Hunh? in the US, you may import whatever you want...
why should it be hard to get OpenBSD?
And if it's developed in Canada, export restrictions are also lax...
I don't understand?
The FCC should have *NO* business here, whatsoever. There is nothing that needs regulating.
We aren't talking about some kind of monoploy.. or some kind of limited medium. There's room for thousands of IM type things out there.
This isn't even telco, where there is sort of a public-land issue, when it comes to IM, it's a limitless resource.
It's not really about diamonds; the title simply refers to the age of mankind as 'the diamond age', as mankind can produce, at will, diamond materials effortlessly. These days, such a feat would be considered impossible.
So.. diamond instead of glass.
It basically is a reference to the mastery of nanotech.
It's now caluclated (like many calibrations) based on a specific number of wavelengths of the specific type of radiation given off by a certain material(I forget the details).
The kilogram is not, as you say, based on a lump of metal in a french vault, and is not the 'base unit'.
The GRAM is the base unit.
1 GRAM = weight of.001L (1mL) of pure water at sea level.
1 ml = 1cubic centimeter.
a centimeter is 1/100th of a meter.
And perhaps, because you have been raised on it, you find obscure fractions easier to remember than pure decimals.. like, is a 3/16 greater or less than a 13/64? How much is the difference?
It's a lot easier to say it's a.012 or a.038 or whatever.... (at least, for us civilized people it is).
They do exclude computers.. they are rather specific about it.
Certainly, for a car-mp3 player, sold as such, this may not apply (it's not a PC anymore). I suppose companies like empeg and such could be open to being sued for breach of AHRA. However.. it could easily be argued that the empeg and such are not recording devices. recording MUST happen elsewhere, they only playback.
And this applies to manufacturing and sale. Just because you plan to use the home computer for music is not relevant to the AHRA.
THe point, though, is that, because they DID exclude computers from SCMS, they also excluded them from the exemption (the 'not actionable' stuff).
It's interesting.
And from what I recall of the committee that designed the ahra, they were VERY explicit that personal computers were to be exempt from the act; they did not want the growing computer industry stifled by the music industry.
Royal Bank of Canada. It is possible they do require written notice beyond a certain point; I am unsure.
As for identity theft, yeah. I can't dispute that. It sucks.
Perhaps Credit companies should have a way for you to be issued a new card and 'flag' valid transactions.
Hmm. Come to think of it, why not have a card that is *just* for regular payments? Keep it locked up somewhere.
No. He's 'tunnelling' IP through DNS.
As the IP tunnel contains both tcp, udp, and whatever else they want, then there is no reason to add your own sequencing; you are using TCP within the tunnel; and tcp will deal with any packet loss occurring at a lower layer (DNS/UDP) within the tunnel.
What you end up with is ip(udp(dns(IP(TCP)))).
lower-case indicates public protocols. upper case indicates tunnel contents.
So dns is effectively acting as layer 2 as far as the encapsulated IP is concerned. So packet loss at DNS is not relevant, it would be seen as no different than packet loss due to ethernet or any other lower layer protocol.
Someone fill me in here..
So your browser remembers the last few queries you did... this is somehow a way for 'them' to track you? Sheesh.
Bash history remembers the last 20 commands you typed (or way more.. whatever). God-forbid that an OS such as unix should have such subversive things in it.
I *LIKE* the fact that IE remembers the last bunch of searches I did. I mean.. you can say 'privacy'.. what if someone steals my computer, they'd know what I did...
Actually, adding your own sequencing should not be necessary, as mentioned here. You do not need to guarantee delivery; tcp will take care of that.
All you need is a somewhat reliable packet delivery system.
When false charges show up on my credit card, that I know I didn't pay, I simply pick up the phone and tell the CC company that I want to dispute the charges. They take them off, and do their own investigating, and inform me of the results (ie: I have to pay, or not).
This in no way at all damages my credit rating. If a lot of charges are showing up, I have the company cancel the card and issue a new one immediately. It shows up the next day in the mail.
