Thanks for posting that - I loved this book as a kid and think of it every time I hear about archaeological excavations. David Macauley knows of what he speaks.
"We have ascertained that many of the URLs you provide do not in fact contain or link to your copyrighted content. It is apparent that you have not verified the URLs to be infringing under the provisions of the DMCA, and therefore cannot honor your request."
They should do this anytime even a single URL fails to link to infringing content in this way. Maybe after enough tries IP holders will get their act together. Maybe not.
Personally, I don't support piracy, and I do support IP in principle - but copyright is far too long (I think anything over approximately one generation is excessive), and nonsense like this has to stop. I'm glad the DMCA grants safe harbor, but there need to be penalties for companies that abuse the system. Perhaps losing the IP is too severe, but losing the ability to file DMCA takedowns for a period of time might be appropriate.
inventions were more plentiful and beneficial to society than they are today
I truly cannot comprehend how you can believe this is true. [anecdote re marvels of modern travel]
I think the GP was saying that genuinely transformative inventions were more plentiful and more beneficial to society during the 1800s than they are now. Inventions, not products. And it may be true: consider the steam engine, rail travel, photography, telegraph, electricity, as well as many advances in agriculture that occurred during the 19th century, that genuinely changed the way society lived and worked.
The car (19th century invention) and airplane had their impact in the 20th century, but one could argue they were not as revolutionary as the changes from horse-drawn carriage to train, and train to air travel were. Even nuclear advances can be viewed as incremental: a better way to make electricity, and a (much) bigger bomb.
I think the most significant invention of the 20th century is the transistor, because of the computing revolution that came with it, culminating in the globally-connected digital society of the 21st century, but I think someone could make the case the 19th century can claim more (in number) genuinely revolutionary inventions.
Yes - the whole point of the 24 Hours of LeMons (I'm a participant in this series) is that it's cheap cars: purchase price + repairs must be less than $500 (safety equipment is exempt). The organizers deliberately tried to keep out overly-serious, throw-the-checkbook-at-it types, to make it accessible to the average guy. Teams typically go with a "theme" to keep the sport fun (keeps out the super-serious types), and the result is a lot of creativity and humor along with real endurance racing.
The organizers really like to see unusual, oddball cars that have no business on a racetrack, and BMW E30 cars are very common, cheap, reliable, high-performing cars; this gives them a somewhat negative reputation. So the organizers encourage teams that want to run cars like this to be creative in putting together their theme, and this team is one of those. They started with an E30, and decided to make it look like The Homer. Previously, this same car was a 1958 Plymouth Fury ("Christine").
In the crapcan endurance racing world, this car is an amazing achievement. In the professional replica car building world, not so much. Other notable LeMons cars recently have been a Cessna fuselage on a Toyota van chassis; a self-driving popup camper; a Toyota MR2 with a radial aircraft engine; the front of a Toyota Corolla welded to the back of an MR2 for a two-engine, four-wheel drive car; a Geo Metro with a mid-mounted Taurus SHO engine done up as a replica of Nobuhiro Tajima's Pikes Peak SX4; a replica of the stair car from Arrested Development; and many, many other creative builds (including Star Wars and Star Trek themes). All of which are built to survive 14+ hours of racing (most races are during the day on Saturday & Sunday, some are 24-hours straight).
I'm happy to see my sport of choice make it onto Slashdot - there are a lot of nerds in LeMons. Heck, half my team are software developers.
I have somewhere an old flyer advertising TIE Fighter, and it had the slogan "Flying for the Rebel Alliance was never this fun!" and it's true, it wasn't. TIE Fighter was a better game. And I liked the fact that they didn't make it like you were playing for the bad guys, it was really told from the Empire's perspective of things.
Exactly. The 2 made-for-TV Ewok movies didn't have episode numbers, and I'm not sure they even had "Star Wars" in the title originally. The one-offs shouldn't have episode numbers. It makes sense to use numbering for sequential stories that are part of an arc, however they don't have to have "Star Wars" in the title. "Dawn of the Jedi: Episodes I-V", "Yoda's Playhouse, Episodes I-X", etc. etc. Thus each story arc can have a clearly identifiable name without messing with the films already made.
