If you are doing something that requires you to hide it from the government, your breaking the law, and deserve to be caught.
Maybe you should read this sometime, particuarly the fourth point, but the fifth applies here, too. Someone with a army.mil e-mail address should not want to tear up a document that his comrades in arms have fought and died to protect.
Here follows the transcript from a "Daily Show Exclusive" tape of a phone call between Trader One and Grandma Millie herself. ----- GRANDMA MILLIE: "Hello?"
TRADER ONE: "Hi. Is this Grandma Millie?"
GRANDMA MILLIE: "Yes, dear?"
TRADER ONE: "I'm taking your energy, bitch!"
GRANDMA MILLIE: "What?"
TRADER ONE: "HA! HA!"
GRANDMA MILLIE: "But I need energy to bake pies for the little orphans..."
TRADER ONE: "Well, your orphans can eat my ass!"
GRANDMA MILLIE: "Oh dear lord..."
TRADER ONE: "God can't help you now, you stupid old whore!"
GRANDMA MILLIE: "Ah! My hip just cracked from sadness..." -----
(transcript shamelessly lifted from http://joelknight.net)
"counsel" not in the bill
on
P2P Bits
·
· Score: 1
I think it's funny that they took out the "counsel" part of the original bill. It means that Mr. Hatch is actually listening to criticism, but perhaps only from lawyers.
Valenti does make a good point however. Building your own doesn't count. Try building your own car, not one from other auto makers parts. Make one from scratch using parts you engineered. Then try to get it licenced and street legal. It'll never happen. The same goes for movies. If you don't want to buy the products the industry puts out for watching the media then you don't get to watch the media. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
I see what you mean. Just try making your own cake -- not one where all the ingredients are in a box, but making one from scratch using your own ingredients. Then try to eat it in public: it will never happen. If you don't want to buy pre-packaged cakes from Betty Croker, then you don't get to eat cake at all.
If I read the article correctly, the difference is in the compiler.
When you write code for this processor, the compiler would figure out which operations would fit best in reprogrammable logic, then configures the logic and compiles to this custom instruction set all on its own. At runtime, the custom logic is loaded and the program executes.
A traditional FPGA, while reconfigurable, is normally developed in Verilog or VHDL. Where reconfigurable logic is used in a microprocessor-oriented system, you have two development paths: HDL code for the hardware, and whatever the software goys are using for the software.
The neat thing about this is that their C compiler is essentially doing the hardware coding.for you. I'm much more interested in the compiler than in the chip itself...
Supossidly it uses a technique called, Mel-Filtered Cepstral Coefficients to look for patterns in the audio output of the file. that is they dont check-sum the file, they play the file, and use there fingerprint technology on the way the file sounds when it is played.
Is that really how it works? It plays every single song it finds in TCP packets on the network?
So, to combine what you said with what's in the article, the software sniffs all the data on the network, figures out which ones are media files, plays them to generate the fingerprint, and compares the fingerprint to the database? And, as the article states, it does all this in real-time with the ability to cut off an illicit download mid-stream?
It seems to me that it would take an awful lot of processing power to do this correctly, without doing a half-assed job and either letting lots of content get through or fingering legal content. Remember you have to analyze the song and "play" it in real-time to cut off the download mid-stream! It *might* be practical to monitor all traffic leaving and entering the university network, because at least then you have a choke point where all the traffic will go through and a bandwidth limit, and you can scale your monitoring hardware accordingly. But there is likely an awful lot of sharing that never leaves the campus, and unless the university is willing to install a box on each sub-net, this method won't catch that.
Not only is this very hardware-intensive, but it might give some people pause. After all, some of these students are foreigners who left countries where they were contstantly watched and thought the U.S. would be better...
My first impression is either that these guys are selling snake oil, or the article's author is writing out of his ass. It can't possibly perform at the level the article claims it will.
His current books may not strictly be "Science Fiction". But they are "Fiction about Science, among other things". What other category would you put them in?
