There's no need to keep the PAR2 files on the same media, but even if they are you can identify them by their magic bytes and recover them even if the filesystem is unuseable, so long as they are not fragmented. And once that's done, you can in turn use the par2 files list of slice hashes to conduct a brute-force search of the raw device for matching data. I wrote a program to do just that, many years ago.
That's exactly what you need. I used to stick 200MB of par2 data onto every DVD-R I burned - if a file was found damaged years later, that was almost always enough to recover the lost blocks.
I'd also add a more modern classic: The Church of Scientology has a history of using copyright to silence any criticism of the books central to the organisation. Anyone who quotes or even paraphrases from the books in order to point out the sillyness within faces the risk of a lawsuit - and even if they can successfully claim fair use, the legal fees can easily drive an individual into financial ruin. How much control should they have?
There are alternative models. My favorite is the kickstarter approach:
1. Studio makes a trailer for their potential awesome movie (Movie in this example, it works for other media too). 2. Studio announces production cost. 3. People pledge their money towards production, considering how much they want to see the movie, how much they've liked things by the studio in the past, and so on. 4. If enough people pledge, the studio takes their money and makes the film. They have an incentive to do a good job, because if they churn out rubbish no-one is going to contribute to their next project.
The content gets made, the people get paid, and no copyright is required at all.
"But why should someone who creates something not be able to control how it's used?"
Enforceability. Laws don't come free - it costs tax money to run even civil courts, and much of copyright is now a criminal matter so there is the cost of investigations. There's the social costs too - it's near-impossible to enforce copyright in the digital age, so the only way to be effective in doing so requires either an automated censorship system of some sort (youtube), or restrictions on the availability of technology that can be used for infringement (DMCA laws, the 'blank media tax'), or draconian punishments for the few who are caught in order to scare the rest straight. All very bad things. Then there's the classic issue of rights: They are often in conflict. If you grant a creator control over something they thought up, then you are also denying the use of that something to other people.
You can't just pass laws based on vague moral hunches. You need to consider if the costs (outlined above) are justified by the benefits (Increased production of creative works, created jobs, moral rights of creators).
But not specifically. It just has to be a rather vague idea that if the blocking isn't strict enough by the 'whatever ministers feel like' standard, then legislation is likely to follow to set a more precise definition.
I don't know if filters respect the tag, or how many porn sites use it. I imagine though that the only practical result even if was used would be browsers skipping in frustration past all the well-organised and regulated porn sites their filter blocks until they find one that doesn't set the tag.
If you can save just $1/h, times 20 employees (typical small business doing something like packing boxes), times a typical 40-hour work week, that's $800/wk, or £38,400 a year. More usefully, no healthcare coverage - that saves a lot too, and avoids the very high turnover issue that comes from just hireing twice as many part-time employees (The Walmart approach).
Sure, it might mean your employees are reduced to sleeping five-to-a-room until the eventual depression and suicide - but in this economy, there are plenty of new ones to take their place.
Every now and again a few people get together behind the dream of launching a self-sufficient ship and declaring independence. As far as I know, none has ever been able to raise the money for it - though Blueseed gave it a good go with their business plan. They wanted to station lots of cheap workers just outside of US territorial waters so they could commute by ferry to the mainland to work, but avoid the requirements for a full HB-1 visa (as they aren't residents), employer-provided healthcare coverage, minimum wage laws or income tax.
There are lots of bad arguments though. The standard approach is to swiftly change the topic: Whenever the block is being discussed, rapidly turn the conversation towards child pornography or (second choice) graphically violent pornography. It's much easier to win support for blocking those. The trick is to simply ignore the existance of regular non-child pornography as much as possible.
