Both 'halves' needn't be responsible, or even know about it for that matter. If I put up a block data that XORs with your website to make a copyrighted ebook, obviously, I am guilty, and not you. But obviously there are cases that aren't so clear.
I'm not arguing that they are only numbers, but what if one of the parties wasn't aware of this correlation? Are they still guilty? How do you prove which party is guilty? What if person A puts up a block of random numbers for mathematical research purposes, and person B takes it and secretly XORs it with The Copyrighted Blockbuster (TCB) and then puts the result up on his website, purportedly for the same purpose. Obviously XORing them together yields TCB, so someone is lying, but that doesn't mean they are both guilty, but it is not trivial to find out who it is. This is not a foolproof solution, but it is simple enough for anyone to understand how it works. I am sure there are more effective solutions too. My point is that both people can't automatically be liable, because they both needn't have been involved in the infringement.
Fancy number theory makes a lot of things possible that would seem intuitively impossible. Check out Freenet. You are making assumptions that aren't always true. For example, let's say you download two seeming random blocks of binary data and XOR them together, and you get the latest hollywood blockbuster. Who is violating copyright in this case?
It is not safe? Where'd you get that info? The handy war-on-drugs information packet? I submit that it is at least as safe as alcohol, which is a major part of our culture, and challenge you to provide any credible evidence to the contrary.
Transcoding does lose quality, but probably not as much as the inherent quality drop between 128kbps ogg to 128kbps mp3, so you probably couldn't tell the difference between the transcoded mp3 and the first generation encoding.
Well, based on my own biased sampling, it is probably over 80%, i.e. almost everyone I know.
Civil disobedience baby. It may be illegal, but approximately impossible to enforce. How can someone doing something in their own home with no externally visible effects be apprehended? Good luck with the crusade.
I do get the joke. To prove I get it, I'll explain it. The name of the product in question is Windows XP Starter Edition. This name could be construed to mean that Windows XP is currently in development, but not yet finished. Therefore, a finished version could be expected in the future. Everyone and their mom knows Windows XP has already been out, so this was obviously a joke. I believe the joke sucks.
The irony here is that my post was also a joke poking fun at the parent post, (admittedly also a shitty one) but no one seems to be getting that. However, you AC have provided the funniest comment in this godforsaken clusterfuck. Congrats.
the 700 refers to a unix style permission in which the owner gets complete access, and no one else gets any access, at the level of the filesystem, thereby nullifying any bugs at the application level. at least that's the claim. i think.
By using, I assume you mean using as a drug. I'm sure it has other uses too, though I don't know what. I'm sure it reacts with some chemicals or some fancy science crap.
So I don't know my science, but the point is that meth could theoretically have "non-infringing" uses.
Obviously they don't advertise this, and also it is possible to learn things in college, but what's your point?
Would a lawn mowing service criticize its customers for being too lazy to mow their own lawns? No. There's no reason to do that. If you see a handicapped person on the street, do you stop and point them out? No. These are tangential examples at best, but the point is it doesn't matter how colleges feel about it if its true.
The airline does not save money by refusing to sell under cost tickets. Do you think they might conserve a little fuel because of less weight being on the plane?
Genius, go play lemonade stand until you figure out what's really going on.
Slashdot Mirror
Both 'halves' needn't be responsible, or even know about it for that matter. If I put up a block data that XORs with your website to make a copyrighted ebook, obviously, I am guilty, and not you. But obviously there are cases that aren't so clear.
I'm not arguing that they are only numbers, but what if one of the parties wasn't aware of this correlation? Are they still guilty? How do you prove which party is guilty? What if person A puts up a block of random numbers for mathematical research purposes, and person B takes it and secretly XORs it with The Copyrighted Blockbuster (TCB) and then puts the result up on his website, purportedly for the same purpose. Obviously XORing them together yields TCB, so someone is lying, but that doesn't mean they are both guilty, but it is not trivial to find out who it is. This is not a foolproof solution, but it is simple enough for anyone to understand how it works. I am sure there are more effective solutions too. My point is that both people can't automatically be liable, because they both needn't have been involved in the infringement.
