I think you have to look at the issue from a network administration point of view.
Port scanning is scary. While not technically illegal, or even dangerous, in and of itself, it is just one step away from an attack. Personally, I don't want anyone on my network port scanning boxes, especially if some of those belong to me.
While you may just be scanning for open window shares today, a simple rewrite of the code, and you're scanning for any open port, and maybe you're looking for any vulnerability to exploit. Or maybe you aren't, but your friends who have a copy of your code are. All these "authorized" port scannings may indeed mask a whole bunch of "unathorized" scannings.
Personally, and this is just me speaking, any computer that port scans me is immediately blacklisted from any network I control.
I know that some people are using APEX DVD players. However, I'm not 100% sure they play ogg. I found a reference to this modification here, about halfway down the page, and supposedly the hack is on this page.
The DVD drive is apparently IDE, and since the APEX natively plays mp3s burned to a CD, you can simply rip out the DVD drive and replace it with a IDE hard drive that contains your mp3s. Since it was meant to work with televisions and entertainment systems, it integrates easily and works rather well. It's also cheap, as you can find APEX DVD players as low as $50-100 US.
So, for $50 + hard drive, you get: 2. Intuitive/Easy-to-Use Interface 3. IR Remote Control (so I can use my Universal Remote) 4. Ability to play mp3s (you might get ogg, do some research) 5. TV display capabilities (may fall under Intuitive Interface) 6. Digital Out
You will not get 1. Ethernet Connectivity (NFS/SAMBA/something Linux can share out) 7. CDR capabilities.
OK, first, assuming that this is a purely linear or geometric relationship is going to be wrong. There are too many factors that go into braking that you're not accounting for. For instance, a race car with carbon fiber brakes can't even stop the car from being pushed around when the brakes are cold -- but when the brakes are hot, they grip better than any normal compound. It would be improper to assume that because a 30-0 stop with cold brakes took X feet with cold brakes, that a 60-0 stop will take X*4. The brakes might heat up, causing a shorter stopping distance, or on a passenger car, the brakes might heat up to the point that they are unable to disapate any more energy. That's just one factor out of many of the dynamics of bringing a 2000+ pound object to rest.
That said, I want to know what car currently takes 500(!) feet to stop from 50mph. I'm looking at the current issue of Car and Driver, and there is not one car that takes 500 feet to stop from 70mph. 244 feet for the new Hummer H2 is the longest stopping distance from 70. And, that's one of the largest, heaviest, consumer vehicles on the road today. The BMW M5 manages to get stopped in just 156 feet. Not to say that a lot can't happen in 156 feet, but that's just over half a football field. It's not that far.
I also don't think you have to worry too much about locking your wheels, ABS is a pretty common option these days, and even if you don't have it, stopping with fully locked wheels isn't going to double your stopping distances.
Delaminating the tires? Have you ever driven a car? Have you ever had to panic stop? I race cars, even normal production cars, and I can tell you that in 12 years of driving, and five years of racing, I've seen exactly two delaminated tires, and both of those were caused by improper inflation, not overbraking.
As far as my road car is concerned, it does indeed have a real SCCA roll bar, because I tend to track race it, but even so, on an empty interstate, it's quite safe to drive at speeds up to and exceeding 140 mph. I don't have trouble with stopping, or handling, or my tires not being "calibrated" to the road surface -- whatever that means.
Some drivers can't drive a car safely at 30 mph, and some drivers can indeed drive a car safely well past three digit speeds. I certainly wouldn't take a ten year old Hyundai with poor maintenence up to 100 mph, and I won't even drive my Mustang GT over 110 because it's not stable at those speeds. However, there are cars, including some in my garage, that perform better than race cars did just fifteen or twenty years ago.
I don't know, but I've been told by several optometrists that they would not prescribe glasses for me, because of the severe differences.
The reasons given were that one lens would produce an image considerably smaller than the other lens, and I'd eventually get headaches from trying to "merge" the two images. There was also the fact that the glasses would make my eyes look odd (one larger than the other) -- and yes, I'm that vain.
I do have good depth perception once my vision is corrected. My vision didn't start deviating until I was in fourth grade, and even then, it was 20/20 and 20/30. Over the years, one eye has gotten better and the other much worse.
I have 20/200 vision in one eye and 20/15 in the other. By having two such extremes, I can verify this story.
With my left eye, I have very fine "microscope" vision. I can get very close to something, like a monitor, and easily make out very fine details, like individual pixels on a very high resolution display. While I can sort of do this with my right eye, I cannot get as close to things without loosing focus, and while I can still make out 90% of the detail I can make out with my left eye, it's an order of magnitude more difficult. It's also very hard to explain without the unique perspective that I have. The best way I can describe it is to imagine wearing a very low power microscope on one eye -- you can see great detail, but you lose a bit of distance vision in the process.
All that said, I'm thinking seriously of Lasik. My wife had it done on both eyes, and she's never had one complaint about the procedure. I can't wear glasses because of the extreme differences between the prescriptions for each eye, and I have never done well with contacts. I figure my risk is much less than normal, because it's only one eye, and if I have a less than perfect result, my brain is already used to ignoring most of the faulty data from that eye anyway (I see 20/20 using both eyes). While I enjoy my microscope vision, it seriously interferes with my depth perception, and I find myself wanting good depth perception more than I want super-detailed vision.
My advice to those seeking Lasik, is to definately shop around, and get several recommendations. Take the time to find a competent doctor, and don't cheapen out on the cost of the surgery. The doctor who did my wife's surgery owned his own machine (many are simply rented and shared among many doctors), and never reused blades. He'd also been performing Lasik since it was an experimental surgery, and was very honest about the risks, bad experiences, and eligibility. It was quite a bit more expensive than anywhere else in town, and even the preliminary exam wasn't free -- but in retrospect, it was worth every penny.
