I know the NDP and probably the Liberals will vote this down, and we currently have a minority government so the Conservatives won't be able to push this though.
I wish I could believe you on that.
The Liberals have taken to outright avoidance of anything resembling going against whatever the Conservatives are doing for fear of triggering an election at an inopportune time.
As far as I can tell, they're biding their time and allowing bad legislation to go through on the reasoning that Canadians don't want an election, and that "when" they get elected next time, they'll just do away with the ones they didn't like.
In short, I expect the Liberals to sit on their asses or not even be present when the vote happens.
I'm so furious at all of them right now it isn't funny.:(
Well, so would anyone with a damned shift key or who has configured their Windows boxes to not automatically run software on a CD when it is installed.
So, it would become illegal to not accept the defaults as laid down for us by Microsoft, and which likely result in a less secure system as you are more likely to be affected by Sony rootkits etc.
Me, I say fuck 'em. I buy all of my CDs. I rip them to MP3 using FreeBSD or iTunes. I play them on whatever damned device or mixed CD I choose. Between the fact that it's my right to format shift and make mixes, and these bastards have been charging the levy on blank media for years now. If they want to start outlawing the rights of legitimate music buyers, then I'll just stop buying CDs.
This is a bad law, written by a stupid government that's out of touch. Last night I heard Jim Prentice on the radio being interviewed by CBC. When they asked "how will this benefit consumers", he proceeded to describe how the rights holders get a boost, but never articulated clearly how this law is of benefit to me, the consumer (other than saying the statutory penalties are now lower).
Sadly, Canada's present government is out of touch with what the majority of people in the country want.
And you can sell a light sabre "handle" for the wii-mote to fit in.
Already exists. Don't know what games it's for.
As to the weight of the light saber -- have we established it would have no weight? Certainly, any of the scenes in which a light saber flies around, the physics seem modeled to indicate weight.
Not that, in the grand scheme of things, the weight of a light saber is a meaningful discussion. But, you know. It's Friday.:-P
Carry some basic things like a small travel toothbrush, and hand napkins on your person. If the plane you are about to board has the luggage loading door torn off-you will appreciate this as you spend the night somewhere with no luggage.
Dude, if you're about to get onto an airplane that's had its luggage door torn off, don't get on it.
If you're in flight, and the cargo door gets torn off, the last thing you'll be worried about it your toothbrush.:-P
The idea is that each pixel would be assigned its own identifier. Kind of like HTML format like #342332. You then take the sum of the identifiers (or something like that) and use the camera's encryption key and sign the document.
I won't speak to the technical issues with this. They're not my concern.
As someone who owns several cameras and does a lot of photography -- I kinda worry about anything which will make images tied to the photographer. If I photograph a crime, or evidence or police misbehaving, or a protest march, or what have you... I'm kinda leery about having my identity (or at least, my cameras identity) being burned into everything I do. I lose the ability to anonymously photograph things.
Also, I'm not going to pay for the technology in the camera so that at some point I can prove that it's a real photo and not CG -- it would add costs to my camera and no benefit whatsoever.
Besides, a hell of a lot of digital photography goes through at least some post-processing. It's part of the worklfow, peoples grannies can now use red-eye removing software, or cropping, or what have you -- "altering" an image isn't nearly as nefarious as you seem to think in the overwhelming majority of photos.
The only cameras I can see this idea being viable for would be surveillance, police, or other things that need to establish their evidentiary pedigree. For the rest of us, proving it's a real photo isn't necessary.
So they're trying to make it look like they are committing copyright infringement and they are investigated.
Well, they fell well short of attempting, or even simulating copyright infringement. They had a bot connect to a tracker site (not actually download anything), masquerade as a printer, and then get identified by the RIAA as having done the infringement. If the attorneys provided a list of songs/movies they allegedly downloaded, then that list is false, and they're reaching a conclusion not supported by their evidence.