Not the GP, but I recently rented a Ford Fusion with Microsoft's Sync technology w/ touchscreen control that behaved in an similar way to GP's description. To control volume, switch tracks, scan frequencies, or turn off audio was easily done from tactile controls, but switching audio source between satellite, FM, bluetooth, aux, or whatever required touchscreen control, best done while not moving or by passenger. I can't recall how switching folders/albums was done.
Once we synched my wife's phone with the car, we didn't have to think about it again. Every time we got in the car, it was available as an input source, and if it was the last one selected, it was the default. The car would even tell the phone to pause playback when we turned it off and resume from where it left off next time we turned the car on, just like you'd expect (well, if you expect that).
Overall, I thought it was a good fusion of touchscreen and tactile controls. There were also some steering wheel controls for the system that I didn't quite master beyond A/C temp + fan speed. It had a fancy digital dash, too. I liked the way the car interface worked (I had it for a week), but I kept wondering, "will these gadgets & screens work in 5-10 years, and how much will they cost to replace?" The 6-CD changer in my personal DD got fried the last time the battery died, and the dealer quoted me $600 for replacing that alone (2005 Pontiac G6).
"Oh, you mean that domestic telephone surveillance program. I thought you were talking about the... er, something else."
My favorite line (from another article): "Clapper had previously said that his answer to the committee was the 'least untruthful' one he could publicly provide."
In other words, "I only lied as much as I had to." Such honesty.
Cynically, I wouldn't be surprised if the *AAs have been trying to make it illegal to be in possession of DRM-free MP3s and movies under the assumption you must have broken the law to have them.
That ship has sailed, what with DRM-free MP3s available on iTunes and Amazon. Unless those files have some unalterable metadata, there's no way for a border patrol agent to know how they were obtained.
I messed around with GW-BASIC on my parent's Tandy 1000SX (8086), but it was when they got a 486 with QBasic that I really started learning. I modified Nibbles to add 3 players, special abilities, more levels, random levels, and all kinds of stuff. I basically learned how to program by messing with that game. Now I'm a software dev at a major financial insitution! All you people with a 401k have Nibbles to thank for the success (you're welcome) or failure (Microsoft's fault) of your retirement fund.
I have approximately the same plan as gtbritishskull, and it is, in fact, unlimited data, throttled back to 3G speeds after 2.5 GB has been used in a month (2GB on my plan). So it's the same type of "unlimited" as your plan. I can also select throttle trigger caps of 200MB and 5GB, for a few bucks less or more per month, respectively.
I've never hit my 2GB limit, since most of my data usage is while on WiFi, but I often watch Netflix during lunch at work, and have figured out that I could stream about one half-hour show per day without going over that limit. I don't know how much slower the limited speeds are.
How well would that work, though? By now, the comments on the videos apparently have McKeogh's home address, phone number, and other personal details. A small note of sanity won't stop the self-righteous asshats of the Internet from making this man's life hell. Even through this discussion, there's already many commentors promising to perpetuate the man's suffering, just out of spite for being told that not to libel others.
And these people would then be liable for whatever legal recourse there is for online stalking/harassment, and deleting the video probably wouldn't curb that much anyway.
The problem is the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. Someone's personal life has been severely harmed by the information these companies continue to publish. When they're asked to stop publishing such lies, the schmucks crawl out to protest this affront to their ability to screw up others' lives, and they promise to just screw up the man's life even worse than before.
This is not civilization. This is unbridled sadism masquerading as vigilantism.
And by "shmucks" are you referring to Google/Facebook/et al., or the people actually doing the harassing? I just don't think there's a feasible way, nor should there be, to prevent all future potential harassment. The GIFT (ironic, heh) is an unfortunate but necessary by-product of a free internet.
an order that is both idiotic and futile is not necessarily illegitimate and an injustice. It's just dumb. if you've been libeled and the judge orders the libel removed it's not injustice if it's impossible to actually remove the libel. it's just not possible (and in this case it's not).