There's some general fluff by way of introduction in the first section that can be ignored - that's just padding about the value of the internet in a somewhat pathetic attempt to reassure people he does value free speech really. But when it comes down to the meat of the argument, approximately half of the length of the speech is about child pornography. Why? There is already a national filter for this. It's already illegal. Nothing is changing in that area beside granting the IWF permission to investigate rather than just act on reports, and a demand that google needs to do something. It's in there because it presses the 'outrage button' - after a long talk about the evils of child porn, something loathed by all, the reader is in a moral-crusadin' mood and ready to condemn just about anything given half a chance.
It's quite fun to figure out what he actually saying. It's a true political speech: Riddled with contradictions and a few outright lies. My personal favorite is 'This has never been a debate about companies or government censoring the internet but about filters to protect children at the home network level,' followed later by 'And, in a really big step forward, all the ISPs have rewired their technology so that once your filters are installed, they will cover any device connected to your home internet account.' I'm not sure if this is an attempt at doubletalk, or simply that his speechwriter doesn't actually know the definitions of 'internet,' 'home network level' or 'install.' Or 'rewire.'
The government isn't deciding what is classed as pornography. They are fobbing the task off onto the private sector - the ISPs assume the role (Or contract it to a specialist list provider). That way you pay for it stealthily via your monthly bill rather than the cash-strapped government having to justify hireing an army of censors.
DVD/CSS uses a similar system - the data is encrypted with a title key, and the title key is stored on the disc encrypted with all the non-revoked device keys (This is a simplification, but you get the idea). The drive won't hand over the key, even encrypted, without a suitable handshake with an authorised player application (and, in all but the earliest drives, it also checks the region code matches).
It was broken in CSS because there were a number of serious cryptographic weaknesses - huge, gaping holes - which made it possible to find the title key without needing the CSS key block at all. CSS is simply very poorly designed.
That won't help. HDCP protects the output of the player on its way to the display - it has nothing to do with the encryption on the discs themselves. That is protected by AACS.
Fortunately, AACS has also been broken. Doing so just isn't the simple insert-and-play task of breaking CSS - it requires the presence of a valid processing or device key. Several processing keys have been discovered via reverse engineering (The first of them was the famous 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 that was plastered all over the internet for a week in protest of DMCA takedowns directed at Digg for linking to it), but they can also be revoked in new discs, requiring a constant effort to discover new processing keys or device keys (Which can also be revoked, but not without breaking some players).
The process of decrypting blu-ray is thus possible for those with a little skill, but cannot be easily automated and put into VLC.
Those who do have the skill to decrypt AAC are kind enough to upload the resulting movie to various torrent sites though, saving the rest of us from having to go to such lengths ourselves.
If he suceeeds, he is a hero - no matter how stupid he was or how low his chances. Successfully preventing an attack activates Patriot Shields, rendering the hero off-limits to all criticism from media or political circles.
If he fails, then he shall be mocked. Assuming anyone can work out from the remains that he had his hand on the wire.
Though really, the typical car bomb isn't the most sophisticated device and isn't going to include any anti-tamper devices, so anyone with the most basic electronics knowledge can work out how to defuse it by just cutting every wire in sight.
I also have a diploma. It's worth more, but not a huge amount more. Basically, my career is in ruins, and I'm doomed to spend the rest of my working life resetting forgotten passwords.
Speeding fines go straight to the police department. It's a nice way to suppliment their budget, and there are sneaky ways to maximise income. For example, place one point at the top of a steep hill, and the other at the bottom. As drivers come over the top they naturally accelerate under gravity, and can easily exceed the limit for a brief stretch as they restabilise their cruising speed. That brief stretch is all that is needed for a fine though.
We went through it in the UK years ago with speed cameras - a lot of problems with them being placed at the bottoms of hills for just that reason, or on long straight stretches of low-traffic rural road where speeding was common but accidents very rare. The practices mostly stopped after an intensive tabloid campaign demanding stricter central regulation against such abuses of speed cameras as income-generators.