Did you ever "make friends" with someone you didn't particularly like because it kept you from getting your lunch money stolen? Or maybe because it got you a preferencial table at lunch. Or maybe because you got to sit in the backseat of the bus on the way to school. Or because you felt bad for someone. Or because your friends liked them. Or your enemies did. Or didn't. Or because you got to have your homework done for free. Or whatever the reason, underhanded or not. Noble or not. You probably made friends with more than a few people knowing that you eventually wouldn't be able to be friends with them anymore. Or maybe you woke up one day and realized they weren't the person you thought they were or could be. Who knows, but I can guaruntee there was at least one person you wished you didn't make friends with and at least one person you made friends with against your better judgement. Sometimes you make friends with someone because there isn't anybody else.
Sure, we could demolish every non-democratic regime in all of the world. I have no doubt that we could do just that, if that was our goal. However, wars and regime changes cost lives on both sides. It becomes unpopular, and makes you unpopular. We also really cannot afford to be in every non-democratic country without some compelling issue. However, we can be in a few select countries when the cause and time is right. You can't eat a cake in one sitting, and you can't reform in the Middle East in one day -- if that's your goal.
Should we go in and change the regime in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps. In light of Sept. 11, I think there's possibly a better argument for it than for Iraq. However, the Saudi leadership as a general rule is fairly agreeable to our country. Certainly, it's not what the people want, but then again, the government isn't nessessarily working against us either. It's a lot less hostile, certainly, than Iraq or even Iran. Granted, their citizens don't seem to be targeting us, but would you feel safer with Saddam Hussein holding a nuclear weapon or the Saudi Royal family?
Also, sometimes there just isn't anyone better. We certainly could overthrow the Saudi royals, but do you really think that the regime that replaces them would be any better? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts we'd get another Taliban government within a few years, especially if we put up a "democratic" government. It's not like a democracy, especially a new one, can't just decide to vote itself back into a dictatorship. Of course, we could station men over there, and rebuild, but that's going to further aggrivate the locals and make our lives a living hell. Look at the problems we're having in Afghanistan -- we routed the Taliban, but we're still not exactly popular, nor can we really impose the rule of law anywhere but inside the major cities. Just because we overthrow a corrupt regime does not mean the people will get a better one or even that we'll get one more aligned with our beliefs.
The citizens are certainly better off, but the only reason it was in our best interest to do so was because it was obvious that Afghanistan had turned violently hostile towards us. We had to take the risk, and we had to install a new government, and we had to make sure it didn't turn out liek the last one. I have no doubt we'll do just that.
But, we can't do it everywhere. Eventually, we'll get down to the Saudi Arabias and we'll free them too. But, it would be suicide to do it now.
Perhaps there's voter apathy because no one cares about the issues being discussed?
Now, I know this is kind of a chicken and egg syndrome, but my generation (X) is constantly accused of not getting out and voting. Consequently, the politicians don't pay attention to us and don't appeal to things important to our lives.
This last presidential election, there were two main candidates (yes, I know about Harry Browne, I voted for him), and as far as I was concerned, there was little difference between them. Oh, sure, there were small things, like Al Gore being contemptous and G.W. Bush being a bit slow on the uptake -- but on the issues I cared about, they seemed to be the same person.
I heard endless debates about medicare and social security and I think education and tax cuts and the environment. First, I could care less about social security. I've been told since the day I was born that it wouldn't be there for me when I die. So, if it isn't there -- no big loss. If it is, great. Now, if you want to talk about giving me that money back now, I'm all ears. However, it was all just about where we're going to put that money and how much more they might need out of my paycheck -- and how it still might not be there for me. Wonderful.
Next. Education. Tax cuts. Everyone loves education, everyone loves tax cuts. Everyone knows schools suck and they pay too many taxes. So, naturally neither candidate talked about how they were going to raise taxes or give students less education. Though there was much debate about this, essentially, they both want the same ends. Considering anything that gets done has to also pass Congressional approval, I don't think the methods are the important thing here -- what do you want to accomplish?
Oh yeah, the environment. Now, granted, the environment isn't a big issue to me. I think that Bush is perhaps a bit too lax, and Gore a bit too militant, but in my world, it's definately a secondary issue.
I didn't hear one word about the Drug War, about where all that tax money is going -- which is far greater than any tax cut, or how me might "win" or some alternate tactics to get more bang for our buck, or even if we might just call it a huge failure and scrap the whole project. No words on copyright issues. Nothing really about the internet or computers other than Gore's wonderful "I invented the internet." Nothing about campaign reform or the way that big business has their hands in everyone's pocket, not just the party you happen to hate, and that something needs to be done about it. Nothing about gun laws, which I know the two candidates differ on, but happens to be a very touchy subject. Nothing about scaling back military operations in other countries and focusing on where we're needed. Nothing about privacy laws or how we're making the constitution into toilet paper.
No, we appeal to families and old people -- because these people vote. Avoid any hot topics or touchy issues because you might lose a vote or two, and besides, your opponent probably wants the same thing if it doesn't come down to the voters. Appeal to me, and I'll vote. Keep appealing to my parents and I'll never vote.
I think the only thing my wife watches other than Trading Spaces is Martha Stewart and Emril Legasse....and she wonders why I don't watch television with her.
I have to wonder if this slump isn't a direct result of their actions, and not the economy or piracy, or anything else. I know I haven't purchased any CDs since 1999 or so, not because I didn't want to, or because I could get them for free, but because I refuse to give money to the RIAA.
I also wonder, how hard would it be for someone to make a few dozen MP3 files of them plinking around on a keyboard, replicate them enough to generate a few hundred thousand songs, use a random name generator to rename the files to things right out of CDDB, and then share all those files on Kazaa.
