All the effort, fuel and pollution required just to get a hunk of metal off the ground and keep it there with the current technology is wasteful and unsustenable.
You have any other ways to get, say, to Europe and back in a reasonable amount of time..?
If obtaining something that is not rightfully yours (and no, it's NOT - a musicians music isn't yours to take any more than a sculptur's sculpture would be) is not stealing just because there isn't a tangible decrease in a inventory somewhere, then what is it?
Well, for example, photography.
If I take a picture of a stranger or a street, I obtain his likeness fixed to a medium in my camera (film, digital media). I don't think his likeness is "rightfully mine" to start with. Yet it's completely legal and ethical for me to take pictures of strangers...
there hasn't been an effective means of enforcing the right of the content distributor to broadcast something for one consumption only
What right to broadcast for one consumption only? Ain't no such thing. Just because a content owner wishes to do something does not make it a right.
The rights of copyright owners are pretty explicitly spelled out in the law. There's nothing there which says that you can limit how many times people watch what you have broadcast...
I can't agree with that statement. The pirate receives something (a string of bits, an idea, a computer file, whatever) and gives nothing in exchange. The pirate has acquired something that, by all rights, he should have paid for.
Umm... you are reading Slashot, aren't you? You've just acquired some stings of bits, some ideas, and some computer files and have given nothing in exchange.
That's not a firewall either - it's a sandbox (and not new, either)...
The guy is not asking for a sandbox. He is asking for the ability to give or deny individual processes write-access to the hard drive. That's something quite different from a sandbox.
I would also be interested is software that does this.
Yeah, invasive copy protection sucks royal ass but the only reason it's there is because of you.
You seem to forget one little bit. The game companies are in business to sell games, not to be high-moral-ground cops/prison wardens to all.
You put invasive copy protection on your game -- I won't buy it. You want to make absolutely positively sure no one ever will be able to pirate your game? Sure, your right, be my guest. But then don't wonder why this game sells so badly.
See, the problem of how to run a successful business in spite of piracy is the company's problem. I don't really care about it. If you want to make it MY problem -- e.g. by demanding that I uninstall Nero from my hard drive just to install your game -- well, thankyouverymuch, I am not interested. I'd just walk away. I have enough problems of my own and I am not interested in adding your problems to them.
You've made zero sales and you've pissed of a potential customer.
Didn't the business-software industry go through all of this at the end of the 80s? There were the same cries about piracy and all kinds of asinine copy-protection schemes... The very clear outcome of all this was that it's much better to have some piracy and a lot of happy customers rather than very little piracy and a few unhappy customers.
Hell, look at Photoshop. This is probably the most pirated program in the world (other than Windows). What, Adobe is going bankrupt?
Of them all, F9/11 is the closest story yet, while those others are much more wrong. Adults work from ambiguous, contradictory sources of info. The F/911 picture is a better package of important national info than adult Americans have had in at least a generation, maybe ever.
ROTFL.
So YOU know the truth, right? The actual as-it-really-really-happened truth?
Well, it surely seems so, since you take it on yourself to decide which account is closer to the truth and which one is further away from it...
[shrug] Anyway, since you have already decided that the Moore's version is the Truth with the capital T, I don't think you and I can hold a reasonable discussion about it...
However, this treatment, while immensely promising for muscle degenerative diseases, could really help overweight people break their unhealthy cycle.
Umm... how exactly a lot of muscle mass will help overweight people?
People, generally speaking, get overweight because of problems with their metabolism, problems with their hungry/satiated signals that the body sends to the brain, or psychological problems. None of these problems will be helped by growing more muscles.
I don't want to say I have a slow metabolism or any of those other shitty fat people excuses
People DO have very different metabolisms -- your experiment with your friend showed that quite nicely, by the way.
However slow metabolism != must be overweight. All it means is that you should eat less than "average" people.
If I could have more muscle and have it break down less quickly, it could just help my body eat away at my apparently conserved energy being stored as fat.
No. You would just eat more to maintain that muscle.
In order to lose weight you must eat less. That's it. It is really, really simple. Forget about metabolism, muscle mass, etc. etc. Just eat less.
