Think how handy this would have been when I was downloading those hundreds of megabytes of Tsunami homemade camcorder videos, mpegs, etc. to play in Kaffeine.
Or what about if I want to distribute a customized CD of something that is non copyright infringing? A custom Knoppix CD? A custom OpenOffice.org cd? etc. Why are steps in the evolution of software that eventually will make it easy for everyone to share, and to download huge files a bad thing?
Please, give it a rest. You cannot change the bottom line. Spend your time writing better GUIs and promoting a 'standard'.
I agree. Joe Fourpack needs P2P applications with better GUI's; and a standard p2p is needed so that everyone's shared file collections are not scattered amongst different p2p protocols.
When I spend my money on your competition, it doesn't COST you money.
Comrad, do I detect a subversive thought here?
Microsoft is Losing Money due to Linux and OpenOffice.org.
The RIAA is Losing Money due to fewer people buying CD's.
When you skip television commercials, you are stealing.
Don't you get it? Not spending money in the way that our God given Corporations want you to endangers the very fabric of upper society. All RightThinking(tm) people understand this; or, are at least too busy consuming to have idle time to consider such subversive thoughts.
How is linux technologically innovative? It's a Unix clone.
It is open source. That is innovative. The end result, in hindsight, is now obvious. Standardization. Defragmentation.
The innovation is the license. That license is probably mostly responsible for the development success of Linux that transforms it from a hobby into something supported by corporate giants, making it the biggest fear of Microsoft.
That seems innovative to me.
Similarly, OpenOffice.org, is open source. That is innovative. A whole community (I'm part of it) that develops add ons, macros, etc. for OpenOffice.org. Users of Sun's commercial StarOffice can use all of those new add on's, macros, etc. I don't mind that StarOffice users benefit from tools I wrote for OpenOffice.org (as long as they comply with my license). My original goal of making useful tools for OpenOffice.org users is satisfied.
In an analogous fashion, commercial organizations get benefit from Linux, and nobody seems to mind. It is even encouraged.
In so far it has a purpose it is to exist and be manned, nothing more, and at that it has suceeded.
I thought that the ISS' purpose was mostly to keep our aerospace contractors fat and happy -- a task at which it has succeeded. Therefore, even if it is abandoned. Even if it is deorbited, as suggested by ancestor posting, it has accomplished its true purpose.
If we ever are able to store data using a technique similar to DNA, then it will be possible to store all of the world's data in a device small enough to lose in the corner of a room.
Then what will the RIAA / MPAA do? Make you pay for all of that data a second time?
If they're (the DOJ) worried that they can't find any (pr0n), they must be really really stupid.
Or maybe, they find it, and they are just shocked!
They can't believe their eyes!
So shocked in fact that they have to check again the next day to see if what they saw yesterday was real or not. Upon confirming that it was indeed real, they are so shocked that they are unable to initiate any action. They have to bookmark the site so that they can reconfirm that such evil is actually taking place within our sacred borders.
Sorry to reply to my own post. But what if reassembly instructions for blocks were obtained via. a completely seperate mechanism. For instance, I download a reassembly list from a web site. Put that file into my Blocks-Gnutella program, and it reassembles a file by getting various blocks out of a p2p network.
What if you used a completely separate mechanism and software to distribute reassembly lists of blocks.
Nobody distributing reassembly lists is using the same tools/network/protocol as anyone redistributing blocks of data.
My KDE might have a convenient client program that combines the search/reassembly functions into a single convenient operation. But the distributors of the data are not necessarily in collusion.
One problem with p2p networks, regardless of how they work, is that at some point you are downloading copyrighted bits, even if encrypted, from some IP or combination of IP addresses.
What if none of the bits you downloaded were encrypted?
Suppose I want to download CrappyMusic.mp3. What I find in the network is a document of instructions that tells me how to put that file together. Suppose CrappyMusic.mp3 is made up of 100 K blocks. The list of instructions might look like...
In effect, I must download two or three times the amount of data that makes up CrappyMusic.mp3, but none of those bits themselves are copyrighted. Each block may be available via. many sources -- giving you a torrent-like advantage. Each block has an MD5 sum, which is included in the instructions. That way, when you go out to the network for Block285738278, you know that you actually got that block, according to your re-assembly instructions.
