Yes, they explode. And that's exactly why he said 16x DVD and 52x DVD and NOT 56x DVD. 16x and 52x have long been recognized as the maximum speeds discs can tolerate before exploding. 56x is a total non-issue.
At 16x, DVDs transfer at around 20 MB/s. Which is a fair data speed. Besides, S-ATA has other advantages. With P-ATA, I can't use both of my burners at the same time because they're on the same IDE cable and that really screws up the burn process.
Cookies? Dangerous? It seems to me that this whole cookie-paranoia is nothing but a product of a sensational media jumping on the wrong things. Cookies aren't dangerous. And they don't hamper your privacy any more than the security camera in your local grocery store. Sweden's government needs to do a reality check and figure out what is important and what it shouldn't piddle and twiddle about.
My goodness, people. Just about everyone is jumping in and condemning the government of SK. Before we do that, why don't we take a look at free speech itself?
Free speech is an externality. For those of you who know econ, that means that it's something that affects the people around you and not just you. Pollution and noisy air traffic are also externalities. When dealing with externalities, there are no absolute rights or wrongs. If we ban air traffic, for example, that will hurt people who want to fly, but benefit those who live around airports. If we allow unfettered traffic, it'll benefit travellers but harm those on the ground. So what do we do? We find a place to draw the line, hence laws saying air traffic must be during certain times of the day.
Now, how does this apply to free speech? Political correctness, for example, grants benefits to those who are offended at the expense of those who want to say what they want, whereas allowing unfettered speech benefits those who want to speak at the expense of those who can be offended. It just so happens in *IN OUR CULTURE* under our own Lockean system of beliefs, we think that the benefits of free speech outweigh the benefits of protecting from censorship, so we draw the line so that it's favorable for free speech. But there *IS* a line. If I hold up a gun to you and shout, "I hate you, I feel like killing you," I would be prosecuted for assault. I didn't pull the trigger; all I did was say some very frightening words. Why doesn't free speech protect me there? Because in that case, the benefits of free speech do NOT outweigh the benefits of not feeling immediate threat. And that is why we have assault laws. Likewise, if I shout "fire" in a crowded theatre and people are trampled to injury or death in the ensuing chaos, I would be arrested because I've crossed the line of free speech.
So free speech is NOT absolute! It's not easy to digest philosophically because idealists like to make blanket black-and-white statements about what's right and wrong. But it's the truth; there exists no absolute free speech, and as a result, there is the task of drawing the line between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. These lines are determined by many factors, including practical considerations, philosophies, cultures, and what the people want. Asian culture has been a collectivist one for hundreds upon hundreds of years, and it is not to be unexpected for them to tend to draw the line at a place where us westerners, under the influence of a few hundred years of John Locke, would feel uncomfortable with. Who are we to say that their line is wrong and ours is right? Have we the arrogance to pass judgment on another culture like that?
Likewise, many people reacted very poorly to the 9/11 restrictions. Yet, the general populace liked the security (or, rather, the false sense of security). So the voters decided to draw the line differently, and despite whatever number of protests there have been, the liberals are in the minority. So what is to say that they are right, even when the majority thinks otherwise?
Don't over-exaggerate. The principles of freedom are there, and whatever violations that Bush is making isn't nearly as bad as the rest of the world. Always keep in mind that free speech is not absolute; you do not have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre.
I don't know too much about the technology behind all this, but it seems to be that unless there is a part of the CD that is readable but not burnable, this protection will fail. So does such an area exist? I've been under the impression some of the good burners out there (like LG) coupled with something like CloneCD can more or less defeat any protection system. And even if they can't, how long would it be before some driver manufacuter and/or burning-software-maker create something that can burn all the areas that are readable?
Just because it has personally-trackable info doesn't mean that it's dangerous. Credit cards, for example, have your info attached through the credit card company. Has the world gone haywire yet?
As a civil libertarian, I applaud free speech. But I cringe at the princple of "absolutle free speech." For one, it shows that you are going blindly on some slogan-like ideal. What do I mean? Allow me to illustrate... perhaps the best and most blatent example would be shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Think of the chaos. People might even get hurt/trampled/etc. Is that a valid use of free speech?
Also, the free speech principle is talking about rights. It's talking about what governments can and can't do to you. When you are dealing with ISPs, you are not dealing with some authority that you a forced under (well, unless you want to move out of the country). Rather, the agreement and terms of use with the ISP is a business contract, and by agreeing to this business contract, you have essentially agreed to their policies on appropriate use of *private resources*.
I still like Perl, better, though.:) I'm not sure I like Python's strict style rules. It's one thing to program in good style, but it's another to have the language force you to. Yes, I'm still resentful over that.
Another abuse of patent laws. What we need is to have people go through all the patents and just yank out those that are blatently stupid or overbroad. Like this one. Oh, wait. No, that takes money, and we need the money now for other purposes. Like, oh, tax cuts, bloating up the military some more, etc. Just for once, can't someone with a bit of intellect--no, common sense--run the government?
Slashdot Mirror
Not if they're on the same IDE cable.
