Actually, I think a Slashbox would be better. Split it into two fields. The first would be "Top Issues", the second would be "Recent News." Let them control it and let the articles link directly to their site.
There are two basic questions. How is a program expressive? And, what fair uses require the original movie?
I'm going to turn the first one around and look at how a movie and a program are similar. A movie fundamentally is a program. The program is extremely simple and in a 35MM print extremely expensive in storage space. An image is taken from the storage space, projected on a screen. The computer, in this case the projector, knows to display the next image a short time after the first. It's an implicit instruction. A very simple program for a computer can do the exact same thing.
A compressed movie, such as that found on a DVD is even more like software. In the compressed movie, a much more intelligent processor than the simple movie projector is required. The compressed video contains instructions that have to be processed in a particular manner in order for the final result - something that makes in impression on a human - to be produced.
And this is the segue to the most important point. A program and a movie have this in common: ultimately, they both produce something that a human can sense. It's this purpose that makes them both expressions of speech and deserving of protection under our constitution.
The second question is even easier to answer. When is the full resolution and clarity of the original required under fair use? It is required anytime that a lesser copy would destroy the point at issue in the discussion on the work. So, if your reviewer is looking at the lighting in a particular scene, then macrovision destroys the point. Or if the academic is looking at the texture of the clothing the actors are wearing, then a grainy, low resolution copy destroys the information they're looking for. Or, if Ebert is trying to show you the feel of the picture, then any degradation from the director's original image is a destruction of that feel.
Thanks for posting this great summary of the case.
Rudy Moore
the_orn@yahoo.com
Excellent Operating System Idea!
on
Anticryptography
·
· Score: 1
This article has a lot more to offer the computing world than it does the SETI world. It proposes a way of distributing code and applications that could, in one quick stroke, get rid of all the damn library-dependency issues that are continually cropping up.
This is a great idea for an operating system / library environment!
Someone should convince sourceforge to start handing out universal version numbers with each project. A unique number could identify the project, then the developer could add a number to identify what platform it runs on and a few more digits to give it versioning information. Then, an RPM-like package manager could be queried by the software at run-time to ensure that all the packages that are needed are present. When not found the software can query the user until an automated and secure distribution scheme can be developed.
In this way, an incremental step could be made toward a system that completely describes itself. Now all we need is someone with sufficient clout to take up this behemoth of a project - or lend their support to it anyway. Linus, where are you?!:)
Some of this may be a spoiler, watch out if you're seeing this story for the first time!!!
I have a lot of beef to pick with this movie. To summarize quickly though: it's pretentious and crap. It bothers me every time I hear "Frank Herbert's Dune" on their promos - this is no more his Dune than David Lynch's movie was his Dune. At least David Lynch's movie didn't feel like an afterschool special.
Let's start with the eyes. Their effect is good, though a little too overdone. That's a personal opinion. Where it is clearly wrong is in their choice of characters that get the blue-within-blue. Anyone addicted to the spice should have it. That means Baron Harkonnen (by Sci-Fi's rules), the Bene Gesserit witches (by Herbert's) and to a lesser extent, anyone that lived on Arakis.
Okay, how about language? The movie refuses to use terms that might "alienate" their audience. This is my explanation for their complete lack of important terminology. The spice is the spice Mélange. Dune is the planet Arakis. Paul may be the Kwisatz Haderach (no one mention's Feyd's connection...). Leto is the leader of the Landsraad. There are others. But even when SciFi uses the right terms they gloss over them quickly. The Gom Jabar is an important one that will be needed later... What's a Suk doctor? (For that matter, did anyone know who he was or have any reason to think him trustable before "The Treachery?") What's a mentat? What's the significance of Paul being both Bene Gesserit trained and mentat trained?
