When I put money into the bank, I don't get the same piece of paper back when I withdraw it later. "Money" is merely an agreement we all make as to a way to set value of (ultimately) resources. Whether it is represented as printed pieces of paper, stamped pieces of metal, or stored as bits on a computer, ultimately it is an abstract representation of worth. My "money" that is in the bank is a contractual obligation between me and the bank to give me physical pieces of money or to transfer obligations with other banks when I ask them to. It isn't property, although it is an asset of mine.
Property rights are distinct from the property they are attached to. Rights to use land are just that, rights. Not property.
Apple still doesn't get it quite right, which is to create an administrator account AND a "normal" user account (and, what's really annoying to me is, if you don't create the first user with a (short) name of "admin", you can't create one later, as the group "admin" makes the account creation tool not let you add a user with that name). They do tell you that you can add an administrator account, and then turn off your administrator privileges, but most people aren't going to ever think about that.
About the only thing that being an Administrator (which pretty much is equivalent to adding you to group "admin") gets you is R/W access to the Applications directory. Although this is a real problem (and unnecessary - the newer versions of the Finder let you authenticate if you want to modify a directory you don't normally have access to), at least for any other privileged operation you still have to enter an administrator password (even if you are an administrator).
And, the only thing I've seen break when running as a non-admin is Microsoft's Office Test Drive (haven't tried the full thing). It only works if it is installed as an administrator AND run as an administrator, giving obscure error messages if you do it in any other combination. It was so bad that my Mom, who was seriously considering buying Office for Mac decided that Appleworks was good enough (after having purchased numerous "upgrades" of Office for PC, which she then found out she couldn't use on a new computer because it had been installed over an OEM version of Office on the old computer which couldn't be installed on the new one, etc. etc. etc. which is how I eventually talked her into using a Mac).
I never understood why they didn't just have a different set of device-specific keys for each region. It would eliminate the possibility of having multi-region (but not all-region) disks, but I've never seen one of those.
I'd like to see a legal challenge to the DMCA in the following form: the "circumvention" language refers to the "authority of the copyright owner"; but that authority is given to the person that bought a copy of the work, NOT a device. I don't believe that one of the enumerated rights of a copyright owner is to determine which device you must use to access a work.
Another challenge to the DMCA for a specific device might be to put out a file encrypted with , e.g. CSS, without the key, and explicitly give everyone in the world permission to access the (copyrighted) contents. I would think that would automatically make a DeCSS program legal to distribute. Or maybe 2600 could distribute Freedom Downtime protected with CSS, and give permission to access it on any device.
Make it a nice big poster with a great shot of Big Ben, but the clock hands move in real time!
Seriously, at some point technology like this will be cheap enough that having a moving picture poster (that doesn't need to update very quickly) will be relatively inexpensive. I wonder if there's a market for posters that change with the seasons or the time of day (either pre-stored or updated over the network). A poster showing the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Colorado Rockies, or Yosemite, or the surf conditions at different beaches... that could be fun!
The DMCA does not prohibit you from bypassing a protection method. The DMCA prohibits you from manufacturing, selling or distributing a means for bypassing a protection method without permission from the copyright owner. Since they're the ones distributing the means to get around their copy prevention method, and since you have permission from them anyway, you're doubly in the clear.
Small particles of titanium dioxide. When it gets small enough, it stops being the opaque white that's been used for sunscreen for years. It becomes translucent to visible light, but still blocks ultraviolet. Titanium dioxide is also being used in "self-cleaning glass" - it reacts with sunlight to break down various substances deposited on it so they wash away instead of sticking.
We need to eliminate candles, kerosene lanterns, diesel engines, carbon arc lamps, and fireplaces, because they all produce buckyballs and carbon nanotubes. Soot of any kind is just loaded with nanoparticles. What about all those nanoparticles they add to tires? Then there's dihydrogen oxide, which is known to penetrate all the cells of the body.
You just showed that power is 0 at 0 RPM, regardless of torque. No divide-by-zero. I think what he meant is that torque is unlimited, not infinite. He's still wrong (there are limitations on how much power the system can handle), but he's right that there's nothing inherently limiting the torque from a dead stop. An internal combustion engine has to use gearing to get high torque, and has to slip at 0 RPM because the engine doesn't work when completely stopped. In other words, an electric motor doesn't need a clutch.
