Oh, stop gloating... there are many of us sitting here, wasting our corporations' valuable time and bandwidth surfing Slashdot, who don't have the freaking option to install or use anything other than IE.
I mean, seriously, are you suggesting that we actually get work done and do our surfing at home? Please!
That's fine rhetoric; unfortunately it is inconsistent.
If you want to talk about unlawful taking as being the definition of stealing, you need to also accept that those legal definitions of stealing in no way apply to intellectual property. Legally, you cannot "take" intellectual property; you can merely infringe on someone's intellectual property rights. It's a completely separate body of law with very different sources and definitions, and that's one reason it gets up everyone's nose here when people refer to it as 'stealing'. Until everyone understands the differences--and they are profound--it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation about why it is wrong and what should be done about it.
If you want to forget about legal definitions and stick strictly with moralistic ones, that's fine too, but you still then have the problem that deprivation is really the moral basis against stealing.
You need to reconcile your approach to one of those two points of view, IMHO, or there is not much basis for the argument.
You can knock off twenty delivery missions in an hour. The shuttle system is easy to use with a max of ten minute wait to get anywhere on the planet. Experience... well, depends on which skill lines you are talking about there. I think most combat oriented players can move up their first skill boxes in an hour as well, though, which doesn't seem too shabby to me (being more of a crafter type, which takes a lot longer).
That's true for passenger jets (and one of the reasons that all the new passenger 'security measures' are such a joke) but, as I'm sure the bad guys have figured out, the next soft targets are commercial cargo jets. Just as large as the passenger versions, and much fewer people to overpower. It remains an exercise to figure out how to get aboard one for takeoff, but there is little doubt in my mind that it would be possible.
The SAM ring I doubt would be effective enough to stop one of these in time.
So, there is definitely a benefit to a solution of this sort, although personally I think this is not a good one.
(In memory of my grandfather, whose face I will always see whenever I smell the smell of bread heated to the point of combustion, as I would wake to those fumes wafting through the house every summer I stayed with him in my youth)
In this case, the first remedy is provided by the potential violator...
Yes, but it places the burden in the wrong place and so is not likely to be considered an adequate remedy by the courts. More properly, the violator should be seeking permission prior to re-distributing the content, rather than essentially saying to the copyright holder "Stop me before I copy again!"
I'm not sure I think that caching sites should be subject to traditional copyright law--it has some nasty implications for anyone who cuts traffic loads using a proxy server (insert humorous image of AOL Time Warner suing themselves for caching their own content)and really strikes me as yet another area where technology outstrips law, but if they are subject to it, their chosen remedy isn't likely to hold much water.
That's interesting... I'd been looking for something that I could stream video through as well. My big stumbling block so far is that nothing I've found seems to bring across good quality surround sound with the video... seems like this has the same problem. It also looks like it requires a Windows box if you want to use the Xstream server software, so tack a license for that onto the costs. Still, I'll definitely be keeping an eye on it to see how it goes, as there is a lot of potential there.
I think the SliMP3 is still the better solution for audio only--cheaper, less bulk, less hassle to set up, and just as upgradeable--but that's often the nature of specialized versus generalized solutions, so it's really apples and oranges.
Yeah, you may be able to hack something together with a single PC and multiple sound cards in a few months of Sundays. But you could also just buy, off-the-shelf, as many of these dandy little things as you need. A single server can service as many of them as you'd care to stack up. They would be easy to add on as you require them, without having to run any speaker cable at all--a wireless bridge or a single CAT5 run works peachy. DHCP enabled, supports multiple server OSs (mine is off my Debian box but they have Windows or Mac installers as well), wireless remote, Web, or command line interfaces all supported.
I've only got one, but it works awesome and if I ever decide I want to put a different sound system into another room, I can just buy another module and hook it up to the same server--instant access to all the MP3s and playlists that I've already created. The sound quality is great and it take hardly any resources, either server-side or network. I highly recommend it.
I have to second this. No time I have ever called MS for support have they come up with anything that either we didn't come up with ourselves or that was already listed in Knowledge Base. MS discontinuing 'support' is a joke. For 99% of us, we have exactly the same degree of support we've always had--KB and Usenet.
