Then why am I having to jump through hoops to get Descent 3 running on my machine?
What I was referring to was kernel support, not libraries--that's also why I said Linux only "just recently" got support for graphics, although SVGAlib has been around for much longer. You can make or (probably) find libraries for just about anything, I'll grant you, but that's just one more layer of complexity, one more thing that can go wrong when the end-user tries to play the game. And then, of course, you start running into the same problems Windows has with mismatched/incompatible versions of libraries...
When you use a proxy, the proxy looks up the host name you give in the URL and connects to that IP, so adding a hosts entry on your local box won't do a thing.
On the other hand, it looks like just sticking the IP address in the URL will work:
The software has an EULA (End User License Agreement). The EULA is agreed to before the software is
used. The License Agreement specifically states that all information entered into the software becomes the
Intellectual Property of the software author.
Not in my version of Word (Microsoft Word 97 Japanese), unless I'm overlooking it. Though I will agree that this scenario is definitely conceivable, and disturbing.
But you don't even need to go that far; the software company can argue that the intellectual property being violated is not that of the person who created the document, but that of the person (company) who created the file format. It's sort of like having an encryption routine where the routine is itself encrypted--in this case, the routine (file saving) is "encrypted" by being stored in the program, which of course you aren't allowed to reverse-engineer, disassemble, or anything like that. By creating a routine of your own which manipulates files in this format, you have effectively circumvented the "protection" applied to the original routine.
Now, I can't really imagine any sane judge accepting that argument as is, but you know what they say about an infinite number of Microsoft lawyers and an infinite number of typewriters...
The "open" angle of the Indrema is something that is being overhyped. Open is good, yes, but consider how few
decent games have been developed for Linux.
Have you ever tried developing a game on Linux? Between the lack of consistent hardware support and the nearly infinite number of hardware setups around, it's next to impossible. It's only just recently (kernel 2.2) that Linux even started to support graphics at all--up until then it was "hack the hardware, and hope the user has the same hardware you do"--and there still is not more than minimal support for joysticks (I have to give insmod parameters for my joystick every time I load the module), no support at all for 3D graphics, no way to get consistent timing (unless you write a kernel module to hook an interrupt, which brings in a host of security problems).
Then, of course, there are the classic PC problems, such as gazillions of video cards (many of which lack Linux support), flimsy sound hardware (hello software mixing--even the Amiga 1000 in 1985 was better), etc. I have enough trouble just moving my game-in-progress between my desktop (direct hardware support via SVGAlib, VESA doesn't work) and my laptop (VESA support via SVGAlib, no direct hardware support).
In fact, though the Indrema has me excited, I was very disturbed to read that they're planning a "line" of Indrema systems and going to allow upgrading of the video card--unless they have awfully good QC on just what hardware they release, they're just going to duplicate the failures of the PC all over again.
You should try riding on just about any line in downtown Tokyo during rush hour. Yes, you can get from one end to the other in 20 minutes or so, but the railways offer no guarantees on how squished you come out the other end.
I'm just glad my commute is in the opposite direction.
But really, think about it. How many different behaviors is a single ant capable of? Couldn't you program a robot
that relatively small number of behaviors?
That's a very good question, actually. Just how many behaviors is an ant capable of? Simplistically, one could say "eat, sleep, walk, lift, carry..." and enumerate a dozen or so. But that doesn't consider the many different environments that these actions take place in--for example, the essentially infinite number of combinations of grains of sand or dirt that make up an anthill. One of the greatest problems in the field of AI (at least as I last heard; experts out there, feel free to correct me) is environment recognition: in this case, the ability to determine that pile-of-dirt-A, pile-of-dirt-B, and pile-of-dirt-C are all anthills even though they have completely different shapes, colors, and surroundings. More generally, this includes image recognition, sound recognition, and just about everything humans do day in and day out. With current technology, the best we can do is get most things right most of the time (just ask any censorware maker about this), and that's not likely to change without some breakthrough in processing methodology.
On top of that, there's a monumental difference between ants and humans in terms of intelligence, or "range of behavior" if you prefer to put it that way. The ZDnet article suggested that a 100,000-fold increase in computing power would be able to overcome that, but even assuming computing power == intelligence, I suspect that that's wildly underestimating the actual difference.
I suspect it will be much longer than 50 years before we see humanoid robots that are behaviorally indistinguishable from humans in all situations ("Turing robots"?). On the other hand, as software improves and is able to handle more situations more of the time, I think we will definitely see automated systems, including robots, become more commonplace.
If that's the case, then why do people even bother
to cram the night before an exam by staying up late trying to memorize?
According to this they're just wasting their time!
Actually, that's what I always found. I never heard of any of these sleeplessness studies, but I always found I felt more comfortable taking the test if I got plenty of sleep the previous night.
There was actually one test in high school I particularly remember, which I decided to stay up late and study for because everyone said it was a tough test. Well, I went in the next day, and proceeded to make an incredible number of stupid mistakes, so I took that as a lesson that sleep is a Good Thing (tm).
Now if only I could successfully apply that to my work life...
Have you ever tried pronouncing a domain name in Japanese? Since there are multiple ways to spell the same Japanese word in Roman characters (depending on the romanization system you use), you generally have to spell them out character by character. And Roman characters are hard to pronounce in Japanese; I've heard commercials where they take 5-10 seconds just to say the domain name of a website.
Now, I don't know the exact reason support for CJK domain names was thought up, but I can tell you there's quite a bit of interest in Japan (at least) about it. So don't go putting it down just because you don't find it useful.
Not if the author is the only coder/whatever it is he/she does present. The moment there are other people working on the same project, some time scheduling at least might benefit the amount of communication between the different employees.
This is one of the problems I can see--in fact, am seeing--with flex time. I typically arrive at work at around 7:00am to get some real work (I mainly do program design/coding) done before the office gets noisy, but there are times when I hit a snag or a bit of vagueness in the specs that I need to check with someone else in the group, and I can't proceed on that tack until the person in question comes in.
We do have core time (10am-3pm), incidentally, so I know that I will be able to get the problem solved in a reasonable amount of time; but a friend in another department commented that with the amount of contact they have with other companies there, they have no choice but to keep to the same schedule other places keep--hence shift time.
I have a feeling this will come out as more of a "how not to do things" than any sort of real useful information, but here goes...
Way back in December 1994, I got myself a shiny new 14.4k modem, and leveraged sysop privileges at my high school (I was a senior at the time) to get a dedicated IP on the school's dialup server. I set up a little anonymous FTP site with a number of music samples--this was back in the days when 22k stereo was a luxury--and MOD files, and let 'er rip, so to speak. Well, word spread, and that good old 14.4k modem got a whole bunch of exercise.