In fact, isn't it a crime to try to fool the police into thinking you're committing a crime?
This is not the police. This is not law enforcement. This is people, hired by the stakeholders, who are gathering evidence (for use in court) which they claim provides evidence of copyright infringement. To date, courts have listened to their evidence. This could change that quite significantly.
I'm not saying there are no problems with copyright enforcement, or the tactics of the RIAA, but being able to frame your printer is not a good example of that.
Being able to provably demonstrate that their evidence is unreliable since you have nothing to support it was the machine in question, and being able to show that their entire evidence is based on tenuous connections at best -- I think that's huge.
If you can undermine the basis of the evidence which they present in court, well, they have nothing, do they? Demonstrating how hollow and erroneous their methods are might force them to a new standard of evidence.
I should think this would be the equivalent of fighting a ticket from a red-light camera, only to get into court and see that the only evidence is a crayon drawing of a blue sedan when you drive a red wagon. The entire basis of claim they are making is based on this evidence. Discredit that, and their whole legal case collapses.
Actually, that is the worst part.. they are sending out take-down notices/suing people that didn't download anything..
Remember, innocent until proven guilty. They aren't even trying to actually determine this.
Nope, these are civil matters.
Not innocent until proven guilty. Innocent until we can make it look probable, mostly with the use of faulty techniques for gathering data and identifying individuals.
This is not a case when innocent until proven guilty comes into play.
The worst part of it though is how they throw in the whole thing of "we weren't actually downloading or sharing anything". No, they were just connecting to the tracker. And of course, everyone knows "pirates" commonly connect to torrent trackers to do nothing.
Well, it does two things.
First, it shows that you can get a subpoena for not actually doing anything illegal. Presumably, connecting to a tracker isn't illegal.
Second, it begins to dispel the myths that the content holders have perpetuated about how they actually gather their evidence and if the collection methodology is valid.
I think actual University research which is covered by the NYT might be an awful good start. It's by no means everything that needs to happen, but starting to establish that their data collection is faulty is better than nothing.
So, will we have a variant on the Chewbacca defense?
"Why would a printer, an inanimate object with no reproductive organs, be downloading pornography? It doesn't fit... if the toner cartridge won't fit, you must acquit."
Seriously though, it's good to see some credible research demonstrating that the methods that are used to identify file-sharers are completely arbitrary and can't be demonstrated to be valid.
It would be nice to finally have enough evidence that Judges could basically say "Well, this methodology has been dis-credited, you need actual evidence."
Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to try to devise a way to make it look like our printer has been downloading Will Farrel movies and films with Natalie Portman.:-P
The only known cure for "repetitive stain injury" is to take up embroidery (hand, not computer).
And, in the world of human endeavors... needle-point is the best we can come up with? Does nothing come even close to this in terms of therapeutic effect?
That just seems like such a very specific "only" cure as to seem implausible.
My employer (Sabre Holdings) offers Active Release Therapy (ART)
Wow, that just sounds so... naughty. Like "Massage with happy ending" or something.;-)
I wish my company would implement such a policy. I'm sure I'd be much more productive after a little morning 'release' to get my day off to a good start.:-P
I hate to be cynical, but why would Microsoft fund this study? They sell ergonomic keyboards.
To deflect people from looking at the fact that the RSIs are caused by their software which has too damned many button clicks and most stuff can ony be done with a mouse.
I mean, come on, the old skool vi guys don't have RSI. They were manly men who kept their hands on the how row and never needed to reach over to use the mouse scroll wheel.
It's a plot to sell keyboards which minimize the impacts of badly designed UIs on the human body. Oh, that, and to keep us from looking into the mind control devices they've been embedding in the keyboards. I recommend wrapping them in tinfoil.;-)
That's interesting. I thought the whole point of a tattoo was to draw attention. I never understood the whole concept of getting the tattoos places where they can be hidden. I guess this harks back to days when having a tattoo only meant you were a criminal or a sailor?