Quicksilver is the first book that I truly got pissed off while reading. While I appreciated the detail and wide scope of the book, it didn't have the motion that his other books had. It felt like being in a fast car but being stuck behind someone doing 20 in a no-passing zone. Would that be page rage instead of road rage?
Eventually, I finished it, after putting it down for weeks at a time and then reading in three-day stretches. I'll read the second eventually, but maybe I'll wait for it to hit the discount rack. Actually, maybe I'll read cryptonomicon again instead...
QuickTime has already been available on Linux for some time now. (Too lazy to google and find it). The problem is that most of the interesting iTunes content is made with proprietaty codecs (Sorenson comes to mind), which no one has licenced for Quicktime yet.
I don't know for sure, but I think these devices are used mostly to assist in the deployment of air-bags (which should be deployed differently under different accellaration conditions to work properly), and their recording capabilities are just a happy coincidence.
Are air bags required in your state? If so, you may be SOL.
It's not about engaging a fight, or even a debate, on fair use vs. the DMCA. If that were the case, the person or persons responsible for this would have stood their ground and made an argument.
It's still about the DMCA, whether or not the guy decided to "stand his ground". It's the DMCA that opens him to prosecution after all.
I think there might be more to this move than you realize. It can be interpreted as a political statement: that the DMCA stifles new technology in America that can survive quite nicely in elsewhere. It's not like the guy moved to India himself to avoid prosecution, he just moved the project. As far as I know, he's still in America.
Moving the project to India is not hiding it or moving it underground. In fact, it's waving it in the face of American authorities, which is the opposite of what traffickers in illegal goods do.
Whether or not any good comes of this remains to be seen. I think there are some important distinctions that make this a better test case of the DMCA than, say, DeCSS or DVD Copy. But I'm not sure what will come of it.
You have no clue about civil disobedience. Moreover, it's individuals like yourself and most of the rest of slashdot apparently who are giving a bad name to those who are trying to change the laws
No, actually, I think he's got the idea down pretty well. It would help if he sends an e-mail to Steve Jobs personally detailing his situation, (his E-mail address is easy to find, and I've heard of people getting non-automated replies, so someone must be reading the account) and how having the PlayFair application actually generated more sales for the music store. He should make sure to include his name, address, and where he is likely to be during the day to accept the subpoena. If Apple really wants to sue one of their customers who is actively generating revenue for them without causing any piracy-enduced harm just because the DMCA lets them, then they ought to be able to. Let's see how far that trial gets.
There's nothing wrong with trying to change a bad law. Bad laws are passed all the time, legislators are only human. I think the key thing to understand while attempting to change a bad law is that it is still the law, and by disobeying it you open yourself up to prosecution. You do it willingly, though, because you believe the law is wrong, and you accept the penalty willingly, even though you think it's unjust, as part of your protest against the bad law.
That's why many nerdlings who cry "civil disobedience" while spending all day downloading stuff they don't have the right to don't really understand the concept, unless they promptly turn themselves in.
It's the best-selling book in history and many familiar translations are already in the Public Domain. I imagine there's some commentary that's in the public domain too. There will always be people who want to pay to listen to it. And once it becomes freely available on this site, I'm sure there are lots of religious organizations that can make use of it.
I see they have one track from the Bible up right now. I wouldn't be suprised if that was their best seller (at least, before/. linked to them!)
I think the distinction here is that use tax technically is not part of the income tax. It's not a calculation used to determine your income tax, it's a separate tax that you happen to pay at the same time. So the important thing is to make a declaration one way or the other. If you make a declaration of "0", the state will have to dig up a purchase record to nail you. If you leave it blank, the state can nail you directly for that, and use that as cause to investigate further.
A friend of mine who's done use tax stuff for banks says that putting a "0" on that line is better than leaving it blank. If you put a "0", you have made a declaration that you don't owe any use tax, which might very well be true. If you put nothing, you haven't filled the form out properly, which is a Bad Thing.