For the most part, if you stay on top of your credit card bills (ie: read them when they come in), you are fairly safe from this kind of thing.
I don't know the legalities.. but from a purely idealistic view, it's like this:
The CC Company values customers over merchants. Merchants pay to accept cards. (not that merchants aren't important).
The Card is simply a token of the credit the company has extended to you. It is a means to an end; it is not the credit itself. Same with the number on that card. The number simply identifies your account.
From what I remember from personal issues with cc companies, it is fairly easy to dispute charges.
It used to be that a card imprint was requried. Later, anything would do, but a signature was required. Remember, you have to authorize each and every use of your card.
If a merchant cannot show that YOU actually authorized the transaction, he has no right to collect funds on your card.
Simply using the card yourself is authorization enough; but the merchant should be able to prove it. ie: registered delivery of goods to your home.
The onus should be on each and every merchant who accepts credit cards to ensure that they are taking part in a legal transaction. This is why there is a signature on your card; this is why you must sign your receipt. It *IS* permissible to ask for ID when someone presents a credit card!
Like cheques these days, the system does not verify everyhing. IT's far cheaper to deal with issues should they arise than to simply check every transaction.
Just because society is rushing like a madman into using credit cards for digital transactions for everything on earth, and merchants are forgoing safety checks... this is the MERCHANT'S problem, not the consumers.
Nowhere in that article (unless I'm blind) does it say that any numbers were stolen. ALl they said is that it was unclear whether any 'personal information' was stolen.
And if it was stolen... that's shitty site design. You quickly stash cc#'s off in a secure location; you don't make them retrievable off the website, EVER.
I mean, what's the learning curve on Linux? Pretty high compared to MacOS.
Is Linux easy to use? It is for me. Same with other unices.
Is it easy for my mom? Heck no.. she has no idea what's going on. Steep curve.
MacOS has a shallow curve, but is it easy for me to use? No.. it would be difficult for me to do the things I want to do with a clumsy gui.
It's easy for my mom to learn; as it's geared towards her knowledge base.
If everything is done for you, you don't learn how to do anything.
If the ahra is read in it's entirety, it basically says this:
1) A digital recording device must follow the SCMS.
2) Definitions of what constitute a digital recording device
3) Computers are NOT a digital recording device for the purposes of the act
and
4) The noncommercial use of such a device (as defined by the act) by consumers is not actionable (ie: legal)
In other words, the music industry conceded that if a digital recording device followed their copy mangement system (let you only make copies from an original, couldn't do 3rd generation copies, basically), then it was cool.
It's even simpler.
Napster says that a certain clause says that home recording is legal for noncommerical use by consumers. If consumers are allowed to copy, then napster is a legal business.
The act, however, specifically exempts computers from the act, as not being considered 'recording devices'. This was so computers would not have to follow the SCMS (serial copy managemtn system).
THe point is that the DHRA is largeley irrelevant to this case, and may not be used as a shield from prosecution.
They were not trying to say that, under the DHRA, a computer is a digital recording device; the DHRA is extremely explicit that this is not the case.
They are merely saying that this is not relevant to the napster case.
To me, it's all about convenience, and NOTHING about money.
I have money. I'm quite comfortable. I could certainly go out and buy lots of CDs.
Would I buy more music if I couldn't get mp3s? Certainly (hey.. I don't even use napster).
Why don't I buy music at the store.. is it because I feel like I deserve free music? No..
it's because I think "Why should I have to get dressed, put on my shoes, go to the mall, and look through a limited selection of music, perhaps going to a different mall/store to find waht I want, even though it may not be there, and when I do find it, it may be a bit overpriced", when I can simply sit at my desk, in MY home, with my bare feet, and download the music?
It's all about convenience! If I could pay a monthly fee to a record company to have unlimited access for personal use to their archives, I would! It would be a convenience to me!
The legalities are pretty simple. Copyright violation is copyright violation. Copying music via napster is technically illegal. Napster was formed to make money off the fact that lots of people whould use it to pirate music. This is contributory. I have no issue with that.
