I would prefer the word para-police here. Pseudo-police would be something that pretends to be police (but doesn't actually function as police). Para-police (like in paramilitary) is private organizations that functionally compete with the real police.
eMule (the Free successor to edonkey) makes very efficient use of the bandwith donated by its users. Even if I share only a single moderately popular file (e.g. an Ally McBeal episode) my upload pipe tends to be maxxed out.
Therefore, a user who shares one file contributes just as much as a user who shares a thousand . In fact, even more, because he generates less overhead.
You should therefore radically reduce the number of files you share. The ideal situation is a net with ten million users each of which host exactly one file (popular files get hosted by more nodes than rare ones, of course). Let the RIAA deal with that!
Nonsense. That is what we have physicists for. This is an easy question of mechanics, the kind that an expert can be calculate on the back of an envelope.
1o people get on a bus, at the next station, 11 get off.
The theologist: A miracle! A miracle! The biologist: They're breeding The theoretical physicist: One must have tunnelled in. The experimental physicist: 10% tolerance is ok The mathematician: One must go in to make it empty
The fundamental difference between computer Go and computer chess is that Go positions cannot be evaluated statically. The chess approach fails for go.
The core of the success of computer chess is a game tree search (with optimizations such as alpha-beta cutoffs and hash tables of previously encountered positions). The game tree can only be searched to a certain depth where it is cut off. At the cut off point, static evaluation is applied. In chess you count material and mobility. Counting the stones in Go reveals nothing and they don't move. To evaluate a Go position you need to think in terms of influence and stability. Nobody knows how to compute a number between -10 an +10 for a Go position like Fritz does for chess. Without a good evaluation function, search cannot function.
Even on a 9*9 board, where the game tree is smaller than for chess, go programs perform dismally.
Chess programs have become as strong as they are mainly because computers got as fast they are. A second-year computer science student can whip up a chess program in half a year that will, given a powerful machine, beat 95% of all chess players.
Fritz has huge opening and end game libraries. But take them away and Fritz will still play at grandmaster level. But without the search algorithm , Fritz is nothing.
Do not think that computer Go is weak, because we haven't tried enough. Go is very popular in China and Korea and it is a cornerstone of japanese culture. If someone wrote a strong go program, there would be a huge market for it, but so far all programs are too weak to be of interest to anyone but a beginner.
Human strength in chess as in Go is based on pattern recognition, but pattern recognition is not promising for computer Go. Former chess world champion Botvinnik tried to make it work for chess. He spent half a lifetime trying to make it work but in the end it was just failure.
Computers are very sad at pattern recognitions. OK, so they can do fingerprints, but so can any idiot and it took an enormous amount of research to even get there. Same for speech and image recognition. Computers have not reached the abilities of a four-year old, so what are their chances at beating Go professionals?
As I see science fiction writers and futurists, we could have done without the whole clan of them and it wouldn't have made a scrap of difference. But one can say the same thing about any entertainment--I don't propose that entertainment _per se_ is useless, only that SF is just that, entertainment.
I suggest you should have a look at "1984" by George Orwell and "A Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley.
The saddest thing in my mind is that Chris apparently feels that he deserves his punishment.
He did not act from a desire of profit, or even of fame. He did not do anything with an intent to hurt someone. His entire warez career was based on the desire to be with his friends and help them out. In a sense he lived the life that the Gnu Manifesto envisages as the ideal state of affairs: a life in which everybody may modify and copy software for all of their friends.
What, in your estimate, is the number of warez-trading FTP servers in existence?
Re:serial-number watermarks on CD Digital Audio
on
"Squishy" DRM?
·
· Score: 2
That does not work. The purpose of the watermark is to trace a song back to the person who started to distribute it. Except, of course, if you plan to outlaw anonymous buying of CDs.
What they have in mind, I think, is proprietary hardware, each with its own key, that puts the watermark on the copy. All other copying hardware is to be outlawed. Then, and only then, does it become possible to prove that a certain copy originated from the machine of a specific Joe user.
This "squishy DRM" system, which puts a unique identifier in each record ("record" in copyright law refers to a copy of a recording) but doesn't restrict fair uses, allows copyright holders to identify those who break the laws so that prosecution can begin. I find it an appropriate compromise, as long as there's a way for any individual copyright owner to mark a record for free redistribution.
The idea sounds very nice until you stop for a second and think about what it takes to implement it. How are you going to stop all the bad pirates from continuing to use their non-watermarking rippers? Uh-oh...
Distributed trust and peer review are fine and good but not even needed for the simple task at hand.
Look at the warez scene to see how it goes. A handful of release groups whose names are known to everybody who is even vaguely interested is sufficient to ensure supply. If these groups are attacked by fake releases (rarely happens) they can use hash keys as you suggest (some already do).
Websites like www.sharereactor.com also safeguard against fakes - another mechanism which is strong enough to defeat the entire problem by itself.
What I am saying is that distributed moderating à la slashdot will not evolve. Instead, we will have a handful of "authorities" - Web sites or public keys - that everyone trusts.
Note that authority - when not combined with power - is a Good Thing (TM).
The question is, do you approve of destroying the lives of schoolkids because they are doing something that practically everyone they know is also doing?
Slashdot Mirror
About 500.000 users simultaneously only on average.
I would prefer the word para-police here.
Pseudo-police would be something that pretends to be police (but doesn't actually function as police). Para-police (like in paramilitary) is private organizations that functionally compete with the real police.
