The RIAA, a industry association, has a job to do everything they can to make sure everyone in the music industry gets paid.
True. But does that mean we have to do what they say? Example: Let's say Ford was making cars with cheap parts that made them monumentally unsafe. Ford isn't doing this because they want to kill people--they are doing it to save money. They have a duty to "increase shareholder value". Does that mean that I have a duty to buy their cars and get horribly mangled? No, on the contrary, I have a (moral) duty to inform others of the problem and lodge complaints with consumer protection orgs.
Similarly with the RIAA. They have a duty to make money (because they are a business or a business consortium). But they DON'T have a right to make money. Which means that I don't have a duty to GIVE THEM money (although I have that right).
It's all about understanding rights vs duties.
"I never understood why Slashdot always has to attack businesses!!"
Some (although by no means all) of Slashdot's "attacks" on businesses can be seen as consumer protection. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"The problem lies in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which states that you cannot know the position and the velocity of a particle at the same time...
Almost, Heisenberg's Principle says you cannot know postion and velocity both to within a certain amount of exactitude.
"...looking at the position leaves you with a 'blur of possibilities' for the velocity and vice versa."
Sort of. Measuring the postion of a particle more and more precisely makes the velocity less and less certain (and vice versa). So it's not the looking at the position/velocity, it's the accurate measurement thereof. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
First you say that we are trying to avoid laws--but Sealand doesn't have these laws, so I won't be avoiding them.
Oh wait, you mean, I'm trying to avoid the laws of MY country by hosting in a DIFFERENT country. Kind of like when artists move to Ireland to avoid US taxes. Or Jews moving to the US to avoid Nazis. Yeah, you're right, that kind of thing should be stopped.
If only out of respect for the government's right to steal our money. If only out of respect for the government's right to perform medical experiments on human beings.
Let's just forget about people who think these "rights" a little less than self-evident.
(To those of you who don't know what the word "analogy" means, no, I am not "equating" genocide with liberated music.) -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Why the "intentional" requirement? What about negligence?
Example (a real virus): If a surgeon found out he had AIDS but didn't quit his job and later infected a patient during surgery, I think we'd all agree that he'd be liable for the patient's sickness.
Another example: I advocate the use of murder charges against drunk drivers who kill. Why? Because they deliberately make choices that are known to have a high rate of death for potential victims.
So why not for computer viruses? In all seriousness, why can't Joe User be held (partially) liable for running an email client (*cough*outlook*cough*) that is known to cause a large amount of bandwidth sucking and server crashing? A little less ridiculous (although I'm not conceding that the example was ridiculous) is holding site admins responsible for viruses leaving their site. If they can strip incoming, they can strip outgoing.
And this isn't empty moralising, either (although that should be sufficient). There's a practical reason for all this: Advocating point-source solutions to an epidemic problem will never work. Prosecuting only the virus originators (and maybe a few knowing Typhoid Mellissas) doesn't reduce the attractiveness of the target--so new originators pop up. By prosecuting the victim (who is in turn a new originator) you can reduce the attractiveness of the target and thus the incidence of infection. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Don't think of this list as being "most widely used cracks" but as "cracks that have the worst effect". Unix runs the Internet, therefore Unix cracks 0wn the Internet. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"This consensus Top Ten list represents an unprecedented example of active cooperation among industry, government, and academia.
I was trying to think of some comments about things like the Manhattan Project, but I think the quote stands on it's own. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"Ih-rih-dee-um on-line" is 6 syllables. If you are going to spam Slashdot with these inane inventions, at least do it right. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I used to live in Bellingham, WA--about 80 miles north of Redmond/Seattle and about 45 minutes south of Vancouver.
Bellingham is the first fair-sized city south of Canada (Lynden and Blaine are tiny at best) so every weekend hordes of Canadians in campers descend on the back alleys and parking lots of B'ham to get some of our non-candadian-taxed, duty-free-if-you-stay-overnight goods (especially groceries). You wouldn't believe what this does to prices in B'ham--even 30 minutes south in Mount Vernon prices are radically lower.
Now put a bunch of overpaid, former (?) Americans with money to burn and memories of home into the equation: B'ham prices will suddenly skyrocket. Bellingham will become to Canada what Tijuana is to America.