And I agree, people should get off the moral high-ground. There are two simple facts here.
1) mp3 is more convenient for many of us. WAY more.
2) if the majority of hte music industry's former market no longer believes in it's distribution model, it will not ultimately succeed in legislating those people back into being customers. Regardless of the reasons why, if everyone is turned off of the whole music-store thing, then that's how it's going to be, legal or not. REmember, ultimately, if the people of the US (or wherever) want copyright law changed, it WILL be changed;)
Well.. it kind of makes sense.
Under the DHRA, it is clear that computers are not 'digital recording devices' for the purposes of the act, and hence, do not have to follow the copy management scheme.
However, this has nothing to do with the DMCA, or other cases of contributory infringement.
Heck.. this isn't even about recording. It's about trafficking.
I won't go on a big diatribe here.. but wireless networks are far easier to set up than cable networks as far as the amount of work goes.
Remember, these rural places don't HAVE the cable infrastructure. THere is no landline to be had... no cable, not enough phone circuits of enough quality to do DSL, and the distances are too big.
How on earth could putting up some towers (or using the roofs of grain elevators) be harder than getting right-of-way and burying cable all over the place?
Slashdot Mirror
Hunh? in the US, you may import whatever you want...
why should it be hard to get OpenBSD?
And if it's developed in Canada, export restrictions are also lax...
I don't understand?
Right.
And how is the fact that FreeBSD is neat related to a discussion of Linux marketshare?
The FCC should have *NO* business here, whatsoever. There is nothing that needs regulating.
We aren't talking about some kind of monoploy.. or some kind of limited medium. There's room for thousands of IM type things out there.
This isn't even telco, where there is sort of a public-land issue, when it comes to IM, it's a limitless resource.
Hmm. Actually, diamond age rips basically nothing off of Gibson.
Snow crash and Diamond Age are not even remotely similar in setting, or in theme.
Not a trace of Gibson in it.
Gibson barely touches on nanotech in his latest books...
It's not really about diamonds; the title simply refers to the age of mankind as 'the diamond age', as mankind can produce, at will, diamond materials effortlessly. These days, such a feat would be considered impossible. So.. diamond instead of glass. It basically is a reference to the mastery of nanotech.
Actually, it's no longer one ten-millionth.
.001L (1mL) of pure water at sea level.
.012 or a .038 or whatever.... (at least, for us civilized people it is).
It's now caluclated (like many calibrations) based on a specific number of wavelengths of the specific type of radiation given off by a certain material(I forget the details).
The kilogram is not, as you say, based on a lump of metal in a french vault, and is not the 'base unit'.
The GRAM is the base unit.
1 GRAM = weight of
1 ml = 1cubic centimeter.
a centimeter is 1/100th of a meter.
And perhaps, because you have been raised on it, you find obscure fractions easier to remember than pure decimals.. like, is a 3/16 greater or less than a 13/64? How much is the difference?
It's a lot easier to say it's a
They do exclude computers.. they are rather specific about it.
Certainly, for a car-mp3 player, sold as such, this may not apply (it's not a PC anymore). I suppose companies like empeg and such could be open to being sued for breach of AHRA. However.. it could easily be argued that the empeg and such are not recording devices. recording MUST happen elsewhere, they only playback.
And this applies to manufacturing and sale. Just because you plan to use the home computer for music is not relevant to the AHRA.
THe point, though, is that, because they DID exclude computers from SCMS, they also excluded them from the exemption (the 'not actionable' stuff).
It's interesting.
And from what I recall of the committee that designed the ahra, they were VERY explicit that personal computers were to be exempt from the act; they did not want the growing computer industry stifled by the music industry.
Royal Bank of Canada. It is possible they do require written notice beyond a certain point; I am unsure.
As for identity theft, yeah. I can't dispute that. It sucks.
Perhaps Credit companies should have a way for you to be issued a new card and 'flag' valid transactions.