Next up - the Special Effects! They're terrible, but typical SciFi fodder. The graphics look like something I did on my PC at home. Okay, so they understand the concept of texture mapping. How about bump mapping? How about decent lighting models? How about dirt!! What's up with the ornithopters? They look like crap! The sets that are real look worse than Kirk's did back in the 60's. And those that are not look as bad as the first season of Bab 5 - which is good, but only if you compare it to something done in the 70's. What's with their moons? One of them is Luna (did you notice?), the other and the other planetary bodies in general should have been done with real software. The Wrath of Kahn planet generator would have been a much better pick and that was done in the early 80's!
The acting is horrible. I can't believe how badly they picked their characters. Luke was bad the first time, do we really need another one? I can't decide how much of it the writers unable to pull together a decent script (a lot) or the actors unable to deliver their lines (a lot). The whole scene where Irulan and Paul talk had emotional overtones that were never implied in the book. They're painting Paul like someone who wants to stick his dick in anything that moves - the chambermaid, Irulan, the girl of his dreams. He was only hot for Chani and possibly his mother (!) in the book. None of the characters are convincing.
That last paragraph was a bit muddled. In truth it should be broken into two problems. Terrible acting and plot inconsistencies. I had been hoping that this series would be faithful to the original (and if it's not, then why do they keep sticking Herbert's name on it?!). They bend the rules whenever their little scriptwriters want - often to get rid of voice overs (Kynes and Duncan helping Paul and Jessica), often to make it more "palatable" (Paul and his chambermaid chick, please don't tell me she's Chani) and partly for no discernable reason (What's Stilgar doing in the picture already?!). I get the impression that one person read the book, summarized it, then the script writers worked from that. It's obvious to me that none of the actors read the book - the temperament of the characters is bogus.
I have to say that this is par for the course for Sci-Fi channel. Throwing the black bars onto the screen is supposed to make this a "movie event of the decade." What a load of shit. I'm all for wider aspect ratios, but when a movie is this badly produced listening to itself stroke its own ego is mind numbing.
So this was a scathing review. I can't believe how many good reviews I read of it before I posted. These points are real, though. It troubles me to see what Herbert's family is doing with his work - they're turning it into Disney. This is more indication why the copyright laws in America are so fucked up - drain every penny you can from every franchisable idea you can scrape together.
This is drivel, like most of what comes out of the boobtube. If David Lynch had kept all of his cutting room floor crap, his would probably have looked as bad as this rendition. But at least he was smart enough cut out the bad stuff.
The errors are the most interesting part of this cypher.
Broza found errors between the contest version of the code (which had resulted from an earlier hand transcription) and a photo of an (closer to the?) original version of the code. But even the original had errors which Poe himself mentions in a letter - he claims they're typographic errors. But this is the same guy that loved putting anagrams and riddles in the stories he wrote.
Considering the strangeness of some of the prose, the errors in the original, and the carefully picked polyalphabetic character distribution, I would have no trouble believing that there isn't a second message hidden in the first.
Of course, I don't have the math or crypto to hunt it out... but someday it might be broken.
Orn
Isn't the right to free speech part of the constitution for those of us in America? Doesn't it also say something about fair use of copyrighted material for _parady_? There shouldn't be any negotiation here.
Here's a moderately amusing idea. Write a script to get DeCSS from decss.zoy.org in all 42 ways. Measure how well your various drivers / network connections do in getting it.
Not to flame a site, but autopop-up windows are annoying and I4U seems to think they're a good idea. While I'm at it, I'd just like to say that web pages that suddenly fill your whole screen suck as well.
Are there any filter tools that let you keep all the html crap from making it through? I'd like to get rid of:
o blinking crap
o animated gifs
o popups
o window size/location changes
o anything that reacts to you hitting the close button
Anyone else think of more annoyances to get rid of?
In reference to "Warning! Strange Behavior" there's a fundamental flaw in the logic of the security guard example that is systemic to the entire technology. Specifically, the security guard recognizes that the behavior of our possible-bomber is highly suspicious. But his first goal is to apprehend the suspect, where he should be calling the bomb-squad first. In the type of situation these systems are designed to prevent, public safety has to be the number one concern. It shouldn't take a back seat to the system's desire to apprehend someone who may have done nothing wrong.