B'ham is a nice town--I miss it. In a way, I hope the above scenario does play out--it will help me miss B'ham less... -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I don't own a single FPS except Doom...which came with Linux.
I DO own: The Incredible Machine Civilization A few Sim games A bunch of non-commercial puzzle type games A couple of non-comm non-puzzles (like XScorch) -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"...what kind of information a person can legitimately withhold."
In the US anyway, I can withhold any information I want. I find it frightening that we've gotten to the point where we unconsciously equate business with government (which CAN demand information).
You are under NO legal obligation to provide ANYONE ANY information (except the gov't). Of course, businesses have policies and may refuse you service--in which case you go elsewhere. Although even those companies that claim to have policies usually waive them if you refuse.
For instance, I became a "member" at a video store recently. She was asking for information and eventually got to "Do you have a work phone number?". Luckily I had seen that question coming up on her computer and had an answer ready: "Yes, but I don't think you need it." She skipped that one.
On a previous occasion at a different store they actually asked for my Social Security #. I was so taken by surprise that I actually recited it without thinking. Won't be doing THAT again. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"Apparently, the mouse responds to squeezing, tapping, and stroking...
Yeah, my mouse responds the same way. I find I get better response times when the user is female, however. That is, unless she puts a latex mouse cover on it--that totally ruins the interface quality. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
HBO had some anime thing they were playing for a few months about 5 years (?) ago. I only remember it because there was a big brouhaha about it on the news because it was...er...nearly x-rated. What was it called? It had a name that reminded me of something else, like "Master of the Universe" or something? -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Doom III? Will it be as good as Bill and Ted's II, Back to the Future III and Rocky XXXIV?
I realize that everyone reading this story gets a hardon when you say the word "Doom" and so I can kiss karma goodbye, but come on! Wolfenstein was revolutionary. Doom was "advanced". Everything since then is "copycat". Yes, even the stuff from id.
Will we ever get beyond 1st person shooters? Don't give me crap about "Quake is revolutionary, some of the monsters are green" either. I want a NEW GAME. I don't want to play the SAME GAME except for the requirement of a NEW VIDEO CARD. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
1 Wire cutters 1 RJ45 crimper 1 foot of electrical tape 300 miles of CAT5 cable
First, locate the underwater cable running to Hawaii. Use the wirecutters to strip to pierce the shielding and strip the end of your CAT5. Use the electrical tape to splice into the cable. Use the crimper to put an end on the CAT5. Now you can sail anywhere within ~300 miles of your splice. For longer distances, use a longer cable. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Take a look at your user history. All your posts eventually get looked at by moderators not smoking crack and get modded down to 0 or -1. At best you are entertaining yourself for a few minutes with a single temporarily, high-modded post at a time.
Others might respect your trolling, but the only thing that matters in the end is high-karma--and you ain't got it.
BTW, don't bother responding with a "what are you talking about, I'm not a troll" response: I don't intend to read it. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Thanks: all your work is not for naught, I think you've successfully pounded a modicum of data into my skull.
Three items, however:
1) So the pulse is not travelling backwards in time.
No, but it does arrive in the "past" in the minkowskian space-time sense, yes?
2) "...the information is packed into the leading edge of the pulse..."
Even supposing this is the case, that doesn't explain away the "time travel" aspects. According to your explanation, the entire pulse is recreated from the leading pulse a short distance away. What matters here is that the recreation occurred at a location before the original could have arrived there. It makes no difference what the recreation was based on. For instance, let's say the pulse had to fully traverse the chamber and THEN the copy was created across the room (before the original got there)--that's still time travel.
3) "...due to...the uncertainty principle...
I don't see how the uncertainty principle would be relevant to this case. The content of the signal is unimportant (no measuring of velocities, spins, etc)--just the fact of the arrival is enough--and that part works already. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
...but this "But some kind of EMF is still present in the 'forward' part of the interface, generating some field patterns named 'evanescent waves'" makes no sense to me.
The EMF exists forward of the interface, right? And it is detectable, right? Why isn't that enough to convey a single bit of information (yes there is a signal)? Or is the forward part a mathematical entity with no real existence? Of course, even then, superluminal signalling would be theoretically (even if not practically) possible. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
As I write this there are 3 responses to my questions, 2 of which agree on a (purported) answer to the second question. The question they answer is "what does 'leading edge of the pulse' mean", the queston I'm asking is "why does this keep you from sending a signal superluminally"?