Now, it would suck for the people downloading those files, but the RIAA is going to see a few hundred thousand supposedly copyrighted files, and haul that person into court with all the assorted media coverage. Then, it can be revealed that not one of the tracks was copyrighted at all, and they've arrested an innocent man. Not only does this do irreparable PR harm, it probably opens them up to some really nice civil lawsuits.
Urie says his company doesn't heavily research consumer attitude, noting, "We tend to ask how can we make more money and sell more product, not deal with consumer gripes."
I think GM did the same thing in the 70's, 80's and arguably well into the 90's. Maybe Urie should ask how it's working out for them -- they used to have a greater than 50% share of the automobile market.
And then they got cocky. "Those stupid consumers will buy anything we put our name on! We don't have to make better cars, we're GM! We know what they want better than they do!" Seems like a real good way to do business to me.
The RIAA is falling down the same trap. They've gotten so used to being the only outlet that they got used to telling us what we want instead of listening to what we want. You've got to focus on making the customer happy, then you can sell more product and make more money in the long run. By treating your customer like an idiot, you'll make more in the short term, but you'll lose brand loyalty, and ultimately, your customer base.
No, since you can your roomie can be playing two different tracks off the same album you could in essence be using two copies.
So, what if I use a file access program, such that each file can only be accessed by one user at any given time (requiring the file to be checked out and locked to listen to it)? If I share that across my company, am I infringing? What if I upload my entire 500 disc collection and keep said discs in a vault next to the computer?
There is essentially, only one copy. Any given song may be accessed by one person at one time -- and no more. Since the CDs are locked next to the computer, one cannot even make the argument that I can listen to the CDs in the car while my co-workers are listening to them at work.
Hey, let's pass a bunch of laws to corral that horrible interweb thing, and we'll bring all those damn pirates under control, and we'll get back control over what people watch, and the CBDTPA will be our saviour, and...
...HEY! Why don't our animation workstations work anymore, and why can't we get new software for them? What do you mean we have to pay more for less? We're Disney!
Am I the only one who thinks it's rather odd that movie companies are pursuing a law that would effectively outlaw Linux -- while that's the operating system running most of their kick-ass render farms?
Of course. If the album had bombed, it wouldn't have been because eminem has exceeded his 15 minutes, or because the album sucked, or anything other than "those nasty pirate theives."
Now that it succeeded, it obviously did so because it's such a brilliant album by such a talented artist and only "those damn nasty pirate theives" kept it from being more popular than it was. Despite the fact that it's an amazing success by any standard.
That's pretty creative, any poor-selling products aren't the fault of the artist or the label, and of course, any success is obviously because of their talent and brilliant minds.
I don't really see how this is going to fix anything.
First, you've got a standard redbook audio CD layer. I can still rip that and encode it to mp3, just like it was a normal CD. I won't get the super-extra-special-hi-fi SACD tracks, but I'll still get the standard CD Audio. They can't stop that while still allowing the disc to be read in a normal CD-R.
Despite that, they aren't realizing that CD quality audio is good enough for 90% of the population. Hell, 128kbps MP3 encoded with the Xing mp3 compressor seems to be good enough for the majority of consumers.
On top of this, you've got a new player, and I'm sure those won't be nearly as cheap as even a top-end CD player is today. What's the compelling reason to spend more money on this SACD player? I know people buy B&W speakers, but counting myself, I only know of two people personally that have speakers of equal or better quality. I don't think there will be a rush on SACD players.
And, good God, are they going to charge more for the discs? I would imagine so, and I would imagine this is just going to drive more people to pirate. Considering most people won't get the extra benefit of SACD, and of those that do, most back titles will either not benefit from SACD or have to be (fat chance) remastered (see Metallica's "Kill 'em All" on CD -- it's mastering is Fischer-Price level and does not benefit at all from the extra quality of CD, much less SACD).
So, in the end, what have we solved? People will still copy the CD tracks off the hybrids, just like they copied the tracks before, and few people will shell out the extra bucks for a player with few benefits. I would imagine that someone will find a way to crack the SACD, and the "secure" tracks will be distributed just like mp3s and DVD rips are distributed today. I don't doubt that the media will become common, and that's kinda cool if we get better quality (if we choose to pay the premium), but I don't think that it's going to solve any of the record companies' problems, and could quite likely create more -- especially if they increase the cost of a CD.
That's right -- today. The MPAA and RIAA are thinking about tomorrow. The day when it's just as common for me to get my audio files online as it is at the record store. Suddenly, the MPAA and RIAA become very irrelevant.
It used to be neigh well impossible to record your own material and have it sound or look as good as the big boys in California. It was horribly expensive. Now, a guy with several thousand dollars worth of equipment can do it. One day, it will be someone with a few hundred dollars of equipment. One day it will be common to get our files on line, just as we get them on CDs today. I might even argue it's common today, except that a vast majority of people don't even have internet access, and many of the people that do don't have broadband or any current knowlege of mp3s and DivX.
But one day, they will. Publishing will be cheap, and the RIAA and MPAA will be useless. That's what scares them.
In my perfect world I'd have a TIVO type device attached to my TV and Computer (same box, two connections) that would let me watch anything, anytime I want. TV wouldn't be broadcast anymore. TV programs would "air" as an available time and date (The latest ER "airs" every Thursday night at 10 pm EST). I could view any show at any time on or after the "air" date (obviously cant watch TV shows before they are made!). Same with movies - watch any movie after an "release" date. Same with music.
Wow. That's exactly what I want. Not sure if I'd pay "pay per view" prices, but if they were low enough, it would be a non-issue. If they could give me pay-per-view and purchase-forever prices for every piece of media, and those prices were reasonable enough that I wouldn't break the bank watching/listening/consuming the 100 hours or so of new media that would be possible to experience in a month's time, then I'd never, ever pirate again.
Let me say that again, because I'm a pretty hard core pirate. Give me the following:
Any piece of media available at any time after the release date, as quickly as I'm able to download it. Nothing unavailable or out of print.
