Interesting to note that unwilling transmitting information is illegal. So the Real Networks scanning your drive and uploading information is a 'virus'. Or microsoft sending reg info without your permission is illegal.
The lawyers would have obtained the addresses of people _exporting_ metallica tracks, not those attempting to download. Downloads they would not have been able to track. But making known copyrighted material available for public download is definitely illegal according to current copyright law(not that the law is practical or enforcable, but thats a separate issue).
Really? Is it illegal? Or does the RIAA want you to think its illegal? Do you have a reference to say its illegal for me to share files, that someone else might download?
What about a library? They make copyright material available for me to copy, are they in violation of the law? (They even let me use the photocopiers that the CHARGE for.)
I don't know the answers, I've always wonder at what point in the whole CD->MP3->NAPSTER->MP3->MUSIC part was illegal.
But the bottom line is that it is theft, plain and simple. Argue it any way you want but it is still theft. It's their music to sell as they want for however much they want. That is a free market. If it costs too much buy someone elses music that is cheaper.
This is NOT a free market. If it were a free market, I could make as many copies of any song that I wanted. The copyright laws take away my freedom to make copies of things and thus its not a free market anymore.
The copyright laws were setup to further arts and science. People felt that if anyone could make a copy of anything then people who write books or songs couldn't make enough money to live. The writers do the work and the copier would make the money. If they writers couldn't make a living off their work it would suffer. So we set up a system of copyrights to allow writers to make a living off their work so their would be more of it for me to enjoy. The only reason we have a copyright system is so I can hear more music (or whatever) in my life.
This system, however, has been twisted into a system of profit. The copyright laws were not set up to give big companies profit, which is how people are starting to look at the laws. For instance "How is Meticalla going to make any money." Well you know what, they have made enough, they don't need sales of their old records to make then want to publish a new one. As a matter of fact, if they stopped making money on their old ones, maybe they would come out with new ones.
Another argument is "if it cost to much don't buy it" doesn't float either. I, as the government, have restricted my right to copy certain things so that people can make money off of them, only so they want to create more. However, when the price of these things they created goes out of my reach and someone says "Don't buy it if it cost to much." Then I hear less music in my life, which goes against why we set up this system in the first place.
So we need to change the system, and napster is one way of doing that.
>The real question to me is: what do you do with a rogue corporation? Microsoft's monopoly doesn't scare me half as much as their total disrespect for the law. The government can fine you and I, and throw our collective butts in jail, for committing crimes. They can't fine Microsoft enough to make them feel the pain, and they can't really incarcerate them.
==== Well you can 'fine' then enough to make it hurt. Just 'fine' them windows 2000. You just say the government is taking windows 2000 and you loose the copyrights on it or something similar. Make it legal to give out their programs until they comply.
Remember 'We the people' gave up our RIGHTS to copy things to 'further arts and science.' If a company is stopping the furthering of arts and science I think they should loose this protection. I'm so frustrated when people think that copyrights are for a corporation to make money, They are not, copyrights are to make MY life better.
Why didn't she call the virus "Good Times"? It would have been a lot funnier. And she could have attached to the "Good Times" spam (which isn't quite spam now is it?) that goes around every few years?
What about alchahol? The best code is always written when drunk or sleep deprived buzzing on caffine.
Accutally, I think the best code is done when you're 1/2 asleep, drunk or something else. It keep you concentrating on the code. People that code well are smart, and their mind jumps all over the place. When you're 1/2 asleep your mind can't jump as fast, so you don't loose focus on the code.
The best ideas come when your wide awake, but the code comes when you're a zombie.
I also went to RPI (2 years ago.) And we used to program on Solairs and AIX. Now all the programming classes are done in Microsoft C. So don't think RPI hasn't sold it soul eather.
All these cameras use CCD. I'm sure these CCD's are sensitive to light other then visible light. Would it be possible to make a device the emitted this light (Ultraviolet, infrared) that would make you appear as just a glow on cameras? How about a very bright light that could actually damage that camera? (But all out of the visible spectrum, so nobody can see you have it on.)