In late August 1995 I started university, and took advantage of the Ethernet connection there to keep the FTP service going--although with the change of address some of the traffic obviously dropped off. It was at this point that an acquaintance came to me and asked if I could host his home page on my computer, since it was getting too big for his ISP's likes. I said sure, no problem, and wrote myself a little HTTP daemon (I was using an Amiga at the time) to do the job. So far, so good.
Later that same month, someone I didn't know sent me a message asking if I could host their page, too. I was feeling magnanimous, and said sure, why not. As a few more such requests came in and my Amiga started floundering under the load, I decided to get a Linux box instead--and put up a little page saying "Free accounts here, just send mail." That was my mistake. <weak grin>
Boy, did they ever come. I had something around 500 users when I had to take my system home for the summer the following May. I proceeded to get an ISDN line installed at home--this is all coming out of my pocket, remember--and served through that for the summer, though the bandwidth wasn't even close to sufficient and the line was a whole month late in coming in. (Thank you, Bell Atlantic.)
When I finally got the system back to school, the account request floodgates opened, and when I finally cut off new accounts in December--the university's datacomm department gave me a friendly little call saying "your bandwidth use is just a bit high"--I had 5000 users and was serving close to 2Mbps consistently. I also had to do a number of server upgrades in there, and even so server response times were dismal. And on top of all that, I have to deal with user mail as well (though I did have some on-and-off volunteer help on that front).
This is still all coming out of my pocket, and now the school's mad at me too, so I figure the only option left is to go commercial. So I talked around to service providers I knew, ran a bunch of numbers, and eventually set the price at $25/year. I sent out mail to all the users and set the payment deadline for April. Naturally a bunch of users left, but about 350 remained, which was more or less in line with my projections.
So Dragonfire Internet Services, as I had named it some time earlier, turned into a commercial operation, and things were once again happy. The only catch, of course, was that if the server needed physical maintenance I had to haul myself down to the colo center--which happened a number of times over the years I ran Dragonfire, and itself was a moderate pain in the pocket.
Well, things were all fine and dandy until my colo provider tripled (yes, tripled) my connectivity cost. I argued and argued, but lost in the end, and in order to not lose money, I had to raise prices. And to make things worse, whether from simple load or some other problem, server response was dropping off again, making people even less happy. But most of them were still willing to keep their accounts at $40/year (a fact for which I'm grateful). I seem to
In October of 1998, I applied to, and was accepted to, an overseas internship program with a Japanese software company (the same company I work for now, as a matter of fact). Between that and the fact that Dragonfire still wasn't behaving well, much less making any significant amount of money, I decided to just transfer it to an acquaintance of mine who at least claimed to have experience and interest in running a provider (though I've long since come to doubt that from the reports I hear).
Ironically, Dragonfire finally stabilized shortly after that, and set a record by staying up for the whole month of December until it moved to its new location. But since I knew I wouldn't be able to do anything with it from Japan anyway, I just transitioned myself out and let things go. Which was not easy, I have to admit; however many problems the service had, it was something I'd "raised," so to speak. But anyway, I left Dragonfire in other hands and went my own way.
(And I'm still several thousand bucks in the hole.)
So, here's what that experience left with me, aside from a bunch of knowledge about how to run servers:
Know what you're doing beforehand, or find someone who does. I never had a good head for business, as I now well know, and the only thing that concerned me was providing service to my users as inexpensively as possible (seeing as many of them were not in a position to pay the $$ big ISPs want). If I'd had someone to advise me, I could have charged $60/year from the start and (1) had plenty of money to make the system actually work and (2) not have had angry users when I raised rates twice.
Plan ahead. This sort of links into the previous item with respect to having extra money on hand for upgrades or colo rate increases, but more generally just refers to thinking ahead two, three, five years (or more) and know exactly where you want to be at that point. I had never thought concretely about what I was going to do with Dragonfire after graduating until I got the internship.
Don't be too nice to people. This is more a sarcastic jab at my own personality;) than anything else, but remember that you have to make a living too, and you should get at least reasonable compensation for the time you put into whatever it is you're doing. I was always thinking "for the users, for the users," and as a result I got squished.
Be realistic. A "hobby" is generally defined as something you do for fun. If it's eating more time, money, and patience than you like, then it's not a hobby anymore, it's a job. (This was something I also realized much too late.) As mentioned above, plan ahead, and if you want it to stay a hobby, make sure you keep it that way.
Dunno if that was any help or not, but there you go.
of course, you can read what I've written, and know that this is a horrible idea, but in
the past 100 years, the english language(s) has metamorphed into so many different
dialects that we may even put the chinese to shame. we have our share of slang and
coloquialisms (sp?) too, and because the computer doesn't understand them, we are stupid
for using them.
I agree with you completely. English is an entirely too irregular language to be used for global communication. Especially this horrible spelling system. Who else remembers learning "I before E, except after C..." in their school days and wondering why it had to be so confusing?
Well, we can du something abaut that. First off, let's meke sum sense aut uf thu vawels; no more uf this "I before E" crap, just plein Latun and short vawels. And wi can toss aut thos silli treiling E's whail wi'r at it.
Thu cansonants also niid tuu bi cliind up. No mor "GIF or JIF?" argyuments--wun saund pur kansonant hiir. And wi kan teik keir uv TH, SH and CH bai riuzing q, x, and c.
But qu vaulz ar stil kunfyuzing, so let's get rid uv kapitulizeixun. nau wi kAn yuz kApItUl lEtUrz for xOrt vaulz. And wi kAn also yuz kApItUlz for kansonants: N for "ng", Q for "qis" or "qat" (As apozd tu "qiN").
fainali, wi hAv klind ap QU spElIN Uv INglIx! nau If wi kAn onli gEt rId Uv al Qoz IdiUmz...
o, And dUz EniwUn no hau tu pronauns "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"? ai nEvr fIgyurd Qat wUn aut.
(Translation: Oh, and does anyone know how to pronounce "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"? I never figured that one out.)
I suppose we've already established this, but I have to put in my plug for the greatest educational institution I've
ever attended: Thomas Jefferson High School for Science & Technology (www.tjhsst.edu). I graduated in '96, but
they've owned tjhsst.edu since before I started (and before the Web, too). As far as I know, though, this is the
only high school with a.edu domain.
Not the only one; my alma mater, Montgomery Blair High School (mbhs.edu) (ah, old rivalries...) has one as well, and has had it since before I started there in fall 1991. Maybe InterNIC was more lax in the olden days?