Now, the MPAA/RIAA might argue as follows. The first 100K of your download file was made from Block101 and Block109. Therefore, Block101 and Block109 must both be copyright material. But then what if Block101 combined with Block207 gives you the first 100K of The Bible, and Block109 combined with Block224 gives you the first 100K of The Declaration of Independance? So is Block101 or Block109 copyright infringing material?
Suppose each Block is a single request out of a large p2p network. Each block can be tracked to a particular IP address it originated from. i.e. if your node asks my node for Block28957839872, I'll give it to you, and it came from my IP. But that block is not copyrighted bits. I have other bits on my system that when combined with that block result in perfectly legal material.
When you do a search in the network, for a title, such as CrappyMusic.mp3, what you get back is a list of reassembly instructions. Now the problem becomes, how to protect the distribution of lists of re-assembly instructions? Of course, the list itself is not copyright infringing. It merely points out that certain blocks in the network, when recombined in certain ways, result in copyright infringing material. You could take this to the Nth degree. Maybe the reassembly list is itself distributed through the Blocks system and you have to first get a reassembly list that tells you how to obtain blocks and assemble a set of reassembly instructions, that when followed, would result in CrappyMusic.mp3. The software could automatically recurse, if the reply stated that what was reconstructed was actually another re-assembly list. (Of course, this opens up potential DDOS possibilities.)
The premise behind this idea is not to try to keep you anonymous, but make the blocks you are distributing not be copyright infringing.
Maybe each block should be properly sized such that a single block can fit into a UDP packet?
The languages are artificially rigid. They are read-only. The simplest things you want to write require you to consult documentation on the proper syntax. What property is available, etc. Your natural english tendancy leads you to frequently want to use the wrong syntax or property name. It has been a very long time now, but I seem to recall... you must understand detailed rules to properly choose whether to use a construction such as "the FooBar" or "FooBar of Baz". (Remember, it has been a long time, I'm just repeating how I vaguely remember my experience with both languages of long ago.)
Once written, the code reads (mostly) like natural english. But at what cost to write!
Now, I very much take the position that code should be written to be read, and that readability is more important than the effort to write it readably. You only have to write it once. But that code, in its lifetime will be read many times.
That said, the typical punctuation and syntax of non-english-programming languages are much more readable (and writable) for anyone who can understand and maintain the program. If someone cannot alter the program, then is it that important that they can read it and loosly follow it? Even well written non-english-like code can be readable by a non-programmer.
Aren't RFID chips very tiny? If they can be made small enough, they could be put into individual pills. The RFID chips would pass through the GI tract intact.
Think of the numerous advantages this would have.
The pharmisist could scan your bottles at check out time to be sure that you
Had the right drugs
Had the right number of drugs
Had genuine drugs (i.e. that you had the most expensive drugs)
Your car could scan you to be sure that you have not ingested any drugs that would impair your driving
Your partner could scan to see if that thing is real, or a result of viagra
Your employer could scan you to find out if you take prescription medications
High tech thieves could scan you to see if you take expensive or abusable drugs
The government could be sure that you've taken your required medication
I don't find it very likely that BitTorrent authors will be sued. Many Linux distributions use BitTorrent to distribute Linux ISOs
I disagree.
I believe that this reason makes it even more likely that BitTorrent authors and users will be sued.
Not only is BitTorrent used to distribute copyright infringing material, it is also used to distribute that commie, er., um, I mean terrorist operating system used by hackers. And doesn't that "linux" thing also infringe SCO's intellectual property?
For the non-American:
£500 million - US$924 million
LOTS of countries use $ as their currency symbol.
By your use of the word "LOTS" you are implying that there are even additional other countries besides the "non-American" one (£500 million) and the US one ($924 million)?
I think they should cut Walmart and then tell everyone that 20% drop in sales is because of online piracy and they need some thought control laws to protect their profits.
You forgot one thing though. Otherwise your plan sounds good.
You forgot the part about raising their prices by 20%, then blaming the declining unit volume on piracy, and getting some thought control laws passed.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't Bubble-Wrap jumpsuits work better? (At least on attractive people?)
Then again, it's pretty tough to charge someone for commiting suicide.
But if you can prevent them from committing suicide, then you can charge them with the crime.
Such a crime should merit the death penalty.
I sure hope that SCO does not discover that a mere claim of wrongdoing is "evidence".
Outside piracy, how useful is this?
Think how handy this would have been when I was downloading those hundreds of megabytes of Tsunami homemade camcorder videos, mpegs, etc. to play in Kaffeine.
