A quick Bit Che search shows that right now there are 14,000 seeders and 4,000 leechers for the torrent with the hash ed25fbe9a48b5335de86fbfc61100698e06876c0
That's just the top seed I found on my first search. There are tens or hundreds of thousands of seeders and leechers for other torrents RIGHT THIS SECOND.
In that thread I challenged slashdoters to provide instances of backup software. All the people who install bypass chips INSIST that they're mostly used for legal purposes and that just because they can be used illegally, that doesn't mean it's common.
I never received a response. Not to that slashdot thread, nor via the email address I set up for my little experiment.
There are MY citations. They may not be indisputable, but they're what I've managed to obtain so far. What do you have to offer for the other side?
Also, two questons:
1) How do you know Nintendo's VC is successful? 2) If it is indeed successful, how does this prove that piracy isn't wide spread and harmful? Can't both states be true?
I suspect you are right. But it is by no means a fait accompli.
Remember at this point in the election cycle during George H.W. Bush's first term, the Democratic field was a mess. The President's approval numbers were soaring, and all the "serious" Democratic candidates were sitting on the fence. When an unknown governor from Arkansas emerged as the nominee, the White House was elated! History would show that Bush would defeat Clinton handily! This guy was nobody!
I've said this for a long, long time. A bomb going off in the security line itself would be powerfully horrific on a number of levels. It shows the vulnerability of the system, it thumbs it's nose at the system by doing it just a few feet from the screeners. And it still kills people and causes panic, probably shuts down airports, etc.
It's not hard to be creative and think up ways to harm people and destroy stuff in a free society. That's not to say we shouldn't be doing something to mitigate risk. But all what we do so far is myopically keep passengers form getting certain items on airplanes. And ineffectively at that.
That said, if this system worked, why shouldn't you search a baby? Do you honestly think someone either sick or fanatical enough to destroy an airplane in flight and kill everyone on board couldn't use a baby to try to smuggle something on board? Do terrorists consider that a line they won't cross?
I already made this point elsewhere in the comments, but it's worth repeating: The very premise that the Smithsonian used for the contest was flawed. They insisted that voters should pick "visually striking" games. "Visually striking" isn't great criteria for "art". It certainly wouldn't work to pick the best films, and I don't think it works for games.
I'm excited that the medium is getting attention like this though and I just hope that future iterations are better thought out.
I voted in this, and after reading the rules they laid out, I wasn't too happy about it.
I can't seem to find a link to the rules as they appeared on the site when voting was still going on. But they put clear emphasis on visuals, because it's a museum exhibition.
While I see the logic of this, it takes away from the message. If you truly believe games are art, you can't use mere visuals for the criteria of their artistic merit any more than you would for a film. Just being visually striking doesn't make a game art any more than it makes a film art.
That combined with the fact that many people probably never read the rules, and sheer popularism skewed the results... I think that perhaps the "people's choice" should have been a section of the exhibit, with the majority chosen by a panel of judges within the industry. There are many gems that are simply not well known, and other games that were highly influential, but have largely been forgotten.
I don't know, but there is good reason to believe that it might.
Al-Quaeda in Iraq has nothing to to do with Al-Quaeda. But they took the name. Why? Because OBL is a powerful figurehead for anti-western jihadiism.
Likewise OBL may not have had much of a hand in day to day operations, but his charisma and brand name recognition was (believe it or not) a huge driver in Al Quaeda's ability to FUND it's operations from jihadi sympathizers.
There is according to all the analysis I've read, nobody waiting in the wings of the organization with the charisma, and recognition OBL had in those circles.
This does have the potential to throttle Al Quaeda's growth. Here's hoping.
Even if it doesn't, this was worth doing, regardless due to his role in terror attacks over the past two decades.
According to the CPI rate calculator here, that's about $700 today. Not $1000, but still quite comparable.
I don't know that I agree with MobileTatsu-NJG, but they make an excellent point. We collectively value cheap electronics and other goods. There is a race to the bottom and the more expensive products are having trouble competing.
Well yes, you can buy a Gamecube brand new. It's called a Wii, and they simply added features and changed the name. But that's not really relevant...