You never say "Johnny are going to the store", do you?
Okay, I'll bite...
Johnny is a person. Intel is a company. In some dialects of English, companies are referred to in the plural. It's no worse than the trend to use "they" as a generic third-person singular: "If someone steals my s33kr1t DivX movie collection I'll send my flying aardvarks after them!"
You forget that ancient machines are not the only places 386's and 486's appear. Embedded systems generally don't need a heap of processing power, so you can get things done cheaper (and cooler) with a 386- or 486-level chip.
To take your points one by one:
1. Earlier platforms generally had no CD-ROM. Most Linux distros . . . come on CD-ROMs.
1. You install at the factory onto ROM/flash/whatever. No need for a distribution's install CD.
2. Earlier machines usually had a 5 1/4" floppy disk . ..
2. See above.
3. Earlier machines had RAM limitations . ..
3. So what? Even without limiting oneself to embedded systems, there's no real need for huge amounts of RAM besides the RAM companies saying "BUY MORE RAM". I ran Linux on a 386 with 8MB at a summer job a few years back with little trouble, and that only in the setup. (On the other hand, it would be nice to see a libc that wasn't as bloated as glibc...)
4. Some earlier machines had fscked BIOSes, aside from Y2K-unfriendly BIOSes.
4. Repeat after me: Linux does not use the BIOS. The BIOS is only used at boot time (and by DOS). And as far as embedded systems go, you can use a modern BIOS that works, or just write something simple that starts up Linux on your box. After all, embedded systems don't need to worry about being general.
5. Earlier machines had ISA, EISA, etc.
5. Modern embedded systems probably use PCI if they need anything at all.
6. Earlier network cards are not all supported . ..
6. Modern embedded systems can use supported hardware.
I used to run a Web provider service (on my own) during my university years, and this was probably my biggest constant worry, aside from "will I get enough money this month". In fact, I got threats of legal action (generally on the basis of copyright violation) probably once every couple of months once the service started getting users.
At first I would go "oh shit" when one of these came, but I took a clue from other ISPs' policies and took the stance of "I will do nothing without concrete evidence or a court order." What I found was that in nearly all of the cases, the threatener backed down without sending another message--or they may have contacted the relevant users directly, but at least they left me alone. I did have one case with Fraunhofer IIS and a user's MP3 software, but they became cooperative after I informed them of my stance (in that case, I told the user about the alleged problem and he removed the file before I finished confirming the claim); another time, a user uploaded a tool to break into AOL accounts, and I zapped that (and the user's account) as soon as AOL sent me a nastygram about it. Other than those couple of cases, though, I didn't have any real trouble to speak of; I never once received any "official" C&D's or other legal notices.
I guess what it boils down to is that if you (1) stay within the law, (2) show that you're willing to defend yourself to that extent, and (3) show a willingness to cooperate when real problems arise, most people will leave you alone. Even companies aren't stupid enough to fight battles they can't get anything out of; it's only in cases like Microsoft stealing people's ideas (e.g. Stacker--does anyone remember that? It's what became MS's Doublespace compression technology, or whatever it's called), where the company can get something by running the other party into the ground, where they'll fight a losing battle.
Of course, if you do skirt the boundaries of legality--like DeCSS and friends--you'd better be prepared to face the consequences. I should note explicitly that a large number of things involving free speech fall into this category; if your argument is "blah-blah is technically illegal but free speech makes it okay," then you're setting yourself up for a lawsuit somewhere, and you should be prepared for that.
Something that seems to have been lost in all the free-speech drivel^H^H^H^H^H^Harguments is that university networks are, first and foremost, intended for academic use. Now it's true, of course, that most universities have more bandwidth than most academic use needs, so universities generally let students use the remaining bandwidth as they like. However, when non-academic use (e.g. Napster) takes up so many resources as to impair academic use, then the univeristy has the (at least moral) duty to restrict that use. If Napster is taking up as much bandwidth as some other people have suggested, then universities should be doing something about it--whether shutting it down entirely, rate-limiting it, or whatever--even without any threats from Metallica.
Residence hall and dedicated remote access service connections to the campus network, and
to the Internet, are provided to allow students, staff and faculty to fully participate in the
educational and research missions of Carnegie Mellon University. [...]
It may not remain feasible to provide unlimited connectivity for systems which are not strictly
serving the University's missions. Beacuse of this possibility, we reserve the right to request
that users reduce the amount of traffic being caused by their service, or where necessary, to
remove such systems or services from the campus network.
As a matter of fact, a free (non-commercial) web-hosting service I ran off the dorm network while I was a student there got me a couple of "friendly notices" from the network admins about bandwidth use, and I eventually had to move it
offsite. I found this perfectly reasonable, since it wasn't university-related traffic, after all.
Copyright arguments aside, what university-related purpose does Napster serve that it doesn't deserve the same treatment?
(Disclaimer: I do support free speech, I just don't think Napster qualifies. Find an alternative that doesn't have "piracy" in its mission statement and I'd be happier.)
Pac-Man was originally created by the Japanese company Namco and released on October 10, 1979. (I happened to be at the 20th-anniversary celebration at last year's autumn Tokyo Game Show, where the game's creator honored the guy that got the "perfect" score earlier in the year). The game was in fact initially released as "Puck-Man", alluding to the Japanese sound-word "puck-puck" imitating a mouth opening and closing, but was later changed to "Pac-Man"--maybe it was too easy to change the "P" of "Puck" to an "F"?
At any rate, Atari icensed Pac-Man from Namco, and Atari was later bought out by Hasbro, or something like that; ultimately, Hasbro now has what I assume are the rights to distribute Pac-Man in the U.S. However, Hasbro does not own Pac-Man--they only have the rights to distribute it.
<wishful-thinking>Presumably Namco could pull those rights if they didn't like what Hasbro was doing... </wishful-thinking>
Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make. The Internet as it exists now is "law-free", and if you think Congress (or its equivalent in other countries) will let it stay that way--even if that way is best--I think you may be setting yourself up for a big disappointment. Remember that Congress's sole purpose for existence is to pass laws; I find it extremely unlikely that they will meekly admit that the Internet has rendered them obsolete. If people do not obey ordinary laws when using computers or the Internet, Congress will come up with new, stricter ones, like the DMCA.
Now, I do agree that having companies release materials of better quality than pirated files would be the most effective way to stop pirating of that data. However, that doesn't solve the basic problem; as I stated in my earlier comment, the problem is that people don't see anything wrong with piracy; witness the Napster/Gnutella crowd, among others. And while I think the copyright law could use a bunch of fixes--restoring the original 14-year copyright period, for one--I don't think eliminating copyright is the solution, especially given the greediness of corporate America.