To me, the only thing that NT4 going EOL means is no more hotfixes, but then, it's been around long enough that most of the truly nasty problems have already been solved.
Yes, which was the first guy's point. Although I think people tend to under-rate the power of public opinion as a motivating influence for legislators--usually when public opinion isn't quite what those people think it should be, as is probably the case in this instance. With general exceptions at the high and low ends of the spectrum of elected office, money will tend to decide elections only in the absence of other strong factors.
This issue simply isn't a strong enough factor--yet.
Well, that's just the point, isn't it? You are forced to walk into some music shop someplace to get this stuff, because the RIAA controls the distribution mechanisms. That is what 'forces' artists into those contracts--that's why the RIAA hates on-line distribution so much and tries so hard to crush it without providing acceptable alternatives. The reason we're not there yet is exactly because it would provide an excellent means for artists to distribute their goods without the RIAA, and to keep a much larger cut of the profits.
What I was suggesting is that the professional artists who are supporting the RIAA are either mis-informed or rather dim-witted. The RIAA's vision of the future keeps that cut at 12 percent; the alternative is of huge benefit to both musicians and consumers, for the same reason that eliminating the middleman is always to their benefit, in that the producer receives more and is able to provide it to the consumer at less cost.
Is it because they are just thrilled at their twelve percent share out of every hard-earned dollar that their RIAA contract generously allows them to keep?
Well, it's actually not a horrible argument, though. If substantial amounts of people are driven to do something irrespective of laws passed regarding that thing, then is it a good law in the first place?
Keep in mind that there are two generally accepted sources of law, those generated by behavior that is inherently criminal, and those generated for other societal reasons (check here for the definitions of mala in se and mala prohibita) and that we're talking about the second kind when we are talking about copyright law. Clearly, a large chunk (I don't know if it's a majority or not) of society doesn't agree with the law on the books. So, by that reasoning, maybe it should not be a law, Congress just hasn't caught up with society yet.
But I think the reasoning of the person you were replying to is not so much that, but that many of the violators are violators only because they lack the resources to buy legislators. Given a level playing field in monetary terms, the RIAA would lose out in a heartbeat, which does offer a whiff of moral justification to the traders.
Is that the current one, or the proposed one? We're discussing the one currently being proposed, and if that is the main requirement, then the article linked above is wildly off-base.
Frankly, I like that it allows both. After all, it effects both, doesn't it? It may waste my time, but it takes up bandwidth and diskspace for the ISP. They should probably be allowed some remedy as well. Not to mention that an ISP probably has both more resources and a better idea how to go about pursuing a legal solution than the average end-user. The more people that can sue spammers, the better, no?
But really, that wasn't what I was thinking of originally--I like Washington's law because it is less restrictive; as long as a piece of e-mail is clearly labeled and meets other requirements, it's not in violation. This will allow through some spam that California's law doesn't, sure--but it also means that if I want to individually (not en masse, mind you) cold-email a prospective client on a web design project, I don't have to worry about getting sued.
I don't know that it's that amazing. You can put it off to the usual M$ perfidy if you like, but there are a lot of people who don't like spam who also don't want to see e-mail legislated into the ground by elected officials who don't really know what they are dealing with. I am not familiar with the specifics of the California bill, but it sounds from the link you posted as though it could put a cork in a lot of legitimate e-mail, too. I like the Washington law better, the one that Microsoft is suing under.
Well, but it is the fault of the criminals. It's very sad that most of us live in societies where your point seems to implicitly make some sort of sense, but no one should lose sight of the fact that there is really no one to blame for this but the instigator. Because another parallel that works, unfortunately, is:
"You got raped because you were showing a little leg and walking down a dark street?"
You can dress more conservatively and only walk down lit streets, but by refusing to address the root issue, you give up some of your freedoms. Same thing here; there are a lot of neat, open things that we should be able to do with computers to make our lives easier without having to give in to the criminals who write these things. The parent post you are replying to has a good point--we shouldn't be putting more effort into locking ourselves down than we are in to finding and dealing with the offenders.