"A group of Christian activists in Amarillo, Texas, have embarked on a crusade to rid the town of vice and sin. Repent Amarillo has been posting the license plates of vehicles belonging to ‘sinners’ on Facebook, in the hopes of getting the owners fired from their jobs.... according to Repent Amarillo... the term sinners includes swingers, homosexuals, people who visit strip clubs or shop at erotic stores."
The computer can silently add a couple of minutes to your commute by picking a less-than-optimal route that drives past the shops sponsoring the service, in the hope a few drivers will be struck by the craving for some fast food or reminded they should do the shopping on the way home.
I also don't see what is wrong with space colonisation. It's only a matter of time until the next big meteor impact - might as well get off this rock while we can.
The questions are not so profound as they appear. They could be answered in a consistant way, but not without first giving up a few sacred values - most importantly the idea that humans are somehow special just by virtue of being human.
Once you get over that, then you can start trying to look at what makes humans worth anything more than any other animal. It gets very tricky from there on because you end up trying to place continuous variation into discrete classes, but it doesn't take much to conclude that a human mind is central to the question. Thus a functional brain is a nessicary* but not sufficient requirement.
The downs test is first-trimester. Brain, yes. Functional, no. For that matter, it's questionable how functional a newborn is - even the most basic motor functions and sensory processing can't develop without input and feedback. They certainly aren't self-aware.
Take an organism that is genetically human but lacks the functional brain, and all you have is a bag of organs. Slightly less moral worth than a cat - at least the cat is capable of expressing some desires, even if they are limited to 'open the door' and 'put food in the bowl.'
*Subject to change in the distant future, but we're a long way from sci-fi issues yet.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no need to keep the PAR2 files on the same media, but even if they are you can identify them by their magic bytes and recover them even if the filesystem is unuseable, so long as they are not fragmented. And once that's done, you can in turn use the par2 files list of slice hashes to conduct a brute-force search of the raw device for matching data. I wrote a program to do just that, many years ago.
The lifespan of a burned DVD is highly unpredictable. Some can last decades - but don't count on it.
PAR2 files.
That's exactly what you need. I used to stick 200MB of par2 data onto every DVD-R I burned - if a file was found damaged years later, that was almost always enough to recover the lost blocks.
I'd also add a more modern classic: The Church of Scientology has a history of using copyright to silence any criticism of the books central to the organisation. Anyone who quotes or even paraphrases from the books in order to point out the sillyness within faces the risk of a lawsuit - and even if they can successfully claim fair use, the legal fees can easily drive an individual into financial ruin. How much control should they have?
There are alternative models. My favorite is the kickstarter approach:
1. Studio makes a trailer for their potential awesome movie (Movie in this example, it works for other media too).
2. Studio announces production cost.
3. People pledge their money towards production, considering how much they want to see the movie, how much they've liked things by the studio in the past, and so on.
4. If enough people pledge, the studio takes their money and makes the film. They have an incentive to do a good job, because if they churn out rubbish no-one is going to contribute to their next project.
The content gets made, the people get paid, and no copyright is required at all.
"But why should someone who creates something not be able to control how it's used?"
Enforceability. Laws don't come free - it costs tax money to run even civil courts, and much of copyright is now a criminal matter so there is the cost of investigations. There's the social costs too - it's near-impossible to enforce copyright in the digital age, so the only way to be effective in doing so requires either an automated censorship system of some sort (youtube), or restrictions on the availability of technology that can be used for infringement (DMCA laws, the 'blank media tax'), or draconian punishments for the few who are caught in order to scare the rest straight. All very bad things. Then there's the classic issue of rights: They are often in conflict. If you grant a creator control over something they thought up, then you are also denying the use of that something to other people.
You can't just pass laws based on vague moral hunches. You need to consider if the costs (outlined above) are justified by the benefits (Increased production of creative works, created jobs, moral rights of creators).
A chihuahua?
Krystal I can understand. Everyone finds Krystal hot. But a chihuahua?
