there will also be a fair number of people who will not want to put forth the effort to deal with such workarounds.
Except that with computers the workaround can either be automated to be as easily used as the existing tools (look at how easy it is for a tech-inept fool like me to watch a DVD on GNU/Linux) or one person "cracks" the software/data stream/whatever and passes an unrestricted copy along (look at how easy it was for a peek/poke wannabe like myself to play games on my Commodore 64 back in the 80s).
If it only takes one smart guy to destroy the restrictions, then those restrictions may as well not exist. We are looking at an industry where insiders are doing things like leaking Metallica albums and movies pre-release. Those copies don't have any restrictions built into the data or the software.
But I have to agree, I bet most of us would barely notice a copy restriction that explicitly allowed the making of first generation copies (presumably as many first generation copies as wanted-- one to CD for the car, cabin, whatever, one to the mp3 server, one to the iPod or other portable, one for a friend here and there, etc). This is how it works for MiniDisc, I believe, and it's what I would expect here.
Get lucky on Google. Just the first reference I found. I'm guessing that since so many people are buying minivans, SUVs, and trucks instead of cars that this brings the average weight for a "car" up considerably (the assumption is, I believe, that usage patterns are roughly the same).
It's still a pretty inefficient use of the stored energy to use any kind of oil-based fuel to propel a 4000 pound vehicle around (average new car weight), just because you need to move a single human around. Depending on the size of the human, the overhead from the vehicle is anywhere from 10x (Cartman sized) to 40x (100 lb. supermodel) as much as the reason for the vehicle needing to go anywhere.
And while I'm no physics major (and I'm sure all the physics majors out there will correct me) I understand that the difference in energy required to move an object is something like squared with the mass of that object (let's also forget that I'm confusing weight and mass here)-- maybe not squared, but not linear.
This tells me that simply trying to find cheaper fuels is not a serious attempt to remove the bottleneck in this process. Probably radical alterations to the vehicle are necessary if one is to avoid the ongoing problem of paying for gas/fuel.
Not only that, in this case their stated concerns arise because it opens in Britain four days earlier than the States? Why not just release it simultaneously worldwide?
And have you ever been in a crowded movie theater? Who the heck wants to watch a camcorder copy of that presentation anyway? The last thing I need is to save $5 (I normally go to matinees) by "pirating" a copy of a movie, just to get all the coughing, jostling, kids talking, babies screaming, etc etc anyway.
They tested experienced users using both emacs and the graphical word processor, and the GUI always won.
Well, that's emacs. Maybe they should have tested against vi.;)
(note: I'm an avid emacs user, but even I know enough to hate things like C-x C-s to save a file, when in a "GUI" the shortcut would be simply C-s. Be nice if emacs could be brought in line with the KDE/GNOME/Windows/Mac shortcut standard for those kinds of things-- probably is and I just don't know how.)
Don't they have a whole second MTV channel devoted the actual videos now? I don't watch much TV and I don't have cable or satellite, so I really don't know.
That was a recurring theme on this show (yeah, I caught it on PBS last night, so I don't have to wait for the Frontline web site). There are something like 30,000 new releases a year, but given the streamlining of the intermediaries (think MTV, and later ClearChannel), you have very few of them even coming close to breaking out and getting any play. And don't forget that the whole MTV thing came first and is not remotely focused on music itself. In many videos the music is just the excuse to parade bimbos around.
Since it is Microsoft's products that present the biggest risk to the rest of the email-using world when it comes to viruses and worms, it's only fair that they do some serious work on making email more usable somehow. Not that I'll put their software anywhere near my computer, but I'm just saying.
Yes, twice in the last year or so. Senator Dayton (a Democrat) of Minnesota gave a very equivocating answer that sounded like he was happy to support any damn fool bill that enhanced the privileges extended to the copyright industry. Senator Coleman (a Republican) of Minnesota has been leading the charge in the Senate against the RIAA and loss of freedom. Here's an article about a speech he gave in which he said, "You are the creative force in America; be creative, I don't believe you can stop illegal use by suing a few people." The article also quotes him saying, "The answer is not going to come from government."
From the article: he pointed out that open source giants such as Red Hat and IBM are still after a return on their investments. "They are not for the greater good of the community; they are also after the money," he said.
No kidding? Really? And Microsoft, on the other hand, is only writing software for the good of mankind?