Or what about if I want to distribute a customized CD of something that is non copyright infringing? A custom Knoppix CD? A custom OpenOffice.org cd? etc. Why are steps in the evolution of software that eventually will make it easy for everyone to share, and to download huge files a bad thing?
Why does everyone think p2p is only about piracy?
Please, give it a rest. You cannot change the bottom line. Spend your time writing better GUIs and promoting a 'standard'.
I agree. Joe Fourpack needs P2P applications with better GUI's; and a standard p2p is needed so that everyone's shared file collections are not scattered amongst different p2p protocols.
At what point do these things get out of control and destroy all flies and apples?
When I spend my money on your competition, it doesn't COST you money.
Comrad, do I detect a subversive thought here?
Microsoft is Losing Money due to Linux and OpenOffice.org.
The RIAA is Losing Money due to fewer people buying CD's.
When you skip television commercials, you are stealing.
Don't you get it? Not spending money in the way that our God given Corporations want you to endangers the very fabric of upper society. All RightThinking(tm) people understand this; or, are at least too busy consuming to have idle time to consider such subversive thoughts.
How is linux technologically innovative? It's a Unix clone.
It is open source. That is innovative. The end result, in hindsight, is now obvious. Standardization. Defragmentation.
The innovation is the license. That license is probably mostly responsible for the development success of Linux that transforms it from a hobby into something supported by corporate giants, making it the biggest fear of Microsoft.
That seems innovative to me.
Similarly, OpenOffice.org, is open source. That is innovative. A whole community (I'm part of it) that develops add ons, macros, etc. for OpenOffice.org. Users of Sun's commercial StarOffice can use all of those new add on's, macros, etc. I don't mind that StarOffice users benefit from tools I wrote for OpenOffice.org (as long as they comply with my license). My original goal of making useful tools for OpenOffice.org users is satisfied.
In an analogous fashion, commercial organizations get benefit from Linux, and nobody seems to mind. It is even encouraged.
That seems innovative to me.
So can Canadians then distribute copyrighted works to Americans?
In so far it has a purpose it is to exist and be manned, nothing more, and at that it has suceeded.
I thought that the ISS' purpose was mostly to keep our aerospace contractors fat and happy -- a task at which it has succeeded. Therefore, even if it is abandoned. Even if it is deorbited, as suggested by ancestor posting, it has accomplished its true purpose.
I remember reading a prediction in the 80's.
If we ever are able to store data using a technique similar to DNA, then it will be possible to store all of the world's data in a device small enough to lose in the corner of a room.
Then what will the RIAA / MPAA do? Make you pay for all of that data a second time?
If they're (the DOJ) worried that they can't find any (pr0n), they must be really really stupid.
Or maybe, they find it, and they are just shocked!
They can't believe their eyes!
So shocked in fact that they have to check again the next day to see if what they saw yesterday was real or not. Upon confirming that it was indeed real, they are so shocked that they are unable to initiate any action. They have to bookmark the site so that they can reconfirm that such evil is actually taking place within our sacred borders.
Sorry to reply to my own post. But what if reassembly instructions for blocks were obtained via. a completely seperate mechanism. For instance, I download a reassembly list from a web site. Put that file into my Blocks-Gnutella program, and it reassembles a file by getting various blocks out of a p2p network.
What if you used a completely separate mechanism and software to distribute reassembly lists of blocks.
Nobody distributing reassembly lists is using the same tools/network/protocol as anyone redistributing blocks of data.
My KDE might have a convenient client program that combines the search/reassembly functions into a single convenient operation. But the distributors of the data are not necessarily in collusion.
What if none of the bits you downloaded were encrypted?
Suppose I want to download CrappyMusic.mp3. What I find in the network is a document of instructions that tells me how to put that file together. Suppose CrappyMusic.mp3 is made up of 100 K blocks. The list of instructions might look like...
- 1st 100K = Block185737829 XOR Block5872812887
- 2nd 100K = Block877388228 XOR Block2875734882
- 3rd 100K = Block578378298 XOR BLock57818723 XOR Block21857893
- 4th 100K = Block587378928 XOR Block28757893
- etc., etc., etc. for the rest of the file.