I think it was quite clear that "faster" meant simply faster. No claim that it will handle better around tight turns, that it will let you pick up chicks, or anything else. You're right, there's a reason they cost $200,000.
As far as "not hard", spending $15-20K seems a lot easier than inventing a new electric motor! TFA was making it sound like a Ferrari was the ultimate in speed and power, and to get an electric (*gasp*) motor to even approach that glorified realm was totally amazing. In that context, "not hard" has a pretty low bar.
That's odd. In all the cars I've owned, the two have been the same to the limits of my accuracy (i.e. drive at a constant 60 MPH, the odometer clicks over a mile every 60 seconds - done it for 10 miles, still within a second of 10 minutes). The odometer might be off a little (.2-.5 miles per 100, for example), but the two agreed with each other.
I also verify my speedometer with a GPS unit, and on cruise control with it showing a constant 65MPH, the GPS will bounce up and down between 64.8 and 65.2 or so.
I've been wondering for a while now why cars aren't using something like this. Get a diesel engine set to run at maximum efficiency driving a generator, use the same batteries as a Prius has now, and run direct-drive motors to all four wheels with regenerative braking (and mechanical braking as well, of course). It seems to me it would be much simpler and lighter than the complex mechanical interlinks between generator and motor and gas engine and transmission that they're using now. Is the problem that mechanical -> electrical -> mechanical conversion through generator -> motor is too inefficient?
I thought the tone of TFA was pretty annoying, buying into the myth that electric vehicles are slow and stodgy. The real breakthrough, if this is a breakthrough, is in efficiency, not power and speed. Electric motors are already known for having very high torque and speed capabilities. They should also prove to be much more reliable overall, and much less expensive to repair (especially if they standardize on a very few form factors for motors and power controllers, it could just be as simple as a swap in/out almost anywhere).
It wouldn't be at all unclear who the opposing legal party is. They're the ones at the table marked "Plaintiff", who keep sending you legal-looking documents, and prove to the judge that they do in fact own copyright to the work in question. That they didn't know ahead of time who they'd be infringing against would be irrelevant unless they can show they thought they had a valid license to use it, or otherwise didn't need a license at all.
... conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice...
An "appropriate copyright notice" is one which is true and correct. That would include the original author. You can add your own name if you've made modifications that qualify under copyright law. You can't just remove the other person's name and substitute your own.
If someone distributes code under the GPL that they didn't write, if they only distribute binaries then they do have an obligation to people other than the ones they distributed it to. They're required to offer to distribute, "to any third party", the source code corresponding to that binary release, for no more than the cost of said distribution, for a period of three years from the original binary-only release. There's an exception for non-commercial binary-only re-distribution if you received the binary from someone along with such an offer (and you have to pass on the offer yourself).
If you release only source, or distribute source and binary to begin with, you have no further obligation to anyone.
I'd think that would be part of the evidence that I'd bring, and that they'd challenge, and if the "preponderance of the evidence" indicates I do indeed have valid copyright to at least some of the code in question, their challenge as to standing would fail. Right?
Their not knowing whose copyright they were infringing isn't a defense of that infringement. Believing it to be public domain, or owned by someone who had given them permission, would be a defense, at least of willful infringement. It probably wouldn't get far with a "Copyright 1999 John Doe, this software is licensed under the GPL..." statement in each file, though. Even if they can convince a judge or jury that they reasonably believed the FSF owned the copyright because of the "confusing" wording in the GPL, they'd still have to show that they then received permission from the FSF to use the code other than under the terms of the GPL. I.e. they'd still lose. IMHNALO.