At the same time, it would make exercising easier by increasing my strength by a third or so.
LOL. It would not make exercising easier. It would just make you buy heavier barbells or increase the resistance on the gym machine:-)
What better way of advancing biotech, growth hormone therepies, genetic engineering techniques than funding it with huge sports franchises and only using them on people who want to be using them.
It's a huge and complicated ethical issue.
On the one hand, each person's body is his own and what he does with it is his own business. If he wants e.g. to be a superman at 25 and have major health problems by 35, that's his choice to make.
On the other hand, consider some likely consequences of such an approach.
How about major biological experiments by rich Western organization on humans, specifically poor uneducated humans from the third world? Yes, with informed (more or less) consent -- what, you are still uneasy?
How about an open market for transplant organs? (if your body is yours then why shouldn't you be able to sell some of your organs?)
How do you establish INFORMED consent when nobody including the scientists is likely to have a clue about long-term consequences?
What they're saying here is that if you're using their equipment for criminal purposes, and if they know about it, they have the right to terminate your service, call the cops, and tell 'em what they know. I don't see how they have a lot of choice about this: if they did anything else, they'd open themselves up to all sorts of liability.
Wrong. Read what you yourself have quoted. Let me point it out for you:
"...you agree not to use them for transmitting or receiving any communication or material of any kind when in Vonage's sole judgment... [it] encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to a civil liability, or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law."
For example, technically speaking you can't tell someone to hurry home if they are driving, since this encourages conduct (speeding) that violates laws. And no, nobody cares if you find it unreasonable, since only Vonage's "sole judgement" matters.
According to their privacy policy...
Privacy policies are meaningless PR babble. Wasn't there recently a case where the judge said that the privacy policy is not a contract and a company cannot be held to it?
All in all, Vonage's TOS basically says "we can do anything we want at any time and you have zero rights. Get over it".
There is an open-source app that does local email searches very well... I think it was originally developed for the Mac but it's been ported to Windows and possibly Linux. I had a link to it, but lost it. Anyone knows what I'm talking about? I'd appreciate a link or at least a name...
The distinction is huge. It means that you are allowed to "modify your car" (to use the proposed analogy). You just aren't allowed to commercialize your modifications. You can tinker all you want, but you can't sell the results of your tinkering.
You missed the word "use". It is now illegal to USE modchips in Great Britain.
To continue your analogy, you can tinker with your car all you want, but once you've done it, you can't drive it any more.
I call bullshit. There are no 'secret' sections of the PATRIOT act. We can;t be expected to obey laws we can't possibly know anything about.
The obvious response is "well, duh, if they are secret you wouldn't know about them, would you?".
However I believe that the original poster refers to a very specific capability of the US government -- "National Security Letters" also known as NSLs. Google a bit for them or, for example, here is link to the ACLU case challenging them: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID =15543&c=262
So, no, this ain't bullshit. Welcome to the brave new world, citizen.
...i think should pave the way for making developers culpable for damages incurred by defects in their software.
A remarkably stupid idea.
This would mean a quick and complete death for Free Software, withdrawal of great many software products from the market, much much higher prices for software that remains, and joy and jubilation among lawyers worldwide.
Unlike the music industry's widely publicized lawsuit campaign, this anti-piracy measure does not cause any harm or inconvenience to ordinary patrons.
Then, presumably, the movie theaters wouldn't mind big signs in front of them saying "Here you will be watched by a projectionist using night vision goggles. If you want some privacy, go elsewhere", right?
For me, when the power goes out in our neighborhood, it doesn't matter that I've got my VOIP device connected to a UPS. When the neighborhood loses power, my broadband internet loses connectivity. No internet, no phone. No phone, no way to call the power company to report an outage. It gets worse if you imagine someone needing emergency services (e.g. 911) during a power outage.
Most people (that is, most people who would consider a VOIP service) have a cell phone. This is your back-up.
Some cell phone users are getting rid of their landline phones altogether. I think it's a bit early for that, but a cell phone + a VOIP phone is a very nice combination.
I can walk out my door right now, with my camera, and snap pictures of every house on my street.
