Hint, think DivX;-), that will fit the movie comfortably in a 700 CD-ROM, at a quality that most people will be quite happy with. (DVD's not that good to begin with.)
That's great if you want to watch a movie on the computer, like I do thanks to a large monitor and a lack of space for a separate TV. This leaves out the few million people who watch movies on their standalone DVD players. Incidentally, one other barrier to bit-for-bit ripping is that on DVD-Rs, the area normally reserved for the decryption key is zeroed out during manufacturing. I don't think DivX supports Dolby Digital 5.1 sound yet, either, although I understand that's in the works.
DVD may not be 1080i or even 720p HDTV, but it's a sight better than VHS, in terms of quality and durability.
How is this different from renting from blockbuster and copying it?
Not much, on the surface. The first difference is that with the Blockbuster rental model, you know you can always go back and rent the disc again if you want to watch it at some later time, but don't want to completely buy it. To some people who skirt the edge between respecting the existing rules and breaking copyright, this can be a deciding factor. Admittedly, this would be a very small set of people, but why go through the hassle of copying a disc you can just rent again?
The FlexPlay/SpectraDisc systems remove this possibility. Part of what the backers of Divx envisioned was selling the discs in grocery stores and other non-rental outlets for impulse buyers. I think this is what Flex/Spectra are trying to do, so it's not as if you can return the disc once you're done with it. There was also a well-founded concern that certain studios, namely Disney, intended to release certain movies exclusively on Divx, preventing ownership and ensuring a permanent revenue stream. Should a movie get the permanent-rental-window treatment, there would almost certainly be a demand for copies that don't die after three days.
My point about burning may be nullfied by reality. One issue with consumer DVD burning technology is the single-layer nature of the formats; you can burn a single layer with a maximum capacity of either 4.7 or 3.95 GB, and that's about it. Many movies require two layers to fit. This holds for the rewritable specifications, AFAIK. Professional pressing machines are mad expensive, probably not even for the determined small-time pirate.
Of course, a mass influx of limited-use DVDs may create a push for a consumer-level writer that can produce multiple layers, though I don't think a writer that can fit in a computer case, or even a small room, is feasible on the consumer or prosumer level right now.
Somewhat OT, but has to be pointed out; this would be useless. Divx discs implemented a 3DES encryption scheme to prevent playing on 'normal' DVD players. A dedicated chip in the player handled decryption. This also allowed Circuit Shitty to maintain the PPV scheme, since the PPV discs couldn't be played on non-Divx players.
Since the Divx system is dead, the discs are useless. The players can still play normal DVDs, but any Divx discs are now coasters, or trash fodder.
An introduction of this technology will almost certainly increase DVD piracy, as people will see an opportunity to get a full movie cheap. FlexPlay, at least, claims their discs will work in all DVD drives, including DVD-ROMs. The market for DVD burners, currently technophile and media professional toys, may witness a small upsurge in demand, and ripping tools will become popular as the damn-copyright set notes the obvious ways around the time limit - make copies of the discs.
There's no way this can come to any good. Abort mission.
Y'know, for all the shortcomings of Divx (special players, mounting costs, VHS-Beta-style format war, deceptive advertising, being unable to share discs, etc), it had one thing over both of these harebrained schemes.
Replayability.
You could purchase additional viewing windows, and you would be a sent a bill by HQ each month. Pay-per-view DVDS - it's as dumb as it sounds, especially since many of the discs had no special features, were pan-n-scan, and basically had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. At least you could replay your own discs.
These dumbshit ideas... 3 days, and they're in the trash, never to be viewed again. The wrapping and case/sleeve also go in the trash. FlexPlay presents a claim that 100 million DVDs can fit into a 10m^3 block. It's still additional waste, of landfill space, of packaging, and of the resources and energy that went into producing a DVD that craps itself after 3 days. It's not as if you can return the flick for someone else to enjoy - the disc is WASTED. Perfect for the disposable society, but I thought we were trying to move away from that?
As for the "save the environment by driving your car less" claim attached to this... build cleaner cars before looking for excuses to keep the current ones.
If I could trust the Bush administration to have a legitimate interest in science and nuclear-based propulsion, I would be happier about this budget-shuffling. The ISS has been a slapped-together fiasco, a victim of politics and bureucracy - a perfect example of what NASA and space exploration shouldn't be.