But not specifically. It just has to be a rather vague idea that if the blocking isn't strict enough by the 'whatever ministers feel like' standard, then legislation is likely to follow to set a more precise definition.
There's a meta tag for it: http://www.metatags.info/meta_name_rating
I don't know if filters respect the tag, or how many porn sites use it. I imagine though that the only practical result even if was used would be browsers skipping in frustration past all the well-organised and regulated porn sites their filter blocks until they find one that doesn't set the tag.
If you can save just $1/h, times 20 employees (typical small business doing something like packing boxes), times a typical 40-hour work week, that's $800/wk, or £38,400 a year. More usefully, no healthcare coverage - that saves a lot too, and avoids the very high turnover issue that comes from just hireing twice as many part-time employees (The Walmart approach).
Sure, it might mean your employees are reduced to sleeping five-to-a-room until the eventual depression and suicide - but in this economy, there are plenty of new ones to take their place.
Every now and again a few people get together behind the dream of launching a self-sufficient ship and declaring independence. As far as I know, none has ever been able to raise the money for it - though Blueseed gave it a good go with their business plan. They wanted to station lots of cheap workers just outside of US territorial waters so they could commute by ferry to the mainland to work, but avoid the requirements for a full HB-1 visa (as they aren't residents), employer-provided healthcare coverage, minimum wage laws or income tax.
There are lots of bad arguments though. The standard approach is to swiftly change the topic: Whenever the block is being discussed, rapidly turn the conversation towards child pornography or (second choice) graphically violent pornography. It's much easier to win support for blocking those. The trick is to simply ignore the existance of regular non-child pornography as much as possible.
For example, look at how Cameron announced the block officially: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-internet-and-pornography-prime-minister-calls-for-action
There's some general fluff by way of introduction in the first section that can be ignored - that's just padding about the value of the internet in a somewhat pathetic attempt to reassure people he does value free speech really. But when it comes down to the meat of the argument, approximately half of the length of the speech is about child pornography. Why? There is already a national filter for this. It's already illegal. Nothing is changing in that area beside granting the IWF permission to investigate rather than just act on reports, and a demand that google needs to do something. It's in there because it presses the 'outrage button' - after a long talk about the evils of child porn, something loathed by all, the reader is in a moral-crusadin' mood and ready to condemn just about anything given half a chance.
It's quite fun to figure out what he actually saying. It's a true political speech: Riddled with contradictions and a few outright lies. My personal favorite is 'This has never been a debate about companies or government censoring the internet but about filters to protect children at the home network level,' followed later by 'And, in a really big step forward, all the ISPs have rewired their technology so that once your filters are installed, they will cover any device connected to your home internet account.' I'm not sure if this is an attempt at doubletalk, or simply that his speechwriter doesn't actually know the definitions of 'internet,' 'home network level' or 'install.' Or 'rewire.'
The government isn't deciding what is classed as pornography. They are fobbing the task off onto the private sector - the ISPs assume the role (Or contract it to a specialist list provider). That way you pay for it stealthily via your monthly bill rather than the cash-strapped government having to justify hireing an army of censors.
DVD/CSS uses a similar system - the data is encrypted with a title key, and the title key is stored on the disc encrypted with all the non-revoked device keys (This is a simplification, but you get the idea). The drive won't hand over the key, even encrypted, without a suitable handshake with an authorised player application (and, in all but the earliest drives, it also checks the region code matches).
It was broken in CSS because there were a number of serious cryptographic weaknesses - huge, gaping holes - which made it possible to find the title key without needing the CSS key block at all. CSS is simply very poorly designed.
That won't help. HDCP protects the output of the player on its way to the display - it has nothing to do with the encryption on the discs themselves. That is protected by AACS.
Fortunately, AACS has also been broken. Doing so just isn't the simple insert-and-play task of breaking CSS - it requires the presence of a valid processing or device key. Several processing keys have been discovered via reverse engineering (The first of them was the famous 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 that was plastered all over the internet for a week in protest of DMCA takedowns directed at Digg for linking to it), but they can also be revoked in new discs, requiring a constant effort to discover new processing keys or device keys (Which can also be revoked, but not without breaking some players).