And actually, this is something that has been confusing me about the foam argument since day one. I know you lot are just joking around, but this seems an important point that I, for one, don't quite get.
Even though the foam was traveling at an extremely high velocity, wouldn't the relative velocity between it and the shuttle wing been quite low? Because, after all, until a few seconds before the strike, they'd been accelerating in the same direction as part of the same vehicle. Unless the acceleration rate was continuing at a substantial measure, I don't see how the total velocity of the foam off the tank would matter any more than the total velocity of the foam off your shelf.
Definitely not a physics major, am I? But could someone with a talent for dumbing things down explain this so I can understand it?
It's the 'voluntary' IPLs that get me. Here everyone slams on MS all the time because you used to have to reboot NT all the time to keep it stable, while no one mentions that you essentially have to do the same thing with these expensive IBM wonder-boxes. I had not had to work with AS/400 until my present position, and I gotta say, I'm not impressed. An Intel server from a reliable vendor with a well-installed and patched operating system is just as stable and a heck of a lot cheaper.
Could be our consultants are all just morons, and I freely admit I don't know the systems that well, but nothing I have seen has convinced me the iSeries is a good investment (although IBM support is stellar--if you don't mind going through five people per call to get to the helpful one). Of course, not even IBM claims iSeries as mainframes ("midrange servers" whatever that is), so maybe you typoed and meant something I haven't worked with, too, the zSeries.
Actually, I'd like to see "Zodiac" or "The Cobweb" filmed. Neither would be difficult to do, as they aren't particularly science-fiction, but would make great, fun thrillers with interesting characters, good plots, and enough action to keep them lively. I think they'd make much better movies than "Snowcrash".
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, stop gloating... there are many of us sitting here, wasting our corporations' valuable time and bandwidth surfing Slashdot, who don't have the freaking option to install or use anything other than IE.
I mean, seriously, are you suggesting that we actually get work done and do our surfing at home? Please!
That's fine rhetoric; unfortunately it is inconsistent.
If you want to talk about unlawful taking as being the definition of stealing, you need to also accept that those legal definitions of stealing in no way apply to intellectual property. Legally, you cannot "take" intellectual property; you can merely infringe on someone's intellectual property rights. It's a completely separate body of law with very different sources and definitions, and that's one reason it gets up everyone's nose here when people refer to it as 'stealing'. Until everyone understands the differences--and they are profound--it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation about why it is wrong and what should be done about it.
If you want to forget about legal definitions and stick strictly with moralistic ones, that's fine too, but you still then have the problem that deprivation is really the moral basis against stealing.
You need to reconcile your approach to one of those two points of view, IMHO, or there is not much basis for the argument.
A month. $200 a week only comes up to *counts on fingers* $800 a month. Falling a little short of the real world, in other words. :)
You can knock off twenty delivery missions in an hour. The shuttle system is easy to use with a max of ten minute wait to get anywhere on the planet. Experience... well, depends on which skill lines you are talking about there. I think most combat oriented players can move up their first skill boxes in an hour as well, though, which doesn't seem too shabby to me (being more of a crafter type, which takes a lot longer).
That's true for passenger jets (and one of the reasons that all the new passenger 'security measures' are such a joke) but, as I'm sure the bad guys have figured out, the next soft targets are commercial cargo jets. Just as large as the passenger versions, and much fewer people to overpower. It remains an exercise to figure out how to get aboard one for takeoff, but there is little doubt in my mind that it would be possible.
The SAM ring I doubt would be effective enough to stop one of these in time.
So, there is definitely a benefit to a solution of this sort, although personally I think this is not a good one.
But of course, that opens up a hole for terrorists to exploit it.
Some of us like burnt toast.
(In memory of my grandfather, whose face I will always see whenever I smell the smell of bread heated to the point of combustion, as I would wake to those fumes wafting through the house every summer I stayed with him in my youth)
In this case, the first remedy is provided by the potential violator...