In effect, I must download two or three times the amount of data that makes up CrappyMusic.mp3, but none of those bits themselves are copyrighted. Each block may be available via. many sources -- giving you a torrent-like advantage. Each block has an MD5 sum, which is included in the instructions. That way, when you go out to the network for Block285738278, you know that you actually got that block, according to your re-assembly instructions.Now, the MPAA/RIAA might argue as follows. The first 100K of your download file was made from Block101 and Block109. Therefore, Block101 and Block109 must both be copyright material. But then what if Block101 combined with Block207 gives you the first 100K of The Bible, and Block109 combined with Block224 gives you the first 100K of The Declaration of Independance? So is Block101 or Block109 copyright infringing material?
Suppose each Block is a single request out of a large p2p network. Each block can be tracked to a particular IP address it originated from. i.e. if your node asks my node for Block28957839872, I'll give it to you, and it came from my IP. But that block is not copyrighted bits. I have other bits on my system that when combined with that block result in perfectly legal material.
When you do a search in the network, for a title, such as CrappyMusic.mp3, what you get back is a list of reassembly instructions. Now the problem becomes, how to protect the distribution of lists of re-assembly instructions? Of course, the list itself is not copyright infringing. It merely points out that certain blocks in the network, when recombined in certain ways, result in copyright infringing material. You could take this to the Nth degree. Maybe the reassembly list is itself distributed through the Blocks system and you have to first get a reassembly list that tells you how to obtain blocks and assemble a set of reassembly instructions, that when followed, would result in CrappyMusic.mp3. The software could automatically recurse, if the reply stated that what was reconstructed was actually another re-assembly list. (Of course, this opens up potential DDOS possibilities.)
The premise behind this idea is not to try to keep you anonymous, but make the blocks you are distributing not be copyright infringing.
Maybe each block should be properly sized such that a single block can fit into a UDP packet?
You're telling me that H1B workers
- Can quit anytime they want
- Make lots of money, as much or more than locals
- Costs the employer significant legal costs
- Not exploitable
So then why are employers wanting to hire them in droves?Oh, right, it must be because they can do work that locals cannot do. They must be sooooo much more talented or smarter.
I simply cannot believe that. At least not in the kinds of numbers that employers seem to want H1B's.
I've used both HyperTalk and AppleScript.
The languages are artificially rigid. They are read-only. The simplest things you want to write require you to consult documentation on the proper syntax. What property is available, etc. Your natural english tendancy leads you to frequently want to use the wrong syntax or property name. It has been a very long time now, but I seem to recall... you must understand detailed rules to properly choose whether to use a construction such as "the FooBar" or "FooBar of Baz". (Remember, it has been a long time, I'm just repeating how I vaguely remember my experience with both languages of long ago.)
Once written, the code reads (mostly) like natural english. But at what cost to write!
Now, I very much take the position that code should be written to be read, and that readability is more important than the effort to write it readably. You only have to write it once. But that code, in its lifetime will be read many times.
That said, the typical punctuation and syntax of non-english-programming languages are much more readable (and writable) for anyone who can understand and maintain the program. If someone cannot alter the program, then is it that important that they can read it and loosly follow it? Even well written non-english-like code can be readable by a non-programmer.
The surfact of the moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds.
(Don't remember where I read that quote.)
Please submit your brilliant and insightful article to Wikipedia.
Not so. Telescopes do not fit into the dishwasher so well.
I don't find it very likely that BitTorrent authors will be sued. Many Linux distributions use BitTorrent to distribute Linux ISOs
I disagree.
I believe that this reason makes it even more likely that BitTorrent authors and users will be sued.
Not only is BitTorrent used to distribute copyright infringing material, it is also used to distribute that commie, er., um, I mean terrorist operating system used by hackers. And doesn't that "linux" thing also infringe SCO's intellectual property?
For the non-American: £500 million - US$924 million
LOTS of countries use $ as their currency symbol.
By your use of the word "LOTS" you are implying that there are even additional other countries besides the "non-American" one (£500 million) and the US one ($924 million)?
Soyuz may have a better safety record, but it is far less effective than the Shuttle at keeping our aerospace contractors fat and happy.
Don't tell me! You're preaching to the chior. Tell it to your congresscritter.
I think they should cut Walmart and then tell everyone that 20% drop in sales is because of online piracy and they need some thought control laws to protect their profits.
You forgot one thing though. Otherwise your plan sounds good.
You forgot the part about raising their prices by 20%, then blaming the declining unit volume on piracy, and getting some thought control laws passed.