What'll that get me? Not much, except a bunch of pictures of houses on my street.
Umm... That is highly likely to get you at least a conversation with cops.
That might also get you sued (see e.g. http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/lawsu it.html). That might also get you arrested (I, personally, have been arrested for taking pictures of an industrial plant from a public sidewalk).
Mine! Mine! You filthy thieves!! All you want is to get your hands on frames from MY movie and then you'll mix it with porn, put it on P2P networks and use the proceeds to fund terrorism!
It's my movie! MINE! You want a screensaver -- well, pay in DOLLARS for it, you dirty pirate (* by clicking here you agree that your credit card will be automatically charged $0.99 each time your screensaver kicks in)! And note that you are licensed to use MINE screensaver on just machine by just one user and that our DRM system will make sure of that (* fingerprint reader, purchased separately required for system activation and use)!
Thieves, all of you are thieves! Hah, give them movie frames to render... What, you think me stupid?
but in the real world, our eye sees a huge range, photographic film much less, and digital sensors far less.
Nope. The term you are looking for is "dynamic range". There are several ways to measure it, but to keep things photographic, we'll be talking about dynamic range in f-stops.
Slide (aka positive) color film has a dynamic range of 5-6 f-stops. Negative color film has a range of 9-10 f-stops. Current digital has a dynamic range of 7-8 f-stops, slightly better than slides and a bit worse than negatives.
Note that there is huge difference in quality you get from a nice big sensor as in e.g. latest digital SLR models, and from a itty-bitty sensor you get in your average point-and-shoot.
Slashdot Mirror
All the effort, fuel and pollution required just to get a hunk of metal off the ground and keep it there with the current technology is wasteful and unsustenable.
You have any other ways to get, say, to Europe and back in a reasonable amount of time..?
If obtaining something that is not rightfully yours (and no, it's NOT - a musicians music isn't yours to take any more than a sculptur's sculpture would be) is not stealing just because there isn't a tangible decrease in a inventory somewhere, then what is it?
Well, for example, photography.
If I take a picture of a stranger or a street, I obtain his likeness fixed to a medium in my camera (film, digital media). I don't think his likeness is "rightfully mine" to start with. Yet it's completely legal and ethical for me to take pictures of strangers...
there hasn't been an effective means of enforcing the right of the content distributor to broadcast something for one consumption only
What right to broadcast for one consumption only? Ain't no such thing. Just because a content owner wishes to do something does not make it a right.
The rights of copyright owners are pretty explicitly spelled out in the law. There's nothing there which says that you can limit how many times people watch what you have broadcast...
I can't agree with that statement. The pirate receives something (a string of bits, an idea, a computer file, whatever) and gives nothing in exchange. The pirate has acquired something that, by all rights, he should have paid for.
Umm... you are reading Slashot, aren't you? You've just acquired some stings of bits, some ideas, and some computer files and have given nothing in exchange.
THIEF!!!
Note to citizens: We're permitted to change the law.
With all due respect to Larry Lessig...
Note to large organized groups of citizens which have the capability to buy or strongarm enough congresscritters: you are permitted to change the law.
Note to the rest: you are still screwed.
That's not a firewall either - it's a sandbox (and not new, either)...
The guy is not asking for a sandbox. He is asking for the ability to give or deny individual processes write-access to the hard drive. That's something quite different from a sandbox.
I would also be interested is software that does this.
http://www.pckeyboard.com/customizer.html
It's a 101 key old-style clicky keyboard. Buckling spring, no less...
This makes it easy to share the music and the RIAA isn't going to get their mafia-like 90%. When the mafia doesn't get their money what do they do?
The burn it down.
Which means, of course, that you should be a good obedient boy and pay your protection money, right?
Yeah, invasive copy protection sucks royal ass but the only reason it's there is because of you.
You seem to forget one little bit. The game companies are in business to sell games, not to be high-moral-ground cops/prison wardens to all.
You put invasive copy protection on your game -- I won't buy it. You want to make absolutely positively sure no one ever will be able to pirate your game? Sure, your right, be my guest. But then don't wonder why this game sells so badly.