Why do you consider the point of "abandonment" to be legally relevant to the question of software piracy? What does one have to do with the other?
Nintendo abandoned the NES, Okay. Did their copyright expire on Super Mario Bros.? Did they republish it on the SNES? Yes. Did they republish it on the Gameboy Advance? Yes. Did they republish it on the Wii? Yes.
Would it matter if they *didn't* republish it? Would that somehow invalidate their claim to the copyright? they didn't (as far as I know) republish it during the N64 era. Does that mean that the copyright should have expired, and they should not have been able to control the copyright for the property on the subsequent platforms?
The images shown were ones the software had trouble classifying (It got them wrong). The top row are male, the bottom row are female. This is all explained in the caption.
Interestingly the article does not make any mention of error rates. And I couldn't find anything easily on either site it links to.
If NASA wanted to go on April 12th, why wouldn't they have just scheduled for April 12? Were they worried the Soviets would bomb them over it? Sue us in court? Call us names? Maybe our feelings would be hurt.
No, instead thousands of people gathered for a scheduled launch on April 10th for Columbia's first shakedown flight. With 12 minutes on the countdown clock, they scrubbed. The next opportunity to launch turned out to be April 12th.
If it was planned all along, why not just announce it for that day?
With the complexity of rocket launches being what they are, what are the odds that they would get to go up on the day they planned in the first place? Even if your ship is 100%, weather at the launch site, or half way around the world can scrub your launch.
NASA held a tele-press conference after the announcement.
They mentioned that they would work with the facilities which will receive shuttles to try and have the shuttles "tour" the country on their way to their final destinations. If practical.
Having whatever car you want is indeed a laudable libertarian goal. Unless if effects others, then it ceases to be about your liberty, and starts to be about everyone's rights.
Unless you're collecting all your tailpipe emissions and only operating on your own private roads, why shouldn't the government have the authority to regulate your machine? The government is there to govern for the common good.
Presidents have been trying to re-capture Kennedy's "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" speech since Reagan.
"America is too great for small dreams.... We can follow our dreams to distant stars, living and working in space for peaceful, economic and scientific gain. Tonight, I am directing NASA to develop a permanently manned space station and to do it within a decade."
President Ronald Reagan - January 25, 1984
"From the voyages of Columbus, to the Oregon Trail, to the journey to the moon itself, history proves that we have never lost by pressing the limits of our frontiers. We must commit ourselves anew to a sustained program of manned exploration of the solar system and yes - a manned mission to Mars."
President George H. W. Bush - July 20, 1989
(President Clinton cut NASA's budget and made no friends there, not did he give any pretty speeches about Manifest Space-Destiny)
"Returning to the moon is an important step for our space program. Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions. Lifting heavy spacecraft and fuel out of the Earth's gravity is expensive. Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far lower gravity using far less energy, and thus, far less cost. Also, the moon is home to abundant resources. Its soil contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air. We can use our time on the moon to develop and test new approaches and technologies and systems that will allow us to function in other, more challenging environments. The moon is a logical step toward further progress and achievement.
With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration: human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond."
President George W. Bush - Jan. 14, 2004
"By 2025 we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first ever crew missions beyond the Moon into deep space. So, we'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history. By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to earth, and a landing on Mars will follow."
President Barack Obama - April 15, 2010
You're right though. None of those "challenges" have been followed by significant funding increases to match them. In fact, if I recall correctly, only George H.W. Bush gave ANY increase (which was trivial to the goal).
If not, you do realize that Columbia had her April 10th launch scrubbed with just minutes to go, right? April 12 was just chance. And I wouldn't say Columbia overshadowed Gagarin. Gagarin was still first.
I read that online, but when I actually went, they just waved us in without charging us for parking. I wasn't sure why. Maybe some kind of special event or something? They did have a Tuskegee Airmen speaking event that day.
The Intrepid plans to build a glass hangar on neighboring Pier 86 to protect the shuttle from the elements. The enclosure would include multiple platforms to give visitors different perspectives on the shuttle.
So at least that's taken care of. Good for me, bad for the middle of the country. DC and NYC really are too close to call this decision totally fair. / :
Calling Enterprise "not a space shuttle" depends largely on how you look at it.