Hmm. Come to think of it, why not have a card that is *just* for regular payments? Keep it locked up somewhere.
No. He's 'tunnelling' IP through DNS.
As the IP tunnel contains both tcp, udp, and whatever else they want, then there is no reason to add your own sequencing; you are using TCP within the tunnel; and tcp will deal with any packet loss occurring at a lower layer (DNS/UDP) within the tunnel.
What you end up with is ip(udp(dns(IP(TCP)))).
lower-case indicates public protocols. upper case indicates tunnel contents.
So dns is effectively acting as layer 2 as far as the encapsulated IP is concerned. So packet loss at DNS is not relevant, it would be seen as no different than packet loss due to ethernet or any other lower layer protocol.
Just an aside..
But many people who use 'open-source' stuff would never read the source, and never look for things.
The key point is that, these days, if you do not seek to understand what is going on, you are vulnerable.
Someone fill me in here.. So your browser remembers the last few queries you did... this is somehow a way for 'them' to track you? Sheesh. Bash history remembers the last 20 commands you typed (or way more.. whatever). God-forbid that an OS such as unix should have such subversive things in it. I *LIKE* the fact that IE remembers the last bunch of searches I did. I mean.. you can say 'privacy'.. what if someone steals my computer, they'd know what I did...
Actually, adding your own sequencing should not be necessary, as mentioned here. You do not need to guarantee delivery; tcp will take care of that.
All you need is a somewhat reliable packet delivery system.
I know it can happen.. but..
When false charges show up on my credit card, that I know I didn't pay, I simply pick up the phone and tell the CC company that I want to dispute the charges. They take them off, and do their own investigating, and inform me of the results (ie: I have to pay, or not).
This in no way at all damages my credit rating. If a lot of charges are showing up, I have the company cancel the card and issue a new one immediately. It shows up the next day in the mail.
For the most part, if you stay on top of your credit card bills (ie: read them when they come in), you are fairly safe from this kind of thing.
I don't know the legalities.. but from a purely idealistic view, it's like this:
The CC Company values customers over merchants. Merchants pay to accept cards. (not that merchants aren't important).
The Card is simply a token of the credit the company has extended to you. It is a means to an end; it is not the credit itself. Same with the number on that card. The number simply identifies your account.
From what I remember from personal issues with cc companies, it is fairly easy to dispute charges.
It used to be that a card imprint was requried. Later, anything would do, but a signature was required. Remember, you have to authorize each and every use of your card.
If a merchant cannot show that YOU actually authorized the transaction, he has no right to collect funds on your card.
Simply using the card yourself is authorization enough; but the merchant should be able to prove it. ie: registered delivery of goods to your home.
The onus should be on each and every merchant who accepts credit cards to ensure that they are taking part in a legal transaction. This is why there is a signature on your card; this is why you must sign your receipt. It *IS* permissible to ask for ID when someone presents a credit card!
Like cheques these days, the system does not verify everyhing. IT's far cheaper to deal with issues should they arise than to simply check every transaction.
Just because society is rushing like a madman into using credit cards for digital transactions for everything on earth, and merchants are forgoing safety checks... this is the MERCHANT'S problem, not the consumers.
Nowhere in that article (unless I'm blind) does it say that any numbers were stolen. ALl they said is that it was unclear whether any 'personal information' was stolen.
And if it was stolen... that's shitty site design. You quickly stash cc#'s off in a secure location; you don't make them retrievable off the website, EVER.
I mean, what's the learning curve on Linux? Pretty high compared to MacOS.
Is Linux easy to use? It is for me. Same with other unices.
Is it easy for my mom? Heck no.. she has no idea what's going on. Steep curve.
MacOS has a shallow curve, but is it easy for me to use? No.. it would be difficult for me to do the things I want to do with a clumsy gui.
It's easy for my mom to learn; as it's geared towards her knowledge base.
If everything is done for you, you don't learn how to do anything.
If the ahra is read in it's entirety, it basically says this:
1) A digital recording device must follow the SCMS.