And as to the question of how they can find out: states do occasionally audit mail order and internet retailers who don't charge sales tax in their states, looking for large purchases that didn't get charges any tax. This is why businesses typically pay all their use tax, because they usually make much bigger orders and are easier targets. It is possible for them to find your tax-free purchase, then check to make sure it was declared. But it's not very likely, and probably reserved for large purchases.
In any case, I'd only worry about large purchases. Those small E-bay purchases are probably safe. Oh, and this technically applies to purchases you make in sales-tax free states which you take home, also. So remember kids, whenever you go to a state with less sales tax than yours, pay everything in cash!
My wife has decreed that there should be more living organisms than computers in our house. Currently, there's one old Mac G3 desktop, one Linux server, one Linux firewall, and two laptops against two humans and two dogs, so I'm currently not in compliance. (luckily, she's not counting the TiVo). So, any new computer that comes into the house must be matched by an old computer leaving, or else Bad Things Will Happen.
But, I used this to my advantage -- when the Linux server recently took up smoking as a new hobby, instead of fixing it, I was able to get approval to spend money on a G4 on the condition that I get rid of both the Linux server and the Smurfy G3. Imagine: buying new hardware will actually make my wife happy!
I imagine that, if true, this will have a significant impact on the US hosting scientific conferences.
Now, that's an idea. I wonder how many/.ers have a say in where IEEE or ACM conferences are held? If they decide to not plan any new conferences in the U.S. (or even move conferences out of the U.S. if possible), do you think that will get attention?
Everybody knew that the government would do security checks on people booking one way economy tickets with cash, and that's (duh!) why the Saudi terrorists booked return tickets, first class and paid for them with credit cards.
That gives me a great idea! We should start fingerprinting all the people who buy first class, round-trip tickets with credit cards. Then we'll see how long this fingerprinting nonsense lasts!
However, this doesn't make their business offerings any more attractive, since every state that has a sales tax also has a use tax. The Fifth Amendment makes it awfully hard to extract use tax from an individual, but businesses enjoy no such protection...
(off-topic rant)
This is changing, slowly but surely. The great State of New York added a new "feature" to it's income tax forms this year -- a convenient line to declare how much you owe in use tax. If you've forgotten how much you owe, they include a convenient chart to "estimate" your use tax based on your income. And, according to them, the use tax isn't just owed on items that you bought tax-free: if you paid a sales tax on the item which happens to be lower than your local sales tax, you're supposed to pony up the difference. (No word yet whether any of this use-tax extortion money will be going to the county governments, who usually get over half of the sales tax receipts here.)
A friend who is an accountant and has done use tax stuff for business told me that the likelihood of you being "audited" for your personal use tax declaration is close to 0% (probably becasue of the fifth amendment, as you say)-- unless they happen to audit amazon or some other large retailer looking for use tax information on businesses, and happen to find your purchase, and deem it worthy of investigation. Yeah, it's not very likely, but wouldn't you rather pay the protection money than risk having your proverbial kneecaps broken in an audit?
To make a long story short, the "free ride" won't last for too much longer. There will either be a national sales tax on internet purchases, or state governments will force retailers to collect tax for all the states that have a sales tax. There's simply too much money changing hands, and the Government wants a cut of it all. If you don't like it, write to your state representative and tell them how you feel!
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you should read this sometime, particuarly the fourth point, but the fifth applies here, too.
Someone with a army.mil e-mail address should not want to tear up a document that his comrades in arms have fought and died to protect.
Here follows the transcript from a "Daily Show Exclusive" tape of a phone call between Trader One and Grandma Millie herself.
-----
GRANDMA MILLIE: "Hello?"
TRADER ONE: "Hi. Is this Grandma Millie?"
GRANDMA MILLIE: "Yes, dear?"
TRADER ONE: "I'm taking your energy, bitch!"
GRANDMA MILLIE: "What?"
TRADER ONE: "HA! HA!"
GRANDMA MILLIE: "But I need energy to bake pies for the little orphans..."
TRADER ONE: "Well, your orphans can eat my ass!"
GRANDMA MILLIE: "Oh dear lord..."
TRADER ONE: "God can't help you now, you stupid old whore!"