We already have reasonable models on which to draw from experience. Bicycles and motorcycles are already quite a bit skinnier than cars-- and we sometimes find them riding side-by-side. Although, unlike the PM, two-wheelers probably need plenty of side space at speeds above 25 MPH in order to manage road hazards and stuff.
In this case, two PMers could easily share lanes by using the handy wireless networking thing and driving side by side. Although the article only mentions pooling in a leader/follower situation, I can imagine an eventual improvement which allows for "blocking" the cars rather than driving in a paceline.
The real key here is that more of these will fit in crowded areas, like downtowns, where side-to-side distance is not the issue. These also make much more efficient use of storage space.
Personally I'll stick to my bike and the bus until they get the bugs out, but I think this looks like a very promising direction for vehicular transport-- especially if that pooling mechanism can be used to allow adults to pilot vehicles manned by younger children. An enclosed four wheel vehicle sure beats an exposed two wheel vehicle in terms of stability and weather protection.
What a load. Immoral? Prove it using any established moral code. Is it in the Bible? How about the Q'uran? Or the Torah? The Baghavad-Gita? Egyptian mythology? Zoroastrianism? In the precolonial social mores and religious traditions of any of the five hundred various Indian nations native to the American continent? Does Ralph Waldo Emerson or Henry David Thoreau come out against it? Does the Buddha once speak of it? Is it mentioned anywhere in thousands of Zen Koans? Are there any tribal religions in Africa that cast aspersion on copying stories, songs, and artwork? Did the Inca and Maya curse the names of those who infringed copyright? Did Plato or Socrates or Pythagoras or Aristotle teach at length about this subject? Well? Huh?
Fact is, the very notion that songs, stories, ideas, images, and all the other ephemeralities restricted by "copyright" were for the bulk of human history passed along and shared only by active infringement by those who carried these works along for us later. Without copying we would have no folk songs, no scriptures, a great deal fewer plays, stories, paintings, buildings, inventions. Our cultural traditions would have lasted only as long as the material on which the first author ever fixed them-- in most cases less than 100 years.
Do you anti-copiers ever decry the vast body of commerce that exists in making copies of "public domain" works? Of course not. Ripping off the past is a hobby for the media cartel. Look at Disney with "The Little Mermaid", "Cinderella", "Snow White", "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", "Fantasia", etc. Look at movie releases like "Troy" and "Romeo & Juliet". Look at how often Beethoven, Bach, Tchaikovsky, and countless others have their works "stolen" and reused in contexts they could never have dreamed of. The same for Michelangelo, DaVinci, Monet, Manet. Where is your outrage at this?
So how do SSH and PGP do any good when the security hole is this: some unknown stranger sitting outside my house with a laptop sets his own IP to match my LAN and then proceeds to use my bandwidth by tricking the NAT/firewall into forwarding his packets as though they were legitimate?
Yep. Wiki is my preference, although I use a somewhat modified UseMod Wiki (I have tried TWiki in the past and found it a bit too much-- plus, IIRC, it has kinda goofy markup compared to what you see most places).
The biggest thing I found lacking in UseMod was the ability to have a little "front page" blurb about recent changes, so I hacked one up. This allows the front page to contain links to my journal entries and keep visitors up to speed on the important stuff that's new since last visit. I have some other plans for additional hacks... and one that just occurred to me that would be really handy is a way to build photo galleries just using the Wiki.
Papyrus is not made of wood. It is made of reeds. Neither is a lot of your better paper made of wood. The better stuff is pure hemp or cotton in the West and bast (mulberry) in the East. In fact, even your basic wood pulp papers these days have so many clays and polymers (sizing and bindings which make it possible to even run paper through something like an ink-jet printer without it falling apart) in them that saying they are made from wood pulp is almost misleading.
If Linux is going to need a paper trail, I'd suggest a good acid-free archival quality paper. After Eldred v. Ashcroft-- and knowing the way Congress thinks-- Linus' great-great-great-grandchildren could well be defending the kernel from some sort of late-breaking attack over 100 years from now.
Some public utilities are natural monopolies, it wouldn't be practical to run several different water, gas, and electricity supplies to each house, for instance. Sometimes a monopoly is useful in developing a new technology. The Bell Telephone Co., in the first half of the 20th century, did create a relatively cheap and efficient phone system using a monopoly.
Wrong and wrong.