When it rolled off the assembly line, NASA had every intention of flying Enterprise in space. She *was* a spacecraft. She only lacked engines (Main Engines, OMS thrusters, and RCS jets), and thermal protection system, and a few minor internal components.
Unfortunately, between Enterprise's completion, and Columbia's completion, some internal structural design changes were made.
It was realized that making the necessary changes to Enterprise would be too costly, so they retrofitted the Shuttle Test Article STA-99 instead. That "not a space shuttle" became Challenger.
I just got back from seeing a Shuttle launch. The KSC visitor center is ATTACHED to KSC, but is privately operated. It's not free.
I haven't been to the center in LA since I was 12, so I can't comment. I just don't remember.
The Smithsonian center in DC is free. I just saw Enterprise earlier this year.
The U.S.S. Intrepid is not free either. I was just there a year ago.
Both KSC and Intrepid are well worth the price of admission, but neither are free. So that certainly wasn't part of the criteria.
I live in NJ, so DC and NYC both an easy trip for me. That said, it seems sort of unfair to have two in such close proximity. I just finished listening to the NASA press conference and all the reporters from the Chicago and Houston areas were livid.
Wright-Patterson thought they might get one too, though I understand why NASA avoided a military museum.
I never really read Groklaw, but from what I understand, they cover lots of issues outside that scope as well. In fact, it says so on the link you just posted.
While anyone can respect her desire to bow out (she's put tremendous effort over the years into the project), it seems wasteful to just say "It's over, I'm closing the site" rather than to say, look to name a successor if she wants to move on.
Other sites could spring up to cover the overlap of tech and legal issues, but why not use a site that's already recognized for leading in this area? She doesn't have to be involved, but I do hope that the folks who are / were close to her within the project have urged her to consider turning the site over to someone else.
I may not agree with you, but you at least made sense up until you mentioned "the folks behind Firefox". Do you understand who that is? What would that even mean?
We can debate weather CO2 is a pollutant or not. I'll concede that it's not, however that doesn't mitigate the fact that when released in abundance, it's dangerous.
Your last statement strikes me as just insane. What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the Fukishima disaster was engineered intentionally?
Why? Look at the world wide track record of nuclear accidents. Thousands of reactor-years have passed without incident. The average person living near a nuclear reactor will not have to worry. Those who do live near an incident have not been harmed so far except at Chernobyl. Do you have data that refutes this? Am I missing info?
Slashdot Mirror
A quick Bit Che search shows that right now there are 14,000 seeders and 4,000 leechers for the torrent with the hash ed25fbe9a48b5335de86fbfc61100698e06876c0
That's just the top seed I found on my first search. There are tens or hundreds of thousands of seeders and leechers for other torrents RIGHT THIS SECOND.
Not exactly the same topic, but related.
About two years ago, I posted to a different slashdot story here:
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1325079&cid=28949323
In that thread I challenged slashdoters to provide instances of backup software. All the people who install bypass chips INSIST that they're mostly used for legal purposes and that just because they can be used illegally, that doesn't mean it's common.
I never received a response. Not to that slashdot thread, nor via the email address I set up for my little experiment.
There are MY citations. They may not be indisputable, but they're what I've managed to obtain so far. What do you have to offer for the other side?
Also, two questons:
1) How do you know Nintendo's VC is successful?
2) If it is indeed successful, how does this prove that piracy isn't wide spread and harmful? Can't both states be true?
Not Constantinople!
I suspect you are right. But it is by no means a fait accompli.
Remember at this point in the election cycle during George H.W. Bush's first term, the Democratic field was a mess. The President's approval numbers were soaring, and all the "serious" Democratic candidates were sitting on the fence. When an unknown governor from Arkansas emerged as the nominee, the White House was elated! History would show that Bush would defeat Clinton handily! This guy was nobody!
It's VERY early.
I've said this for a long, long time. A bomb going off in the security line itself would be powerfully horrific on a number of levels. It shows the vulnerability of the system, it thumbs it's nose at the system by doing it just a few feet from the screeners. And it still kills people and causes panic, probably shuts down airports, etc.