That is also, by the way, (probably) why the courts are siding with the companies; for better or for worse, the companies have the law on their side. And while a number of good questions on the DMCA were raised in the DeCSS case (which I am expecting will get better consideration on appeal), I personally think Napster deserves to lose--they started it for the purpose of piracy, for crying out loud.
>This should make university computer labs interesting, especially for people writing code.
Obviously it will be nearly impossible to write code without using a keyboard, but most computer users are not
writing code: They're sending e-mails, writing papers and looking up information on the Web. With suitably
advanced software (10 years is a long time, and in many areas we're already there), this can all be done vocally,
but there will always be need for a keyboard.
My point was more along the lines of "Can you imagine trying to think about anything, especially code, in a big room where everyone is busy talking to their computer?" i.e. the noise aspect. I could actually see writing code via voice, especially if you're using higher-level languages with less bizarre syntax--which would likely start being developed once voice recognition became mainstream.
Heck, you could even write C code with voice, if you had a clever enough interpreter:
"For I equals zero, array of I dot name not NULL, I plus plus, do printf percent dash twenty-five S space slash slash space percent seven D endstring comma array of I dot name comma lookup of array of I dot value, endblock."
Okay, I take that back... I'd rather do C with a keyboard. (-:
Let's take a little look at this proposed computer of 2010:
SECURITY
The PC will be protected from theft, thanks to an advanced biometric scanner that can recognize your fingerprint.
Now all they need is biometric scanners on screwdrivers too.
INTERFACE
You'll communicate with the PC primarily with your voice...
This should make university computer labs interesting, especially for people writing code. And how about when your friend Bob pops into your office to say hello:
... therefore propose that in order to cut the cost of this project by 35%, all managers oh hi, Bob, what's up? Oh, not much, the usual. Find any new porn sites lately? Yeah, check out www.example.com. Cool, thanks. Anyway, all managers should...
The Desktop as Desk Top
In 2010, a "desktop" will be a desk top... You won't need a keyboard because files can be opened and closed simply by touching and dragging with your finger.
Be careful when drumming your fingers.
Your Home
The PC of 2010 plugs into your home so your house becomes a smart operating system.
"Open the refrigerator door, HAL." "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
Microsoft today announced that they have released an update to their armed robotic guard system, Microsoft Patrol, used in many banks, offices, and other locations where security is needed. This update comes on the heels of a string of incidents over the past three days in which these dog-like guards have run up to and "grabbed" innocent people with their forelegs. One bank has already reported receiving a claim for $100 million from a customer who was hit in the crotch by the shoulder-mounted gun on one robot as it ran up to him making "whining dog-like sounds." The gun did not fire, fortunately, but the victim, visibly shaken, said that the he "could never, ever consider a machine like that `cute.'"
The reason for this sudden string of malfunctions is as yet undetermined, according to Microsoft. However, a security expert who spoke on condition of anonymity said that a computer program to cause the robots to malfunction had been created several weeks ago by hackers. Normally, unauthorized people should be unable to control the robots, but an error in the software built into the robots could have allowed the hackers to copy their rogue program over the Internet and into the "minds" of the robots, said the expert.
When asked about this statement, Microsoft said that "we have not located any errors in our software, but there is the possibility that a feature designed to allow owners of the Patrol to control it more easily may be misused by others to cause undesirable behavior. We have no conclusive evidence that this feature is related to the recent incidents, but we are proactively providing this update to all users to ensure that the Patrol will continue to function at the exacting standards demanded by the community." Microsoft also noted that the update could make controlling the robots more complex, but that the update's functionality could be switched off to revert to the current, easy-to-use control interface.
Microsoft's stock price, which has suffered heavy blows from the recent incidents, rose 26 1/2 on the announcement to 367 1/4.
(Note: This stems out of a reply I wrote to another comment; read it for my more detailed view.)
Although you focused largely on the DMCA and the First Amendment in your defense, the issue the plaintiffs seem to be focusing on--and an issue which seemed important to Judge Kaplan as well, from reading his decision--is that of illegal copying. Although no examples of DVD distribution may have yet been found, it is undeniable that similar distribution of music and software (see e.g. Sega taking down ROM sites), at the least, is taking place throughout the Internet, and I honestly can't help but agree with the judge's opinion that "plaintiffs overwhelmingly have established a clear threat of injury by reason of defendants' violation of the statute."
Taking the DMCA to be unconstitutional at least in relevant part, how would you propose to prevent copyrighted works from being illegally distributed over the Internet? What kind of law could protect the interests of both copyright holders and the public and also be reasonably enforceable? Is such a law even possible without a basic change in the structure of the Internet itself?
Imagine not being able to make an MP3 from your CD's...
Imagine not being able to make a ZIP from your books... would you miss anything?
Okay, that was probably out of line, and I do agree with the point about mixing a tape. But on the industry side of things, I can also understand the reason, or at least a reason, for the ever-increasing protections on content: Piracy.
Whether you think information should be free (as in either speech or beer) or not, the fact that the Internet, and BBS's before them, have radically increased the ease with which information can be copied and published. Book publishers didn't need to copy-protect their books because no one else could copy them without a printing press. Cassette tapes could be copied, but if you tried to distribute copies on a wide scale they could catch you easily. But with the advent of the Internet and MP3, CDs have become an easy target for mass copying and distribution.
And, critically, people are doing it. Witness Napster or Gnutella, for example. No matter what the rationale may be, no matter what the effect on sales may be, public distribution of music (or any content) without the creator's permission is against the law. IANAL, but I suspect that if the RIAA wanted to, they could successfully sue each and every person who has offered copyrighted music through Napster (or other means) without permission. Of course, if they did that they might get shunned by the public, which would do even worse things to their bottom line, so what the movie studios (in this case) have chosen to do instead is add barriers to copying and distribution. Notice how they have been careful enough to avoid hindering normal playback in 99.9% of cases, and, according to what I have heard, even copying is possible using analog signals. They're not going after the average consumer, they're going after the pirate.
That said, I am in no way a fan of the DMCA, and I think 2600 has a very valid point in that the circumvention section is overbroad. But at the same time, I can fully understand why big business and Congress members claim it is necessary: The Internet looks for all intents and purposes as though it is trying to establish itself as a law-free zone--particularly when one considers the nonchalance with which users copy files these days. (Could you honestly have expected the judge to believe that just because no particular examples of copying had been found that copying would never occur?) Granted, there are many problems with international communications and differing laws between countries that remain to be solved, but I don't think we're going to be free of either the DMCA and its ilk or overprotective anti-copying schemes until Internet users learn to respect the law again.