While it may not be practical to run different water, gas, and electrical conduits to each building, that says nothing about requiring a monopoly. Especially with respect to gas and electricity, the thing being sold is an absolute commodity. The electricity created by wind power isn't any different than the electricity created by nuclear power. So what is needed is simply a way for me to sign up for wind or nuclear power at their price, they contribute to the grid in an amount commensurate to my usage... you get the idea. Same would work better for water if the water being pumped in were distilled (pure) water. But even so, with the certain additives and purity requirements, water is water. So, again, the only thing that needs to be unified is the pipes. These natural monopolies only make sense in the same way the government probably ought to have a natural monopoly on roads.
I also think you're vastly overestimating the power of monopoly for development. Bell did not have a monopoly on phone service until the government handed them one. Microsoft did not develop anything using a monopoly. They built a monopoly after years of competing against companies like Apple, Commodore, and even IBM.
Ugh... if you people are what passes for civil libertarians in this country I give up. After reviewing the ACLU's web site and all the other important work they've been doing I was going to do my best to get over being ticked about them defending one of their biggest detractors in the public sphere. But if you want to go ahead and insult me, fine. I can find other uses for my money.
1) So how much did you contribute to the ACLU last year? If it is as much or more than I contributed, we'll continue this discussion.
2) Why should I help pay to defend the rights of someone who uses those rights to advocate taking away the rights of others (not just mine)? Rush Limbaugh doesn't need my charity. Forgive me for getting a bit us vs. them, but Rush is not on my side, so when the very government forces Rush advocates gets used against him, how is the appropriate response anything but laughter?
When the ACLU stops defending the rights of people like Rush Limbaugh and the Nazis, I'll join up again. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend and I don't care what legal "precedent" will be set in those cases. I don't want to contribute money to an organization that provides aid to people and groups that actively seek to take away my rights. This year I'm looking at new organizations with more global and humanitarian goals: Human Rights Watch being a real likelihood.
Slashdot Mirror
previous post with answer to your question
there will also be a fair number of people who will not want to put forth the effort to deal with such workarounds.
Except that with computers the workaround can either be automated to be as easily used as the existing tools (look at how easy it is for a tech-inept fool like me to watch a DVD on GNU/Linux) or one person "cracks" the software/data stream/whatever and passes an unrestricted copy along (look at how easy it was for a peek/poke wannabe like myself to play games on my Commodore 64 back in the 80s).
If it only takes one smart guy to destroy the restrictions, then those restrictions may as well not exist. We are looking at an industry where insiders are doing things like leaking Metallica albums and movies pre-release. Those copies don't have any restrictions built into the data or the software.
But I have to agree, I bet most of us would barely notice a copy restriction that explicitly allowed the making of first generation copies (presumably as many first generation copies as wanted-- one to CD for the car, cabin, whatever, one to the mp3 server, one to the iPod or other portable, one for a friend here and there, etc). This is how it works for MiniDisc, I believe, and it's what I would expect here.
Get lucky on Google. Just the first reference I found. I'm guessing that since so many people are buying minivans, SUVs, and trucks instead of cars that this brings the average weight for a "car" up considerably (the assumption is, I believe, that usage patterns are roughly the same).
It's still a pretty inefficient use of the stored energy to use any kind of oil-based fuel to propel a 4000 pound vehicle around (average new car weight), just because you need to move a single human around. Depending on the size of the human, the overhead from the vehicle is anywhere from 10x (Cartman sized) to 40x (100 lb. supermodel) as much as the reason for the vehicle needing to go anywhere.
And while I'm no physics major (and I'm sure all the physics majors out there will correct me) I understand that the difference in energy required to move an object is something like squared with the mass of that object (let's also forget that I'm confusing weight and mass here)-- maybe not squared, but not linear.
This tells me that simply trying to find cheaper fuels is not a serious attempt to remove the bottleneck in this process. Probably radical alterations to the vehicle are necessary if one is to avoid the ongoing problem of paying for gas/fuel.
Not only that, in this case their stated concerns arise because it opens in Britain four days earlier than the States? Why not just release it simultaneously worldwide?
And have you ever been in a crowded movie theater? Who the heck wants to watch a camcorder copy of that presentation anyway? The last thing I need is to save $5 (I normally go to matinees) by "pirating" a copy of a movie, just to get all the coughing, jostling, kids talking, babies screaming, etc etc anyway.
They tested experienced users using both emacs and the graphical word processor, and the GUI always won.
;)
Well, that's emacs. Maybe they should have tested against vi.