It's not hard to be creative and think up ways to harm people and destroy stuff in a free society. That's not to say we shouldn't be doing something to mitigate risk. But all what we do so far is myopically keep passengers form getting certain items on airplanes. And ineffectively at that.
That said, if this system worked, why shouldn't you search a baby? Do you honestly think someone either sick or fanatical enough to destroy an airplane in flight and kill everyone on board couldn't use a baby to try to smuggle something on board? Do terrorists consider that a line they won't cross?
I already made this point elsewhere in the comments, but it's worth repeating: The very premise that the Smithsonian used for the contest was flawed. They insisted that voters should pick "visually striking" games. "Visually striking" isn't great criteria for "art". It certainly wouldn't work to pick the best films, and I don't think it works for games.
I'm excited that the medium is getting attention like this though and I just hope that future iterations are better thought out.
I voted in this, and after reading the rules they laid out, I wasn't too happy about it.
I can't seem to find a link to the rules as they appeared on the site when voting was still going on. But they put clear emphasis on visuals, because it's a museum exhibition.
While I see the logic of this, it takes away from the message. If you truly believe games are art, you can't use mere visuals for the criteria of their artistic merit any more than you would for a film. Just being visually striking doesn't make a game art any more than it makes a film art.
That combined with the fact that many people probably never read the rules, and sheer popularism skewed the results... I think that perhaps the "people's choice" should have been a section of the exhibit, with the majority chosen by a panel of judges within the industry. There are many gems that are simply not well known, and other games that were highly influential, but have largely been forgotten.
I don't know, but there is good reason to believe that it might.
Al-Quaeda in Iraq has nothing to to do with Al-Quaeda. But they took the name. Why? Because OBL is a powerful figurehead for anti-western jihadiism.
Likewise OBL may not have had much of a hand in day to day operations, but his charisma and brand name recognition was (believe it or not) a huge driver in Al Quaeda's ability to FUND it's operations from jihadi sympathizers.
There is according to all the analysis I've read, nobody waiting in the wings of the organization with the charisma, and recognition OBL had in those circles.
This does have the potential to throttle Al Quaeda's growth. Here's hoping.
Even if it doesn't, this was worth doing, regardless due to his role in terror attacks over the past two decades.
According to the CPI rate calculator here, that's about $700 today. Not $1000, but still quite comparable.
I don't know that I agree with MobileTatsu-NJG, but they make an excellent point. We collectively value cheap electronics and other goods. There is a race to the bottom and the more expensive products are having trouble competing.
Well yes, you can buy a Gamecube brand new. It's called a Wii, and they simply added features and changed the name. But that's not really relevant...
Why do you consider the point of "abandonment" to be legally relevant to the question of software piracy? What does one have to do with the other?
Nintendo abandoned the NES, Okay. Did their copyright expire on Super Mario Bros.?
Did they republish it on the SNES? Yes.
Did they republish it on the Gameboy Advance? Yes.
Did they republish it on the Wii? Yes.
Would it matter if they *didn't* republish it? Would that somehow invalidate their claim to the copyright? they didn't (as far as I know) republish it during the N64 era. Does that mean that the copyright should have expired, and they should not have been able to control the copyright for the property on the subsequent platforms?
The images shown were ones the software had trouble classifying (It got them wrong). The top row are male, the bottom row are female. This is all explained in the caption.
Interestingly the article does not make any mention of error rates. And I couldn't find anything easily on either site it links to.
If NASA wanted to go on April 12th, why wouldn't they have just scheduled for April 12? Were they worried the Soviets would bomb them over it? Sue us in court? Call us names? Maybe our feelings would be hurt.
No, instead thousands of people gathered for a scheduled launch on April 10th for Columbia's first shakedown flight. With 12 minutes on the countdown clock, they scrubbed. The next opportunity to launch turned out to be April 12th.
Nothing makes me feel older than when I realize that Tomcats are now retired.
They're the high tech jet fighters of the future, TODAY!
NASA held a tele-press conference after the announcement.
They mentioned that they would work with the facilities which will receive shuttles to try and have the shuttles "tour" the country on their way to their final destinations. If practical.
No promises though.