GRANDMA MILLIE: "Ah! My hip just cracked from sadness..."
-----
(transcript shamelessly lifted from http://joelknight.net)
I think it's funny that they took out the "counsel" part of the original bill. It means that Mr. Hatch is actually listening to criticism, but perhaps only from lawyers.
So, netcraft confirmed that *weblogs are dying?
Well, I guess that troll was a success, then? I like this trolling thing, maybe I should do it more often...
The 51st state is Afghanistan, and the 52nd is Iraq. Haven't you been paying attention?
I see what you mean. Just try making your own cake -- not one where all the ingredients are in a box, but making one from scratch using your own ingredients. Then try to eat it in public: it will never happen. If you don't want to buy pre-packaged cakes from Betty Croker, then you don't get to eat cake at all.
If I read the article correctly, the difference is in the compiler.
When you write code for this processor, the compiler would figure out which operations would fit best in reprogrammable logic, then configures the logic and compiles to this custom instruction set all on its own. At runtime, the custom logic is loaded and the program executes.
A traditional FPGA, while reconfigurable, is normally developed in Verilog or VHDL. Where reconfigurable logic is used in a microprocessor-oriented system, you have two development paths: HDL code for the hardware, and whatever the software goys are using for the software.
The neat thing about this is that their C compiler is essentially doing the hardware coding.for you. I'm much more interested in the compiler than in the chip itself...
Is that really how it works? It plays every single song it finds in TCP packets on the network?
So, to combine what you said with what's in the article, the software sniffs all the data on the network, figures out which ones are media files, plays them to generate the fingerprint, and compares the fingerprint to the database? And, as the article states, it does all this in real-time with the ability to cut off an illicit download mid-stream?
It seems to me that it would take an awful lot of processing power to do this correctly, without doing a half-assed job and either letting lots of content get through or fingering legal content. Remember you have to analyze the song and "play" it in real-time to cut off the download mid-stream! It *might* be practical to monitor all traffic leaving and entering the university network, because at least then you have a choke point where all the traffic will go through and a bandwidth limit, and you can scale your monitoring hardware accordingly. But there is likely an awful lot of sharing that never leaves the campus, and unless the university is willing to install a box on each sub-net, this method won't catch that.
Not only is this very hardware-intensive, but it might give some people pause. After all, some of these students are foreigners who left countries where they were contstantly watched and thought the U.S. would be better...
My first impression is either that these guys are selling snake oil, or the article's author is writing out of his ass. It can't possibly perform at the level the article claims it will.
His current books may not strictly be "Science Fiction". But they are "Fiction about Science, among other things". What other category would you put them in?
Eventually, I finished it, after putting it down for weeks at a time and then reading in three-day stretches. I'll read the second eventually, but maybe I'll wait for it to hit the discount rack. Actually, maybe I'll read cryptonomicon again instead...
if someone assures me that is has a @$^@$%&$ ending!
D'oh! Thanks for pointing that out!
spam really needs to catch up. I know that over half the snail-mail I get is junk mail...
QuickTime has already been available on Linux for some time now. (Too lazy to google and find it). The problem is that most of the interesting iTunes content is made with proprietaty codecs (Sorenson comes to mind), which no one has licenced for Quicktime yet.
Are air bags required in your state? If so, you may be SOL.
It's still about the DMCA, whether or not the guy decided to "stand his ground". It's the DMCA that opens him to prosecution after all.
I think there might be more to this move than you realize. It can be interpreted as a political statement: that the DMCA stifles new technology in America that can survive quite nicely in elsewhere. It's not like the guy moved to India himself to avoid prosecution, he just moved the project. As far as I know, he's still in America. Moving the project to India is not hiding it or moving it underground. In fact, it's waving it in the face of American authorities, which is the opposite of what traffickers in illegal goods do.
Whether or not any good comes of this remains to be seen. I think there are some important distinctions that make this a better test case of the DMCA than, say, DeCSS or DVD Copy. But I'm not sure what will come of it.