The process of decrypting blu-ray is thus possible for those with a little skill, but cannot be easily automated and put into VLC.
Those who do have the skill to decrypt AAC are kind enough to upload the resulting movie to various torrent sites though, saving the rest of us from having to go to such lengths ourselves.
If he suceeeds, he is a hero - no matter how stupid he was or how low his chances. Successfully preventing an attack activates Patriot Shields, rendering the hero off-limits to all criticism from media or political circles.
If he fails, then he shall be mocked. Assuming anyone can work out from the remains that he had his hand on the wire.
Though really, the typical car bomb isn't the most sophisticated device and isn't going to include any anti-tamper devices, so anyone with the most basic electronics knowledge can work out how to defuse it by just cutting every wire in sight.
I also have a diploma. It's worth more, but not a huge amount more. Basically, my career is in ruins, and I'm doomed to spend the rest of my working life resetting forgotten passwords.
There are. They all start with 'X years experience at.' Employers can afford to be fussy right now - lots of potential employees, not many jobs.
'Uncapped' means 'there is a monthly limit, but we won't tell you what it is. And we call it a fair usage policy.'
Speeding fines go straight to the police department. It's a nice way to suppliment their budget, and there are sneaky ways to maximise income. For example, place one point at the top of a steep hill, and the other at the bottom. As drivers come over the top they naturally accelerate under gravity, and can easily exceed the limit for a brief stretch as they restabilise their cruising speed. That brief stretch is all that is needed for a fine though.
We went through it in the UK years ago with speed cameras - a lot of problems with them being placed at the bottoms of hills for just that reason, or on long straight stretches of low-traffic rural road where speeding was common but accidents very rare. The practices mostly stopped after an intensive tabloid campaign demanding stricter central regulation against such abuses of speed cameras as income-generators.
Google google google... here we go:
http://planetivy.com/offbeat/53610/christian-activists-launch-campaign-to-shame-sinners/
"A group of Christian activists in Amarillo, Texas, have embarked on a crusade to rid the town of vice and sin. Repent Amarillo has been posting the license plates of vehicles belonging to ‘sinners’ on Facebook, in the hopes of getting the owners fired from their jobs. ... according to Repent Amarillo ... the term sinners includes swingers, homosexuals, people who visit strip clubs or shop at erotic stores."
Targetted routes.
The computer can silently add a couple of minutes to your commute by picking a less-than-optimal route that drives past the shops sponsoring the service, in the hope a few drivers will be struck by the craving for some fast food or reminded they should do the shopping on the way home.
There is no easy choice. So you make the least difficult choice.
That's what adoption is for.
I fail to see how the two relate.
I also don't see what is wrong with space colonisation. It's only a matter of time until the next big meteor impact - might as well get off this rock while we can.
The questions are not so profound as they appear. They could be answered in a consistant way, but not without first giving up a few sacred values - most importantly the idea that humans are somehow special just by virtue of being human.
Once you get over that, then you can start trying to look at what makes humans worth anything more than any other animal. It gets very tricky from there on because you end up trying to place continuous variation into discrete classes, but it doesn't take much to conclude that a human mind is central to the question. Thus a functional brain is a nessicary* but not sufficient requirement.
The downs test is first-trimester. Brain, yes. Functional, no. For that matter, it's questionable how functional a newborn is - even the most basic motor functions and sensory processing can't develop without input and feedback. They certainly aren't self-aware.
Take an organism that is genetically human but lacks the functional brain, and all you have is a bag of organs. Slightly less moral worth than a cat - at least the cat is capable of expressing some desires, even if they are limited to 'open the door' and 'put food in the bowl.'
*Subject to change in the distant future, but we're a long way from sci-fi issues yet.