Having whatever car you want is indeed a laudable libertarian goal. Unless if effects others, then it ceases to be about your liberty, and starts to be about everyone's rights.
Unless you're collecting all your tailpipe emissions and only operating on your own private roads, why shouldn't the government have the authority to regulate your machine? The government is there to govern for the common good.
Presidents have been trying to re-capture Kennedy's "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" speech since Reagan.
President Ronald Reagan - January 25, 1984
President George H. W. Bush - July 20, 1989
(President Clinton cut NASA's budget and made no friends there, not did he give any pretty speeches about Manifest Space-Destiny)
President George W. Bush - Jan. 14, 2004
President Barack Obama - April 15, 2010
You're right though. None of those "challenges" have been followed by significant funding increases to match them. In fact, if I recall correctly, only George H.W. Bush gave ANY increase (which was trivial to the goal).
I hope you're being sarcastic, but I can't tell.
If not, you do realize that Columbia had her April 10th launch scrubbed with just minutes to go, right? April 12 was just chance. And I wouldn't say Columbia overshadowed Gagarin. Gagarin was still first.
Totally a nit-pick, but Intrepid actually has an A-12, not an SR-71.
The SR-71 evolved from the A-12, and it's totally a common mistake to make.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12
I read that online, but when I actually went, they just waved us in without charging us for parking. I wasn't sure why. Maybe some kind of special event or something? They did have a Tuskegee Airmen speaking event that day.
This is my concern as well.
I just found the answer though:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/04/12/intrepid-will-get-space-shuttle-enterprise/
So at least that's taken care of. Good for me, bad for the middle of the country. DC and NYC really are too close to call this decision totally fair.
/ :
Calling Enterprise "not a space shuttle" depends largely on how you look at it.
When it rolled off the assembly line, NASA had every intention of flying Enterprise in space. She *was* a spacecraft. She only lacked engines (Main Engines, OMS thrusters, and RCS jets), and thermal protection system, and a few minor internal components.
Unfortunately, between Enterprise's completion, and Columbia's completion, some internal structural design changes were made.
It was realized that making the necessary changes to Enterprise would be too costly, so they retrofitted the Shuttle Test Article STA-99 instead. That "not a space shuttle" became Challenger.
I just got back from seeing a Shuttle launch. The KSC visitor center is ATTACHED to KSC, but is privately operated. It's not free.
I haven't been to the center in LA since I was 12, so I can't comment. I just don't remember.
The Smithsonian center in DC is free. I just saw Enterprise earlier this year.
The U.S.S. Intrepid is not free either. I was just there a year ago.
Both KSC and Intrepid are well worth the price of admission, but neither are free. So that certainly wasn't part of the criteria.
I live in NJ, so DC and NYC both an easy trip for me. That said, it seems sort of unfair to have two in such close proximity. I just finished listening to the NASA press conference and all the reporters from the Chicago and Houston areas were livid.
Wright-Patterson thought they might get one too, though I understand why NASA avoided a military museum.
I never really read Groklaw, but from what I understand, they cover lots of issues outside that scope as well. In fact, it says so on the link you just posted.
While anyone can respect her desire to bow out (she's put tremendous effort over the years into the project), it seems wasteful to just say "It's over, I'm closing the site" rather than to say, look to name a successor if she wants to move on.
Other sites could spring up to cover the overlap of tech and legal issues, but why not use a site that's already recognized for leading in this area? She doesn't have to be involved, but I do hope that the folks who are / were close to her within the project have urged her to consider turning the site over to someone else.
I may not agree with you, but you at least made sense up until you mentioned "the folks behind Firefox". Do you understand who that is? What would that even mean?
We can debate weather CO2 is a pollutant or not. I'll concede that it's not, however that doesn't mitigate the fact that when released in abundance, it's dangerous.
Your last statement strikes me as just insane. What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the Fukishima disaster was engineered intentionally?
Why? Look at the world wide track record of nuclear accidents. Thousands of reactor-years have passed without incident. The average person living near a nuclear reactor will not have to worry. Those who do live near an incident have not been harmed so far except at Chernobyl. Do you have data that refutes this? Am I missing info?