You are correct, the article does not mention federal law. The post I'm attempting to explain does; the inference that he meant the DMCA is entirely mine and may be incorrect.
Regardless of the presence of a comma, "not by... but by..." is a subordinate clause. The root of the sentence is still "Xerox is ripping us off"; it has the subject and the verb, and therefore is still, as best I can tell, primarily a condemnation of Xerox, not the government.
"generated by elected representatives" != "fair". It comes closer than some systems, but history has shown quite a few clear examples where they're not the same.
True, it is more important that copyright be applied _well_. Previously, the barrier to copying was not the copyright, but the process of copying; that kept the amount of copying low enough that it wasn't a big problem but it was still possible to ignore silly-bad copyright rules. Now copying has gotten easy, so it's a problem. The attempt to fix it in ways that enforce the silly-bad copyright rules is a different problem. What we need is solid enforcement of sane rules, but that requires having sane rules so folks will tolerate the enforcement.
Certainly, interactive stuff will be on the desktop. My comment was meant to address the grunt work of rendering a bunch of high res frames after the designer has set up the backgrounds and motion; a studio with enough systems is likely to put that grunt work on a server system to keep the desktop box usable for design if they can (and when they need to; after hours, any cpu in a renderstorm:)
someone probably figured it was the most common high-demand use case. A MMORPG probably uses more ram than most other single apps for most people (web browsers with lots of tabs may be an exception). The average slashdot reader is not the average computer user (more's the pity:)
Agreed with both you and GP, but I think this indicates a shift in what's considered "desktop computing". Not that long ago this would have been server work for anyone who had enough systems to distinguish between servers and desktops.
does the studio own it, or does the studio have a right to create a derived work? I have not heard that they actually purchased the short, just that they got permission to make a movie. If all they have is the permission, then they have no right to take down the short.
The only part that's subject to perjury is being a copyright holder or agent thereof (essentially, the part that's easy for a corporation but hard for a random citizen). The rest of it (stating that a particular work infringes) is a "good faith" assertion, so unless you can find some way to definitively prove _bad_ faith, they can always just say "oh, my bad, no foul"... ignoring that the target has already been taken down, had to file a rebuttal, and possibly had to go to court.
No, but why do you place any trust in any other card reader? Hardware owned by someone else can be doing anything they want in addition to (or instead of) what it's supposed to be doing.
Or are we specifically assuming the case where the owner of the square-and-phone is not involved and the unit's been subverted out from under them? That can also happen in other cases, if anyone besides the owner has physical access to the hardware (clerks, for example).
Which leaves us down to remote attacks by folks with no physical access... but that's happened elsewhere too, though usually by attacking the server rather than the reader (Target comes to mind).
So really, what reader deserves any substantial amount of trust?
I wouldn't go as high as "considerable"... it adds one hop to "push" attack methods - an attacker has to take over your router. I'd put that somewhere between trivial and substantial extra security (non-inclusive).
People see a difference between different levels of profit. Most folks see at least two levels - "okay" and "excessive". The border is subjective and situational, and usually based to some degree on whether the profiting entity is seen as harming others, either deliberately or accidentally, and also whether the profits are larger or smaller than previous years. Increasing profits for an entity perceived as having done harm get a lot of attention (BP after the gulf spill, for example).
So it's not as simple as profit=evil... but "the love of money is the root of all evil", so they do correlate strongly.
as far as I know the skepticism started when early reports included the word "reactionless". I doubt anyone would have a problem with "microwave-emitting thruster"; lord knows we've heard enough about photon drives for that to make sense. But the early reports I recall were more like "microwave-induced magic", where the microwaves weren't supposed to leave the unit, just generate more thrust bouncing off one end than the other.
Yep, that use case is a potential weak spot for password managers. (I say potential because I consider it a plus - makes it less likely I'll enter passwords on a system I shouldn't trust - but ymmv.) When I have to do that I use the "forgot password" process, which is typically multi-factor (they send me an email or text, both of which I'll read on my phone), and make a note to reset the password once I get back to a safe system.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct, the article does not mention federal law. The post I'm attempting to explain does; the inference that he meant the DMCA is entirely mine and may be incorrect.
Regardless of the presence of a comma, "not by... but by..." is a subordinate clause. The root of the sentence is still "Xerox is ripping us off"; it has the subject and the verb, and therefore is still, as best I can tell, primarily a condemnation of Xerox, not the government.