See, the problem of how to run a successful business in spite of piracy is the company's problem. I don't really care about it. If you want to make it MY problem -- e.g. by demanding that I uninstall Nero from my hard drive just to install your game -- well, thankyouverymuch, I am not interested. I'd just walk away. I have enough problems of my own and I am not interested in adding your problems to them.
You've made zero sales and you've pissed of a potential customer.
Didn't the business-software industry go through all of this at the end of the 80s? There were the same cries about piracy and all kinds of asinine copy-protection schemes... The very clear outcome of all this was that it's much better to have some piracy and a lot of happy customers rather than very little piracy and a few unhappy customers.
Hell, look at Photoshop. This is probably the most pirated program in the world (other than Windows). What, Adobe is going bankrupt?
Of them all, F9/11 is the closest story yet, while those others are much more wrong. Adults work from ambiguous, contradictory sources of info. The F/911 picture is a better package of important national info than adult Americans have had in at least a generation, maybe ever.
ROTFL.
So YOU know the truth, right? The actual as-it-really-really-happened truth?
Well, it surely seems so, since you take it on yourself to decide which account is closer to the truth and which one is further away from it...
[shrug] Anyway, since you have already decided that the Moore's version is the Truth with the capital T, I don't think you and I can hold a reasonable discussion about it...
No one has discredited Moore's statements, or even argued coherently with them.
Umm... I think that's called wilful blindness on your part.
Look here for example...
However, this treatment, while immensely promising for muscle degenerative diseases, could really help overweight people break their unhealthy cycle.
:-)
Umm... how exactly a lot of muscle mass will help overweight people?
People, generally speaking, get overweight because of problems with their metabolism, problems with their hungry/satiated signals that the body sends to the brain, or psychological problems. None of these problems will be helped by growing more muscles.
I don't want to say I have a slow metabolism or any of those other shitty fat people excuses
People DO have very different metabolisms -- your experiment with your friend showed that quite nicely, by the way.
However slow metabolism != must be overweight. All it means is that you should eat less than "average" people.
If I could have more muscle and have it break down less quickly, it could just help my body eat away at my apparently conserved energy being stored as fat.
No. You would just eat more to maintain that muscle.
In order to lose weight you must eat less. That's it. It is really, really simple. Forget about metabolism, muscle mass, etc. etc. Just eat less.
At the same time, it would make exercising easier by increasing my strength by a third or so.
LOL. It would not make exercising easier. It would just make you buy heavier barbells or increase the resistance on the gym machine
What better way of advancing biotech, growth hormone therepies, genetic engineering techniques than funding it with huge sports franchises and only using them on people who want to be using them.
It's a huge and complicated ethical issue.
On the one hand, each person's body is his own and what he does with it is his own business. If he wants e.g. to be a superman at 25 and have major health problems by 35, that's his choice to make.
On the other hand, consider some likely consequences of such an approach.
How about major biological experiments by rich Western organization on humans, specifically poor uneducated humans from the third world? Yes, with informed (more or less) consent -- what, you are still uneasy?
How about an open market for transplant organs? (if your body is yours then why shouldn't you be able to sell some of your organs?)
How do you establish INFORMED consent when nobody including the scientists is likely to have a clue about long-term consequences?
etc. etc.
The fingerprints taken to access lockers at the Statue of Liberty are NOT run against the FBI database.
And pray tell, how would you know that?
What they're saying here is that if you're using their equipment for criminal purposes, and if they know about it, they have the right to terminate your service, call the cops, and tell 'em what they know. I don't see how they have a lot of choice about this: if they did anything else, they'd open themselves up to all sorts of liability.
... [it] encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to a civil liability, or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law."
Wrong. Read what you yourself have quoted. Let me point it out for you:
"...you agree not to use them for transmitting or receiving any communication or material of any kind when in Vonage's sole judgment
For example, technically speaking you can't tell someone to hurry home if they are driving, since this encourages conduct (speeding) that violates laws. And no, nobody cares if you find it unreasonable, since only Vonage's "sole judgement" matters.
According to their privacy policy...
Privacy policies are meaningless PR babble. Wasn't there recently a case where the judge said that the privacy policy is not a contract and a company cannot be held to it?