Here's another point of view than can not be neglected. Our unsuspecting would-be bomber may have just received a cell phone call with extremely urgent news. Perhaps a loved one is in danger. He jumped up, forgot his briefcase and is running frantically to the situation. No, he's not going to be perfectly coherent when the guards arrest him. And as long as you're making huge assumptions about him leaving a bomb in the airport, then I can assume that because your security guards falsely apprehended him, he's not going to make it in time. He's not going to be there to save his child's life who may have needed a blood transfusion that only he (being O-) could give. Yes, it's a house of cards in terms of logic, but so is the system you describe. Your system is just hiding the house of cards inside a big red glowing light that reads "Arrest That Man!"
The technology in general is scary because it allows organizations to target individuals when the organization's primary responsibility is to the public. This technology _will_ be misused. It's too complicated of a distinction for it not to be. I just hope our legal systems are up to the challenge that these machines will impose; I fear that they are not.
One of the points about genetic manipulation that seems to be ignored a lot is genetic variability. The engineered plants are designed and manufactured - they're all identical genetically. The danger in that is that with a smaller gene pool, there's less variability to draw from when new pathogens enter into play. The plants can't adapt to a changing environment because the random differences introduced in sexual reproduction have been elminated. There's a reason why sexual reproduction was selected for way-back-when. The population as a whole has better long-term survivability than a genetically identical population.
As far as crossbreeding with plants that were left alone - their progeny will have some variability, but not as much as the wild (domesticated) plant. And traits like terminator genes can be introduced in a dormant form into an otherwise viable plant. Overall fertility rates of the plants will be affected. So you're reducing variability of the population and decreasing its ability to reproduce. What happens when these modifications start to stack up?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think a Slashbox would be better. Split it into two fields. The first would be "Top Issues", the second would be "Recent News." Let them control it and let the articles link directly to their site.
Rudy
There are two basic questions. How is a program expressive? And, what fair uses require the original movie?
I'm going to turn the first one around and look at how a movie and a program are similar. A movie fundamentally is a program. The program is extremely simple and in a 35MM print extremely expensive in storage space. An image is taken from the storage space, projected on a screen. The computer, in this case the projector, knows to display the next image a short time after the first. It's an implicit instruction. A very simple program for a computer can do the exact same thing.
A compressed movie, such as that found on a DVD is even more like software. In the compressed movie, a much more intelligent processor than the simple movie projector is required. The compressed video contains instructions that have to be processed in a particular manner in order for the final result - something that makes in impression on a human - to be produced.
And this is the segue to the most important point. A program and a movie have this in common: ultimately, they both produce something that a human can sense. It's this purpose that makes them both expressions of speech and deserving of protection under our constitution.
The second question is even easier to answer. When is the full resolution and clarity of the original required under fair use? It is required anytime that a lesser copy would destroy the point at issue in the discussion on the work. So, if your reviewer is looking at the lighting in a particular scene, then macrovision destroys the point. Or if the academic is looking at the texture of the clothing the actors are wearing, then a grainy, low resolution copy destroys the information they're looking for. Or, if Ebert is trying to show you the feel of the picture, then any degradation from the director's original image is a destruction of that feel.
Thanks for posting this great summary of the case.
Rudy Moore
the_orn@yahoo.com
This article has a lot more to offer the computing world than it does the SETI world. It proposes a way of distributing code and applications that could, in one quick stroke, get rid of all the damn library-dependency issues that are continually cropping up.
This is a great idea for an operating system / library environment!
Someone should convince sourceforge to start handing out universal version numbers with each project. A unique number could identify the project, then the developer could add a number to identify what platform it runs on and a few more digits to give it versioning information. Then, an RPM-like package manager could be queried by the software at run-time to ensure that all the packages that are needed are present. When not found the software can query the user until an automated and secure distribution scheme can be developed.