It's being
tested - the plan is to destroy debris between one to ten
centimeters in length.
I guess the astronauts had better be careful working outside, then:
Astronaut: "Now where did that chip go..." (puts chip aside, pulls out schematic) Laser broom: *ZAP*
Astronaut: "Okay, here we... huh?... HEY! That was the new CPU for the ISS main computer! Give it back!"
Hm, this might also put an effective end to the thumbs-up sign...
Slashdot Mirror
Then why am I having to jump through hoops to get Descent 3 running on my machine?
What I was referring to was kernel support, not libraries--that's also why I said Linux only "just recently" got support for graphics, although SVGAlib has been around for much longer. You can make or (probably) find libraries for just about anything, I'll grant you, but that's just one more layer of complexity, one more thing that can go wrong when the end-user tries to play the game. And then, of course, you start running into the same problems Windows has with mismatched/incompatible versions of libraries...
--
BACKNEXTFINISHCANCEL
When you use a proxy, the proxy looks up the host name you give in the URL and connects to that IP, so adding a hosts entry on your local box won't do a thing.
On the other hand, it looks like just sticking the IP address in the URL will work:
http://208.48.26.223/2000/11/27/technology/27NET.h tml
(Foo to Slashdot for inserting random spaces--but the link itself works.)
--
BACKNEXTFINISHCANCEL
The software has an EULA (End User License Agreement). The EULA is agreed to before the software is used. The License Agreement specifically states that all information entered into the software becomes the Intellectual Property of the software author.
Not in my version of Word (Microsoft Word 97 Japanese), unless I'm overlooking it. Though I will agree that this scenario is definitely conceivable, and disturbing.
But you don't even need to go that far; the software company can argue that the intellectual property being violated is not that of the person who created the document, but that of the person (company) who created the file format. It's sort of like having an encryption routine where the routine is itself encrypted--in this case, the routine (file saving) is "encrypted" by being stored in the program, which of course you aren't allowed to reverse-engineer, disassemble, or anything like that. By creating a routine of your own which manipulates files in this format, you have effectively circumvented the "protection" applied to the original routine.
Now, I can't really imagine any sane judge accepting that argument as is, but you know what they say about an infinite number of Microsoft lawyers and an infinite number of typewriters...
--
BACKNEXTFINISHCANCEL
The "open" angle of the Indrema is something that is being overhyped. Open is good, yes, but consider how few decent games have been developed for Linux.
Have you ever tried developing a game on Linux? Between the lack of consistent hardware support and the nearly infinite number of hardware setups around, it's next to impossible. It's only just recently (kernel 2.2) that Linux even started to support graphics at all--up until then it was "hack the hardware, and hope the user has the same hardware you do"--and there still is not more than minimal support for joysticks (I have to give insmod parameters for my joystick every time I load the module), no support at all for 3D graphics, no way to get consistent timing (unless you write a kernel module to hook an interrupt, which brings in a host of security problems).
Then, of course, there are the classic PC problems, such as gazillions of video cards (many of which lack Linux support), flimsy sound hardware (hello software mixing--even the Amiga 1000 in 1985 was better), etc. I have enough trouble just moving my game-in-progress between my desktop (direct hardware support via SVGAlib, VESA doesn't work) and my laptop (VESA support via SVGAlib, no direct hardware support).
In fact, though the Indrema has me excited, I was very disturbed to read that they're planning a "line" of Indrema systems and going to allow upgrading of the video card--unless they have awfully good QC on just what hardware they release, they're just going to duplicate the failures of the PC all over again.
--
BACKNEXTFINISHCANCEL
You should try riding on just about any line in downtown Tokyo during rush hour. Yes, you can get from one end to the other in 20 minutes or so, but the railways offer no guarantees on how squished you come out the other end.
I'm just glad my commute is in the opposite direction.
But really, think about it. How many different behaviors is a single ant capable of? Couldn't you program a robot that relatively small number of behaviors?
That's a very good question, actually. Just how many behaviors is an ant capable of? Simplistically, one could say "eat, sleep, walk, lift, carry..." and enumerate a dozen or so. But that doesn't consider the many different environments that these actions take place in--for example, the essentially infinite number of combinations of grains of sand or dirt that make up an anthill. One of the greatest problems in the field of AI (at least as I last heard; experts out there, feel free to correct me) is environment recognition: in this case, the ability to determine that pile-of-dirt-A, pile-of-dirt-B, and pile-of-dirt-C are all anthills even though they have completely different shapes, colors, and surroundings. More generally, this includes image recognition, sound recognition, and just about everything humans do day in and day out. With current technology, the best we can do is get most things right most of the time (just ask any censorware maker about this), and that's not likely to change without some breakthrough in processing methodology.
On top of that, there's a monumental difference between ants and humans in terms of intelligence, or "range of behavior" if you prefer to put it that way. The ZDnet article suggested that a 100,000-fold increase in computing power would be able to overcome that, but even assuming computing power == intelligence, I suspect that that's wildly underestimating the actual difference.
I suspect it will be much longer than 50 years before we see humanoid robots that are behaviorally indistinguishable from humans in all situations ("Turing robots"?). On the other hand, as software improves and is able to handle more situations more of the time, I think we will definitely see automated systems, including robots, become more commonplace.
--
BACKNEXTFINISHCANCEL
... the M$ antitrust lawsuit or the election?
--
BACKNEXTFINISHCANCEL
If that's the case, then why do people even bother to cram the night before an exam by staying up late trying to memorize? According to this they're just wasting their time!
Actually, that's what I always found. I never heard of any of these sleeplessness studies, but I always found I felt more comfortable taking the test if I got plenty of sleep the previous night.
There was actually one test in high school I particularly remember, which I decided to stay up late and study for because everyone said it was a tough test. Well, I went in the next day, and proceeded to make an incredible number of stupid mistakes, so I took that as a lesson that sleep is a Good Thing (tm).
Now if only I could successfully apply that to my work life...
Have you ever tried pronouncing a domain name in Japanese? Since there are multiple ways to spell the same Japanese word in Roman characters (depending on the romanization system you use), you generally have to spell them out character by character. And Roman characters are hard to pronounce in Japanese; I've heard commercials where they take 5-10 seconds just to say the domain name of a website.
Now, I don't know the exact reason support for CJK domain names was thought up, but I can tell you there's quite a bit of interest in Japan (at least) about it. So don't go putting it down just because you don't find it useful.