Nuclear-powered probes have been used for, literally, decades. It's actually something of a misnomer to call the Voyager, Cassini, et al probes "nuclear-powered". "Decay-powered" might be a better term, since their energy source is radioactive decay generating heat. Putting nuclear-powered rovers on other planets might be a good idea, allowing rovers to run longer. I wonder how much longer Sojourner and Sagan Memorial Station could have run with a decay-based backup. Of course, there is always a concern about radioactive materials being exposed to the environment; not much of a problem in interplanetary space, something of a problem if the probe is on a planet suspected of having life.
The point of decay-powered power generation is to run electricity-based devices for long periods of time at distances from the Sun too great to make solar generation effective. If the Bush report refers to nuclear reaction-based power generation and propulsion, I'm a bit lost. The best reason to use nuclear-powered engines and generators would be to support manned flights that require much energy for life support, emergency power, pushing along its own bulk, et al. There's also the issue of fission- vs. fusion-based generators and engines.
Perhaps I should find a copy of the report, but that one little bit rubs me wrong. The Bush administration seems hell-bent on reviving Cold War-era defense programs that were never actually proven, and dropping or evading weapons treaties, some of which dealt with the development of nuclear technology for space use. I just can't shake the feeling this is a wedge to finally move the nuclear race into Earth orbit; one proposal mentioned by Sagan in 'Cosmos' was Project Orion, a propulsion system based on the detonation of fusion bombs.
I'm pretty sure it's paranoia... but it's a nagging feeling, and it creeps me out.
I would probably have given MS more credit for this initiative if they didn't have a burning need to broadcast it to the entire world, as if to say "See? We're doing a good thing! LOVE US!"
Good deeds don't need advertising. The way MS is trumpeting how security- and bug-conscious they are now makes me wonder how much of it is legitimate and how much is fluff.
That would be correct. The United States of America is all for free speech.
Until it gets uncomfortable; then people start asking where the obscenity laws are, it's for the children, et al...
It's also a democracy, where you can elect a new government to install new laws if you disagree with the current state of affairs.
It's a representative democracy. Not only do you pick your rulers, but they can get away with the pretense of voting for repulsive things like the DMCA and call it "the will of the people." States will throw voters "ballot initiatives" if enough signatures are raised by non-legislators to get them there, and even if those referenda succeed, they can be ignored in certain states or overruled by existing federal law, even if that federal law is utter junk.
People that are supposed to serve the citizens end up ruling them, because they are handed lots of power with little to no responsibility and accountability. Losing the next election simply isn't enough of a threat; people have short memories, a shorter attention span, and little to no chance of turfing their "representative" when s/he makes a really bad decision. The federal system still ends up with less than 1 000 people making decisions that will affect 250 million+, often with the influence of a moneyed few behind those decisions. The vote is no longer the instrument of ultimate authority, but the dollar - and those with more dollars can get more rules passed that favour them. We've reached a point in North America where the people who make decisions are hundreds of miles and layers of bureaucracy away from the people those decisions affect, and many of the affected are coming to think they have less and less agency under the current system. A few are even coming to think that the people who make decisions are those who the decisions will affect - you and me, and the community around us. I'm one of those people.
Therefore, in a theoretical sense (before you start screaming about corporate america owning the politicians), the people do control the government.
In theory, what happens in practice should be the same as what happens in theory. It's not "screaming" when people complain about corporate influence; it's legitimate frustration with a political process that has, for many people, become irrelevant or detrimental to society as a whole.
By ignoring the political route and espousing the virtues of a violent overthrow, you have now entered the realm of "terrorist" or "freedom fighter." In a country where the freedom of speech is guaranteed in the very Constitution you want to do away with, you are more than likely to be considered a terrorist. And frankly, I would agree with that assessment.