Pricing low enough that I can spend a reasonable amount of money and still have too much new media to consume. Perferably, give it to me in buy-once and buy-forever pricing formats.
Make the buy-forever formats non-propriatary, so that I can move them whereever I choose to consume them.
That's it. Give me that, and I'll never pirate again. Ever. You want to end piracy? That's how you do it.
And, forcing companies to create hardware that won't allow you to make illegal copies is stupid, too. That's like making Xerox put something in their copiers that won't allow people to make photocopies of of pages out of copyrighted books without permission (which is illegal, too). How does a DVD player know that the DVD you're playing in it is being copied to another DVD, and how does the DVD burner (in the case of copying DVD's) tell that the incoming signal is copyrighted material, not the owner's home movie of his son building a sandcastle?
It's funny you should say this. People really don't think what the ramifications for the SSSCA (CBDTPA) would really be like. Under either one, Xerox would be obligated under law to produce such a magic chip, and not manufacture any new copiers with the capability to copy copyrighted information.
Personally, I can't imagine how such a copier would function. But, it's an interactive electronic device (some new copiers are, in essence, desktop computers with special software), and one capable of displaying and copying copyrighted material. It would be illegal under the SSSCA, unless Xerox could somehow manage to keep you from copying so much as a page from any book in your local library.
Sounds absurd, but you could easily hand copy the information, and as the current 2600 rulings have shown, the right to a fair use copy does not obligate you to a copy in the highest fidelity possible. You could still copy it, but it would be slow, and in your crappy handwriting.
I wonder if an electronic typewriter would be prohibited from letting you plagerize. I don't know how you'd stop it, but they are interactive digital devices, and the words on that page are copyrighted... it wouldn't be hard to make copies.
Well, actually, if they know of this problem, and I'm sure by now they do, and they refuse to do anything about it, they can be held criminally negligent.
Sure, it has a nice sticker on the front that says "does not play in Mac/PC", but it does not say "may cause damage to your Mac/PC". I also suspect these stickers and warnings on the CD are not overly large or noticeable.
You can put whatever warnings you want on something, but when someone sees a five inch, flat round shiny disk, they are going to assume that it's a CD or DVD. It is not unreasonable they are going to try to play it. It is even more reasonable that they might try to play it in their computer after it plays fine in their car -- after all, in their experience, CDs that play in the car play in the computer. Also, even if it says "will not play", how many people will really believe that, considering they've never seen a CD that was readable by one CD-ROM and not another?
An analogy would be if a food company put out a cereal that was poisonous to children but not adults, put it in a box with Micky Mouse on the front, and a very small warning label that said "not for consumption by children." Who do you think would be held liable in this instance?
Well, here's the problem: You can decrease the time of the yellow to the point where it no longer does any good. This is what they are doing in many red light cameras.
Let's say you are cruising down the street toward a green light. As you approach the intersection, the light turns yellow. Let's assume that you are three seconds from being through the intersection, but you are travelling too fast (though still within the speed limit) to stop before reaching the intersection. However, this light has a two second yellow, and before you can get through the intersection, it turns red and you run the light.
Now, I'm not a physics major, so I haven't done the calculations, but there's a way to create a "no win" situation no matter what the prevailing traffic speed is.
Regardless, the studies show that increasing a yellow tends to decrease accidents, and in most locations where red light cameras have been put in place, the yellows have been decreased, and in another conflict of interest, the manufacturer and installer of the cameras gets a hefty kickback on each ticket issued by the camera.
That would be known as "carpooling". I mean, really, how can we have a viable car market if everyone doesn't own their own car, and if they don't drive it, they might never have to buy another, and if they carpool, they are aren't degrading their product.
I hereby propose that everyone in America must buy a new car every year, and they have to use that car exclusively, unless of course, they buy a second car, and in which case they can use that car on odd days. There will be no more "catching rides" or "borrowing of cars". These activities shall henceforth be illegal, and punishable by a very large fine and imprisonment.
Why is it that they haven't figured out that declining profits are of their own making?
Ted, let me tell you something. It's not pirates who are killing your bottom line. It's not the guys who trade your files on Kazaa or Usenet.
It's you. It's your cartel-like pricing, coupled with your outright hostility for the people who have to buy your product. GM tried this tactic in the 70's. At one time they had a greater than 50% market share. Today they are still trying to recover from their mistakes.
Keep legislating. I'll keep voting with my pocketbook. I quit buying CDs two years ago. I quit buying DVDs after a few of Jack Valenti's rants this year. If it comes down to it, I'll pull Time Warner out of the wall and only watch the media I've currently paid for and own. Turn my computer into a glorified toaster and I'll never buy another.
You know what? I'll deal. I thought getting rid of CDs would be bad. It hasn't. DVDs were even easier because I'd been down the road with CDs. Suddenly, I've got a lot more disposable income to spend on other things and other passtimes. I figure this year alone the RIAA and MPAA should save me about $5,000 with their predatory tactics.
Keep it up guys, I'm sure I'm not the only one who is spending their money on things other than your overpriced product.
Re:No support for pre-DRM media formats.
on
Reason Magazine on DRM
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
This is the nightmare I've been dreaming of since the SSSCA was first brought to my attention.
If the DMCA is any indication, they will stretch this law as far as they can. Don't forget that one of the very things the law states is that the devices must not play unauthorized, copyrighted material. Now, in the distant future, we may have computers so powerful that they can tell what media are copyrighted by checking some huge database -- and they'll probably also know what you're licensed to see and hear (and maybe taste, touch, and smell). Thankfully, computers aren't that powerful yet. So, the only way to keep people from stripping out copyrights or preventing them from playing that illegally copied DVD is to simply disallow the viewing of any non-watermarked media.
