The way we pay for our kids' school lunches is we log onto the school's pay system and deposit cash from our bank account. It all works if there's a trusted authority. In this case, the trusted authority is a bank.
Because of the fact that the paper currency is hard to counterfeit, I take a note from one person that I don't necessarily trust and pay it to another person who has no reason to trust me. It may change hands several times before it goes back to somebody who has the wherewithal to verify its authenticity. After a couple of transactions, there's no way to verify that I ever had it.
But the barrier to counterfeiting digital tokens is much lower. Any computer could be programmed to produce any quantity of them in seconds. So every transaction will have to be verified by the receiver of the digital cash by a trusted authority.
Well, perhaps that's overstating it. You could probably make it work with only auditing one transaction in four. Counterfeiters would be quickly discovered if there were a high audit rate.
A garden gnome's weight in newtons or pounds may change depending on local gravity and acceleration. Its mass specified in grams does not change unless you add or remove material.
Most computer users wan a preconfigured system. Intalking an OS is a time consuming hassle that consumers don't want to deal with. It's the opposite of what they buy computers for.
And it needs to be $100 cheaper than a PC with Microsoft software.
The only possible mechanism to enforce that would be a body of legislators who insist on it and will block bills that include unrelated riders. Know any of those?
Legislation is a process of negotiation.
Paying for them once? These are all living documents and you are paying for changes from the previous years.
Many of the engineering codes are useful only to businesses and not individuals. Should the ASME code that governs the design of pressure vessels in nuclear reactors be paid for with tax money? It seems to me that paying for them with usage fees is okay most of the time. The ones that have broad applicability (like the NEC) are very inexpensive (under $100 new, even cheaper used).
These have to be paid for either through taxation or user fees. A new tax is a very tough sell in the US, so I don't see it changing any time soon.
Damn yeah all of those should be paid for by the public and available to the public, because public safety is at stake.
Kinda the point of a wallet. It has several virtues that these new "mobile" wallets don't.
1. The things I have in the wallet are separable. 2. I can put non-digital information in it. 3. I can store untraceable currency in it. 4. It doesn't use batteries. 5. It is completely non-volatile. 6. It is completely secured from hacking. 7. I don't have to trust any third party with the contents of my wallet, ever. 8. The importance of 6 and 7 cannot be overstated.
The secrecy is not about how the law applies to individuals. That would be impossible to maintain because if the government claims you have broken a law, they have to prove it and their interpretation becomes public. The secrecy applies to what the government says (to itself) the law allows IT to do. Sen. Udall says we would be shocked, by which he means to imply that the government lawyers are advising the government that it can do things that most people would think illegal. That probably means Mr Udall thinks they're illegal, and shockingly so.
Exactly right, which doesn't change the fact that this is an argument we want Google to win because if the don't, we will lose along with Google and everybody else.
Yes, but small established businesses may need investor funding to expand their operations and compete on a larger scale. They're getting screwed. Only the big boys who don't need outside funding benefit.
Mr. Dotcom is hardly a hero but any money he makes is unlikely to finance the corruption in governments and trade treaties we see. The money he makes isn't going to turn the world into a police state. It may go towards scamming, but scammers do not usually have storm troopers crashing into the homes of private citizens.
Any and all ways that deprive the intellectual monopoly corps of revenue are good. Even if it means creeps like Dotcom get money.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I think his case has encouraged governments to cooperate with the the recording industry on bad law and setting bad precedends. If the governements see the recording industry and their armies of lawyers as good guys in contrast to Dotcom and (they presume) many others like him, it eases their minds about whether they're doing the right thing. And he tarnishes the images of other file sharers who may be operating within the law.
A according to your logic, I'm infringing copyright if I read a book. How many times do you want to pay? If I read a book, I'm making an (imperfect) copy of it in my memory. If I let light shine on a book, it makes a spatial light field that represents the printed page. Another copy! And that copy is projected on my retina. Another copy! And that''s represented on my optic nerves and in my brain which is two more copies!!! What if somebody reads over my shoulder. That's several more copies. What a scofflaw I am!
What is meant in copyright law by a copy is not just a tangible form of the copyrighted material. It means a RECORD. The sound coming out of my lips is not a record. My memory of what I read is not a copy as far as the law is concerned, nor should it be.
When you buy a copy of a copyrighted material, you are buying a right to use that copy any way you like unless you make what the law consideres a copy. Not light traveling through space or reflected from a mirror nor the representation in your brain nor the movement of your lips nor the sounds coming out of your mouth nor vibrating the eardrums of people who are listening to you read.
What they actually claimed was a a great deal more exotic than superconduction. Superconduction is an interesting property of materials but didn't alter our basic understanding of what the universe is made of. Not even when high-temperature superconductors were discovered. Massless electrons moving at the speed of light, if it were possible, would mean that our understanding of what an electron is is completely wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
That still means that everything is traceable.
Unless you MAKE them do it, they won't.
Why should I want to hurt Microsoft or Apple? I can't see any way that would benefit me.
You could have a few windows on one side.
The way we pay for our kids' school lunches is we log onto the school's pay system and deposit cash from our bank account. It all works if there's a trusted authority. In this case, the trusted authority is a bank.