As has been pointed out, the line between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is extremely thin. It depends what side you're on, and what the terrorists/freedom fighters are fighting for. Wanting to throw off the yoke of authoritarianism can be taken either way, depending whether you actually like your rulers. To some extent, a freedom fighter is a subset of terrorists, one that wishes to ensure freedom and an end to oppressive authority. This is in contrast to terrorists that want to replace one authority with their own, or force everyone to subscribe to their own belief system. A freedom fighter will seek to convince you their cause is just through words as well as deeds, and attack aggressive opposition; a terrorist will just try to kill you if you don't give in. Even then, the definitions aren't completely solid. Try discussing Palestinian liberation sometime, and have fun trying to find an acceptable limit to aggressive resistance. I support defense against IDF incursions, and nonaggressive blocking of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory that the locals didn't agree to, but I don't condone the killing of innocents or attacks on the Israeli side of the Green Line, regardless of target. Some people say I support terrorism; others would say I don't go far enough in supporting the Palestinian struggle for a homeland. It's a tricky line, and more often than not, tactics that are viewed as acceptable in one circumstance are used to tar another cause as horrible and unsupportable.
As for the Constitution... if the government doesn't uphold it, and people don't understand the ideas contained within, then it's nothing more than words on a page. The concepts of liberty and freedom are great, but only if people take responsibility for all the implications, good and bad.
Here's a suggestion: if you don't like the system and don't feel like changing the system, take your bombs and move to Columbia or the middle east.
This treads close to "love it or leave it," saying "love it, try to change it within the existing rules, or forget it." Unfortunately, sometimes the rules don't work, the law doesn't spring from the ethical boundaries agreed to by the people living under that law. And sometimes (often?) authority is just corrupt beyond belief or use.
As I've said before, I think his cracking of websites was the wrong thing to do, and I don't advocate a violent overthrow and imposition of a new regime, but neither do I accept the authority of a government that routinely allows the individuals involved to escape responsibility for harmful actions taken and laws passed, and hides its mistakes from the people that are supposed to ultimately make decisions.
Advocating the violent overthrow of the state should not be illegal. To be sure raisethefist did that, but what all the quotes from the FBI spokespersons *say* he is being nabbed for is for publishing info on bomb-making. That is definitely NOT illegal. I've also seen reports that Sherman "anti" was engaged in cracking or site-defacement or something. If so then why haven't they charged him with that?
Two things.
1) Apparently, distributing information on constructing weapons over the Internet is now illegal under the PATRIOT Act. You don't actually have to build them, or even advocate building them (although the Reclaim guide was neutral on this point). Just publishing the info is good for a charge should the feds decide you're worth taking down.
2) There was a "computer fraud and abuse" charge, and I think this is what the website defacement falls under. I can't defend attacks against sites or people; my aggressiveness ends at self-defense against an immediate attack.
Most people would support an amendment making it illegal to pass around bomb-making information. I do.
Maybe I'm just a hard-core freedom-of-speech advocate, but if most people in your country would support such an amendment, I don't want to live in your country should that ever actually happen. Last I saw, the Constitution was supposed to guarantee rights to people and limit government powers. The last time the Constitution was used to make something illegal, it spectacularly failed.
This, I think, is the page that gave the feds their weapons charge.
You're right, though; that information can be found in numerous other places on the Web, even through Amazon. The FBI obviously knew about the site defacements some time ago, since one of the charges the warrant was issued on was "computer fraud and abuse". I was confused about the reason for this charge until I found out about the defacements.
The timing just seems a bit strange. He could have been nailed a long time ago just on the cracks and scripts. LA Weekly claims that disseminating bombmaking information over the Internet is now illegal under the PATRIOT Act, which to me is just reason to mirror the whole thing and keep the information out there. The information supposedly went up "not long ago"; the text of the Guide seems to indicate it went online somewhere not long before the antiwar protests in Washington, D.C. last September.
I have a theory about why the site was raided now, but it sounds a bit paranoid; namely, there's this little protest thing going on in NYC this week, and police forces haven't been above infiltrating, raiding, and arresting people to collect evidence of "violent intentions" and "weapons" before the actual demonstration to justify use of force during the action, regardless of how aggressive the protesters really are. They also haven't been above confiscating numerous items during protests and displaying them as weapons afterward; in Ottawa last November, a boom microphone clearly marked with CTV's logo somehow made it into a police display of "illegal material" shown on TV, and one reporter pointed out his own gas mask in a related display. An acquaintance who I met while covering demonstrations in Toronto last October had her CDs confiscated by the police, and street medics regularly had their water and eye-flushing solutions poured out. At least one journalist was arrested for not consenting to a search of his camera bags, when he was clearly a photographer; illegal searches and confiscations were rampant.