That might be fine for a new DVD-ish player, but it won't be fine when it's your new HDTV. Since your old home movies aren't watermarked, it will see them as "pirated" material. Basically, if this law passes, all your current media will be obsolete overnight, and you'll have to go buy new, watermarked copies of all of it, all over again, if you want to use it on the latest equipment.
Free content would have to go away. Why? Because no one could play it without the watermark. And, if you can embed your watermark on your home movies, source code, machine code, etc, then it's just a simple matter to embed your watermark directly into the pirated copy that you'd like to watch. You'd just pick up a ripped copy with no watermark off usenet, and then embed your own. So, the only people watching old or new original content will be those with the foresight to keep their old equipment.
In a sick sort of way, I almost hope one of these laws passes. It'll piss a ton of Joe Sixpacks off, and I'll make a killing on ebay before they finally overturn the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Port scanning is scary. While not technically illegal, or even dangerous, in and of itself, it is just one step away from an attack. Personally, I don't want anyone on my network port scanning boxes, especially if some of those belong to me.
While you may just be scanning for open window shares today, a simple rewrite of the code, and you're scanning for any open port, and maybe you're looking for any vulnerability to exploit. Or maybe you aren't, but your friends who have a copy of your code are. All these "authorized" port scannings may indeed mask a whole bunch of "unathorized" scannings.
Personally, and this is just me speaking, any computer that port scans me is immediately blacklisted from any network I control.
The DVD drive is apparently IDE, and since the APEX natively plays mp3s burned to a CD, you can simply rip out the DVD drive and replace it with a IDE hard drive that contains your mp3s. Since it was meant to work with televisions and entertainment systems, it integrates easily and works rather well. It's also cheap, as you can find APEX DVD players as low as $50-100 US.
So, for $50 + hard drive, you get:
2. Intuitive/Easy-to-Use Interface
3. IR Remote Control (so I can use my Universal Remote)
4. Ability to play mp3s (you might get ogg, do some research)
5. TV display capabilities (may fall under Intuitive Interface)
6. Digital Out
You will not get
1. Ethernet Connectivity (NFS/SAMBA/something Linux can share out)
7. CDR capabilities.
Seems like a nice, cheap solution.
OK, first, assuming that this is a purely linear or geometric relationship is going to be wrong. There are too many factors that go into braking that you're not accounting for. For instance, a race car with carbon fiber brakes can't even stop the car from being pushed around when the brakes are cold -- but when the brakes are hot, they grip better than any normal compound. It would be improper to assume that because a 30-0 stop with cold brakes took X feet with cold brakes, that a 60-0 stop will take X*4. The brakes might heat up, causing a shorter stopping distance, or on a passenger car, the brakes might heat up to the point that they are unable to disapate any more energy. That's just one factor out of many of the dynamics of bringing a 2000+ pound object to rest.
That said, I want to know what car currently takes 500(!) feet to stop from 50mph. I'm looking at the current issue of Car and Driver, and there is not one car that takes 500 feet to stop from 70mph. 244 feet for the new Hummer H2 is the longest stopping distance from 70. And, that's one of the largest, heaviest, consumer vehicles on the road today. The BMW M5 manages to get stopped in just 156 feet. Not to say that a lot can't happen in 156 feet, but that's just over half a football field. It's not that far.
I also don't think you have to worry too much about locking your wheels, ABS is a pretty common option these days, and even if you don't have it, stopping with fully locked wheels isn't going to double your stopping distances.
Delaminating the tires? Have you ever driven a car? Have you ever had to panic stop? I race cars, even normal production cars, and I can tell you that in 12 years of driving, and five years of racing, I've seen exactly two delaminated tires, and both of those were caused by improper inflation, not overbraking.
As far as my road car is concerned, it does indeed have a real SCCA roll bar, because I tend to track race it, but even so, on an empty interstate, it's quite safe to drive at speeds up to and exceeding 140 mph. I don't have trouble with stopping, or handling, or my tires not being "calibrated" to the road surface -- whatever that means.
Some drivers can't drive a car safely at 30 mph, and some drivers can indeed drive a car safely well past three digit speeds. I certainly wouldn't take a ten year old Hyundai with poor maintenence up to 100 mph, and I won't even drive my Mustang GT over 110 because it's not stable at those speeds. However, there are cars, including some in my garage, that perform better than race cars did just fifteen or twenty years ago.
Here's a dollar, go buy a clue.
The reasons given were that one lens would produce an image considerably smaller than the other lens, and I'd eventually get headaches from trying to "merge" the two images. There was also the fact that the glasses would make my eyes look odd (one larger than the other) -- and yes, I'm that vain.
I do have good depth perception once my vision is corrected. My vision didn't start deviating until I was in fourth grade, and even then, it was 20/20 and 20/30. Over the years, one eye has gotten better and the other much worse.
With my left eye, I have very fine "microscope" vision. I can get very close to something, like a monitor, and easily make out very fine details, like individual pixels on a very high resolution display. While I can sort of do this with my right eye, I cannot get as close to things without loosing focus, and while I can still make out 90% of the detail I can make out with my left eye, it's an order of magnitude more difficult. It's also very hard to explain without the unique perspective that I have. The best way I can describe it is to imagine wearing a very low power microscope on one eye -- you can see great detail, but you lose a bit of distance vision in the process.
All that said, I'm thinking seriously of Lasik. My wife had it done on both eyes, and she's never had one complaint about the procedure. I can't wear glasses because of the extreme differences between the prescriptions for each eye, and I have never done well with contacts. I figure my risk is much less than normal, because it's only one eye, and if I have a less than perfect result, my brain is already used to ignoring most of the faulty data from that eye anyway (I see 20/20 using both eyes). While I enjoy my microscope vision, it seriously interferes with my depth perception, and I find myself wanting good depth perception more than I want super-detailed vision.