Let's say the answer they give is correct, as far as it goes. The cesium atoms "reconstruct" the light wave from the leading edge. But what if the information is in the main pulse? If the atoms can reconstruct the main pulse, why not the information contained therein?
For instance, the leading edge is presumably much weaker than the main pulse. So let's say you had some "work" (in the mathematical sense) to do on the far side. The main pulse (containing all the energy) gets reconstructed and does the work before a "traditional" signal would have gotten there.
I was going to come up with a more detail example, but then I realized I had another question: What does "leading endge" mean? The pulse is travelling backwards in time. Anything travelling forwards in time must get there later, meaning it can't be "leading". -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
The Nature article was less confusing than the NYT article and it DID have a little more info. Except it didn't answer the questions I want answered. Namely, WTF are "evanescent waves" and why can't they carry information? -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Can someone with a degree in physics answer these questions:
"...under these peculiar circumstances, the main part of the pulse exits the far side of the chamber even before it enters at the near side."
At first I was going to flame NYT for such a stupid claim, but upon reading the rest of the article that appears to be what the scientists themselves are claiming. So my first question is: What is speed if not distance travelled divided by time elapsed? If the time elapsed is negative, how is the speed "300 times c"?
The second question is about the obvious "time travel" aspects. They say several times "you can't send info faster than c", but they don't indicate a reason. The closest they come to justifying this statement is (paraphrase) "there is a leading edge to the main pulse that arrives sooner".
So which is it? Did the pulse exit before it entered OR was there a "leading edge". You can't have it both ways. Either the signal travelled faster than light (in which case signaling superluminally is possible, by definite) OR it did NOT. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"...AOL is out for one thing and one thing only, that's to make money for their shareholders..."
Unlike RedHat and Transmeta who have a policy of stealing from shareholders and giving to hungry orphans? -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Slashdot Mirror
The RIAA, a industry association, has a job to do everything they can to make sure everyone in the music industry gets paid.
True. But does that mean we have to do what they say? Example: Let's say Ford was making cars with cheap parts that made them monumentally unsafe. Ford isn't doing this because they want to kill people--they are doing it to save money. They have a duty to "increase shareholder value". Does that mean that I have a duty to buy their cars and get horribly mangled? No, on the contrary, I have a (moral) duty to inform others of the problem and lodge complaints with consumer protection orgs.
Similarly with the RIAA. They have a duty to make money (because they are a business or a business consortium). But they DON'T have a right to make money. Which means that I don't have a duty to GIVE THEM money (although I have that right).
It's all about understanding rights vs duties.
"I never understood why Slashdot always has to attack businesses!!"
Some (although by no means all) of Slashdot's "attacks" on businesses can be seen as consumer protection.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"RIAA is the one being"
Dude, that's like, so profound...
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"The problem lies in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which states that you cannot know the position and the velocity of a particle at the same time...
Almost, Heisenberg's Principle says you cannot know postion and velocity both to within a certain amount of exactitude.
"...looking at the position leaves you with a 'blur of possibilities' for the velocity and vice versa."
Sort of. Measuring the postion of a particle more and more precisely makes the velocity less and less certain (and vice versa). So it's not the looking at the position/velocity, it's the accurate measurement thereof.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
First you say that we are trying to avoid laws--but Sealand doesn't have these laws, so I won't be avoiding them.
Oh wait, you mean, I'm trying to avoid the laws of MY country by hosting in a DIFFERENT country. Kind of like when artists move to Ireland to avoid US taxes. Or Jews moving to the US to avoid Nazis. Yeah, you're right, that kind of thing should be stopped.
If only out of respect for the government's right to steal our money. If only out of respect for the government's right to perform medical experiments on human beings.
Let's just forget about people who think these "rights" a little less than self-evident.
(To those of you who don't know what the word "analogy" means, no, I am not "equating" genocide with liberated music.)
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Why the "intentional" requirement? What about negligence?
Example (a real virus): If a surgeon found out he had AIDS but didn't quit his job and later infected a patient during surgery, I think we'd all agree that he'd be liable for the patient's sickness.