Remember, these numbers are based on dollars, not number of servers. Almost all of the servers you're talking about, being sold without an operating system so Linux can be installed later, are going to be way down the line in terms of cost (and cost is both cause and effect there). The number of Linux servers is going to be significantly higher than the 10% figure given in the article. They're also probably much more efficient with their dollars, able to accomplish more for the same number of dollars (e.g. ten $1,000 Linux-based servers may be able to do a lot more than one $100,000 name-brand Unix or Windows server "solution", and for the same amount in support costs, you probably get about the same amount of service.
a) If the original disk is Redbook compliant, how is it going to stop me from ripping the tracks? The same old "corrupted data track", "incomplete multi-session", or autorun script schemes that have been so successful in the past? Even then, why wouldn't I be able to record this through the digital output from my CD player?
b) How are they going to prevent a copy of the WMA copy from being played? Is there some sort of serial number on a CD-R that can be used to encrypt/lock to that specific disk? Otherwise, why can't I just copy the whole disk to another disk and play that (assuming I stoop to using Windows Media Player, which is a different issue)?
The "lock in" factor seems to me to be a whole lot less than anything Microsoft has done. At least iTunes gives you an easy option to rip to MP3 (or WAV or AIFF) (and the choice is persistent, once you make it it stays set for all imports or conversions). The iPod will also play other formats, though not WMA. So since the iPod doesn't play WMA, does that mean that on-line music stores shouldn't use that format?
As a long-time Mac user, I'm resigned to being told that I can't do on-line banking or reserve seats for Star Wars unless I use Internet Explorer on Windows, that the really cool video of a guy flying a hang glider into powerlines can only be seen on a version of Windows Media Player that is only available for Windows (and VLC won't play it), or that the Excel spreadsheet embedded in a Word document won't come out right when TextEdit or Appleworks opens it. My efforts to get people to distribute stuff as PDF instead of.doc get greeted with "it's your fault for using a niche computer".
So I get excited when Firefox and Opera get good press and more people start using it, as it helps break the dependence on platform-specific Web pages. I get excited when iPod becomes so popular, as it forces people to adapt to MY platform for once (and Apple really didn't make it that difficult to do on a Windows machine, anyway). Lock-in? I'll show you lock-in.
There are open source implementations of AAC, it looks like more than for WMA (and at least some of the WMA programs use the Microsoft codec rather than implement it themselves, similar to the way the DivX format started out). I wouldn't call AAC any more "locked in" than Ogg Vorbis, except for patent issues (which as also an issue for MP3 and WMA). Ogg Vorbis is clearly the most open from any reasonable standpoint, but it isn't in a wide variety of players, either. If companies want to play AAC music, they can license it just as Apple did.
Which proprietary format are you referring to? MP3, WMA or AAC? They're all pretty much the same as far as "proprietary" goes. If you were pushing for Ogg Vorbis support, I'd see your point, and I do hope Apple sees the light and adds in support for that.
And how are they locked in? Ok, they spent some time ripping CDs, but they can just re-rip them if they need them in another format and don't want to take the hit to quality by transcoding them to MP3. I rip to Apple Lossless format, then convert to AAC to put on the iPod. Now Apple Lossless is a proprietary format, but it has been reverse-engineered.
I apparently read more than you did (in fact, I read it in the magazine several days ago, which is how I knew that the article existed). They take to task the whole BMI method of designating people as "obese", show that the numbers showing how much lifespan is lost due to obesity are essentially fabricated (in part by ignoring the dangers of being underweight), show that the BMI "overweight" and "mild obesity" range actually appears to be healthier, that obesity in kids doesn't seem to be linked that closely with incidence of diabetes.
I also challenge the accuracy of the "fact" given in the post I was responding to: "for the first time in over a hundred years the life expectancy is decreasing in the USA, due to obesity". The rate of increase is slowing, but it hasn't stopped, turned around and started decreasing.
I'm not saying kids shouldn't eat right, but the article brings up some significant problems with the whole "epidemic of obesity is killing us all" thing.
A growing number of dissenting researchers accuse government and medical authorities--as well as the media--of misleading the public about the health consequences of rising body weights
We need to eliminate copyright violation immediately so they can't get funding in this way. The easiest way to do this is to eliminate copyright law. If everyone can legally sell copies of CDs and DVDs, then the terrorists can't make money off of it!
Slashdot Mirror
How is copyright not a monopoly right?