Not if the author is the only coder/whatever it is he/she does present. The moment there are other people working on the same project, some time scheduling at least might benefit the amount of communication between the different employees.
This is one of the problems I can see--in fact, am seeing--with flex time. I typically arrive at work at around 7:00am to get some real work (I mainly do program design/coding) done before the office gets noisy, but there are times when I hit a snag or a bit of vagueness in the specs that I need to check with someone else in the group, and I can't proceed on that tack until the person in question comes in.
We do have core time (10am-3pm), incidentally, so I know that I will be able to get the problem solved in a reasonable amount of time; but a friend in another department commented that with the amount of contact they have with other companies there, they have no choice but to keep to the same schedule other places keep--hence shift time.
I have a feeling this will come out as more of a "how not to do things" than any sort of real useful information, but here goes...
Way back in December 1994, I got myself a shiny new 14.4k modem, and leveraged sysop privileges at my high school (I was a senior at the time) to get a dedicated IP on the school's dialup server. I set up a little anonymous FTP site with a number of music samples--this was back in the days when 22k stereo was a luxury--and MOD files, and let 'er rip, so to speak. Well, word spread, and that good old 14.4k modem got a whole bunch of exercise.
In late August 1995 I started university, and took advantage of the Ethernet connection there to keep the FTP service going--although with the change of address some of the traffic obviously dropped off. It was at this point that an acquaintance came to me and asked if I could host his home page on my computer, since it was getting too big for his ISP's likes. I said sure, no problem, and wrote myself a little HTTP daemon (I was using an Amiga at the time) to do the job. So far, so good.
Later that same month, someone I didn't know sent me a message asking if I could host their page, too. I was feeling magnanimous, and said sure, why not. As a few more such requests came in and my Amiga started floundering under the load, I decided to get a Linux box instead--and put up a little page saying "Free accounts here, just send mail." That was my mistake. <weak grin>
Boy, did they ever come. I had something around 500 users when I had to take my system home for the summer the following May. I proceeded to get an ISDN line installed at home--this is all coming out of my pocket, remember--and served through that for the summer, though the bandwidth wasn't even close to sufficient and the line was a whole month late in coming in. (Thank you, Bell Atlantic.)
When I finally got the system back to school, the account request floodgates opened, and when I finally cut off new accounts in December--the university's datacomm department gave me a friendly little call saying "your bandwidth use is just a bit high"--I had 5000 users and was serving close to 2Mbps consistently. I also had to do a number of server upgrades in there, and even so server response times were dismal. And on top of all that, I have to deal with user mail as well (though I did have some on-and-off volunteer help on that front).
This is still all coming out of my pocket, and now the school's mad at me too, so I figure the only option left is to go commercial. So I talked around to service providers I knew, ran a bunch of numbers, and eventually set the price at $25/year. I sent out mail to all the users and set the payment deadline for April. Naturally a bunch of users left, but about 350 remained, which was more or less in line with my projections.
So Dragonfire Internet Services, as I had named it some time earlier, turned into a commercial operation, and things were once again happy. The only catch, of course, was that if the server needed physical maintenance I had to haul myself down to the colo center--which happened a number of times over the years I ran Dragonfire, and itself was a moderate pain in the pocket.
Well, things were all fine and dandy until my colo provider tripled (yes, tripled) my connectivity cost. I argued and argued, but lost in the end, and in order to not lose money, I had to raise prices. And to make things worse, whether from simple load or some other problem, server response was dropping off again, making people even less happy. But most of them were still willing to keep their accounts at $40/year (a fact for which I'm grateful). I seem to
In October of 1998, I applied to, and was accepted to, an overseas internship program with a Japanese software company (the same company I work for now, as a matter of fact). Between that and the fact that Dragonfire still wasn't behaving well, much less making any significant amount of money, I decided to just transfer it to an acquaintance of mine who at least claimed to have experience and interest in running a provider (though I've long since come to doubt that from the reports I hear).
Ironically, Dragonfire finally stabilized shortly after that, and set a record by staying up for the whole month of December until it moved to its new location. But since I knew I wouldn't be able to do anything with it from Japan anyway, I just transitioned myself out and let things go. Which was not easy, I have to admit; however many problems the service had, it was something I'd "raised," so to speak. But anyway, I left Dragonfire in other hands and went my own way.
(And I'm still several thousand bucks in the hole.)
So, here's what that experience left with me, aside from a bunch of knowledge about how to run servers:
Dunno if that was any help or not, but there you go.
of course, you can read what I've written, and know that this is a horrible idea, but in the past 100 years, the english language(s) has metamorphed into so many different dialects that we may even put the chinese to shame. we have our share of slang and coloquialisms (sp?) too, and because the computer doesn't understand them, we are stupid for using them.
I agree with you completely. English is an entirely too irregular language to be used for global communication. Especially this horrible spelling system. Who else remembers learning "I before E, except after C..." in their school days and wondering why it had to be so confusing?
Well, we can du something abaut that. First off, let's meke sum sense aut uf thu vawels; no more uf this "I before E" crap, just plein Latun and short vawels. And wi can toss aut thos silli treiling E's whail wi'r at it.
Thu cansonants also niid tuu bi cliind up. No mor "GIF or JIF?" argyuments--wun saund pur kansonant hiir. And wi kan teik keir uv TH, SH and CH bai riuzing q, x, and c.
But qu vaulz ar stil kunfyuzing, so let's get rid uv kapitulizeixun. nau wi kAn yuz kApItUl lEtUrz for xOrt vaulz. And wi kAn also yuz kApItUlz for kansonants: N for "ng", Q for "qis" or "qat" (As apozd tu "qiN").
fainali, wi hAv klind ap QU spElIN Uv INglIx! nau If wi kAn onli gEt rId Uv al Qoz IdiUmz...
o, And dUz EniwUn no hau tu pronauns "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"? ai nEvr fIgyurd Qat wUn aut.
(Translation: Oh, and does anyone know how to pronounce "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"? I never figured that one out.)
I suppose we've already established this, but I have to put in my plug for the greatest educational institution I've ever attended: Thomas Jefferson High School for Science & Technology (www.tjhsst.edu). I graduated in '96, but they've owned tjhsst.edu since before I started (and before the Web, too). As far as I know, though, this is the only high school with a .edu domain.
Not the only one; my alma mater, Montgomery Blair High School (mbhs.edu) (ah, old rivalries...) has one as well, and has had it since before I started there in fall 1991. Maybe InterNIC was more lax in the olden days?
You never say "Johnny are going to the store", do you?