Cracking web sites was just plain stupid, but I don't entirely trust the intentions of the law enforcement agencies involved, either. And, quite frankly, the federal government of the U.S. has stomped on the Constitution so often that it has become words on a page, little more than legal terms to be weaseled around.
Sherman was a hotheaded kid. The stuff he posted on his site came across more aggressively than some other anarchist sites I can think of, but his opinions on government and hierarchical power are held by a lot of people around the world, and every day more people come to see the government of the U.S. not as their representatives, but as their rulers. I think he shouldn't have cracked any sites, and he has to take responsibility for those acts, but his speech shouldn't be restricted. The First Amendment makes no caveats for "dangerous information," or even calls to overthrow (and don't make me break out the Founding Fathers to demonstrate this one). There were people who said the PATRIOT act was a clear abrogation of the Constitution in several respects, and I think the charge of distributing information on weapons construction, which apparently comes from the Act, demonstrates this. Otherwise, a few hundred other raids should be going down right about now. If the charge was slapped on Sherman because of the political views he expressed on his site, then to some extent, he is being prosecuted for his opinions, at least on charges related to bombmaking information. This doesn't excuse the defacements in the least; that's something that the government has gone after before the PATRIOT Act, regardless of political opinion. The selectivity of enforcement is what concerns me and others, and it's part of the reason I just don't trust power placed in the hands of a few, even if in theory the many selected them, because in practice Lord Acton's axiom about power and corruption kicks in regardless of how the few individuals in power got there.
2 - we have this little thing called freedom of speech. There is no law prohibiting the dissemination of bomb making information. If that is a crime, I guess Amazon.com is a terrorist organization:
In fact, that's exactly what the LA Weekly arrticle says the PATRIOT Act does - makes the dissemination of bombmaking information on the Internet illegal.
I'm not one for violent overthrow, only self-defense, but the weapons-making info should be protected under Amendment 1. I've sometimes been interested in weapons and how to construct them, just for the sake of knowing how to do it and how they work. Mind you, some of the stuff in the Reclaim Guide was apparently more Anarchist Cookbook-like than anything else (and, as someone who identifies with anarchist ideals of freedom, direct democracy, and decentralized authority, I hate typing that book's name), but there was other information - how to make shields, group demonstration tactics, a discussion of what a black bloc is and isn't, etc. Quite frankly, the WTC attack should show that hiding all the weapons-making info in the world won't stop someone determined to destroy stuff. Amendment 1 makes no caveats like "except information that could be used to destroy stuff." The assumption within is that people will be taught to use information responsibly, even so-called dangerous information.
Now, cracking machines, that was stupid, although it explains the "computer fraud and abuse" charge that confused a few of us discussing the raid early on.
I think I visited raisethefist.com once out of curiosity, but really didn't check out the content until the raid went down. It's more hotheaded and aggressive than some other anarchist and activist sites I can think of. He was a hotheaded kid. Be disappointed with his cracking of machines used by others (that violates "the right to swing your fist ends at my nose"), but defend his right to speak about subjects the government would rather people be unaware about, even if "for their own good."
About the "overthrowing the Constitution" claim... here's Google's cache of raisethefist, limited to the occurences of the word "constitution." Overthrowing the government is not necessarily overthrowing the Constitution, especially if that government routinely violates that same Constitution and takes no responsbility for those violations.
* 2002-01-27 00:27:10 Raisethefist.com Shut Down by FBI (yro,usa) (rejected)
I normally don't complain about my own rejected submissions, but this one sat in the queue for two days, with links to three different items on the raid. K5 posted a piece on this. Meanwhile, Slashdot editors drool over... a stupid studio fight, among other things.
Just this once, can I find out why the story was rejected? Is it because three IMCs were the sources, one of which took the time to contact the FBI and confirm the raid? Was it not "geeky" enough? I would think FBI raids on sites would be news, regardless of how extreme or controversial the sites are.
Some discussion in the items on SF IMC related to the raid indicate a few possible reasons for the raid, including protesting tactics, some Anarchist Cookbook-like material on making weapons and explosives on a budget, and the timing - one week before a major anti-corporate globalization demonstration in New York City, which brings up the spectre of scapegoating should anything get out of hand. In fact, I'm personally pretty sure the main reason for the raid was to collect "evidence" of activist sites encouraging violence in the event the situation degenerates, regardless of which side provokes the violence.