Another example: I advocate the use of murder charges against drunk drivers who kill. Why? Because they deliberately make choices that are known to have a high rate of death for potential victims.
So why not for computer viruses? In all seriousness, why can't Joe User be held (partially) liable for running an email client (*cough*outlook*cough*) that is known to cause a large amount of bandwidth sucking and server crashing? A little less ridiculous (although I'm not conceding that the example was ridiculous) is holding site admins responsible for viruses leaving their site. If they can strip incoming, they can strip outgoing.
And this isn't empty moralising, either (although that should be sufficient). There's a practical reason for all this: Advocating point-source solutions to an epidemic problem will never work. Prosecuting only the virus originators (and maybe a few knowing Typhoid Mellissas) doesn't reduce the attractiveness of the target--so new originators pop up. By prosecuting the victim (who is in turn a new originator) you can reduce the attractiveness of the target and thus the incidence of infection.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Don't think of this list as being "most widely used cracks" but as "cracks that have the worst effect". Unix runs the Internet, therefore Unix cracks 0wn the Internet.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"This consensus Top Ten list represents an unprecedented example of active cooperation among industry, government, and academia.
I was trying to think of some comments about things like the Manhattan Project, but I think the quote stands on it's own.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Haiku all in bold
They mean person cares about
Cool image, my thoughts
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"Ih-rih-dee-um on-line" is 6 syllables. If you are going to spam Slashdot with these inane inventions, at least do it right.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I used to live in Bellingham, WA--about 80 miles north of Redmond/Seattle and about 45 minutes south of Vancouver.
Bellingham is the first fair-sized city south of Canada (Lynden and Blaine are tiny at best) so every weekend hordes of Canadians in campers descend on the back alleys and parking lots of B'ham to get some of our non-candadian-taxed, duty-free-if-you-stay-overnight goods (especially groceries). You wouldn't believe what this does to prices in B'ham--even 30 minutes south in Mount Vernon prices are radically lower.
Now put a bunch of overpaid, former (?) Americans with money to burn and memories of home into the equation: B'ham prices will suddenly skyrocket. Bellingham will become to Canada what Tijuana is to America.
B'ham is a nice town--I miss it. In a way, I hope the above scenario does play out--it will help me miss B'ham less...
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"Microsoft Enticed To Move To Brisith Columbia"
Home of the Dark Lord?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I don't own a single FPS except Doom...which came with Linux.
I DO own:
The Incredible Machine
Civilization
A few Sim games
A bunch of non-commercial puzzle type games
A couple of non-comm non-puzzles (like XScorch)
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Yes, "Heavy Metal" it was.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"...what kind of information a person can legitimately withhold."
In the US anyway, I can withhold any information I want. I find it frightening that we've gotten to the point where we unconsciously equate business with government (which CAN demand information).
You are under NO legal obligation to provide ANYONE ANY information (except the gov't). Of course, businesses have policies and may refuse you service--in which case you go elsewhere. Although even those companies that claim to have policies usually waive them if you refuse.
For instance, I became a "member" at a video store recently. She was asking for information and eventually got to "Do you have a work phone number?". Luckily I had seen that question coming up on her computer and had an answer ready: "Yes, but I don't think you need it." She skipped that one.
On a previous occasion at a different store they actually asked for my Social Security #. I was so taken by surprise that I actually recited it without thinking. Won't be doing THAT again.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"Apparently, the mouse responds to squeezing, tapping, and stroking...
Yeah, my mouse responds the same way. I find I get better response times when the user is female, however. That is, unless she puts a latex mouse cover on it--that totally ruins the interface quality.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
HBO had some anime thing they were playing for a few months about 5 years (?) ago. I only remember it because there was a big brouhaha about it on the news because it was...er...nearly x-rated. What was it called? It had a name that reminded me of something else, like "Master of the Universe" or something?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Doom III? Will it be as good as Bill and Ted's II, Back to the Future III and Rocky XXXIV?
I realize that everyone reading this story gets a hardon when you say the word "Doom" and so I can kiss karma goodbye, but come on! Wolfenstein was revolutionary. Doom was "advanced". Everything since then is "copycat". Yes, even the stuff from id.