Could they kick you out of the store for not showing up on the video?
Big for profit companies just don't understand what open source. It's open, it's free - Anyone can do anything they want.
I would expect more things like this to start showing up as more commercial companies start going 'open source'. They want all the benefits, but don't want to actually have the source be free.
Anyways, I think corel will just change its agreement. Although this could be a real test of the GPL in court (Have there been any yet?)
The problem with any music copy-protection, is that on a computer it can be recorded in transit. You just make drivers that take that data going to your sound card, and write it to disk. You have a perfect digital copy. Until they get rid of this SDMI doesn't matter.
Maybe only on criminals at first - or child molesters - no once could argue with that...
The US already has this, its called Megan's Law, Or the sex offender registry.
You must register "IF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF A SEX OFFENSE". Which is anything from rape to lewd behavior (such as public nudity).
Its scary when criminals have to start registering so they can be out casts for the rest of their lives, even after they have served their jail time. If they are so dangerous that they need to register, they should still be in jail.
Anyways, look for more "registries" soon.
-RossB
Let everyone say what they think, then cut. (try2)
on
Moderation Ideas
·
· Score: 1
How about going in the other direction and allowing just about everyone to moderate every post. This would generate a lot more moderation (signal+noise). This is okay because there are more good (signal) and less bad (noise) Moderations. Thus, signal should rise from the noise. The more moderation the better.
Also by allow each user meta-moderate to his or her personal taste would help sort the signal. Letting each person agree or disagree with how the article has been moderated allows one to build a profile of the moderators they agreed with. Then the moderators they agree with will become more important to them. This meta-moderation would be unique to each user. Meaning mean each person would have his or her own score for a post. If they liked 'funny', then the would 'funny' articles would rise to the top. If they like 'trolls' then 'trolls' would rise to the top.
Example:
Ms. Poster posts an offtopic but funny joke. (+1 for being logged in)
Mr. Funnyman comes along and moderates it up because it is funny. (Giving it +1)
Mr. Hateofftopic comes along and moderates it down because it is offtopic. (Giving it -1)
Then Mr. Reader reads it at a score of 1. He agrees with Mr. Funnyman and m-moderates Mr. Funnyman up. The article is now a 2 for Mr. Reader. (+1 for being logged in +2 for Mr Funnyman's moderation , -1 for Mr. Hateofftopic's moderation)
Ms. Reader2 reads it at a score of 1. Agrees with Mr. Hateofftopic and m-moderates him up. So the score for the post (just for Ms. Reader2) would go to 0 (+1 logged in +1 for Mr Funnyman's, -2 for Mr. Hateofftopic's)
(This actually might be done with a multiplier and not an adder.)
So the moderators you like, you listen to. (You could even put a disagree in to show the ones you don't, but I don't thinks this is necessary.) This would generate and personally tailored moderation system.
-RossB
Let everyone say what they think, then cut.
on
Moderation Ideas
·
· Score: 1
rate every post. This would generate a lot more moderation (signal+noise). This is okay because there are more good (signal) and less bad (noise) moderations. Thus, signal should rise from the noise. The more moderation the better. Also by allow each user meta-moderate to his or her personal taste would help sort the signal. Letting each person agree or disagree with how the article has been moderated allows one to build a profile of the moderators they agreed with. Then the moderators they agree with will become more important to them. This meta-moderation would be unique to each user. Meaning mean each person would have his or her own score for a post. If they liked 'funny', then the would 'funny' articles would rise to the top. If they like 'trolls' then 'trolls' would rise to the top. Example: Ms. Poster posts an offtopic but funny joke. (+1 for being logged in) Mr. Funnyman comes along and moderates it up because it is funny. (Giving it +1) Mr. Hateofftopic comes along and moderates it down because it is offtopic. (Giving it -1) Then Mr. Reader reads it at a score of 1. He agrees with Mr. Funnyman and m-moderates Mr. Funnyman up. The article is now a 2 for Mr. Reader. (+1 for being logged in +2 for Mr Funnyman's moderation , -1 for Mr. Hateofftopic's moderation) Ms. Reader2 reads it at a score of 1. Agrees with Mr. Hateofftopic and m-moderates him up. So the score for the post (just for Ms. Reader2) would go to 0 (+1 logged in +1 for Mr Funnyman's, -2 for Mr. Hateofftopic's) (This actually might be done with a multiplier and not an adder.) So the moderators you like, you listen to. (You could even put a disagree in to show the ones you don't, but I don't thinks this is necessary.) This would generate and personally tailored moderation system. -RossB
If this passes, then 'never ever' will an ISP serve/carry you're web page. (And if you're in the USA, they really only need to hit about 3 big ones before 99% of people can't view it.)