(note: I'm an avid emacs user, but even I know enough to hate things like C-x C-s to save a file, when in a "GUI" the shortcut would be simply C-s. Be nice if emacs could be brought in line with the KDE/GNOME/Windows/Mac shortcut standard for those kinds of things-- probably is and I just don't know how.)
Don't they have a whole second MTV channel devoted the actual videos now? I don't watch much TV and I don't have cable or satellite, so I really don't know.
That was a recurring theme on this show (yeah, I caught it on PBS last night, so I don't have to wait for the Frontline web site). There are something like 30,000 new releases a year, but given the streamlining of the intermediaries (think MTV, and later ClearChannel), you have very few of them even coming close to breaking out and getting any play. And don't forget that the whole MTV thing came first and is not remotely focused on music itself. In many videos the music is just the excuse to parade bimbos around.
A peeping tom who looks out his own windows? That's utter nonsense.
My plan is to build custom additions and have creative paint jobs on the exterior of my home and in my landscaping. Anyone photographing my house for commercial purposes is infringing on my copyright and I will sue the shirt off their back if I can. (Architectural works became subject to copyright protection on Dec. 1, 1990. The copyright law defines "architectural work" as "the design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings." Copyright protection extends to any architectural work created on or after Dec. 1, 1990.)
Since it is Microsoft's products that present the biggest risk to the rest of the email-using world when it comes to viruses and worms, it's only fair that they do some serious work on making email more usable somehow. Not that I'll put their software anywhere near my computer, but I'm just saying.
the link.
Yes, twice in the last year or so. Senator Dayton (a Democrat) of Minnesota gave a very equivocating answer that sounded like he was happy to support any damn fool bill that enhanced the privileges extended to the copyright industry. Senator Coleman (a Republican) of Minnesota has been leading the charge in the Senate against the RIAA and loss of freedom. Here's an article about a speech he gave in which he said, "You are the creative force in America; be creative, I don't believe you can stop illegal use by suing a few people." The article also quotes him saying, "The answer is not going to come from government."
From the article: he pointed out that open source giants such as Red Hat and IBM are still after a return on their investments. "They are not for the greater good of the community; they are also after the money," he said.
No kidding? Really? And Microsoft, on the other hand, is only writing software for the good of mankind?
We already have reasonable models on which to draw from experience. Bicycles and motorcycles are already quite a bit skinnier than cars-- and we sometimes find them riding side-by-side. Although, unlike the PM, two-wheelers probably need plenty of side space at speeds above 25 MPH in order to manage road hazards and stuff.
In this case, two PMers could easily share lanes by using the handy wireless networking thing and driving side by side. Although the article only mentions pooling in a leader/follower situation, I can imagine an eventual improvement which allows for "blocking" the cars rather than driving in a paceline.
The real key here is that more of these will fit in crowded areas, like downtowns, where side-to-side distance is not the issue. These also make much more efficient use of storage space.
Personally I'll stick to my bike and the bus until they get the bugs out, but I think this looks like a very promising direction for vehicular transport-- especially if that pooling mechanism can be used to allow adults to pilot vehicles manned by younger children. An enclosed four wheel vehicle sure beats an exposed two wheel vehicle in terms of stability and weather protection.
What a load. Immoral? Prove it using any established moral code. Is it in the Bible? How about the Q'uran? Or the Torah? The Baghavad-Gita? Egyptian mythology? Zoroastrianism? In the precolonial social mores and religious traditions of any of the five hundred various Indian nations native to the American continent? Does Ralph Waldo Emerson or Henry David Thoreau come out against it? Does the Buddha once speak of it? Is it mentioned anywhere in thousands of Zen Koans? Are there any tribal religions in Africa that cast aspersion on copying stories, songs, and artwork? Did the Inca and Maya curse the names of those who infringed copyright? Did Plato or Socrates or Pythagoras or Aristotle teach at length about this subject? Well? Huh?
Fact is, the very notion that songs, stories, ideas, images, and all the other ephemeralities restricted by "copyright" were for the bulk of human history passed along and shared only by active infringement by those who carried these works along for us later. Without copying we would have no folk songs, no scriptures, a great deal fewer plays, stories, paintings, buildings, inventions. Our cultural traditions would have lasted only as long as the material on which the first author ever fixed them-- in most cases less than 100 years.