Fancy number theory makes a lot of things possible that would seem intuitively impossible. Check out Freenet. You are making assumptions that aren't always true. For example, let's say you download two seeming random blocks of binary data and XOR them together, and you get the latest hollywood blockbuster. Who is violating copyright in this case?
It is not safe? Where'd you get that info? The handy war-on-drugs information packet? I submit that it is at least as safe as alcohol, which is a major part of our culture, and challenge you to provide any credible evidence to the contrary.
If you get constant background noise at 192 kbps, I suspect you are also getting constant background noise from the source material.
ie, 192kbps introduces virtually no discernible signal distortion.
Transcoding does lose quality, but probably not as much as the inherent quality drop between 128kbps ogg to 128kbps mp3, so you probably couldn't tell the difference between the transcoded mp3 and the first generation encoding.
Well, based on my own biased sampling, it is probably over 80%, i.e. almost everyone I know.
Civil disobedience baby. It may be illegal, but approximately impossible to enforce. How can someone doing something in their own home with no externally visible effects be apprehended? Good luck with the crusade.
I wasn't talking to you. Get back in your cube.
I do get the joke. To prove I get it, I'll explain it. The name of the product in question is Windows XP Starter Edition. This name could be construed to mean that Windows XP is currently in development, but not yet finished. Therefore, a finished version could be expected in the future. Everyone and their mom knows Windows XP has already been out, so this was obviously a joke. I believe the joke sucks.
The irony here is that my post was also a joke poking fun at the parent post, (admittedly also a shitty one) but no one seems to be getting that. However, you AC have provided the funniest comment in this godforsaken clusterfuck. Congrats.
You could have googled it yourself, but in case anyone else is wondering the finished version of Windows XP was released October 25, 2001.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WindowsXpNameDiscussion
I swear, there must be some kind of crack addiction prerequisite for moderator consideration.
Because they said it may be recorded. They meant what they said. If you interpreted it some other way, whose fault is that?
You know what happens when we assume:
U are called an ass by me.
This is the first step in building HAL 9000.
the 700 refers to a unix style permission in which the owner gets complete access, and no one else gets any access, at the level of the filesystem, thereby nullifying any bugs at the application level. at least that's the claim. i think.
Those both refer to the nntp issue. I'm talking about the link I gave, which was the second link in the story.
Go to http://secunia.com/advisories/13599 (linked in post) and it says: Solution Status: Unpatched
Why is everyone saying these are fixed?
Go to http://secunia.com/advisories/13599 and it says: Solution Status: Unpatched
Why is everyone saying these are fixed?
Wrong. That's not why IE sucks. IE sucks purely on its own merits.
I know you were kidding, but it sounds like you are suggesting that IE doesn't suck, and that is what I'm addressing.
By using, I assume you mean using as a drug. I'm sure it has other uses too, though I don't know what. I'm sure it reacts with some chemicals or some fancy science crap.
So I don't know my science, but the point is that meth could theoretically have "non-infringing" uses.
Heavens! Your e-penis is enormous!
Lucky you. I have never had bmn work on nyt, even after dozens of attempts.
Aha! RYS == regarding your sig?
I do have sigs enabled, but must subconciously skip my own.
Anyway, after one incident landed me in the emergency room, I quit womprats cold turkey. I was lucky I lasted as long as I did.
Ummm, I have no idea what you're talking about, but I myself graduated from the University of Wisconsin, Madison with a BS in Computer Science.
Obviously they don't advertise this, and also it is possible to learn things in college, but what's your point?
Would a lawn mowing service criticize its customers for being too lazy to mow their own lawns? No. There's no reason to do that. If you see a handicapped person on the street, do you stop and point them out? No. These are tangential examples at best, but the point is it doesn't matter how colleges feel about it if its true.
Hello? Anyone there?
The airline does not save money by refusing to sell under cost tickets. Do you think they might conserve a little fuel because of less weight being on the plane?
Genius, go play lemonade stand until you figure out what's really going on.