You should therefore radically reduce the number of files you share. The ideal situation is a net with ten million users each of which host exactly one file (popular files get hosted by more nodes than rare ones, of course). Let the RIAA deal with that!
Do you believe in death after life?
Nonsense. That is what we have physicists for. This is an easy question of mechanics, the kind that an expert can be calculate on the back of an envelope.
Bring your kids up with what you believe in. When they're young, they'll follow along and soak it up.
Absolutely correct. This is the only way religion can survive.
Do you believe in death after life?
1o people get on a bus, at the next station, 11 get off.
The theologist: A miracle! A miracle!
The biologist: They're breeding
The theoretical physicist: One must have tunnelled in.
The experimental physicist: 10% tolerance is ok
The mathematician: One must go in to make it empty
hehe, I am still giggling.
Good for you! I certainly won't :-)
The fundamental difference between computer Go and computer chess is that Go positions cannot be evaluated statically. The chess approach fails for go.
The core of the success of computer chess is a game tree search (with optimizations such as alpha-beta cutoffs and hash tables of previously encountered positions). The game tree can only be searched to a certain depth where it is cut off. At the cut off point, static evaluation is applied. In chess you count material and mobility.
Counting the stones in Go reveals nothing and they don't move. To evaluate a Go position you need to think in terms of influence and stability. Nobody knows how to compute a number between -10 an +10 for a Go position like Fritz does for chess. Without a good evaluation function, search cannot function.
Even on a 9*9 board, where the game tree is smaller than for chess, go programs perform dismally.
Chess programs have become as strong as they are mainly because computers got as fast they are. A second-year computer science student can whip up a chess program in half a year that will, given a powerful machine, beat 95% of all chess players.
Fritz has huge opening and end game libraries. But take them away and Fritz will still play at grandmaster level. But without the search algorithm , Fritz is nothing.
Do not think that computer Go is weak, because we haven't tried enough. Go is very popular in China and Korea and it is a cornerstone of japanese culture. If someone wrote a strong go program, there would be a huge market for it, but so far all programs are too weak to be of interest to anyone but a beginner.
Human strength in chess as in Go is based on pattern recognition, but pattern recognition is not promising for computer Go. Former chess world champion Botvinnik tried to make it work for chess. He spent half a lifetime trying to make it work but in the end it was just failure.
Computers are very sad at pattern recognitions. OK, so they can do fingerprints, but so can any idiot and it took an enormous amount of research to even get there. Same for speech and image recognition. Computers have not reached the abilities of a four-year old, so what are their chances at beating Go professionals?
That's the fortune cookie Slashdot displayed while I was reading the chess thread.
Not true. The existence of a strong commercial alternative greatly slows down the development and adoption of a Free alternative.
Do you believe in death after life?
Oh dear. How silly of them. Nobody should use arguments. Insults work a lot better.
Do you believe in death after life?
He did not act from a desire of profit, or even of fame. He did not do anything with an intent to hurt someone. His entire warez career was based on the desire to be with his friends and help them out. In a sense he lived the life that the Gnu Manifesto envisages as the ideal state of affairs: a life in which everybody may modify and copy software for all of their friends.
Do you believe in death after life?
These two niggles are indeed minor, only you failed to understand them.
Sound from the CD-ROM is broken means you can't directly listen to Audio CDs. Other than that, sound is fine.
The Open New Document Icon in Office is completely redundant; there are about four other ways of creating a new Office document.
cnn says 1.57 million simultaneous users max on Napster
t .t rack.downloads.idg/
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/07/16/fas
has just broken the 3.000.000 concurrent users level
(that's twice what Napster had at its peak).
What, in your estimate, is the number of warez-trading FTP servers in existence?
That does not work. The purpose of the watermark is to trace a song back to the person who started to distribute it. Except, of course, if you plan to outlaw anonymous buying of CDs.
What they have in mind, I think, is proprietary hardware, each with its own key, that puts the watermark on the copy. All other copying hardware is to be outlawed. Then, and only then, does it become possible to prove that a certain copy originated from the machine of a specific Joe user.
The idea sounds very nice until you stop for a second and think about what it takes to implement it. How are you going to stop all the bad pirates from continuing to use their non-watermarking rippers? Uh-oh...
The problem is, how are they going to enforce watermarking? Afai can see, it can only be done by wresting control over their PCs from users.
If you had ever been to Denmark you would know that the wind nearly always comes from the west, no matter whether day or night.
:-)
It is, however, true that there is a lot of wind in Denmark. I go there for my windsurfing holidays
Distributed trust and peer review are fine and good but not even needed for the simple task at hand.
Look at the warez scene to see how it goes. A handful of release groups whose names are known to everybody who is even vaguely interested is sufficient to ensure supply. If these groups are attacked by fake releases (rarely happens) they can use hash keys as you suggest (some already do).
Websites like www.sharereactor.com also safeguard against fakes - another mechanism which is strong enough to defeat the entire problem by itself.
What I am saying is that distributed moderating à la slashdot will not evolve. Instead, we will have a handful of "authorities" - Web sites or public keys - that everyone trusts.
Note that authority - when not combined with power - is a Good Thing (TM).
still haunts us poor programmers. Backwards compatibility is hard to sacrifice.
Do you believe in life after death?
The question is, do you approve of destroying the lives of schoolkids because they are doing something that practically everyone they know is also doing?