When I put money into the bank, I don't get the same piece of paper back when I withdraw it later. "Money" is merely an agreement we all make as to a way to set value of (ultimately) resources. Whether it is represented as printed pieces of paper, stamped pieces of metal, or stored as bits on a computer, ultimately it is an abstract representation of worth. My "money" that is in the bank is a contractual obligation between me and the bank to give me physical pieces of money or to transfer obligations with other banks when I ask them to. It isn't property, although it is an asset of mine.
Property rights are distinct from the property they are attached to. Rights to use land are just that, rights. Not property.
Apple still doesn't get it quite right, which is to create an administrator account AND a "normal" user account (and, what's really annoying to me is, if you don't create the first user with a (short) name of "admin", you can't create one later, as the group "admin" makes the account creation tool not let you add a user with that name). They do tell you that you can add an administrator account, and then turn off your administrator privileges, but most people aren't going to ever think about that.
About the only thing that being an Administrator (which pretty much is equivalent to adding you to group "admin") gets you is R/W access to the Applications directory. Although this is a real problem (and unnecessary - the newer versions of the Finder let you authenticate if you want to modify a directory you don't normally have access to), at least for any other privileged operation you still have to enter an administrator password (even if you are an administrator).
And, the only thing I've seen break when running as a non-admin is Microsoft's Office Test Drive (haven't tried the full thing). It only works if it is installed as an administrator AND run as an administrator, giving obscure error messages if you do it in any other combination. It was so bad that my Mom, who was seriously considering buying Office for Mac decided that Appleworks was good enough (after having purchased numerous "upgrades" of Office for PC, which she then found out she couldn't use on a new computer because it had been installed over an OEM version of Office on the old computer which couldn't be installed on the new one, etc. etc. etc. which is how I eventually talked her into using a Mac).
A full moon always rises at sunset.
I never understood why they didn't just have a different set of device-specific keys for each region. It would eliminate the possibility of having multi-region (but not all-region) disks, but I've never seen one of those.
I'd like to see a legal challenge to the DMCA in the following form: the "circumvention" language refers to the "authority of the copyright owner"; but that authority is given to the person that bought a copy of the work, NOT a device. I don't believe that one of the enumerated rights of a copyright owner is to determine which device you must use to access a work.
Another challenge to the DMCA for a specific device might be to put out a file encrypted with , e.g. CSS, without the key, and explicitly give everyone in the world permission to access the (copyrighted) contents. I would think that would automatically make a DeCSS program legal to distribute. Or maybe 2600 could distribute Freedom Downtime protected with CSS, and give permission to access it on any device.
Make it a nice big poster with a great shot of Big Ben, but the clock hands move in real time!
Seriously, at some point technology like this will be cheap enough that having a moving picture poster (that doesn't need to update very quickly) will be relatively inexpensive. I wonder if there's a market for posters that change with the seasons or the time of day (either pre-stored or updated over the network). A poster showing the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Colorado Rockies, or Yosemite, or the surf conditions at different beaches... that could be fun!
The DMCA does not prohibit you from bypassing a protection method. The DMCA prohibits you from manufacturing, selling or distributing a means for bypassing a protection method without permission from the copyright owner. Since they're the ones distributing the means to get around their copy prevention method, and since you have permission from them anyway, you're doubly in the clear.
Small particles of titanium dioxide. When it gets small enough, it stops being the opaque white that's been used for sunscreen for years. It becomes translucent to visible light, but still blocks ultraviolet. Titanium dioxide is also being used in "self-cleaning glass" - it reacts with sunlight to break down various substances deposited on it so they wash away instead of sticking.
We need to eliminate candles, kerosene lanterns, diesel engines, carbon arc lamps, and fireplaces, because they all produce buckyballs and carbon nanotubes. Soot of any kind is just loaded with nanoparticles. What about all those nanoparticles they add to tires? Then there's dihydrogen oxide, which is known to penetrate all the cells of the body.
You just showed that power is 0 at 0 RPM, regardless of torque. No divide-by-zero. I think what he meant is that torque is unlimited, not infinite. He's still wrong (there are limitations on how much power the system can handle), but he's right that there's nothing inherently limiting the torque from a dead stop. An internal combustion engine has to use gearing to get high torque, and has to slip at 0 RPM because the engine doesn't work when completely stopped. In other words, an electric motor doesn't need a clutch.