People get tattoos for all sorts of reasons. To some people, they have more personal meaning than anything you'd want to be permanently visible -- generally, most people get ones they can cover up if they need to. To some people, it's all about others seeing it -- depends entirely on the person and why they get tattooed in the first place.
Too many hassles if they're too, er, in your face. As I said, many tattoo artists will turn you away from getting one on your hands, face, or neck -- it's sort of a fairly permanent decision and you will be judged for it on a daily basis. The reason most artists won't do it is because a) it's not something to decide lightly, and b) it tends to play into stereotypes, and c) it reflects badly on them with the old stereo type of artists who would let you do any stupid thing you wanted to do -- unless you're already pretty hard-core tattooed, you might not be have thought it through enough.
I can hide all of mine with work clothes, if I'm in shorts and a sleeveless shirt, you can only see about half of them. The rest aren't really ever on display. I know more people whose tattoos are primarily hidden when they're in "normal" society than those whose ink is always on display. (Young girls with the obligatory tattoo in the small of their back, notwithstanding -- they just get them because everyone else has them.;-)
As for the Naruto games, are they actually any good or just made to bilk the fans of money like most game versions of tv/movies?
Can't speak to these games, since I'm generally not a gamer. But, let's face it, video game tie-ins are almost always made to separate the fans from their money.
I knew someone who was the epitome of a narutard. He had Gaara's tattoo, on his FOREHEAD.
Wow, I'm surprised he found a tattoo artist who would do it. Many of them won't even go near the face or hands unless you're already pretty heavily tattooed. (Well, some of the old skool guys will do anything you ask, and the consequences are your own damned problem.)
A tattoo on your face is a pretty bold statement, and not one even most people with tattoos would consider.
I am at a loss for words. Blatant slashvertisement.
It's an interview. With a game manufacturer. On how they're going to make the games and what engines they're going to use.
How is this a blatant Slashvertisement? And how is it unrelated to the games section on Slashdot?
I mean, if people didn't post stories, nobody would be able to bitch about them. But, there is more content in that article than many others I see posted here.
That would make it the second remake of the 1962 film...
Well, we're looking at our second Incredible Hulk movie in 5 years or so.
The second sequel to The Highlander basically pretended the insane first sequel didn't even happen.
It's not like multiple remakes of the same film have never happened -- sometimes to try to work around the fact that someone did a really atrocious job of making the previous one.:-P
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I could believe you on that.
The Liberals have taken to outright avoidance of anything resembling going against whatever the Conservatives are doing for fear of triggering an election at an inopportune time.
As far as I can tell, they're biding their time and allowing bad legislation to go through on the reasoning that Canadians don't want an election, and that "when" they get elected next time, they'll just do away with the ones they didn't like.
In short, I expect the Liberals to sit on their asses or not even be present when the vote happens.
I'm so furious at all of them right now it isn't funny.
Cheers
Well, so would anyone with a damned shift key or who has configured their Windows boxes to not automatically run software on a CD when it is installed.
So, it would become illegal to not accept the defaults as laid down for us by Microsoft, and which likely result in a less secure system as you are more likely to be affected by Sony rootkits etc.
Me, I say fuck 'em. I buy all of my CDs. I rip them to MP3 using FreeBSD or iTunes. I play them on whatever damned device or mixed CD I choose. Between the fact that it's my right to format shift and make mixes, and these bastards have been charging the levy on blank media for years now. If they want to start outlawing the rights of legitimate music buyers, then I'll just stop buying CDs.
This is a bad law, written by a stupid government that's out of touch. Last night I heard Jim Prentice on the radio being interviewed by CBC. When they asked "how will this benefit consumers", he proceeded to describe how the rights holders get a boost, but never articulated clearly how this law is of benefit to me, the consumer (other than saying the statutory penalties are now lower).
Sadly, Canada's present government is out of touch with what the majority of people in the country want.