Do you anti-copiers ever decry the vast body of commerce that exists in making copies of "public domain" works? Of course not. Ripping off the past is a hobby for the media cartel. Look at Disney with "The Little Mermaid", "Cinderella", "Snow White", "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", "Fantasia", etc. Look at movie releases like "Troy" and "Romeo & Juliet". Look at how often Beethoven, Bach, Tchaikovsky, and countless others have their works "stolen" and reused in contexts they could never have dreamed of. The same for Michelangelo, DaVinci, Monet, Manet. Where is your outrage at this?
So how do SSH and PGP do any good when the security hole is this: some unknown stranger sitting outside my house with a laptop sets his own IP to match my LAN and then proceeds to use my bandwidth by tricking the NAT/firewall into forwarding his packets as though they were legitimate?
Yep. Wiki is my preference, although I use a somewhat modified UseMod Wiki (I have tried TWiki in the past and found it a bit too much-- plus, IIRC, it has kinda goofy markup compared to what you see most places).
The biggest thing I found lacking in UseMod was the ability to have a little "front page" blurb about recent changes, so I hacked one up. This allows the front page to contain links to my journal entries and keep visitors up to speed on the important stuff that's new since last visit. I have some other plans for additional hacks... and one that just occurred to me that would be really handy is a way to build photo galleries just using the Wiki.
Papyrus is not made of wood. It is made of reeds. Neither is a lot of your better paper made of wood. The better stuff is pure hemp or cotton in the West and bast (mulberry) in the East. In fact, even your basic wood pulp papers these days have so many clays and polymers (sizing and bindings which make it possible to even run paper through something like an ink-jet printer without it falling apart) in them that saying they are made from wood pulp is almost misleading.
If Linux is going to need a paper trail, I'd suggest a good acid-free archival quality paper. After Eldred v. Ashcroft-- and knowing the way Congress thinks-- Linus' great-great-great-grandchildren could well be defending the kernel from some sort of late-breaking attack over 100 years from now.
Some public utilities are natural monopolies, it wouldn't be practical to run several different water, gas, and electricity supplies to each house, for instance. Sometimes a monopoly is useful in developing a new technology. The Bell Telephone Co., in the first half of the 20th century, did create a relatively cheap and efficient phone system using a monopoly.
Wrong and wrong.
While it may not be practical to run different water, gas, and electrical conduits to each building, that says nothing about requiring a monopoly. Especially with respect to gas and electricity, the thing being sold is an absolute commodity. The electricity created by wind power isn't any different than the electricity created by nuclear power. So what is needed is simply a way for me to sign up for wind or nuclear power at their price, they contribute to the grid in an amount commensurate to my usage... you get the idea. Same would work better for water if the water being pumped in were distilled (pure) water. But even so, with the certain additives and purity requirements, water is water. So, again, the only thing that needs to be unified is the pipes. These natural monopolies only make sense in the same way the government probably ought to have a natural monopoly on roads.
I also think you're vastly overestimating the power of monopoly for development. Bell did not have a monopoly on phone service until the government handed them one. Microsoft did not develop anything using a monopoly. They built a monopoly after years of competing against companies like Apple, Commodore, and even IBM.
This is the most convincing argument I've heard on this so far. Thank you.
No! You grow up! Your mom!
Ugh... if you people are what passes for civil libertarians in this country I give up. After reviewing the ACLU's web site and all the other important work they've been doing I was going to do my best to get over being ticked about them defending one of their biggest detractors in the public sphere. But if you want to go ahead and insult me, fine. I can find other uses for my money.
1) So how much did you contribute to the ACLU last year? If it is as much or more than I contributed, we'll continue this discussion.
2) Why should I help pay to defend the rights of someone who uses those rights to advocate taking away the rights of others (not just mine)? Rush Limbaugh doesn't need my charity. Forgive me for getting a bit us vs. them, but Rush is not on my side, so when the very government forces Rush advocates gets used against him, how is the appropriate response anything but laughter?
When the ACLU stops defending the rights of people like Rush Limbaugh and the Nazis, I'll join up again. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend and I don't care what legal "precedent" will be set in those cases. I don't want to contribute money to an organization that provides aid to people and groups that actively seek to take away my rights. This year I'm looking at new organizations with more global and humanitarian goals: Human Rights Watch being a real likelihood.
It was a crime before the DMCA, see 17 U.S.C. 506. (a).
Copyright infringement is too a crime! You can even go to jail, depending on the nature of the offense. RTFM.
Not that I agree it should be a crime, nor do I enjoy watching the government throw around the phrase "intellectual property"...