I think it was quite clear that "faster" meant simply faster. No claim that it will handle better around tight turns, that it will let you pick up chicks, or anything else. You're right, there's a reason they cost $200,000.
As far as "not hard", spending $15-20K seems a lot easier than inventing a new electric motor! TFA was making it sound like a Ferrari was the ultimate in speed and power, and to get an electric (*gasp*) motor to even approach that glorified realm was totally amazing. In that context, "not hard" has a pretty low bar.
That's odd. In all the cars I've owned, the two have been the same to the limits of my accuracy (i.e. drive at a constant 60 MPH, the odometer clicks over a mile every 60 seconds - done it for 10 miles, still within a second of 10 minutes). The odometer might be off a little (.2-.5 miles per 100, for example), but the two agreed with each other.
I also verify my speedometer with a GPS unit, and on cruise control with it showing a constant 65MPH, the GPS will bounce up and down between 64.8 and 65.2 or so.
I've been wondering for a while now why cars aren't using something like this. Get a diesel engine set to run at maximum efficiency driving a generator, use the same batteries as a Prius has now, and run direct-drive motors to all four wheels with regenerative braking (and mechanical braking as well, of course). It seems to me it would be much simpler and lighter than the complex mechanical interlinks between generator and motor and gas engine and transmission that they're using now. Is the problem that mechanical -> electrical -> mechanical conversion through generator -> motor is too inefficient?
I thought the tone of TFA was pretty annoying, buying into the myth that electric vehicles are slow and stodgy. The real breakthrough, if this is a breakthrough, is in efficiency, not power and speed. Electric motors are already known for having very high torque and speed capabilities. They should also prove to be much more reliable overall, and much less expensive to repair (especially if they standardize on a very few form factors for motors and power controllers, it could just be as simple as a swap in/out almost anywhere).
It wouldn't be at all unclear who the opposing legal party is. They're the ones at the table marked "Plaintiff", who keep sending you legal-looking documents, and prove to the judge that they do in fact own copyright to the work in question. That they didn't know ahead of time who they'd be infringing against would be irrelevant unless they can show they thought they had a valid license to use it, or otherwise didn't need a license at all.
From section 1 of the GPL:
An "appropriate copyright notice" is one which is true and correct. That would include the original author. You can add your own name if you've made modifications that qualify under copyright law. You can't just remove the other person's name and substitute your own.If someone distributes code under the GPL that they didn't write, if they only distribute binaries then they do have an obligation to people other than the ones they distributed it to. They're required to offer to distribute, "to any third party", the source code corresponding to that binary release, for no more than the cost of said distribution, for a period of three years from the original binary-only release. There's an exception for non-commercial binary-only re-distribution if you received the binary from someone along with such an offer (and you have to pass on the offer yourself).
If you release only source, or distribute source and binary to begin with, you have no further obligation to anyone.
I'd think that would be part of the evidence that I'd bring, and that they'd challenge, and if the "preponderance of the evidence" indicates I do indeed have valid copyright to at least some of the code in question, their challenge as to standing would fail. Right?
Their not knowing whose copyright they were infringing isn't a defense of that infringement. Believing it to be public domain, or owned by someone who had given them permission, would be a defense, at least of willful infringement. It probably wouldn't get far with a "Copyright 1999 John Doe, this software is licensed under the GPL ..." statement in each file, though. Even if they can convince a judge or jury that they reasonably believed the FSF owned the copyright because of the "confusing" wording in the GPL, they'd still have to show that they then received permission from the FSF to use the code other than under the terms of the GPL. I.e. they'd still lose. IMHNALO.
Remember, these numbers are based on dollars, not number of servers. Almost all of the servers you're talking about, being sold without an operating system so Linux can be installed later, are going to be way down the line in terms of cost (and cost is both cause and effect there). The number of Linux servers is going to be significantly higher than the 10% figure given in the article. They're also probably much more efficient with their dollars, able to accomplish more for the same number of dollars (e.g. ten $1,000 Linux-based servers may be able to do a lot more than one $100,000 name-brand Unix or Windows server "solution", and for the same amount in support costs, you probably get about the same amount of service.