Cheers
I, for one, welcome our new hooker-story submitting editors.
Cheers
No, we call that Darth Goatse.
Cheers
Already exists. Don't know what games it's for.
As to the weight of the light saber -- have we established it would have no weight? Certainly, any of the scenes in which a light saber flies around, the physics seem modeled to indicate weight.
Not that, in the grand scheme of things, the weight of a light saber is a meaningful discussion. But, you know. It's Friday.
Cheers
Dude, if you're about to get onto an airplane that's had its luggage door torn off, don't get on it.
If you're in flight, and the cargo door gets torn off, the last thing you'll be worried about it your toothbrush.
Cheers
I won't speak to the technical issues with this. They're not my concern.
As someone who owns several cameras and does a lot of photography -- I kinda worry about anything which will make images tied to the photographer. If I photograph a crime, or evidence or police misbehaving, or a protest march, or what have you
Also, I'm not going to pay for the technology in the camera so that at some point I can prove that it's a real photo and not CG -- it would add costs to my camera and no benefit whatsoever.
Besides, a hell of a lot of digital photography goes through at least some post-processing. It's part of the worklfow, peoples grannies can now use red-eye removing software, or cropping, or what have you -- "altering" an image isn't nearly as nefarious as you seem to think in the overwhelming majority of photos.
The only cameras I can see this idea being viable for would be surveillance, police, or other things that need to establish their evidentiary pedigree. For the rest of us, proving it's a real photo isn't necessary.
Cheers
What? Conspire to subvert the legal system, and come close to perjury? I say, bring it on and let the jail terms fly.
Presumably, the EFF would vet their people, but I should think intentionally doing what you suggest might get you some kind of sanctions.
Then again, your cynicism might not be completely unfounded. Which, is a depressing thought.
Cheers
I don't think you can spoof any IP address. I think you'd still need to be on the same subnet/domain in order for routing to work.
You can spoof your neighbor, but you can't spoof something in a different network range.
At least, I don't think you could spoof an arbitrary IP address.
Cheers
Well, they fell well short of attempting, or even simulating copyright infringement. They had a bot connect to a tracker site (not actually download anything), masquerade as a printer, and then get identified by the RIAA as having done the infringement. If the attorneys provided a list of songs/movies they allegedly downloaded, then that list is false, and they're reaching a conclusion not supported by their evidence.
This is not the police. This is not law enforcement. This is people, hired by the stakeholders, who are gathering evidence (for use in court) which they claim provides evidence of copyright infringement. To date, courts have listened to their evidence. This could change that quite significantly.
Being able to provably demonstrate that their evidence is unreliable since you have nothing to support it was the machine in question, and being able to show that their entire evidence is based on tenuous connections at best -- I think that's huge.
If you can undermine the basis of the evidence which they present in court, well, they have nothing, do they? Demonstrating how hollow and erroneous their methods are might force them to a new standard of evidence.
I should think this would be the equivalent of fighting a ticket from a red-light camera, only to get into court and see that the only evidence is a crayon drawing of a blue sedan when you drive a red wagon. The entire basis of claim they are making is based on this evidence. Discredit that, and their whole legal case collapses.
Cheers
Time for some hot printer on printer porn. "American Printer Bukkake" should be a best seller I figure.
Cheers
Nope, these are civil matters.
Not innocent until proven guilty. Innocent until we can make it look probable, mostly with the use of faulty techniques for gathering data and identifying individuals.
This is not a case when innocent until proven guilty comes into play.
Cheers
Well, it does two things.
First, it shows that you can get a subpoena for not actually doing anything illegal. Presumably, connecting to a tracker isn't illegal.
Second, it begins to dispel the myths that the content holders have perpetuated about how they actually gather their evidence and if the collection methodology is valid.
I think actual University research which is covered by the NYT might be an awful good start. It's by no means everything that needs to happen, but starting to establish that their data collection is faulty is better than nothing.