In this way, an incremental step could be made toward a system that completely describes itself. Now all we need is someone with sufficient clout to take up this behemoth of a project - or lend their support to it anyway. Linus, where are you?!
Rudy Moore
Some of this may be a spoiler, watch out if you're seeing this story for the first time!!!
I have a lot of beef to pick with this movie. To summarize quickly though: it's pretentious and crap. It bothers me every time I hear "Frank Herbert's Dune" on their promos - this is no more his Dune than David Lynch's movie was his Dune. At least David Lynch's movie didn't feel like an afterschool special.
Let's start with the eyes. Their effect is good, though a little too overdone. That's a personal opinion. Where it is clearly wrong is in their choice of characters that get the blue-within-blue. Anyone addicted to the spice should have it. That means Baron Harkonnen (by Sci-Fi's rules), the Bene Gesserit witches (by Herbert's) and to a lesser extent, anyone that lived on Arakis.
Okay, how about language? The movie refuses to use terms that might "alienate" their audience. This is my explanation for their complete lack of important terminology. The spice is the spice Mélange. Dune is the planet Arakis. Paul may be the Kwisatz Haderach (no one mention's Feyd's connection...). Leto is the leader of the Landsraad. There are others. But even when SciFi uses the right terms they gloss over them quickly. The Gom Jabar is an important one that will be needed later... What's a Suk doctor? (For that matter, did anyone know who he was or have any reason to think him trustable before "The Treachery?") What's a mentat? What's the significance of Paul being both Bene Gesserit trained and mentat trained?
Next up - the Special Effects! They're terrible, but typical SciFi fodder. The graphics look like something I did on my PC at home. Okay, so they understand the concept of texture mapping. How about bump mapping? How about decent lighting models? How about dirt!! What's up with the ornithopters? They look like crap! The sets that are real look worse than Kirk's did back in the 60's. And those that are not look as bad as the first season of Bab 5 - which is good, but only if you compare it to something done in the 70's. What's with their moons? One of them is Luna (did you notice?), the other and the other planetary bodies in general should have been done with real software. The Wrath of Kahn planet generator would have been a much better pick and that was done in the early 80's!
The acting is horrible. I can't believe how badly they picked their characters. Luke was bad the first time, do we really need another one? I can't decide how much of it the writers unable to pull together a decent script (a lot) or the actors unable to deliver their lines (a lot). The whole scene where Irulan and Paul talk had emotional overtones that were never implied in the book. They're painting Paul like someone who wants to stick his dick in anything that moves - the chambermaid, Irulan, the girl of his dreams. He was only hot for Chani and possibly his mother (!) in the book. None of the characters are convincing.
That last paragraph was a bit muddled. In truth it should be broken into two problems. Terrible acting and plot inconsistencies. I had been hoping that this series would be faithful to the original (and if it's not, then why do they keep sticking Herbert's name on it?!). They bend the rules whenever their little scriptwriters want - often to get rid of voice overs (Kynes and Duncan helping Paul and Jessica), often to make it more "palatable" (Paul and his chambermaid chick, please don't tell me she's Chani) and partly for no discernable reason (What's Stilgar doing in the picture already?!). I get the impression that one person read the book, summarized it, then the script writers worked from that. It's obvious to me that none of the actors read the book - the temperament of the characters is bogus.
I have to say that this is par for the course for Sci-Fi channel. Throwing the black bars onto the screen is supposed to make this a "movie event of the decade." What a load of shit. I'm all for wider aspect ratios, but when a movie is this badly produced listening to itself stroke its own ego is mind numbing.
So this was a scathing review. I can't believe how many good reviews I read of it before I posted. These points are real, though. It troubles me to see what Herbert's family is doing with his work - they're turning it into Disney. This is more indication why the copyright laws in America are so fucked up - drain every penny you can from every franchisable idea you can scrape together.
This is drivel, like most of what comes out of the boobtube. If David Lynch had kept all of his cutting room floor crap, his would probably have looked as bad as this rendition. But at least he was smart enough cut out the bad stuff.