"generated by elected representatives" != "fair". It comes closer than some systems, but history has shown quite a few clear examples where they're not the same.
True, it is more important that copyright be applied _well_. Previously, the barrier to copying was not the copyright, but the process of copying; that kept the amount of copying low enough that it wasn't a big problem but it was still possible to ignore silly-bad copyright rules. Now copying has gotten easy, so it's a problem. The attempt to fix it in ways that enforce the silly-bad copyright rules is a different problem. What we need is solid enforcement of sane rules, but that requires having sane rules so folks will tolerate the enforcement.
I'd say that's the base definition of negligent. Evil would be when damage to others is a specifically desired part of the outcome.
I missed that one. Was it because the DRM was determined to not protect something copyrighted?
"Xerox is ripping us off" sounds like a condemnation of the corporation to me. The fact that they're abusing the DMCA to do so is a sideline.
Certainly, interactive stuff will be on the desktop. My comment was meant to address the grunt work of rendering a bunch of high res frames after the designer has set up the backgrounds and motion; a studio with enough systems is likely to put that grunt work on a server system to keep the desktop box usable for design if they can (and when they need to; after hours, any cpu in a renderstorm :)
someone probably figured it was the most common high-demand use case. A MMORPG probably uses more ram than most other single apps for most people (web browsers with lots of tabs may be an exception). The average slashdot reader is not the average computer user (more's the pity :)
Agreed with both you and GP, but I think this indicates a shift in what's considered "desktop computing". Not that long ago this would have been server work for anyone who had enough systems to distinguish between servers and desktops.
Optimist. Remember, _not_ buying stuff is also interstate commerce (the core of wickard vs filburn).
the company that did the basic research?
really they're almost up to 2.5
Technically, yes, you could. It would be an interesting experiment, and I would be very interested to know the results.
does the studio own it, or does the studio have a right to create a derived work? I have not heard that they actually purchased the short, just that they got permission to make a movie. If all they have is the permission, then they have no right to take down the short.
The only part that's subject to perjury is being a copyright holder or agent thereof (essentially, the part that's easy for a corporation but hard for a random citizen). The rest of it (stating that a particular work infringes) is a "good faith" assertion, so unless you can find some way to definitively prove _bad_ faith, they can always just say "oh, my bad, no foul"... ignoring that the target has already been taken down, had to file a rebuttal, and possibly had to go to court.
No, but why do you place any trust in any other card reader? Hardware owned by someone else can be doing anything they want in addition to (or instead of) what it's supposed to be doing.
Or are we specifically assuming the case where the owner of the square-and-phone is not involved and the unit's been subverted out from under them? That can also happen in other cases, if anyone besides the owner has physical access to the hardware (clerks, for example).
Which leaves us down to remote attacks by folks with no physical access... but that's happened elsewhere too, though usually by attacking the server rather than the reader (Target comes to mind).
So really, what reader deserves any substantial amount of trust?
"better than the first one" is an almost perfect example of "damning with faint praise" :)
It's never going to anyway. What's the difference?
What, and miss an opportunity to telecommute?
I wouldn't go as high as "considerable"... it adds one hop to "push" attack methods - an attacker has to take over your router. I'd put that somewhere between trivial and substantial extra security (non-inclusive).
People see a difference between different levels of profit. Most folks see at least two levels - "okay" and "excessive". The border is subjective and situational, and usually based to some degree on whether the profiting entity is seen as harming others, either deliberately or accidentally, and also whether the profits are larger or smaller than previous years. Increasing profits for an entity perceived as having done harm get a lot of attention (BP after the gulf spill, for example).
So it's not as simple as profit=evil... but "the love of money is the root of all evil", so they do correlate strongly.
as far as I know the skepticism started when early reports included the word "reactionless". I doubt anyone would have a problem with "microwave-emitting thruster"; lord knows we've heard enough about photon drives for that to make sense. But the early reports I recall were more like "microwave-induced magic", where the microwaves weren't supposed to leave the unit, just generate more thrust bouncing off one end than the other.
not a guess; he said he keeps a limited set on him.
Yep, that use case is a potential weak spot for password managers. (I say potential because I consider it a plus - makes it less likely I'll enter passwords on a system I shouldn't trust - but ymmv.) When I have to do that I use the "forgot password" process, which is typically multi-factor (they send me an email or text, both of which I'll read on my phone), and make a note to reset the password once I get back to a safe system.
True, but his example is still 100% efficient. Yours is 500% efficient. Aren't heat pumps great?