Will we ever get beyond 1st person shooters? Don't give me crap about "Quake is revolutionary, some of the monsters are green" either. I want a NEW GAME. I don't want to play the SAME GAME except for the requirement of a NEW VIDEO CARD.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
You will need:
1 Wire cutters
1 RJ45 crimper
1 foot of electrical tape
300 miles of CAT5 cable
First, locate the underwater cable running to Hawaii. Use the wirecutters to strip to pierce the shielding and strip the end of your CAT5. Use the electrical tape to splice into the cable. Use the crimper to put an end on the CAT5. Now you can sail anywhere within ~300 miles of your splice. For longer distances, use a longer cable.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Take a look at your user history. All your posts eventually get looked at by moderators not smoking crack and get modded down to 0 or -1. At best you are entertaining yourself for a few minutes with a single temporarily, high-modded post at a time.
Others might respect your trolling, but the only thing that matters in the end is high-karma--and you ain't got it.
BTW, don't bother responding with a "what are you talking about, I'm not a troll" response: I don't intend to read it.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Thanks: all your work is not for naught, I think you've successfully pounded a modicum of data into my skull.
Three items, however:
1) So the pulse is not travelling backwards in time.
No, but it does arrive in the "past" in the minkowskian space-time sense, yes?
2) "...the information is packed into the leading edge of the pulse..."
Even supposing this is the case, that doesn't explain away the "time travel" aspects. According to your explanation, the entire pulse is recreated from the leading pulse a short distance away. What matters here is that the recreation occurred at a location before the original could have arrived there. It makes no difference what the recreation was based on. For instance, let's say the pulse had to fully traverse the chamber and THEN the copy was created across the room (before the original got there)--that's still time travel.
3) "...due to...the uncertainty principle...
I don't see how the uncertainty principle would be relevant to this case. The content of the signal is unimportant (no measuring of velocities, spins, etc)--just the fact of the arrival is enough--and that part works already.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
...but this "But some kind of EMF is still present in the 'forward' part of the interface, generating some field patterns named 'evanescent waves'" makes no sense to me.
The EMF exists forward of the interface, right? And it is detectable, right? Why isn't that enough to convey a single bit of information (yes there is a signal)? Or is the forward part a mathematical entity with no real existence? Of course, even then, superluminal signalling would be theoretically (even if not practically) possible.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
As I write this there are 3 responses to my questions, 2 of which agree on a (purported) answer to the second question. The question they answer is "what does 'leading edge of the pulse' mean", the queston I'm asking is "why does this keep you from sending a signal superluminally"?
Let's say the answer they give is correct, as far as it goes. The cesium atoms "reconstruct" the light wave from the leading edge. But what if the information is in the main pulse? If the atoms can reconstruct the main pulse, why not the information contained therein?
For instance, the leading edge is presumably much weaker than the main pulse. So let's say you had some "work" (in the mathematical sense) to do on the far side. The main pulse (containing all the energy) gets reconstructed and does the work before a "traditional" signal would have gotten there.
I was going to come up with a more detail example, but then I realized I had another question: What does "leading endge" mean? The pulse is travelling backwards in time. Anything travelling forwards in time must get there later, meaning it can't be "leading".
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
The Nature article was less confusing than the NYT article and it DID have a little more info. Except it didn't answer the questions I want answered. Namely, WTF are "evanescent waves" and why can't they carry information?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Can someone with a degree in physics answer these questions:
"...under these peculiar circumstances, the main part of the pulse exits the far side of the chamber even before it enters at the near side."
At first I was going to flame NYT for such a stupid claim, but upon reading the rest of the article that appears to be what the scientists themselves are claiming. So my first question is: What is speed if not distance travelled divided by time elapsed? If the time elapsed is negative, how is the speed "300 times c"?
The second question is about the obvious "time travel" aspects. They say several times "you can't send info faster than c", but they don't indicate a reason. The closest they come to justifying this statement is (paraphrase) "there is a leading edge to the main pulse that arrives sooner".
So which is it? Did the pulse exit before it entered OR was there a "leading edge". You can't have it both ways. Either the signal travelled faster than light (in which case signaling superluminally is possible, by definite) OR it did NOT.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"...AOL is out for one thing and one thing only, that's to make money for their shareholders..."
Unlike RedHat and Transmeta who have a policy of stealing from shareholders and giving to hungry orphans?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?