I don't necessarily disagree...
I'm not sure how many other ways I can put this. It's not justice making sure slander cannot be removed upon order. The guy didn't do it. So you're saying it's a corruption of justice if we can't see a video and comments that finger him as the perpetrator? That's justice to you? It isn't to me, but you've got your own style, I guess.
If ordering the removal of the video infringes on YouTube's, Facebooks, and whoever else's rights, then yes, it's unjust. I totally understand the libel/slander issue here - but the focus should then be on those doing the libeling/slandering, not YouTube/Facebook/etc. I wasn't there for the hearing, and I don't know Irish laws, so there may be no equivalent of DMCA safe-harbor provision, but I don't see any rational way that merely focusing on the hosting of the video addresses these issues. It is, however, an easier target for the plaintiff to sue the sites, rather than each individual making nasty comments.
I don't actually think we disagree all that much - but I'm making a crucial distinction between the video and the comments.
Well, that's true - but I wasn't talking about literally everything. But viral videos, or other popular content tends to stick around. The internet has this potential: if people want it, it will be available. Hence the utter failure of DRM and copy protection. So stuff can be removed, or just drop off, but no one can guarantee permanent removal of anything.
Except that even if it's completely removed once, it will resurface widely and immediately. If reducing the harm to Mr. McKeogh's reputation is the priority, they should leave all known copies up, but add a note that the person is NOT Mr. McKeogh, possibly with a link to this case.
I'm sure the judge is not a numbskull, but the whole problem is not the video, but the misinformation accompanying the video.
Taking a stand against ridiculous court orders. Civil disobedience to promote awareness and justice. Defiance of an illegitimate order from a lawful authority.
Basically, to point out the futility of what is frankly an idiotic order. The experts ought to tell the judge that once it's on the internet, it's there for all time.
It's interesting to compare cable TV to gas - in some ways it's like a utility that is nonessential. In the US, commercial cable TV predates satellite, so it was for a time the only option for expanded programming, and in rural areas or areas not served by broadcast, the only option for TV at all. Still, it's less necessary than gas service, because the cost of replacing appliances dependent on gas may be prohibitive compared to the cost of gas service, and people generally accept that ovens/ranges and water heaters are pretty much essential to normal life. TV isn't.
There are many good replies to my question here. I wasn't trolling, I was legitimately asking.
I can understand the collusion/monopoly arguments - those would grant government a legit reason to step in and protect the consumer from unfair business practices, but I'm not aware of any allegations of collusion between cable/satellite providers to maintain the "tiered package" business model to the detriment of consumers. I also don't think cable TV companies can generally be rightly considered monopolies, because although that specific delivery mechanism may grant a natural monopoly, there are 2 major satellite providers, and there's a lot of room in geostationary orbit.
As far as sports blackouts, I see that as a result of the agreement between content owners and content providers. If consumers cancel cable or just a sports package because of blackouts, the cable company can use that as a bargaining chip next time around. If consumers don't cancel, and continue to pay for the service they get, the cable company has no incentive to push the content owner for a change in the contract.
Cable TV is a luxury in sense that the parent points out - people don't need it, they pay for it if they feel that the product/service is worth the cost. I pay (a lot) for Comcast cable, I have the HD DVR with the On Demand feature; while I'm not a fan of them as a company, the quality of service I have recieved is quite acceptable. I also have a Roku for an older (non-HD) TV, Netflix and Amazon Prime are available for that device for a fraction of the cost of cable. I would also be happy not to watch at all.
It strikes me as pandering, not solving an actual problem.
Well, these are things I wish the companies would do, but making a federal case about it? I don't see the justification. These are terms negotiated in contracts for cable TV - I don't see a compelling reason for the government to step in. Is there some right of the people to get the TV channels they want at the price they want that I don't know about? Am I missing something?
Slashdot Mirror
They were trying to plant grass on the wind-ward side of the dunes to prevent them from moving like this. They were eventually to become grassy hills.
Thanks for posting that - I loved this book as a kid and think of it every time I hear about archaeological excavations. David Macauley knows of what he speaks.
