better conditions in the work place. That is assuming it wouldn't be cheaper for Foxconn to just hire a whole new staff. Deadlines may not make that possible though for Foxconn.
I doubt that would work.
FC Manager: Sign this pact that you won't commit suicide.
Employee: No. If you try to make me, I'll commit suicide.
FC Manager: You're fired. Get out.
FC Spokesperson: We are deeply saddened to learn that former employee #1785598 took his own life yesterday. He had a history of erratic behavior, even threatening to commit suicide at one point to his manager. In that same conversation, the manager tried to make him promise he would not take his own life, but sadly, was unable to reach him. Toodles!
K. W. Jeter, not Anderson. My bad.
Have you read Kevin J. Anderson's "Noir" by any chance?