I read this story, remembered how I had snorted about the line from the first one, and just felt like being mean. Watergate was an awfully long time ago though...;-)
You're not the first one to notice that; shit-disturbing journalist Greg Palast lamented the lack of hard journalism in contemporary North American media in an interview with GNN's Anthony Lappe. The man reported shit for the BBC that should have brought down the Bush regime before it even got off the ground, among other spectacular scandals, that are passed off as "conspiracy-theorist lefty crap" on this continent. Journalists have had numerous stories embarrassing for large corporate entities shot and buried before they saw the light of day, or buried under litigation soon afterward.
As someone who has covered two mid-sized demonstrations in Canada, in a small hacked-together broadcast room and on the front line respectively, I can tell you that mainstream media try to avoid disturbing the status quo as much as possible, even if it means burying or exaggerating parts of certain stories to uphold the authorities' story.
Try typing "INS" and "secret evidence" into Google. The INS is infamous for blocking defence access to prosecution information through the use of "secret evidence" that the defence is unable to see in open court, never mind refute.
Just out of curiosity, how much power does one of these 2GHz+ chips use? Combine that chip with the graphics card, the DDR SDRAM, the fans, the perhiperals... those electric meters must spin mighty fast:)
In China, and most of the rest of the world, you are not valued for the quality of your product or for how hard you work. You're valued for "who you are" -- the son of a famous general, the brother of a diplomat, the cousin of the President.
Soon the patenet office is going to accidentally give a patent to someone for urls (oh wait, isn't a British company working on this one?)
British Telecom claims to have a US patent on hyperlinks. Some claims of prior art have come up. BT was soundly flamed for dropping this one on everyone's heads.
pausing TV (oh wait, isn't Tivo {or someone else} claiming this one?)
I believe the company with this particular patent is called Pause Communications or something. However, Tivo and SONICblue both have patents on various other parts of PVR technology. If that's not a disastrous legal war waiting to happen, I don't know what is.
Sooner or later, people are going to start ignoring patent protection on software simply because the patents become so broad and ridiculous that no one respects USPTO decisions anymore, openly flaunt those decisions, and dare patent holders to try and defend those ill-advised patents. Once that part of the patent system breaks down, it's only a matter of time for the rest of the system to be dragged down by the weight of the sick portion.
Fix the unworkable or unenforceable portions of IP law to become realistically applicable in a digital world, or watch the whole regime collapse in flames. That is the choice facing intellectual property-based corporations and organizations. Adapt or die.
I've seen this argument posted a couple times to the thread. I'm going to play pedant boy for a minute here.
Yes, there is a Monsanto. Under U.S. law, Monsanto is a legal entity. It even has legal status as a person. Now, while the actions of Monsanto may be directed and carried out by thousands of individuals, ultimately, those actions are carried out under the 'Monsanto' corporate personhood.
Now, either the corporation takes a huge legal hit due to the corporation's past actions - halt of operations, massive compensation, et al - or the individuals directly responsible for the decisions must stand to account for the actions of Monsanto. A person - which a corporation legally is in American - may do great work in the community, may support a family, but if that person commits voluntary manslaughter, that person is going to have rights revoked and operations halted for a while, and the people who relied on the convict will have to find other ways to get along. Harsh as hell, but if corporations get to be people, they get to be subject to the same punishments as people.
Either way, someone has to take responsibility for this mess, be that someone a person, or the corporation.
Slashdot had a link to a story on the Percy Schmeiser case a long time ago. It may also be worth checking out this site on his continuing conflict with Monsanto; whois records indicate it's run by a relative of Percy, and it seems rather thorough.
Monsanto is nasty corporation that fights dirty and wants to control everything it touches. It's Microsoft crossed with tobacco companies. Monsanto was one of the companies that produced the Agent Orange defoliant for the US military during 'Nam, and currently produces Roundup and Roundup Ultra. The latter is being indiscriminately dumped on various locations around Colombia as part of the US War on (Some) Drugs. This doesn't even get into Monsanto's legal and technical games with genetics.
Monsanto is also a candidate for being "first up against the wall" when "the revolution" comes. Whatever that turns out to be, it can only mean good things for life on Earth to evolve and exist outside of manipulation for profit.