Cheers
So, will we have a variant on the Chewbacca defense?
... if the toner cartridge won't fit, you must acquit."
:-P
"Why would a printer, an inanimate object with no reproductive organs, be downloading pornography? It doesn't fit
Seriously though, it's good to see some credible research demonstrating that the methods that are used to identify file-sharers are completely arbitrary and can't be demonstrated to be valid.
It would be nice to finally have enough evidence that Judges could basically say "Well, this methodology has been dis-credited, you need actual evidence."
Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to try to devise a way to make it look like our printer has been downloading Will Farrel movies and films with Natalie Portman.
Cheers
Or, rub one out before you go to bed and mess up your sheets.
Oh, er, wait
And, in the world of human endeavors
That just seems like such a very specific "only" cure as to seem implausible.
Cheers
Wow, that just sounds so
I wish my company would implement such a policy. I'm sure I'd be much more productive after a little morning 'release' to get my day off to a good start.
Cheers
To deflect people from looking at the fact that the RSIs are caused by their software which has too damned many button clicks and most stuff can ony be done with a mouse.
I mean, come on, the old skool vi guys don't have RSI. They were manly men who kept their hands on the how row and never needed to reach over to use the mouse scroll wheel.
It's a plot to sell keyboards which minimize the impacts of badly designed UIs on the human body. Oh, that, and to keep us from looking into the mind control devices they've been embedding in the keyboards. I recommend wrapping them in tinfoil.
Cheers
People get tattoos for all sorts of reasons. To some people, they have more personal meaning than anything you'd want to be permanently visible -- generally, most people get ones they can cover up if they need to. To some people, it's all about others seeing it -- depends entirely on the person and why they get tattooed in the first place.
Too many hassles if they're too, er, in your face. As I said, many tattoo artists will turn you away from getting one on your hands, face, or neck -- it's sort of a fairly permanent decision and you will be judged for it on a daily basis. The reason most artists won't do it is because a) it's not something to decide lightly, and b) it tends to play into stereotypes, and c) it reflects badly on them with the old stereo type of artists who would let you do any stupid thing you wanted to do -- unless you're already pretty hard-core tattooed, you might not be have thought it through enough.
I can hide all of mine with work clothes, if I'm in shorts and a sleeveless shirt, you can only see about half of them. The rest aren't really ever on display. I know more people whose tattoos are primarily hidden when they're in "normal" society than those whose ink is always on display. (Young girls with the obligatory tattoo in the small of their back, notwithstanding -- they just get them because everyone else has them.
Can't speak to these games, since I'm generally not a gamer. But, let's face it, video game tie-ins are almost always made to separate the fans from their money.
Cheers
Wow, I'm surprised he found a tattoo artist who would do it. Many of them won't even go near the face or hands unless you're already pretty heavily tattooed. (Well, some of the old skool guys will do anything you ask, and the consequences are your own damned problem.)
A tattoo on your face is a pretty bold statement, and not one even most people with tattoos would consider.
Definitely takes fanboi to a whole new level.
Cheers
It's an interview. With a game manufacturer. On how they're going to make the games and what engines they're going to use.
How is this a blatant Slashvertisement? And how is it unrelated to the games section on Slashdot?
I mean, if people didn't post stories, nobody would be able to bitch about them. But, there is more content in that article than many others I see posted here.
Cheers
Well, we're looking at our second Incredible Hulk movie in 5 years or so.
The second sequel to The Highlander basically pretended the insane first sequel didn't even happen.
It's not like multiple remakes of the same film have never happened -- sometimes to try to work around the fact that someone did a really atrocious job of making the previous one.
Cheers
Why, they've adapted very well to making horrible movies. They do it all of the time -- hiring Uwe Boll, for instance.
Cheers
Dude, she's a cook. She's also almost 40.
Not all chicks are a size 2. Speaking as someone in her age range
Cheers
Take off and nuke the whole site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Cheers