Yes, they explode. And that's exactly why he said 16x DVD and 52x DVD and NOT 56x DVD. 16x and 52x have long been recognized as the maximum speeds discs can tolerate before exploding. 56x is a total non-issue.
At 16x, DVDs transfer at around 20 MB/s. Which is a fair data speed. Besides, S-ATA has other advantages. With P-ATA, I can't use both of my burners at the same time because they're on the same IDE cable and that really screws up the burn process.
It's for-pay because Nullsoft, in turn, has to pay the MP3 patent owners...
Cookies? Dangerous? It seems to me that this whole cookie-paranoia is nothing but a product of a sensational media jumping on the wrong things. Cookies aren't dangerous. And they don't hamper your privacy any more than the security camera in your local grocery store. Sweden's government needs to do a reality check and figure out what is important and what it shouldn't piddle and twiddle about.
My goodness, people. Just about everyone is jumping in and condemning the government of SK. Before we do that, why don't we take a look at free speech itself?
Free speech is an externality. For those of you who know econ, that means that it's something that affects the people around you and not just you. Pollution and noisy air traffic are also externalities. When dealing with externalities, there are no absolute rights or wrongs. If we ban air traffic, for example, that will hurt people who want to fly, but benefit those who live around airports. If we allow unfettered traffic, it'll benefit travellers but harm those on the ground. So what do we do? We find a place to draw the line, hence laws saying air traffic must be during certain times of the day.
Now, how does this apply to free speech? Political correctness, for example, grants benefits to those who are offended at the expense of those who want to say what they want, whereas allowing unfettered speech benefits those who want to speak at the expense of those who can be offended. It just so happens in *IN OUR CULTURE* under our own Lockean system of beliefs, we think that the benefits of free speech outweigh the benefits of protecting from censorship, so we draw the line so that it's favorable for free speech. But there *IS* a line. If I hold up a gun to you and shout, "I hate you, I feel like killing you," I would be prosecuted for assault. I didn't pull the trigger; all I did was say some very frightening words. Why doesn't free speech protect me there? Because in that case, the benefits of free speech do NOT outweigh the benefits of not feeling immediate threat. And that is why we have assault laws. Likewise, if I shout "fire" in a crowded theatre and people are trampled to injury or death in the ensuing chaos, I would be arrested because I've crossed the line of free speech.
So free speech is NOT absolute! It's not easy to digest philosophically because idealists like to make blanket black-and-white statements about what's right and wrong. But it's the truth; there exists no absolute free speech, and as a result, there is the task of drawing the line between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. These lines are determined by many factors, including practical considerations, philosophies, cultures, and what the people want. Asian culture has been a collectivist one for hundreds upon hundreds of years, and it is not to be unexpected for them to tend to draw the line at a place where us westerners, under the influence of a few hundred years of John Locke, would feel uncomfortable with. Who are we to say that their line is wrong and ours is right? Have we the arrogance to pass judgment on another culture like that?
Likewise, many people reacted very poorly to the 9/11 restrictions. Yet, the general populace liked the security (or, rather, the false sense of security). So the voters decided to draw the line differently, and despite whatever number of protests there have been, the liberals are in the minority. So what is to say that they are right, even when the majority thinks otherwise?
Think about it.
Don't over-exaggerate. The principles of freedom are there, and whatever violations that Bush is making isn't nearly as bad as the rest of the world. Always keep in mind that free speech is not absolute; you do not have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre.
I don't know too much about the technology behind all this, but it seems to be that unless there is a part of the CD that is readable but not burnable, this protection will fail. So does such an area exist? I've been under the impression some of the good burners out there (like LG) coupled with something like CloneCD can more or less defeat any protection system. And even if they can't, how long would it be before some driver manufacuter and/or burning-software-maker create something that can burn all the areas that are readable?
Just because it has personally-trackable info doesn't mean that it's dangerous. Credit cards, for example, have your info attached through the credit card company. Has the world gone haywire yet?
As a civil libertarian, I applaud free speech. But I cringe at the princple of "absolutle free speech." For one, it shows that you are going blindly on some slogan-like ideal. What do I mean? Allow me to illustrate... perhaps the best and most blatent example would be shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Think of the chaos. People might even get hurt/trampled/etc. Is that a valid use of free speech?
Also, the free speech principle is talking about rights. It's talking about what governments can and can't do to you. When you are dealing with ISPs, you are not dealing with some authority that you a forced under (well, unless you want to move out of the country). Rather, the agreement and terms of use with the ISP is a business contract, and by agreeing to this business contract, you have essentially agreed to their policies on appropriate use of *private resources*.
I still like Perl, better, though. :) I'm not sure I like Python's strict style rules. It's one thing to program in good style, but it's another to have the language force you to. Yes, I'm still resentful over that.
Another abuse of patent laws. What we need is to have people go through all the patents and just yank out those that are blatently stupid or overbroad. Like this one. Oh, wait. No, that takes money, and we need the money now for other purposes. Like, oh, tax cuts, bloating up the military some more, etc. Just for once, can't someone with a bit of intellect--no, common sense--run the government?