It's not just a nice "satellite takeover" story, it's also a great "fight the Man!" tale.
I personally wonder if someone could do a Captain-Midnight job on an MTV transponder and send the message "PLAY SOME DAMN MUSIC SOMETIME, LIKE THAT MUCHMUSIC CHANNEL IN CANADA!" Or a CNN/FoxNewsChannel/MSNBC transponder - "HTTP://INDYMEDIA.ORG - REUTERS AND AP ARE NOT INDEPENDENT MEDIA!"
Slashdot Mirror
Hint, think DivX ;-), that will fit the movie comfortably in a 700 CD-ROM, at a quality that most people will be quite happy with. (DVD's not that good to begin with.)
That's great if you want to watch a movie on the computer, like I do thanks to a large monitor and a lack of space for a separate TV. This leaves out the few million people who watch movies on their standalone DVD players. Incidentally, one other barrier to bit-for-bit ripping is that on DVD-Rs, the area normally reserved for the decryption key is zeroed out during manufacturing. I don't think DivX supports Dolby Digital 5.1 sound yet, either, although I understand that's in the works.
DVD may not be 1080i or even 720p HDTV, but it's a sight better than VHS, in terms of quality and durability.
How is this different from renting from blockbuster and copying it?
Not much, on the surface. The first difference is that with the Blockbuster rental model, you know you can always go back and rent the disc again if you want to watch it at some later time, but don't want to completely buy it. To some people who skirt the edge between respecting the existing rules and breaking copyright, this can be a deciding factor. Admittedly, this would be a very small set of people, but why go through the hassle of copying a disc you can just rent again?
The FlexPlay/SpectraDisc systems remove this possibility. Part of what the backers of Divx envisioned was selling the discs in grocery stores and other non-rental outlets for impulse buyers. I think this is what Flex/Spectra are trying to do, so it's not as if you can return the disc once you're done with it. There was also a well-founded concern that certain studios, namely Disney, intended to release certain movies exclusively on Divx, preventing ownership and ensuring a permanent revenue stream. Should a movie get the permanent-rental-window treatment, there would almost certainly be a demand for copies that don't die after three days.
My point about burning may be nullfied by reality. One issue with consumer DVD burning technology is the single-layer nature of the formats; you can burn a single layer with a maximum capacity of either 4.7 or 3.95 GB, and that's about it. Many movies require two layers to fit. This holds for the rewritable specifications, AFAIK. Professional pressing machines are mad expensive, probably not even for the determined small-time pirate.
Of course, a mass influx of limited-use DVDs may create a push for a consumer-level writer that can produce multiple layers, though I don't think a writer that can fit in a computer case, or even a small room, is feasible on the consumer or prosumer level right now.
So rip a DivX to DivX ;-)? My brain hurts.
Somewhat OT, but has to be pointed out; this would be useless. Divx discs implemented a 3DES encryption scheme to prevent playing on 'normal' DVD players. A dedicated chip in the player handled decryption. This also allowed Circuit Shitty to maintain the PPV scheme, since the PPV discs couldn't be played on non-Divx players.
Since the Divx system is dead, the discs are useless. The players can still play normal DVDs, but any Divx discs are now coasters, or trash fodder.
An introduction of this technology will almost certainly increase DVD piracy, as people will see an opportunity to get a full movie cheap. FlexPlay, at least, claims their discs will work in all DVD drives, including DVD-ROMs. The market for DVD burners, currently technophile and media professional toys, may witness a small upsurge in demand, and ripping tools will become popular as the damn-copyright set notes the obvious ways around the time limit - make copies of the discs.
There's no way this can come to any good. Abort mission.
Y'know, for all the shortcomings of Divx (special players, mounting costs, VHS-Beta-style format war, deceptive advertising, being unable to share discs, etc), it had one thing over both of these harebrained schemes.
Replayability.
You could purchase additional viewing windows, and you would be a sent a bill by HQ each month. Pay-per-view DVDS - it's as dumb as it sounds, especially since many of the discs had no special features, were pan-n-scan, and basically had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. At least you could replay your own discs.