Because of the fact that the paper currency is hard to counterfeit, I take a note from one person that I don't necessarily trust and pay it to another person who has no reason to trust me. It may change hands several times before it goes back to somebody who has the wherewithal to verify its authenticity. After a couple of transactions, there's no way to verify that I ever had it.
But the barrier to counterfeiting digital tokens is much lower. Any computer could be programmed to produce any quantity of them in seconds. So every transaction will have to be verified by the receiver of the digital cash by a trusted authority.
Well, perhaps that's overstating it. You could probably make it work with only auditing one transaction in four. Counterfeiters would be quickly discovered if there were a high audit rate.
It's impossible to identify who double-spent unless you can trace each transaction back to the payer.
A half billion sounds about right.
A garden gnome's weight in newtons or pounds may change depending on local gravity and acceleration. Its mass specified in grams does not change unless you add or remove material.
If they're just talking about the USA, it would mean the average American steals $193 per year.
And what are there lost jobs? You don't employ PEOPLE to distribute content any more.
Most computer users wan a preconfigured system. Intalking an OS is a time consuming hassle that consumers don't want to deal with. It's the opposite of what they buy computers for.
And it needs to be $100 cheaper than a PC with Microsoft software.
Obtuse, ungrammatical and misleading headlines are par for the course. There's an army of morons writing them. Often the articles are almost as bad.
The only possible mechanism to enforce that would be a body of legislators who insist on it and will block bills that include unrelated riders. Know any of those?
Legislation is a process of negotiation.
Paying for them once? These are all living documents and you are paying for changes from the previous years.
Many of the engineering codes are useful only to businesses and not individuals. Should the ASME code that governs the design of pressure vessels in nuclear reactors be paid for with tax money? It seems to me that paying for them with usage fees is okay most of the time. The ones that have broad applicability (like the NEC) are very inexpensive (under $100 new, even cheaper used).
These have to be paid for either through taxation or user fees. A new tax is a very tough sell in the US, so I don't see it changing any time soon.
Damn yeah all of those should be paid for by the public and available to the public, because public safety is at stake.
Maybe he left off three zeroes.
Kinda the point of a wallet. It has several virtues that these new "mobile" wallets don't.
1. The things I have in the wallet are separable.
2. I can put non-digital information in it.
3. I can store untraceable currency in it.
4. It doesn't use batteries.
5. It is completely non-volatile.
6. It is completely secured from hacking.
7. I don't have to trust any third party with the contents of my wallet, ever.
8. The importance of 6 and 7 cannot be overstated.
The secrecy is not about how the law applies to individuals. That would be impossible to maintain because if the government claims you have broken a law, they have to prove it and their interpretation becomes public. The secrecy applies to what the government says (to itself) the law allows IT to do.
Sen. Udall says we would be shocked, by which he means to imply that the government lawyers are advising the government that it can do things that most people would think illegal. That probably means Mr Udall thinks they're illegal, and shockingly so.
Exactly right, which doesn't change the fact that this is an argument we want Google to win because if the don't, we will lose along with Google and everybody else.
Yes, but small established businesses may need investor funding to expand their operations and compete on a larger scale. They're getting screwed. Only the big boys who don't need outside funding benefit.
Mr. Dotcom is hardly a hero but any money he makes is unlikely to finance the corruption in governments and trade treaties we see. The money he makes isn't going to turn the world into a police state. It may go towards scamming, but scammers do not usually have storm troopers crashing into the homes of private citizens.
Any and all ways that deprive the intellectual monopoly corps of revenue are good. Even if it means creeps like Dotcom get money.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I think his case has encouraged governments to cooperate with the the recording industry on bad law and setting bad precedends. If the governements see the recording industry and their armies of lawyers as good guys in contrast to Dotcom and (they presume) many others like him, it eases their minds about whether they're doing the right thing. And he tarnishes the images of other file sharers who may be operating within the law.
Major corporations would be FOR this sort of legislation. It prevents competitors from getting into your market.
That may be illegal under prohibitions against shilling.
For the too many keywords issue, male the not only use the first N (maybe 20?) keywords. It would be a trivial change.
A according to your logic, I'm infringing copyright if I read a book. How many times do you want to pay? If I read a book, I'm making an (imperfect) copy of it in my memory. If I let light shine on a book, it makes a spatial light field that represents the printed page. Another copy! And that copy is projected on my retina. Another copy! And that''s represented on my optic nerves and in my brain which is two more copies!!! What if somebody reads over my shoulder. That's several more copies. What a scofflaw I am!
What is meant in copyright law by a copy is not just a tangible form of the copyrighted material. It means a RECORD. The sound coming out of my lips is not a record. My memory of what I read is not a copy as far as the law is concerned, nor should it be.
When you buy a copy of a copyrighted material, you are buying a right to use that copy any way you like unless you make what the law consideres a copy. Not light traveling through space or reflected from a mirror nor the representation in your brain nor the movement of your lips nor the sounds coming out of your mouth nor vibrating the eardrums of people who are listening to you read.
What they actually claimed was a a great deal more exotic than superconduction. Superconduction is an interesting property of materials but didn't alter our basic understanding of what the universe is made of. Not even when high-temperature superconductors were discovered. Massless electrons moving at the speed of light, if it were possible, would mean that our understanding of what an electron is is completely wrong.