The two things I didn't understand from TFA are:
a) If the original disk is Redbook compliant, how is it going to stop me from ripping the tracks? The same old "corrupted data track", "incomplete multi-session", or autorun script schemes that have been so successful in the past? Even then, why wouldn't I be able to record this through the digital output from my CD player?
b) How are they going to prevent a copy of the WMA copy from being played? Is there some sort of serial number on a CD-R that can be used to encrypt/lock to that specific disk? Otherwise, why can't I just copy the whole disk to another disk and play that (assuming I stoop to using Windows Media Player, which is a different issue)?
They were writing files in WMA protected format years ago? Onto tapes? Wow!
Yes, but was any of it intelligent? I'd be more willing to believe there was intelligent life on other planets if there was any evidence of it here.
The "lock in" factor seems to me to be a whole lot less than anything Microsoft has done. At least iTunes gives you an easy option to rip to MP3 (or WAV or AIFF) (and the choice is persistent, once you make it it stays set for all imports or conversions). The iPod will also play other formats, though not WMA. So since the iPod doesn't play WMA, does that mean that on-line music stores shouldn't use that format?
As a long-time Mac user, I'm resigned to being told that I can't do on-line banking or reserve seats for Star Wars unless I use Internet Explorer on Windows, that the really cool video of a guy flying a hang glider into powerlines can only be seen on a version of Windows Media Player that is only available for Windows (and VLC won't play it), or that the Excel spreadsheet embedded in a Word document won't come out right when TextEdit or Appleworks opens it. My efforts to get people to distribute stuff as PDF instead of .doc get greeted with "it's your fault for using a niche computer".
So I get excited when Firefox and Opera get good press and more people start using it, as it helps break the dependence on platform-specific Web pages. I get excited when iPod becomes so popular, as it forces people to adapt to MY platform for once (and Apple really didn't make it that difficult to do on a Windows machine, anyway). Lock-in? I'll show you lock-in.
There are open source implementations of AAC, it looks like more than for WMA (and at least some of the WMA programs use the Microsoft codec rather than implement it themselves, similar to the way the DivX format started out). I wouldn't call AAC any more "locked in" than Ogg Vorbis, except for patent issues (which as also an issue for MP3 and WMA). Ogg Vorbis is clearly the most open from any reasonable standpoint, but it isn't in a wide variety of players, either. If companies want to play AAC music, they can license it just as Apple did.
Which proprietary format are you referring to? MP3, WMA or AAC? They're all pretty much the same as far as "proprietary" goes. If you were pushing for Ogg Vorbis support, I'd see your point, and I do hope Apple sees the light and adds in support for that.
And how are they locked in? Ok, they spent some time ripping CDs, but they can just re-rip them if they need them in another format and don't want to take the hit to quality by transcoding them to MP3. I rip to Apple Lossless format, then convert to AAC to put on the iPod. Now Apple Lossless is a proprietary format, but it has been reverse-engineered.
I apparently read more than you did (in fact, I read it in the magazine several days ago, which is how I knew that the article existed). They take to task the whole BMI method of designating people as "obese", show that the numbers showing how much lifespan is lost due to obesity are essentially fabricated (in part by ignoring the dangers of being underweight), show that the BMI "overweight" and "mild obesity" range actually appears to be healthier, that obesity in kids doesn't seem to be linked that closely with incidence of diabetes.
I also challenge the accuracy of the "fact" given in the post I was responding to: "for the first time in over a hundred years the life expectancy is decreasing in the USA, due to obesity". The rate of increase is slowing, but it hasn't stopped, turned around and started decreasing.
I'm not saying kids shouldn't eat right, but the article brings up some significant problems with the whole "epidemic of obesity is killing us all" thing.
Some studies would seem to disagree with you.Scientific American: Obesity: An Overblown Epidemic? [ NUTRITION AND HEALTH ]
We need to eliminate copyright violation immediately so they can't get funding in this way. The easiest way to do this is to eliminate copyright law. If everyone can legally sell copies of CDs and DVDs, then the terrorists can't make money off of it!