My advice to those seeking Lasik, is to definately shop around, and get several recommendations. Take the time to find a competent doctor, and don't cheapen out on the cost of the surgery. The doctor who did my wife's surgery owned his own machine (many are simply rented and shared among many doctors), and never reused blades. He'd also been performing Lasik since it was an experimental surgery, and was very honest about the risks, bad experiences, and eligibility. It was quite a bit more expensive than anywhere else in town, and even the preliminary exam wasn't free -- but in retrospect, it was worth every penny.
Did you ever "make friends" with someone you didn't particularly like because it kept you from getting your lunch money stolen? Or maybe because it got you a preferencial table at lunch. Or maybe because you got to sit in the backseat of the bus on the way to school. Or because you felt bad for someone. Or because your friends liked them. Or your enemies did. Or didn't. Or because you got to have your homework done for free. Or whatever the reason, underhanded or not. Noble or not. You probably made friends with more than a few people knowing that you eventually wouldn't be able to be friends with them anymore. Or maybe you woke up one day and realized they weren't the person you thought they were or could be. Who knows, but I can guaruntee there was at least one person you wished you didn't make friends with and at least one person you made friends with against your better judgement. Sometimes you make friends with someone because there isn't anybody else.
Sure, we could demolish every non-democratic regime in all of the world. I have no doubt that we could do just that, if that was our goal. However, wars and regime changes cost lives on both sides. It becomes unpopular, and makes you unpopular. We also really cannot afford to be in every non-democratic country without some compelling issue. However, we can be in a few select countries when the cause and time is right. You can't eat a cake in one sitting, and you can't reform in the Middle East in one day -- if that's your goal.
Should we go in and change the regime in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps. In light of Sept. 11, I think there's possibly a better argument for it than for Iraq. However, the Saudi leadership as a general rule is fairly agreeable to our country. Certainly, it's not what the people want, but then again, the government isn't nessessarily working against us either. It's a lot less hostile, certainly, than Iraq or even Iran. Granted, their citizens don't seem to be targeting us, but would you feel safer with Saddam Hussein holding a nuclear weapon or the Saudi Royal family?
Also, sometimes there just isn't anyone better. We certainly could overthrow the Saudi royals, but do you really think that the regime that replaces them would be any better? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts we'd get another Taliban government within a few years, especially if we put up a "democratic" government. It's not like a democracy, especially a new one, can't just decide to vote itself back into a dictatorship. Of course, we could station men over there, and rebuild, but that's going to further aggrivate the locals and make our lives a living hell. Look at the problems we're having in Afghanistan -- we routed the Taliban, but we're still not exactly popular, nor can we really impose the rule of law anywhere but inside the major cities. Just because we overthrow a corrupt regime does not mean the people will get a better one or even that we'll get one more aligned with our beliefs.
The citizens are certainly better off, but the only reason it was in our best interest to do so was because it was obvious that Afghanistan had turned violently hostile towards us. We had to take the risk, and we had to install a new government, and we had to make sure it didn't turn out liek the last one. I have no doubt we'll do just that.
But, we can't do it everywhere. Eventually, we'll get down to the Saudi Arabias and we'll free them too. But, it would be suicide to do it now.
Now, I know this is kind of a chicken and egg syndrome, but my generation (X) is constantly accused of not getting out and voting. Consequently, the politicians don't pay attention to us and don't appeal to things important to our lives.
This last presidential election, there were two main candidates (yes, I know about Harry Browne, I voted for him), and as far as I was concerned, there was little difference between them. Oh, sure, there were small things, like Al Gore being contemptous and G.W. Bush being a bit slow on the uptake -- but on the issues I cared about, they seemed to be the same person.
I heard endless debates about medicare and social security and I think education and tax cuts and the environment. First, I could care less about social security. I've been told since the day I was born that it wouldn't be there for me when I die. So, if it isn't there -- no big loss. If it is, great. Now, if you want to talk about giving me that money back now, I'm all ears. However, it was all just about where we're going to put that money and how much more they might need out of my paycheck -- and how it still might not be there for me. Wonderful.
Next. Education. Tax cuts. Everyone loves education, everyone loves tax cuts. Everyone knows schools suck and they pay too many taxes. So, naturally neither candidate talked about how they were going to raise taxes or give students less education. Though there was much debate about this, essentially, they both want the same ends. Considering anything that gets done has to also pass Congressional approval, I don't think the methods are the important thing here -- what do you want to accomplish?
Oh yeah, the environment. Now, granted, the environment isn't a big issue to me. I think that Bush is perhaps a bit too lax, and Gore a bit too militant, but in my world, it's definately a secondary issue.
I didn't hear one word about the Drug War, about where all that tax money is going -- which is far greater than any tax cut, or how me might "win" or some alternate tactics to get more bang for our buck, or even if we might just call it a huge failure and scrap the whole project. No words on copyright issues. Nothing really about the internet or computers other than Gore's wonderful "I invented the internet." Nothing about campaign reform or the way that big business has their hands in everyone's pocket, not just the party you happen to hate, and that something needs to be done about it. Nothing about gun laws, which I know the two candidates differ on, but happens to be a very touchy subject. Nothing about scaling back military operations in other countries and focusing on where we're needed. Nothing about privacy laws or how we're making the constitution into toilet paper.
No, we appeal to families and old people -- because these people vote. Avoid any hot topics or touchy issues because you might lose a vote or two, and besides, your opponent probably wants the same thing if it doesn't come down to the voters. Appeal to me, and I'll vote. Keep appealing to my parents and I'll never vote.
I think the only thing my wife watches other than Trading Spaces is Martha Stewart and Emril Legasse. ...and she wonders why I don't watch television with her.
Exoticar.com has several racing seat chairs, ranging in price from $795 to $1595. Do a search for "chair".