Ugh.
Rudy
The errors are the most interesting part of this cypher. Broza found errors between the contest version of the code (which had resulted from an earlier hand transcription) and a photo of an (closer to the?) original version of the code. But even the original had errors which Poe himself mentions in a letter - he claims they're typographic errors. But this is the same guy that loved putting anagrams and riddles in the stories he wrote. Considering the strangeness of some of the prose, the errors in the original, and the carefully picked polyalphabetic character distribution, I would have no trouble believing that there isn't a second message hidden in the first. Of course, I don't have the math or crypto to hunt it out... but someday it might be broken. Orn
Isn't the right to free speech part of the constitution for those of us in America? Doesn't it also say something about fair use of copyrighted material for _parady_? There shouldn't be any negotiation here.
:|
Time Waster #00023
Here's a moderately amusing idea. Write a script to get DeCSS from decss.zoy.org in all 42 ways. Measure how well your various drivers / network connections do in getting it.
Not to flame a site, but autopop-up windows are annoying and I4U seems to think they're a good idea. While I'm at it, I'd just like to say that web pages that suddenly fill your whole screen suck as well.
Are there any filter tools that let you keep all the html crap from making it through? I'd like to get rid of:
o blinking crap
o animated gifs
o popups
o window size/location changes
o anything that reacts to you hitting the close button
Anyone else think of more annoyances to get rid of?
Is there a DVD-R set that contains the entire usenet archives? usenet is distributed - is there any node that has been archiving since the start?
Thanks!
Sent to letters@newscientist.com:
In reference to "Warning! Strange Behavior" there's a fundamental
flaw in the logic of the security guard example that is systemic
to the entire technology. Specifically, the security guard
recognizes that the behavior of our possible-bomber is highly
suspicious. But his first goal is to apprehend the suspect, where
he should be calling the bomb-squad first. In the type of situation
these systems are designed to prevent, public safety has to be the
number one concern. It shouldn't take a back seat to the system's
desire to apprehend someone who may have done nothing wrong.
Here's another point of view than can not be neglected. Our unsuspecting
would-be bomber may have just received a cell phone call with extremely
urgent news. Perhaps a loved one is in danger. He jumped up, forgot
his briefcase and is running frantically to the situation. No, he's
not going to be perfectly coherent when the guards arrest him. And as
long as you're making huge assumptions about him leaving a bomb in
the airport, then I can assume that because your security guards
falsely apprehended him, he's not going to make it in time. He's not
going to be there to save his child's life who may have needed a blood
transfusion that only he (being O-) could give. Yes, it's a house of
cards in terms of logic, but so is the system you describe. Your system
is just hiding the house of cards inside a big red glowing light that
reads "Arrest That Man!"
The technology in general is scary because it allows organizations
to target individuals when the organization's primary responsibility
is to the public. This technology _will_ be misused. It's too
complicated of a distinction for it not to be. I just hope our
legal systems are up to the challenge that these machines will
impose; I fear that they are not.
Rudy Moore
I view this as an excellent move. They'll fit right in.
"You've got questions. We've got dumb looks."
One of the points about genetic manipulation that seems to be ignored a lot is genetic variability. The engineered plants are designed and manufactured - they're all identical genetically. The danger in that is that with a smaller gene pool, there's less variability to draw from when new pathogens enter into play. The plants can't adapt to a changing environment because the random differences introduced in sexual reproduction have been elminated. There's a reason why sexual reproduction was selected for way-back-when. The population as a whole has better long-term survivability than a genetically identical population.
As far as crossbreeding with plants that were left alone - their progeny will have some variability, but not as much as the wild (domesticated) plant. And traits like terminator genes can be introduced in a dormant form into an otherwise viable plant. Overall fertility rates of the plants will be affected. So you're reducing variability of the population and decreasing its ability to reproduce. What happens when these modifications start to stack up?
Rudy