No, actually, I think he's got the idea down pretty well. It would help if he sends an e-mail to Steve Jobs personally detailing his situation, (his E-mail address is easy to find, and I've heard of people getting non-automated replies, so someone must be reading the account) and how having the PlayFair application actually generated more sales for the music store. He should make sure to include his name, address, and where he is likely to be during the day to accept the subpoena. If Apple really wants to sue one of their customers who is actively generating revenue for them without causing any piracy-enduced harm just because the DMCA lets them, then they ought to be able to. Let's see how far that trial gets.
There's nothing wrong with trying to change a bad law. Bad laws are passed all the time, legislators are only human. I think the key thing to understand while attempting to change a bad law is that it is still the law, and by disobeying it you open yourself up to prosecution. You do it willingly, though, because you believe the law is wrong, and you accept the penalty willingly, even though you think it's unjust, as part of your protest against the bad law.
That's why many nerdlings who cry "civil disobedience" while spending all day downloading stuff they don't have the right to don't really understand the concept, unless they promptly turn themselves in.
I see they have one track from the Bible up right now. I wouldn't be suprised if that was their best seller (at least, before /. linked to them!)
I think the distinction here is that use tax technically is not part of the income tax. It's not a calculation used to determine your income tax, it's a separate tax that you happen to pay at the same time. So the important thing is to make a declaration one way or the other. If you make a declaration of "0", the state will have to dig up a purchase record to nail you. If you leave it blank, the state can nail you directly for that, and use that as cause to investigate further.
And as to the question of how they can find out: states do occasionally audit mail order and internet retailers who don't charge sales tax in their states, looking for large purchases that didn't get charges any tax. This is why businesses typically pay all their use tax, because they usually make much bigger orders and are easier targets. It is possible for them to find your tax-free purchase, then check to make sure it was declared. But it's not very likely, and probably reserved for large purchases.
In any case, I'd only worry about large purchases. Those small E-bay purchases are probably safe. Oh, and this technically applies to purchases you make in sales-tax free states which you take home, also. So remember kids, whenever you go to a state with less sales tax than yours, pay everything in cash!
But, I used this to my advantage -- when the Linux server recently took up smoking as a new hobby, instead of fixing it, I was able to get approval to spend money on a G4 on the condition that I get rid of both the Linux server and the Smurfy G3. Imagine: buying new hardware will actually make my wife happy!
Now, that's an idea. I wonder how many /.ers have a say in where IEEE or ACM conferences are held? If they decide to not plan any new conferences in the U.S. (or even move conferences out of the U.S. if possible), do you think that will get attention?
That gives me a great idea! We should start fingerprinting all the people who buy first class, round-trip tickets with credit cards. Then we'll see how long this fingerprinting nonsense lasts!
(off-topic rant)
This is changing, slowly but surely. The great State of New York added a new "feature" to it's income tax forms this year -- a convenient line to declare how much you owe in use tax. If you've forgotten how much you owe, they include a convenient chart to "estimate" your use tax based on your income. And, according to them, the use tax isn't just owed on items that you bought tax-free: if you paid a sales tax on the item which happens to be lower than your local sales tax, you're supposed to pony up the difference. (No word yet whether any of this use-tax extortion money will be going to the county governments, who usually get over half of the sales tax receipts here.)
A friend who is an accountant and has done use tax stuff for business told me that the likelihood of you being "audited" for your personal use tax declaration is close to 0% (probably becasue of the fifth amendment, as you say)-- unless they happen to audit amazon or some other large retailer looking for use tax information on businesses, and happen to find your purchase, and deem it worthy of investigation. Yeah, it's not very likely, but wouldn't you rather pay the protection money than risk having your proverbial kneecaps broken in an audit?
To make a long story short, the "free ride" won't last for too much longer. There will either be a national sales tax on internet purchases, or state governments will force retailers to collect tax for all the states that have a sales tax. There's simply too much money changing hands, and the Government wants a cut of it all. If you don't like it, write to your state representative and tell them how you feel!
(/off-topic rant)