Recaro chair
Momo chair
Carerra chair
Generic bucket seat chair
I also wonder, how hard would it be for someone to make a few dozen MP3 files of them plinking around on a keyboard, replicate them enough to generate a few hundred thousand songs, use a random name generator to rename the files to things right out of CDDB, and then share all those files on Kazaa.
Now, it would suck for the people downloading those files, but the RIAA is going to see a few hundred thousand supposedly copyrighted files, and haul that person into court with all the assorted media coverage. Then, it can be revealed that not one of the tracks was copyrighted at all, and they've arrested an innocent man. Not only does this do irreparable PR harm, it probably opens them up to some really nice civil lawsuits.
Urie says his company doesn't heavily research consumer attitude, noting, "We tend to ask how can we make more money and sell more product, not deal with consumer gripes."
I think GM did the same thing in the 70's, 80's and arguably well into the 90's. Maybe Urie should ask how it's working out for them -- they used to have a greater than 50% share of the automobile market.
And then they got cocky. "Those stupid consumers will buy anything we put our name on! We don't have to make better cars, we're GM! We know what they want better than they do!" Seems like a real good way to do business to me.
The RIAA is falling down the same trap. They've gotten so used to being the only outlet that they got used to telling us what we want instead of listening to what we want. You've got to focus on making the customer happy, then you can sell more product and make more money in the long run. By treating your customer like an idiot, you'll make more in the short term, but you'll lose brand loyalty, and ultimately, your customer base.
So, what if I use a file access program, such that each file can only be accessed by one user at any given time (requiring the file to be checked out and locked to listen to it)? If I share that across my company, am I infringing? What if I upload my entire 500 disc collection and keep said discs in a vault next to the computer?
There is essentially, only one copy. Any given song may be accessed by one person at one time -- and no more. Since the CDs are locked next to the computer, one cannot even make the argument that I can listen to the CDs in the car while my co-workers are listening to them at work.
Is this a way around the "mp3 server" problem?
Hey, let's pass a bunch of laws to corral that horrible interweb thing, and we'll bring all those damn pirates under control, and we'll get back control over what people watch, and the CBDTPA will be our saviour, and ...
...HEY! Why don't our animation workstations work anymore, and why can't we get new software for them? What do you mean we have to pay more for less? We're Disney!
Am I the only one who thinks it's rather odd that movie companies are pursuing a law that would effectively outlaw Linux -- while that's the operating system running most of their kick-ass render farms?
Of course. If the album had bombed, it wouldn't have been because eminem has exceeded his 15 minutes, or because the album sucked, or anything other than "those nasty pirate theives."
Now that it succeeded, it obviously did so because it's such a brilliant album by such a talented artist and only "those damn nasty pirate theives" kept it from being more popular than it was. Despite the fact that it's an amazing success by any standard.
That's pretty creative, any poor-selling products aren't the fault of the artist or the label, and of course, any success is obviously because of their talent and brilliant minds.
I don't really see how this is going to fix anything.
First, you've got a standard redbook audio CD layer. I can still rip that and encode it to mp3, just like it was a normal CD. I won't get the super-extra-special-hi-fi SACD tracks, but I'll still get the standard CD Audio. They can't stop that while still allowing the disc to be read in a normal CD-R.
Despite that, they aren't realizing that CD quality audio is good enough for 90% of the population. Hell, 128kbps MP3 encoded with the Xing mp3 compressor seems to be good enough for the majority of consumers.
On top of this, you've got a new player, and I'm sure those won't be nearly as cheap as even a top-end CD player is today. What's the compelling reason to spend more money on this SACD player? I know people buy B&W speakers, but counting myself, I only know of two people personally that have speakers of equal or better quality. I don't think there will be a rush on SACD players.
And, good God, are they going to charge more for the discs? I would imagine so, and I would imagine this is just going to drive more people to pirate. Considering most people won't get the extra benefit of SACD, and of those that do, most back titles will either not benefit from SACD or have to be (fat chance) remastered (see Metallica's "Kill 'em All" on CD -- it's mastering is Fischer-Price level and does not benefit at all from the extra quality of CD, much less SACD).
So, in the end, what have we solved? People will still copy the CD tracks off the hybrids, just like they copied the tracks before, and few people will shell out the extra bucks for a player with few benefits. I would imagine that someone will find a way to crack the SACD, and the "secure" tracks will be distributed just like mp3s and DVD rips are distributed today. I don't doubt that the media will become common, and that's kinda cool if we get better quality (if we choose to pay the premium), but I don't think that it's going to solve any of the record companies' problems, and could quite likely create more -- especially if they increase the cost of a CD.
It used to be neigh well impossible to record your own material and have it sound or look as good as the big boys in California. It was horribly expensive. Now, a guy with several thousand dollars worth of equipment can do it. One day, it will be someone with a few hundred dollars of equipment. One day it will be common to get our files on line, just as we get them on CDs today. I might even argue it's common today, except that a vast majority of people don't even have internet access, and many of the people that do don't have broadband or any current knowlege of mp3s and DivX.
But one day, they will. Publishing will be cheap, and the RIAA and MPAA will be useless. That's what scares them.
In my perfect world I'd have a TIVO type device attached to my TV and Computer (same box, two connections) that would let me watch anything, anytime I want. TV wouldn't be broadcast anymore. TV programs would "air" as an available time and date (The latest ER "airs" every Thursday night at 10 pm EST). I could view any show at any time on or after the "air" date (obviously cant watch TV shows before they are made!). Same with movies - watch any movie after an "release" date. Same with music.
Wow. That's exactly what I want. Not sure if I'd pay "pay per view" prices, but if they were low enough, it would be a non-issue. If they could give me pay-per-view and purchase-forever prices for every piece of media, and those prices were reasonable enough that I wouldn't break the bank watching/listening/consuming the 100 hours or so of new media that would be possible to experience in a month's time, then I'd never, ever pirate again.