Okay, I'll bite...
Johnny is a person. Intel is a company. In some dialects of English, companies are referred to in the plural. It's no worse than the trend to use "they" as a generic third-person singular: "If someone steals my s33kr1t DivX movie collection I'll send my flying aardvarks after them!"
You forget that ancient machines are not the only places 386's and 486's appear. Embedded systems generally don't need a heap of processing power, so you can get things done cheaper (and cooler) with a 386- or 486-level chip.
To take your points one by one:
1. Earlier platforms generally had no CD-ROM. Most Linux distros . . . come on CD-ROMs.
1. You install at the factory onto ROM/flash/whatever. No need for a distribution's install CD.
2. Earlier machines usually had a 5 1/4" floppy disk . . .
2. See above.
3. Earlier machines had RAM limitations . . .
3. So what? Even without limiting oneself to embedded systems, there's no real need for huge amounts of RAM besides the RAM companies saying "BUY MORE RAM". I ran Linux on a 386 with 8MB at a summer job a few years back with little trouble, and that only in the setup. (On the other hand, it would be nice to see a libc that wasn't as bloated as glibc...)
4. Some earlier machines had fscked BIOSes, aside from Y2K-unfriendly BIOSes.
4. Repeat after me: Linux does not use the BIOS. The BIOS is only used at boot time (and by DOS). And as far as embedded systems go, you can use a modern BIOS that works, or just write something simple that starts up Linux on your box. After all, embedded systems don't need to worry about being general.
5. Earlier machines had ISA, EISA, etc.
5. Modern embedded systems probably use PCI if they need anything at all.
6. Earlier network cards are not all supported . . .
6. Modern embedded systems can use supported hardware.
I used to run a Web provider service (on my own) during my university years, and this was probably my biggest constant worry, aside from "will I get enough money this month". In fact, I got threats of legal action (generally on the basis of copyright violation) probably once every couple of months once the service started getting users.
At first I would go "oh shit" when one of these came, but I took a clue from other ISPs' policies and took the stance of "I will do nothing without concrete evidence or a court order." What I found was that in nearly all of the cases, the threatener backed down without sending another message--or they may have contacted the relevant users directly, but at least they left me alone. I did have one case with Fraunhofer IIS and a user's MP3 software, but they became cooperative after I informed them of my stance (in that case, I told the user about the alleged problem and he removed the file before I finished confirming the claim); another time, a user uploaded a tool to break into AOL accounts, and I zapped that (and the user's account) as soon as AOL sent me a nastygram about it. Other than those couple of cases, though, I didn't have any real trouble to speak of; I never once received any "official" C&D's or other legal notices.
I guess what it boils down to is that if you (1) stay within the law, (2) show that you're willing to defend yourself to that extent, and (3) show a willingness to cooperate when real problems arise, most people will leave you alone. Even companies aren't stupid enough to fight battles they can't get anything out of; it's only in cases like Microsoft stealing people's ideas (e.g. Stacker--does anyone remember that? It's what became MS's Doublespace compression technology, or whatever it's called), where the company can get something by running the other party into the ground, where they'll fight a losing battle.
Of course, if you do skirt the boundaries of legality--like DeCSS and friends--you'd better be prepared to face the consequences. I should note explicitly that a large number of things involving free speech fall into this category; if your argument is "blah-blah is technically illegal but free speech makes it okay," then you're setting yourself up for a lawsuit somewhere, and you should be prepared for that.
Something that seems to have been lost in all the free-speech drivel^H^H^H^H^H^Harguments is that university networks are, first and foremost, intended for academic use. Now it's true, of course, that most universities have more bandwidth than most academic use needs, so universities generally let students use the remaining bandwidth as they like. However, when non-academic use (e.g. Napster) takes up so many resources as to impair academic use, then the univeristy has the (at least moral) duty to restrict that use. If Napster is taking up as much bandwidth as some other people have suggested, then universities should be doing something about it--whether shutting it down entirely, rate-limiting it, or whatever--even without any threats from Metallica.
I attended Carnegie Mellon University through May 1999. Their Computing Code of Ethics states explicitly that "[u]niversity resources are provided for university purposes", and the residence hall network guidelines add that
As a matter of fact, a free (non-commercial) web-hosting service I ran off the dorm network while I was a student there got me a couple of "friendly notices" from the network admins about bandwidth use, and I eventually had to move it offsite. I found this perfectly reasonable, since it wasn't university-related traffic, after all.
Copyright arguments aside, what university-related purpose does Napster serve that it doesn't deserve the same treatment?
(Disclaimer: I do support free speech, I just don't think Napster qualifies. Find an alternative that doesn't have "piracy" in its mission statement and I'd be happier.)
Namco licenses Pac-Man(R) from Hasbro.
BZZZT! Wrong answer, thank you for playing.
Pac-Man was originally created by the Japanese company Namco and released on October 10, 1979. (I happened to be at the 20th-anniversary celebration at last year's autumn Tokyo Game Show, where the game's creator honored the guy that got the "perfect" score earlier in the year). The game was in fact initially released as "Puck-Man", alluding to the Japanese sound-word "puck-puck" imitating a mouth opening and closing, but was later changed to "Pac-Man"--maybe it was too easy to change the "P" of "Puck" to an "F"?
At any rate, Atari icensed Pac-Man from Namco, and Atari was later bought out by Hasbro, or something like that; ultimately, Hasbro now has what I assume are the rights to distribute Pac-Man in the U.S. However, Hasbro does not own Pac-Man--they only have the rights to distribute it.
<wishful-thinking>Presumably Namco could pull those rights if they didn't like what Hasbro was doing... </wishful-thinking>
In the end, the Internet is a "law-free" zone.
Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make. The Internet as it exists now is "law-free", and if you think Congress (or its equivalent in other countries) will let it stay that way--even if that way is best--I think you may be setting yourself up for a big disappointment. Remember that Congress's sole purpose for existence is to pass laws; I find it extremely unlikely that they will meekly admit that the Internet has rendered them obsolete. If people do not obey ordinary laws when using computers or the Internet, Congress will come up with new, stricter ones, like the DMCA.
Now, I do agree that having companies release materials of better quality than pirated files would be the most effective way to stop pirating of that data. However, that doesn't solve the basic problem; as I stated in my earlier comment, the problem is that people don't see anything wrong with piracy; witness the Napster/Gnutella crowd, among others. And while I think the copyright law could use a bunch of fixes--restoring the original 14-year copyright period, for one--I don't think eliminating copyright is the solution, especially given the greediness of corporate America.