Google's reply should be:
"We have ascertained that many of the URLs you provide do not in fact contain or link to your copyrighted content. It is apparent that you have not verified the URLs to be infringing under the provisions of the DMCA, and therefore cannot honor your request."
They should do this anytime even a single URL fails to link to infringing content in this way. Maybe after enough tries IP holders will get their act together. Maybe not.
Personally, I don't support piracy, and I do support IP in principle - but copyright is far too long (I think anything over approximately one generation is excessive), and nonsense like this has to stop. I'm glad the DMCA grants safe harbor, but there need to be penalties for companies that abuse the system. Perhaps losing the IP is too severe, but losing the ability to file DMCA takedowns for a period of time might be appropriate.
inventions were more plentiful and beneficial to society than they are today
I truly cannot comprehend how you can believe this is true. [anecdote re marvels of modern travel]
I think the GP was saying that genuinely transformative inventions were more plentiful and more beneficial to society during the 1800s than they are now. Inventions, not products. And it may be true: consider the steam engine, rail travel, photography, telegraph, electricity, as well as many advances in agriculture that occurred during the 19th century, that genuinely changed the way society lived and worked.
The car (19th century invention) and airplane had their impact in the 20th century, but one could argue they were not as revolutionary as the changes from horse-drawn carriage to train, and train to air travel were. Even nuclear advances can be viewed as incremental: a better way to make electricity, and a (much) bigger bomb.
I think the most significant invention of the 20th century is the transistor, because of the computing revolution that came with it, culminating in the globally-connected digital society of the 21st century, but I think someone could make the case the 19th century can claim more (in number) genuinely revolutionary inventions.
Yes - the whole point of the 24 Hours of LeMons (I'm a participant in this series) is that it's cheap cars: purchase price + repairs must be less than $500 (safety equipment is exempt). The organizers deliberately tried to keep out overly-serious, throw-the-checkbook-at-it types, to make it accessible to the average guy. Teams typically go with a "theme" to keep the sport fun (keeps out the super-serious types), and the result is a lot of creativity and humor along with real endurance racing.
The organizers really like to see unusual, oddball cars that have no business on a racetrack, and BMW E30 cars are very common, cheap, reliable, high-performing cars; this gives them a somewhat negative reputation. So the organizers encourage teams that want to run cars like this to be creative in putting together their theme, and this team is one of those. They started with an E30, and decided to make it look like The Homer. Previously, this same car was a 1958 Plymouth Fury ("Christine").
In the crapcan endurance racing world, this car is an amazing achievement. In the professional replica car building world, not so much. Other notable LeMons cars recently have been a Cessna fuselage on a Toyota van chassis; a self-driving popup camper; a Toyota MR2 with a radial aircraft engine; the front of a Toyota Corolla welded to the back of an MR2 for a two-engine, four-wheel drive car; a Geo Metro with a mid-mounted Taurus SHO engine done up as a replica of Nobuhiro Tajima's Pikes Peak SX4; a replica of the stair car from Arrested Development; and many, many other creative builds (including Star Wars and Star Trek themes). All of which are built to survive 14+ hours of racing (most races are during the day on Saturday & Sunday, some are 24-hours straight).
I'm happy to see my sport of choice make it onto Slashdot - there are a lot of nerds in LeMons. Heck, half my team are software developers.
I have somewhere an old flyer advertising TIE Fighter, and it had the slogan "Flying for the Rebel Alliance was never this fun!" and it's true, it wasn't. TIE Fighter was a better game. And I liked the fact that they didn't make it like you were playing for the bad guys, it was really told from the Empire's perspective of things.
TIE Defender FTW.
Exactly. The 2 made-for-TV Ewok movies didn't have episode numbers, and I'm not sure they even had "Star Wars" in the title originally. The one-offs shouldn't have episode numbers. It makes sense to use numbering for sequential stories that are part of an arc, however they don't have to have "Star Wars" in the title. "Dawn of the Jedi: Episodes I-V", "Yoda's Playhouse, Episodes I-X", etc. etc. Thus each story arc can have a clearly identifiable name without messing with the films already made.