All in all, Vonage's TOS basically says "we can do anything we want at any time and you have zero rights. Get over it".
that if Google has any sense, they'll try to start donating money in an attempt to influence the November elections...
I see... so you think corporations influencing elections is a great idea, right? Be careful of what you wish for...
There is an open-source app that does local email searches very well... I think it was originally developed for the Mac but it's been ported to Windows and possibly Linux. I had a link to it, but lost it. Anyone knows what I'm talking about? I'd appreciate a link or at least a name...
The distinction is huge. It means that you are allowed to "modify your car" (to use the proposed analogy). You just aren't allowed to commercialize your modifications. You can tinker all you want, but you can't sell the results of your tinkering.
You missed the word "use". It is now illegal to USE modchips in Great Britain.
To continue your analogy, you can tinker with your car all you want, but once you've done it, you can't drive it any more.
I call bullshit. There are no 'secret' sections of the PATRIOT act. We can;t be expected to obey laws we can't possibly know anything about.
D =15543&c=262
The obvious response is "well, duh, if they are secret you wouldn't know about them, would you?".
However I believe that the original poster refers to a very specific capability of the US government -- "National Security Letters" also known as NSLs. Google a bit for them or, for example, here is link to the ACLU case challenging them: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?I
So, no, this ain't bullshit. Welcome to the brave new world, citizen.
...i think should pave the way for making developers culpable for damages incurred by defects in their software.
A remarkably stupid idea.
This would mean a quick and complete death for Free Software, withdrawal of great many software products from the market, much much higher prices for software that remains, and joy and jubilation among lawyers worldwide.
Unlike the music industry's widely publicized lawsuit campaign, this anti-piracy measure does not cause any harm or inconvenience to ordinary patrons.
Then, presumably, the movie theaters wouldn't mind big signs in front of them saying "Here you will be watched by a projectionist using night vision goggles. If you want some privacy, go elsewhere", right?
For me, when the power goes out in our neighborhood, it doesn't matter that I've got my VOIP device connected to a UPS. When the neighborhood loses power, my broadband internet loses connectivity. No internet, no phone. No phone, no way to call the power company to report an outage. It gets worse if you imagine someone needing emergency services (e.g. 911) during a power outage.
Most people (that is, most people who would consider a VOIP service) have a cell phone. This is your back-up.
Some cell phone users are getting rid of their landline phones altogether. I think it's a bit early for that, but a cell phone + a VOIP phone is a very nice combination.
I can walk out my door right now, with my camera, and snap pictures of every house on my street.
u it.html). That might also get you arrested (I, personally, have been arrested for taking pictures of an industrial plant from a public sidewalk).
What'll that get me? Not much, except a bunch of pictures of houses on my street.
Umm... That is highly likely to get you at least a conversation with cops.
That might also get you sued (see e.g. http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/laws
Mine! Mine! You filthy thieves!! All you want is to get your hands on frames from MY movie and then you'll mix it with porn, put it on P2P networks and use the proceeds to fund terrorism!
It's my movie! MINE! You want a screensaver -- well, pay in DOLLARS for it, you dirty pirate (* by clicking here you agree that your credit card will be automatically charged $0.99 each time your screensaver kicks in)! And note that you are licensed to use MINE screensaver on just machine by just one user and that our DRM system will make sure of that (* fingerprint reader, purchased separately required for system activation and use)!
Thieves, all of you are thieves! Hah, give them movie frames to render... What, you think me stupid?
but in the real world, our eye sees a huge range, photographic film much less, and digital sensors far less.
Nope. The term you are looking for is "dynamic range". There are several ways to measure it, but to keep things photographic, we'll be talking about dynamic range in f-stops.
Slide (aka positive) color film has a dynamic range of 5-6 f-stops. Negative color film has a range of 9-10 f-stops. Current digital has a dynamic range of 7-8 f-stops, slightly better than slides and a bit worse than negatives.
Note that there is huge difference in quality you get from a nice big sensor as in e.g. latest digital SLR models, and from a itty-bitty sensor you get in your average point-and-shoot.