I've found when school starts up people going back to tend to buy a computer. This dirves up the price of memory and other things. It stays up for the x-mass season, then it will die again. This has happend the last 4 years I've been in school.
However, it usually doesn't go up this much. So dunno.
If you act now you can run out to Best Buy or some such store and get a rain check before they 'update' their prices. The reason you'll need a rain check is because they were out of ALL their memory. But, I got a raincheck for 2 sticks of 128megs of pc100 for $90/stick.
To set this up you need to set up the DNS in two different places, as you have two differnt DNS's. The first place is in the network settings: Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Network. Under the protocals tab, tcp/ip settings-> propreties. DNS Tab. Here you want to enter you LANS DNS numbers.
The second place is: My Computer -> Dial-Up networking, select the place you're calling, then click "more V" and select the first option (Edit Entry and modem propreties), click the server tab, TCP/IP settings and then you can enter the DNS for the dial up networking.
This should use the DNS for the LAN first, then the DNS for the dial up when connected to the ISP.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe someone would make a post just for a stupid achievement.
Read the full text of the law .
Interesting to note that unwilling transmitting information is illegal. So the Real Networks scanning your drive and uploading information is a 'virus'. Or microsoft sending reg info without your permission is illegal.
-RossB
The lawyers would have obtained the addresses of people _exporting_ metallica tracks, not those attempting to download. Downloads they would not have been able to track. But making known copyrighted material available for public download is definitely illegal according to current copyright law(not that the law is practical or enforcable, but thats a separate issue).
Really? Is it illegal? Or does the RIAA want you to think its illegal? Do you have a reference to say its illegal for me to share files, that someone else might download?
What about a library? They make copyright material available for me to copy, are they in violation of the law? (They even let me use the photocopiers that the CHARGE for.)
I don't know the answers, I've always wonder at what point in the whole CD->MP3->NAPSTER->MP3->MUSIC part was illegal.
-RossB
But the bottom line is that it is theft, plain and simple. Argue it any way you want but it is still theft. It's their music to sell as they want for however much they want. That is a free market. If it costs too much buy someone elses music that is cheaper.
This is NOT a free market. If it were a free market, I could make as many copies of any song that I wanted. The copyright laws take away my freedom to make copies of things and thus its not a free market anymore.
The copyright laws were setup to further arts and science. People felt that if anyone could make a copy of anything then people who write books or songs couldn't make enough money to live. The writers do the work and the copier would make the money. If they writers couldn't make a living off their work it would suffer. So we set up a system of copyrights to allow writers to make a living off their work so their would be more of it for me to enjoy. The only reason we have a copyright system is so I can hear more music (or whatever) in my life.
This system, however, has been twisted into a system of profit. The copyright laws were not set up to give big companies profit, which is how people are starting to look at the laws. For instance "How is Meticalla going to make any money." Well you know what, they have made enough, they don't need sales of their old records to make then want to publish a new one. As a matter of fact, if they stopped making money on their old ones, maybe they would come out with new ones.