Re-re-subtitling is stupider than stupid.
Not the GP, but I recently rented a Ford Fusion with Microsoft's Sync technology w/ touchscreen control that behaved in an similar way to GP's description. To control volume, switch tracks, scan frequencies, or turn off audio was easily done from tactile controls, but switching audio source between satellite, FM, bluetooth, aux, or whatever required touchscreen control, best done while not moving or by passenger. I can't recall how switching folders/albums was done.
Once we synched my wife's phone with the car, we didn't have to think about it again. Every time we got in the car, it was available as an input source, and if it was the last one selected, it was the default. The car would even tell the phone to pause playback when we turned it off and resume from where it left off next time we turned the car on, just like you'd expect (well, if you expect that).
Overall, I thought it was a good fusion of touchscreen and tactile controls. There were also some steering wheel controls for the system that I didn't quite master beyond A/C temp + fan speed. It had a fancy digital dash, too. I liked the way the car interface worked (I had it for a week), but I kept wondering, "will these gadgets & screens work in 5-10 years, and how much will they cost to replace?" The 6-CD changer in my personal DD got fried the last time the battery died, and the dealer quoted me $600 for replacing that alone (2005 Pontiac G6).
Dude, file a change of address form already. I'm still getting your mail.
"Oh, you mean that domestic telephone surveillance program. I thought you were talking about the... er, something else."
My favorite line (from another article): "Clapper had previously said that his answer to the committee was the 'least untruthful' one he could publicly provide."
In other words, "I only lied as much as I had to." Such honesty.
...with recent Supreme Court rulings. Times are a-changin'!
Cynically, I wouldn't be surprised if the *AAs have been trying to make it illegal to be in possession of DRM-free MP3s and movies under the assumption you must have broken the law to have them.
That ship has sailed, what with DRM-free MP3s available on iTunes and Amazon. Unless those files have some unalterable metadata, there's no way for a border patrol agent to know how they were obtained.
That's not funny.
I messed around with GW-BASIC on my parent's Tandy 1000SX (8086), but it was when they got a 486 with QBasic that I really started learning. I modified Nibbles to add 3 players, special abilities, more levels, random levels, and all kinds of stuff. I basically learned how to program by messing with that game. Now I'm a software dev at a major financial insitution! All you people with a 401k have Nibbles to thank for the success (you're welcome) or failure (Microsoft's fault) of your retirement fund.
Nibbles FTW.
I have approximately the same plan as gtbritishskull, and it is, in fact, unlimited data, throttled back to 3G speeds after 2.5 GB has been used in a month (2GB on my plan). So it's the same type of "unlimited" as your plan. I can also select throttle trigger caps of 200MB and 5GB, for a few bucks less or more per month, respectively.
I've never hit my 2GB limit, since most of my data usage is while on WiFi, but I often watch Netflix during lunch at work, and have figured out that I could stream about one half-hour show per day without going over that limit. I don't know how much slower the limited speeds are.
How well would that work, though? By now, the comments on the videos apparently have McKeogh's home address, phone number, and other personal details. A small note of sanity won't stop the self-righteous asshats of the Internet from making this man's life hell. Even through this discussion, there's already many commentors promising to perpetuate the man's suffering, just out of spite for being told that not to libel others.
And these people would then be liable for whatever legal recourse there is for online stalking/harassment, and deleting the video probably wouldn't curb that much anyway.
The problem is the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. Someone's personal life has been severely harmed by the information these companies continue to publish. When they're asked to stop publishing such lies, the schmucks crawl out to protest this affront to their ability to screw up others' lives, and they promise to just screw up the man's life even worse than before.
This is not civilization. This is unbridled sadism masquerading as vigilantism.
And by "shmucks" are you referring to Google/Facebook/et al., or the people actually doing the harassing? I just don't think there's a feasible way, nor should there be, to prevent all future potential harassment. The GIFT (ironic, heh) is an unfortunate but necessary by-product of a free internet.
an order that is both idiotic and futile is not necessarily illegitimate and an injustice. It's just dumb. if you've been libeled and the judge orders the libel removed it's not injustice if it's impossible to actually remove the libel. it's just not possible (and in this case it's not).