Let me say that again, because I'm a pretty hard core pirate. Give me the following:
That's it. Give me that, and I'll never pirate again. Ever. You want to end piracy? That's how you do it.
It's funny you should say this. People really don't think what the ramifications for the SSSCA (CBDTPA) would really be like. Under either one, Xerox would be obligated under law to produce such a magic chip, and not manufacture any new copiers with the capability to copy copyrighted information.
Personally, I can't imagine how such a copier would function. But, it's an interactive electronic device (some new copiers are, in essence, desktop computers with special software), and one capable of displaying and copying copyrighted material. It would be illegal under the SSSCA, unless Xerox could somehow manage to keep you from copying so much as a page from any book in your local library.
Sounds absurd, but you could easily hand copy the information, and as the current 2600 rulings have shown, the right to a fair use copy does not obligate you to a copy in the highest fidelity possible. You could still copy it, but it would be slow, and in your crappy handwriting.
I wonder if an electronic typewriter would be prohibited from letting you plagerize. I don't know how you'd stop it, but they are interactive digital devices, and the words on that page are copyrighted... it wouldn't be hard to make copies.
Well, actually, if they know of this problem, and I'm sure by now they do, and they refuse to do anything about it, they can be held criminally negligent.
Sure, it has a nice sticker on the front that says "does not play in Mac/PC", but it does not say "may cause damage to your Mac/PC". I also suspect these stickers and warnings on the CD are not overly large or noticeable.
You can put whatever warnings you want on something, but when someone sees a five inch, flat round shiny disk, they are going to assume that it's a CD or DVD. It is not unreasonable they are going to try to play it. It is even more reasonable that they might try to play it in their computer after it plays fine in their car -- after all, in their experience, CDs that play in the car play in the computer. Also, even if it says "will not play", how many people will really believe that, considering they've never seen a CD that was readable by one CD-ROM and not another?
An analogy would be if a food company put out a cereal that was poisonous to children but not adults, put it in a box with Micky Mouse on the front, and a very small warning label that said "not for consumption by children." Who do you think would be held liable in this instance?
Let's say you are cruising down the street toward a green light. As you approach the intersection, the light turns yellow. Let's assume that you are three seconds from being through the intersection, but you are travelling too fast (though still within the speed limit) to stop before reaching the intersection. However, this light has a two second yellow, and before you can get through the intersection, it turns red and you run the light.
Now, I'm not a physics major, so I haven't done the calculations, but there's a way to create a "no win" situation no matter what the prevailing traffic speed is.
Regardless, the studies show that increasing a yellow tends to decrease accidents, and in most locations where red light cameras have been put in place, the yellows have been decreased, and in another conflict of interest, the manufacturer and installer of the cameras gets a hefty kickback on each ticket issued by the camera.
That would be known as "carpooling". I mean, really, how can we have a viable car market if everyone doesn't own their own car, and if they don't drive it, they might never have to buy another, and if they carpool, they are aren't degrading their product.
I hereby propose that everyone in America must buy a new car every year, and they have to use that car exclusively, unless of course, they buy a second car, and in which case they can use that car on odd days. There will be no more "catching rides" or "borrowing of cars". These activities shall henceforth be illegal, and punishable by a very large fine and imprisonment.
...makes about as much sense.
Why is it that they haven't figured out that declining profits are of their own making?
Ted, let me tell you something. It's not pirates who are killing your bottom line. It's not the guys who trade your files on Kazaa or Usenet.
It's you. It's your cartel-like pricing, coupled with your outright hostility for the people who have to buy your product. GM tried this tactic in the 70's. At one time they had a greater than 50% market share. Today they are still trying to recover from their mistakes.
Keep legislating. I'll keep voting with my pocketbook. I quit buying CDs two years ago. I quit buying DVDs after a few of Jack Valenti's rants this year. If it comes down to it, I'll pull Time Warner out of the wall and only watch the media I've currently paid for and own. Turn my computer into a glorified toaster and I'll never buy another.
You know what? I'll deal. I thought getting rid of CDs would be bad. It hasn't. DVDs were even easier because I'd been down the road with CDs. Suddenly, I've got a lot more disposable income to spend on other things and other passtimes. I figure this year alone the RIAA and MPAA should save me about $5,000 with their predatory tactics.
Keep it up guys, I'm sure I'm not the only one who is spending their money on things other than your overpriced product.
If the DMCA is any indication, they will stretch this law as far as they can. Don't forget that one of the very things the law states is that the devices must not play unauthorized, copyrighted material. Now, in the distant future, we may have computers so powerful that they can tell what media are copyrighted by checking some huge database -- and they'll probably also know what you're licensed to see and hear (and maybe taste, touch, and smell). Thankfully, computers aren't that powerful yet. So, the only way to keep people from stripping out copyrights or preventing them from playing that illegally copied DVD is to simply disallow the viewing of any non-watermarked media.
That might be fine for a new DVD-ish player, but it won't be fine when it's your new HDTV. Since your old home movies aren't watermarked, it will see them as "pirated" material. Basically, if this law passes, all your current media will be obsolete overnight, and you'll have to go buy new, watermarked copies of all of it, all over again, if you want to use it on the latest equipment.
Free content would have to go away. Why? Because no one could play it without the watermark. And, if you can embed your watermark on your home movies, source code, machine code, etc, then it's just a simple matter to embed your watermark directly into the pirated copy that you'd like to watch. You'd just pick up a ripped copy with no watermark off usenet, and then embed your own. So, the only people watching old or new original content will be those with the foresight to keep their old equipment.
In a sick sort of way, I almost hope one of these laws passes. It'll piss a ton of Joe Sixpacks off, and I'll make a killing on ebay before they finally overturn the law.
Hey, I actually got to be his waiter one night in 1996. I'll leave the details up to you, but let's just say it was very satisfying.