Another argument is "if it cost to much don't buy it" doesn't float either. I, as the government, have restricted my right to copy certain things so that people can make money off of them, only so they want to create more. However, when the price of these things they created goes out of my reach and someone says "Don't buy it if it cost to much." Then I hear less music in my life, which goes against why we set up this system in the first place.
So we need to change the system, and napster is one way of doing that.
>The real question to me is: what do you do with a rogue corporation? Microsoft's monopoly doesn't scare me half as much as their total disrespect for the law. The government can fine you and I, and throw our collective butts in jail, for committing crimes. They can't fine Microsoft enough to make them feel the pain, and they can't really incarcerate them.
====
Well you can 'fine' then enough to make it hurt. Just 'fine' them windows 2000. You just say the government is taking windows 2000 and you loose the copyrights on it or something similar. Make it legal to give out their programs until they comply.
Remember 'We the people' gave up our RIGHTS to copy things to 'further arts and science.' If a company is stopping the furthering of arts and science I think they should loose this protection. I'm so frustrated when people think that copyrights are for a corporation to make money, They are not, copyrights are to make MY life better.
Anyone who has done any circuit design should like Lucents initials.
LTI. Or your good friend Linear Time-Invariant.
-RossB
Why didn't she call the virus "Good Times"? It would have been a lot funnier. And she could have attached to the "Good Times" spam (which isn't quite spam now is it?) that goes around every few years?
-RossB
What about alchahol? The best code is always written when drunk or sleep deprived buzzing on caffine.
Accutally, I think the best code is done when you're 1/2 asleep, drunk or something else. It keep you concentrating on the code. People that code well are smart, and their mind jumps all over the place. When you're 1/2 asleep your mind can't jump as fast, so you don't loose focus on the code.
The best ideas come when your wide awake, but the code comes when you're a zombie.
-RossB
I also went to RPI (2 years ago.) And we used to program on Solairs and AIX. Now all the programming classes are done in Microsoft C. So don't think RPI hasn't sold it soul eather.
-RossB
All these cameras use CCD. I'm sure these CCD's are sensitive to light other then visible light. Would it be possible to make a device the emitted this light (Ultraviolet, infrared) that would make you appear as just a glow on cameras? How about a very bright light that could actually damage that camera? (But all out of the visible spectrum, so nobody can see you have it on.)
Could they kick you out of the store for not showing up on the video?
Just a thought...
-RossB
Big for profit companies just don't understand what open source. It's open, it's free - Anyone can do anything they want.
I would expect more things like this to start showing up as more commercial companies start going 'open source'. They want all the benefits, but don't want to actually have the source be free.
Anyways, I think corel will just change its agreement. Although this could be a real test of the GPL in court (Have there been any yet?)
-RossB
The problem with any music copy-protection, is that on a computer it can be recorded in transit. You just make drivers that take that data going to your sound card, and write it to disk. You have a perfect digital copy. Until they get rid of this SDMI doesn't matter.
-RossB
Maybe only on criminals at first - or child molesters - no once could argue with that...
The US already has this, its called Megan's Law, Or the sex offender registry.
You must register "IF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF A SEX OFFENSE". Which is anything from rape to lewd behavior (such as public nudity).
Its scary when criminals have to start registering so they can be out casts for the rest of their lives, even after they have served their jail time. If they are so dangerous that they need to register, they should still be in jail.
Anyways, look for more "registries" soon.
-RossB
How about going in the other direction and allowing just about everyone to moderate every post. This would generate a lot more moderation (signal+noise). This is okay because there are more good (signal) and less bad (noise) Moderations. Thus, signal should rise from the noise. The more moderation the better.
Also by allow each user meta-moderate to his or her personal taste would help sort the signal. Letting each person agree or disagree with how the article has been moderated allows one to build a profile of the moderators they agreed with. Then the moderators they agree with will become more important to them. This meta-moderation would be unique to each user. Meaning mean each person would have his or her own score for a post. If they liked 'funny', then the would 'funny' articles would rise to the top. If they like 'trolls' then 'trolls' would rise to the top.