That is also, by the way, (probably) why the courts are siding with the companies; for better or for worse, the companies have the law on their side. And while a number of good questions on the DMCA were raised in the DeCSS case (which I am expecting will get better consideration on appeal), I personally think Napster deserves to lose--they started it for the purpose of piracy, for crying out loud.
IMHO.
>This should make university computer labs interesting, especially for people writing code.
Obviously it will be nearly impossible to write code without using a keyboard, but most computer users are not writing code: They're sending e-mails, writing papers and looking up information on the Web. With suitably advanced software (10 years is a long time, and in many areas we're already there), this can all be done vocally, but there will always be need for a keyboard.
My point was more along the lines of "Can you imagine trying to think about anything, especially code, in a big room where everyone is busy talking to their computer?" i.e. the noise aspect. I could actually see writing code via voice, especially if you're using higher-level languages with less bizarre syntax--which would likely start being developed once voice recognition became mainstream.
Heck, you could even write C code with voice, if you had a clever enough interpreter:
Okay, I take that back... I'd rather do C with a keyboard. (-:
Let's take a little look at this proposed computer of 2010:
SECURITY
The PC will be protected from theft, thanks to an advanced biometric scanner that can recognize your fingerprint.
Now all they need is biometric scanners on screwdrivers too.
INTERFACE
You'll communicate with the PC primarily with your voice...
This should make university computer labs interesting, especially for people writing code. And how about when your friend Bob pops into your office to say hello:
The Desktop as Desk Top
In 2010, a "desktop" will be a desk top ... You won't need a keyboard because files can be opened and closed simply by touching and dragging with your finger.
Be careful when drumming your fingers.
Your Home
The PC of 2010 plugs into your home so your house becomes a smart operating system.
"Open the refrigerator door, HAL." "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
Microsoft today announced that they have released an update to their armed robotic guard system, Microsoft Patrol, used in many banks, offices, and other locations where security is needed. This update comes on the heels of a string of incidents over the past three days in which these dog-like guards have run up to and "grabbed" innocent people with their forelegs. One bank has already reported receiving a claim for $100 million from a customer who was hit in the crotch by the shoulder-mounted gun on one robot as it ran up to him making "whining dog-like sounds." The gun did not fire, fortunately, but the victim, visibly shaken, said that the he "could never, ever consider a machine like that `cute.'"
The reason for this sudden string of malfunctions is as yet undetermined, according to Microsoft. However, a security expert who spoke on condition of anonymity said that a computer program to cause the robots to malfunction had been created several weeks ago by hackers. Normally, unauthorized people should be unable to control the robots, but an error in the software built into the robots could have allowed the hackers to copy their rogue program over the Internet and into the "minds" of the robots, said the expert.
When asked about this statement, Microsoft said that "we have not located any errors in our software, but there is the possibility that a feature designed to allow owners of the Patrol to control it more easily may be misused by others to cause undesirable behavior. We have no conclusive evidence that this feature is related to the recent incidents, but we are proactively providing this update to all users to ensure that the Patrol will continue to function at the exacting standards demanded by the community." Microsoft also noted that the update could make controlling the robots more complex, but that the update's functionality could be switched off to revert to the current, easy-to-use control interface.
Microsoft's stock price, which has suffered heavy blows from the recent incidents, rose 26 1/2 on the announcement to 367 1/4.
(Note: This stems out of a reply I wrote to another comment; read it for my more detailed view.)
Although you focused largely on the DMCA and the First Amendment in your defense, the issue the plaintiffs seem to be focusing on--and an issue which seemed important to Judge Kaplan as well, from reading his decision--is that of illegal copying. Although no examples of DVD distribution may have yet been found, it is undeniable that similar distribution of music and software (see e.g. Sega taking down ROM sites), at the least, is taking place throughout the Internet, and I honestly can't help but agree with the judge's opinion that "plaintiffs overwhelmingly have established a clear threat of injury by reason of defendants' violation of the statute."
Taking the DMCA to be unconstitutional at least in relevant part, how would you propose to prevent copyrighted works from being illegally distributed over the Internet? What kind of law could protect the interests of both copyright holders and the public and also be reasonably enforceable? Is such a law even possible without a basic change in the structure of the Internet itself?
Imagine not being able to make an MP3 from your CD's...
Imagine not being able to make a ZIP from your books... would you miss anything?
Okay, that was probably out of line, and I do agree with the point about mixing a tape. But on the industry side of things, I can also understand the reason, or at least a reason, for the ever-increasing protections on content: Piracy.
Whether you think information should be free (as in either speech or beer) or not, the fact that the Internet, and BBS's before them, have radically increased the ease with which information can be copied and published. Book publishers didn't need to copy-protect their books because no one else could copy them without a printing press. Cassette tapes could be copied, but if you tried to distribute copies on a wide scale they could catch you easily. But with the advent of the Internet and MP3, CDs have become an easy target for mass copying and distribution.
And, critically, people are doing it. Witness Napster or Gnutella, for example. No matter what the rationale may be, no matter what the effect on sales may be, public distribution of music (or any content) without the creator's permission is against the law. IANAL, but I suspect that if the RIAA wanted to, they could successfully sue each and every person who has offered copyrighted music through Napster (or other means) without permission. Of course, if they did that they might get shunned by the public, which would do even worse things to their bottom line, so what the movie studios (in this case) have chosen to do instead is add barriers to copying and distribution. Notice how they have been careful enough to avoid hindering normal playback in 99.9% of cases, and, according to what I have heard, even copying is possible using analog signals. They're not going after the average consumer, they're going after the pirate.
That said, I am in no way a fan of the DMCA, and I think 2600 has a very valid point in that the circumvention section is overbroad. But at the same time, I can fully understand why big business and Congress members claim it is necessary: The Internet looks for all intents and purposes as though it is trying to establish itself as a law-free zone--particularly when one considers the nonchalance with which users copy files these days. (Could you honestly have expected the judge to believe that just because no particular examples of copying had been found that copying would never occur?) Granted, there are many problems with international communications and differing laws between countries that remain to be solved, but I don't think we're going to be free of either the DMCA and its ilk or overprotective anti-copying schemes until Internet users learn to respect the law again.
It's being tested - the plan is to destroy debris between one to ten centimeters in length.
I guess the astronauts had better be careful working outside, then:
Astronaut: "Now where did that chip go..." (puts chip aside, pulls out schematic) ... HEY! That was the new CPU for the ISS main computer! Give it back!"
Laser broom: *ZAP*
Astronaut: "Okay, here we... huh?
Hm, this might also put an effective end to the thumbs-up sign...