Yes, but it places the burden in the wrong place and so is not likely to be considered an adequate remedy by the courts. More properly, the violator should be seeking permission prior to re-distributing the content, rather than essentially saying to the copyright holder "Stop me before I copy again!"
I'm not sure I think that caching sites should be subject to traditional copyright law--it has some nasty implications for anyone who cuts traffic loads using a proxy server (insert humorous image of AOL Time Warner suing themselves for caching their own content)and really strikes me as yet another area where technology outstrips law, but if they are subject to it, their chosen remedy isn't likely to hold much water.
That's interesting... I'd been looking for something that I could stream video through as well. My big stumbling block so far is that nothing I've found seems to bring across good quality surround sound with the video... seems like this has the same problem. It also looks like it requires a Windows box if you want to use the Xstream server software, so tack a license for that onto the costs. Still, I'll definitely be keeping an eye on it to see how it goes, as there is a lot of potential there.
I think the SliMP3 is still the better solution for audio only--cheaper, less bulk, less hassle to set up, and just as upgradeable--but that's often the nature of specialized versus generalized solutions, so it's really apples and oranges.
Yeah, you may be able to hack something together with a single PC and multiple sound cards in a few months of Sundays. But you could also just buy, off-the-shelf, as many of these dandy little things as you need. A single server can service as many of them as you'd care to stack up. They would be easy to add on as you require them, without having to run any speaker cable at all--a wireless bridge or a single CAT5 run works peachy. DHCP enabled, supports multiple server OSs (mine is off my Debian box but they have Windows or Mac installers as well), wireless remote, Web, or command line interfaces all supported.
I've only got one, but it works awesome and if I ever decide I want to put a different sound system into another room, I can just buy another module and hook it up to the same server--instant access to all the MP3s and playlists that I've already created. The sound quality is great and it take hardly any resources, either server-side or network. I highly recommend it.
I have to second this. No time I have ever called MS for support have they come up with anything that either we didn't come up with ourselves or that was already listed in Knowledge Base. MS discontinuing 'support' is a joke. For 99% of us, we have exactly the same degree of support we've always had--KB and Usenet.
To me, the only thing that NT4 going EOL means is no more hotfixes, but then, it's been around long enough that most of the truly nasty problems have already been solved.
Yes, which was the first guy's point. Although I think people tend to under-rate the power of public opinion as a motivating influence for legislators--usually when public opinion isn't quite what those people think it should be, as is probably the case in this instance. With general exceptions at the high and low ends of the spectrum of elected office, money will tend to decide elections only in the absence of other strong factors.
This issue simply isn't a strong enough factor--yet.
Well, that's just the point, isn't it? You are forced to walk into some music shop someplace to get this stuff, because the RIAA controls the distribution mechanisms. That is what 'forces' artists into those contracts--that's why the RIAA hates on-line distribution so much and tries so hard to crush it without providing acceptable alternatives. The reason we're not there yet is exactly because it would provide an excellent means for artists to distribute their goods without the RIAA, and to keep a much larger cut of the profits.
What I was suggesting is that the professional artists who are supporting the RIAA are either mis-informed or rather dim-witted. The RIAA's vision of the future keeps that cut at 12 percent; the alternative is of huge benefit to both musicians and consumers, for the same reason that eliminating the middleman is always to their benefit, in that the producer receives more and is able to provide it to the consumer at less cost.
Is it because they are just thrilled at their twelve percent share out of every hard-earned dollar that their RIAA contract generously allows them to keep?
I'll bet that's it!
Well, it's actually not a horrible argument, though. If substantial amounts of people are driven to do something irrespective of laws passed regarding that thing, then is it a good law in the first place?
Keep in mind that there are two generally accepted sources of law, those generated by behavior that is inherently criminal, and those generated for other societal reasons (check here for the definitions of mala in se and mala prohibita) and that we're talking about the second kind when we are talking about copyright law. Clearly, a large chunk (I don't know if it's a majority or not) of society doesn't agree with the law on the books. So, by that reasoning, maybe it should not be a law, Congress just hasn't caught up with society yet.