Example:
Ms. Poster posts an offtopic but funny joke. (+1 for being logged in)
Mr. Funnyman comes along and moderates it up because it is funny. (Giving it +1)
Mr. Hateofftopic comes along and moderates it down because it is offtopic. (Giving it -1)
Then Mr. Reader reads it at a score of 1. He agrees with Mr. Funnyman and m-moderates Mr. Funnyman up. The article is now a 2 for Mr. Reader. (+1 for being logged in +2 for Mr Funnyman's moderation , -1 for Mr. Hateofftopic's moderation)
Ms. Reader2 reads it at a score of 1. Agrees with Mr. Hateofftopic and m-moderates him up. So the score for the post (just for Ms. Reader2) would go to 0 (+1 logged in +1 for Mr Funnyman's, -2 for Mr. Hateofftopic's)
(This actually might be done with a multiplier and not an adder.)
So the moderators you like, you listen to. (You could even put a disagree in to show the ones you don't, but I don't thinks this is necessary.) This would generate and personally tailored moderation system.
-RossB
rate every post. This would generate a lot more moderation (signal+noise). This is okay because there are more good (signal) and less bad (noise) moderations. Thus, signal should rise from the noise. The more moderation the better. Also by allow each user meta-moderate to his or her personal taste would help sort the signal. Letting each person agree or disagree with how the article has been moderated allows one to build a profile of the moderators they agreed with. Then the moderators they agree with will become more important to them. This meta-moderation would be unique to each user. Meaning mean each person would have his or her own score for a post. If they liked 'funny', then the would 'funny' articles would rise to the top. If they like 'trolls' then 'trolls' would rise to the top. Example: Ms. Poster posts an offtopic but funny joke. (+1 for being logged in) Mr. Funnyman comes along and moderates it up because it is funny. (Giving it +1) Mr. Hateofftopic comes along and moderates it down because it is offtopic. (Giving it -1) Then Mr. Reader reads it at a score of 1. He agrees with Mr. Funnyman and m-moderates Mr. Funnyman up. The article is now a 2 for Mr. Reader. (+1 for being logged in +2 for Mr Funnyman's moderation , -1 for Mr. Hateofftopic's moderation) Ms. Reader2 reads it at a score of 1. Agrees with Mr. Hateofftopic and m-moderates him up. So the score for the post (just for Ms. Reader2) would go to 0 (+1 logged in +1 for Mr Funnyman's, -2 for Mr. Hateofftopic's) (This actually might be done with a multiplier and not an adder.) So the moderators you like, you listen to. (You could even put a disagree in to show the ones you don't, but I don't thinks this is necessary.) This would generate and personally tailored moderation system. -RossB
If this passes, then 'never ever' will an ISP serve/carry you're web page. (And if you're in the USA, they really only need to hit about 3 big ones before 99% of people can't view it.)
-Ross
I've found when school starts up people going back to tend to buy a computer. This dirves up the price of memory and other things. It stays up for the x-mass season, then it will die again. This has happend the last 4 years I've been in school.
However, it usually doesn't go up this much. So dunno.
If you act now you can run out to Best Buy or some such store and get a rain check before they 'update' their prices. The reason you'll need a rain check is because they were out of ALL their memory. But, I got a raincheck for 2 sticks of 128megs of pc100 for $90/stick.
To set this up you need to set up the DNS in two different places, as you have two differnt DNS's.
The first place is in the network settings:
Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Network. Under the protocals tab, tcp/ip settings-> propreties. DNS Tab. Here you want to enter you LANS DNS numbers.
The second place is:
My Computer -> Dial-Up networking, select the place you're calling, then click "more V" and select the first option (Edit Entry and modem propreties), click the server tab, TCP/IP settings and then you can enter the DNS for the dial up networking.
This should use the DNS for the LAN first, then the DNS for the dial up when connected to the ISP.
-Ross