2) Definitions of what constitute a digital recording device
3) Computers are NOT a digital recording device for the purposes of the act
and
4) The noncommercial use of such a device (as defined by the act) by consumers is not actionable (ie: legal)
In other words, the music industry conceded that if a digital recording device followed their copy mangement system (let you only make copies from an original, couldn't do 3rd generation copies, basically), then it was cool.
Computers are not part of this act.
It's even simpler.
Napster says that a certain clause says that home recording is legal for noncommerical use by consumers. If consumers are allowed to copy, then napster is a legal business.
The act, however, specifically exempts computers from the act, as not being considered 'recording devices'. This was so computers would not have to follow the SCMS (serial copy managemtn system).
Double-edged sword.
Ahh! So it becomes clear now. INteresting twist.
THis statement would seem to say that non-commercial copying is non-actionable.
What it seems to say, in more detail, is that the use of a digital recording device (etc...) for noncommercial use by a consumer is not actionable.
This same act, however, explicity says that a home PC Is *NOT* a digital recording device for purposes of the act.
Very interesting..... so although pc's are exempt from serial copy protection, they are also exempt from the exemption...
THe point is that the DHRA is largeley irrelevant to this case, and may not be used as a shield from prosecution.
They were not trying to say that, under the DHRA, a computer is a digital recording device; the DHRA is extremely explicit that this is not the case.
They are merely saying that this is not relevant to the napster case.
To me, it's all about convenience, and NOTHING about money.
;)
I have money. I'm quite comfortable. I could certainly go out and buy lots of CDs.
Would I buy more music if I couldn't get mp3s? Certainly (hey.. I don't even use napster).
Why don't I buy music at the store.. is it because I feel like I deserve free music? No..
it's because I think "Why should I have to get dressed, put on my shoes, go to the mall, and look through a limited selection of music, perhaps going to a different mall/store to find waht I want, even though it may not be there, and when I do find it, it may be a bit overpriced", when I can simply sit at my desk, in MY home, with my bare feet, and download the music?
It's all about convenience! If I could pay a monthly fee to a record company to have unlimited access for personal use to their archives, I would! It would be a convenience to me!
The legalities are pretty simple. Copyright violation is copyright violation. Copying music via napster is technically illegal. Napster was formed to make money off the fact that lots of people whould use it to pirate music. This is contributory. I have no issue with that.
And I agree, people should get off the moral high-ground. There are two simple facts here.
1) mp3 is more convenient for many of us. WAY more.
2) if the majority of hte music industry's former market no longer believes in it's distribution model, it will not ultimately succeed in legislating those people back into being customers. Regardless of the reasons why, if everyone is turned off of the whole music-store thing, then that's how it's going to be, legal or not. REmember, ultimately, if the people of the US (or wherever) want copyright law changed, it WILL be changed
Well.. it kind of makes sense. Under the DHRA, it is clear that computers are not 'digital recording devices' for the purposes of the act, and hence, do not have to follow the copy management scheme. However, this has nothing to do with the DMCA, or other cases of contributory infringement. Heck.. this isn't even about recording. It's about trafficking.
Hmm. I wasn't implying it wasn't a great tool, or anything else about the quality of the DJ's work.
I was merely stating that DJs are using this stuff.
Sorry.. I didn't mean to imply that Zen was 'obscure' or wierd...
I just meant that it bothers me when people try to draw this kind of conclusion about techies in general.
And by 'obscure' I suppose I meant everythign aside from the Jews, Jesus & his fanclub, and their enemies.. and the Muslims.
I won't go on a big diatribe here.. but wireless networks are far easier to set up than cable networks as far as the amount of work goes.
Remember, these rural places don't HAVE the cable infrastructure. THere is no landline to be had... no cable, not enough phone circuits of enough quality to do DSL, and the distances are too big.
How on earth could putting up some towers (or using the roofs of grain elevators) be harder than getting right-of-way and burying cable all over the place?