But I think the reasoning of the person you were replying to is not so much that, but that many of the violators are violators only because they lack the resources to buy legislators. Given a level playing field in monetary terms, the RIAA would lose out in a heartbeat, which does offer a whiff of moral justification to the traders.
Is that the current one, or the proposed one? We're discussing the one currently being proposed, and if that is the main requirement, then the article linked above is wildly off-base.
Frankly, I like that it allows both. After all, it effects both, doesn't it? It may waste my time, but it takes up bandwidth and diskspace for the ISP. They should probably be allowed some remedy as well. Not to mention that an ISP probably has both more resources and a better idea how to go about pursuing a legal solution than the average end-user. The more people that can sue spammers, the better, no?
But really, that wasn't what I was thinking of originally--I like Washington's law because it is less restrictive; as long as a piece of e-mail is clearly labeled and meets other requirements, it's not in violation. This will allow through some spam that California's law doesn't, sure--but it also means that if I want to individually (not en masse, mind you) cold-email a prospective client on a web design project, I don't have to worry about getting sued.
I don't know that it's that amazing. You can put it off to the usual M$ perfidy if you like, but there are a lot of people who don't like spam who also don't want to see e-mail legislated into the ground by elected officials who don't really know what they are dealing with. I am not familiar with the specifics of the California bill, but it sounds from the link you posted as though it could put a cork in a lot of legitimate e-mail, too. I like the Washington law better, the one that Microsoft is suing under.
Well, but it is the fault of the criminals. It's very sad that most of us live in societies where your point seems to implicitly make some sort of sense, but no one should lose sight of the fact that there is really no one to blame for this but the instigator. Because another parallel that works, unfortunately, is:
"You got raped because you were showing a little leg and walking down a dark street?"
You can dress more conservatively and only walk down lit streets, but by refusing to address the root issue, you give up some of your freedoms. Same thing here; there are a lot of neat, open things that we should be able to do with computers to make our lives easier without having to give in to the criminals who write these things. The parent post you are replying to has a good point--we shouldn't be putting more effort into locking ourselves down than we are in to finding and dealing with the offenders.
Thank you! That's the most helpful explanation I've heard yet, and makes a lot of sense.
And actually, this is something that has been confusing me about the foam argument since day one. I know you lot are just joking around, but this seems an important point that I, for one, don't quite get.
Even though the foam was traveling at an extremely high velocity, wouldn't the relative velocity between it and the shuttle wing been quite low? Because, after all, until a few seconds before the strike, they'd been accelerating in the same direction as part of the same vehicle. Unless the acceleration rate was continuing at a substantial measure, I don't see how the total velocity of the foam off the tank would matter any more than the total velocity of the foam off your shelf.
Definitely not a physics major, am I? But could someone with a talent for dumbing things down explain this so I can understand it?
It's the 'voluntary' IPLs that get me. Here everyone slams on MS all the time because you used to have to reboot NT all the time to keep it stable, while no one mentions that you essentially have to do the same thing with these expensive IBM wonder-boxes. I had not had to work with AS/400 until my present position, and I gotta say, I'm not impressed. An Intel server from a reliable vendor with a well-installed and patched operating system is just as stable and a heck of a lot cheaper.
Could be our consultants are all just morons, and I freely admit I don't know the systems that well, but nothing I have seen has convinced me the iSeries is a good investment (although IBM support is stellar--if you don't mind going through five people per call to get to the helpful one). Of course, not even IBM claims iSeries as mainframes ("midrange servers" whatever that is), so maybe you typoed and meant something I haven't worked with, too, the zSeries.
Kent, Washington. Just south of Seattle. 911 works just fine there, used it myself. :)
and put up some naked chicks. You know you were thinking about it anyway.
:(
Go on! Get to it, I'm not going to wait all day.
Oh, who am I kidding... I will too wait all day.
Actually, I'd like to see "Zodiac" or "The Cobweb" filmed. Neither would be difficult to do, as they aren't particularly science-fiction, but would make great, fun thrillers with interesting characters, good plots, and enough action to keep them lively. I think they'd make much better movies than "Snowcrash".