I don't necessarily disagree...
I'm not sure how many other ways I can put this. It's not justice making sure slander cannot be removed upon order. The guy didn't do it. So you're saying it's a corruption of justice if we can't see a video and comments that finger him as the perpetrator? That's justice to you? It isn't to me, but you've got your own style, I guess.
If ordering the removal of the video infringes on YouTube's, Facebooks, and whoever else's rights, then yes, it's unjust. I totally understand the libel/slander issue here - but the focus should then be on those doing the libeling/slandering, not YouTube/Facebook/etc. I wasn't there for the hearing, and I don't know Irish laws, so there may be no equivalent of DMCA safe-harbor provision, but I don't see any rational way that merely focusing on the hosting of the video addresses these issues. It is, however, an easier target for the plaintiff to sue the sites, rather than each individual making nasty comments.
I don't actually think we disagree all that much - but I'm making a crucial distinction between the video and the comments.
Well, that's true - but I wasn't talking about literally everything. But viral videos, or other popular content tends to stick around. The internet has this potential: if people want it, it will be available. Hence the utter failure of DRM and copy protection. So stuff can be removed, or just drop off, but no one can guarantee permanent removal of anything.
Except that even if it's completely removed once, it will resurface widely and immediately. If reducing the harm to Mr. McKeogh's reputation is the priority, they should leave all known copies up, but add a note that the person is NOT Mr. McKeogh, possibly with a link to this case.
I'm sure the judge is not a numbskull, but the whole problem is not the video, but the misinformation accompanying the video.
Taking a stand against ridiculous court orders. Civil disobedience to promote awareness and justice. Defiance of an illegitimate order from a lawful authority.
Basically, to point out the futility of what is frankly an idiotic order. The experts ought to tell the judge that once it's on the internet, it's there for all time.
It's interesting to compare cable TV to gas - in some ways it's like a utility that is nonessential. In the US, commercial cable TV predates satellite, so it was for a time the only option for expanded programming, and in rural areas or areas not served by broadcast, the only option for TV at all. Still, it's less necessary than gas service, because the cost of replacing appliances dependent on gas may be prohibitive compared to the cost of gas service, and people generally accept that ovens/ranges and water heaters are pretty much essential to normal life. TV isn't.
Minor correction: "I would also be happy not to watch TV at all."
There are many good replies to my question here. I wasn't trolling, I was legitimately asking.
I can understand the collusion/monopoly arguments - those would grant government a legit reason to step in and protect the consumer from unfair business practices, but I'm not aware of any allegations of collusion between cable/satellite providers to maintain the "tiered package" business model to the detriment of consumers. I also don't think cable TV companies can generally be rightly considered monopolies, because although that specific delivery mechanism may grant a natural monopoly, there are 2 major satellite providers, and there's a lot of room in geostationary orbit.
As far as sports blackouts, I see that as a result of the agreement between content owners and content providers. If consumers cancel cable or just a sports package because of blackouts, the cable company can use that as a bargaining chip next time around. If consumers don't cancel, and continue to pay for the service they get, the cable company has no incentive to push the content owner for a change in the contract.
Cable TV is a luxury in sense that the parent points out - people don't need it, they pay for it if they feel that the product/service is worth the cost. I pay (a lot) for Comcast cable, I have the HD DVR with the On Demand feature; while I'm not a fan of them as a company, the quality of service I have recieved is quite acceptable. I also have a Roku for an older (non-HD) TV, Netflix and Amazon Prime are available for that device for a fraction of the cost of cable. I would also be happy not to watch at all.
It strikes me as pandering, not solving an actual problem.
Well, these are things I wish the companies would do, but making a federal case about it? I don't see the justification. These are terms negotiated in contracts for cable TV - I don't see a compelling reason for the government to step in. Is there some right of the people to get the TV channels they want at the price they want that I don't know about? Am I missing something?
I imagine Patton Oswalt performing a dramatic reading.