These dumbshit ideas... 3 days, and they're in the trash, never to be viewed again. The wrapping and case/sleeve also go in the trash. FlexPlay presents a claim that 100 million DVDs can fit into a 10m^3 block. It's still additional waste, of landfill space, of packaging, and of the resources and energy that went into producing a DVD that craps itself after 3 days. It's not as if you can return the flick for someone else to enjoy - the disc is WASTED. Perfect for the disposable society, but I thought we were trying to move away from that?
As for the "save the environment by driving your car less" claim attached to this... build cleaner cars before looking for excuses to keep the current ones.
Oh great, RMS, MS, .NET, Gnome, can we get more /. hot-button things into there?
Figure out a way to work in KDE, the DMCA, Star Wars II, and MP3s, and I think you'd have the Ultimate Slashdot Flamefest.
If I could trust the Bush administration to have a legitimate interest in science and nuclear-based propulsion, I would be happier about this budget-shuffling. The ISS has been a slapped-together fiasco, a victim of politics and bureucracy - a perfect example of what NASA and space exploration shouldn't be.
Nuclear-powered probes have been used for, literally, decades. It's actually something of a misnomer to call the Voyager, Cassini, et al probes "nuclear-powered". "Decay-powered" might be a better term, since their energy source is radioactive decay generating heat. Putting nuclear-powered rovers on other planets might be a good idea, allowing rovers to run longer. I wonder how much longer Sojourner and Sagan Memorial Station could have run with a decay-based backup. Of course, there is always a concern about radioactive materials being exposed to the environment; not much of a problem in interplanetary space, something of a problem if the probe is on a planet suspected of having life.
The point of decay-powered power generation is to run electricity-based devices for long periods of time at distances from the Sun too great to make solar generation effective. If the Bush report refers to nuclear reaction-based power generation and propulsion, I'm a bit lost. The best reason to use nuclear-powered engines and generators would be to support manned flights that require much energy for life support, emergency power, pushing along its own bulk, et al. There's also the issue of fission- vs. fusion-based generators and engines.
Perhaps I should find a copy of the report, but that one little bit rubs me wrong. The Bush administration seems hell-bent on reviving Cold War-era defense programs that were never actually proven, and dropping or evading weapons treaties, some of which dealt with the development of nuclear technology for space use. I just can't shake the feeling this is a wedge to finally move the nuclear race into Earth orbit; one proposal mentioned by Sagan in 'Cosmos' was Project Orion, a propulsion system based on the detonation of fusion bombs.
I'm pretty sure it's paranoia... but it's a nagging feeling, and it creeps me out.
I would probably have given MS more credit for this initiative if they didn't have a burning need to broadcast it to the entire world, as if to say "See? We're doing a good thing! LOVE US!"
Good deeds don't need advertising. The way MS is trumpeting how security- and bug-conscious they are now makes me wonder how much of it is legitimate and how much is fluff.
We shall see, I suppose.
That would be correct. The United States of America is all for free speech.
Until it gets uncomfortable; then people start asking where the obscenity laws are, it's for the children, et al...
It's also a democracy, where you can elect a new government to install new laws if you disagree with the current state of affairs.
It's a representative democracy. Not only do you pick your rulers, but they can get away with the pretense of voting for repulsive things like the DMCA and call it "the will of the people." States will throw voters "ballot initiatives" if enough signatures are raised by non-legislators to get them there, and even if those referenda succeed, they can be ignored in certain states or overruled by existing federal law, even if that federal law is utter junk.
People that are supposed to serve the citizens end up ruling them, because they are handed lots of power with little to no responsibility and accountability. Losing the next election simply isn't enough of a threat; people have short memories, a shorter attention span, and little to no chance of turfing their "representative" when s/he makes a really bad decision. The federal system still ends up with less than 1 000 people making decisions that will affect 250 million+, often with the influence of a moneyed few behind those decisions. The vote is no longer the instrument of ultimate authority, but the dollar - and those with more dollars can get more rules passed that favour them. We've reached a point in North America where the people who make decisions are hundreds of miles and layers of bureaucracy away from the people those decisions affect, and many of the affected are coming to think they have less and less agency under the current system. A few are even coming to think that the people who make decisions are those who the decisions will affect - you and me, and the community around us. I'm one of those people.
Therefore, in a theoretical sense (before you start screaming about corporate america owning the politicians), the people do control the government.
In theory, what happens in practice should be the same as what happens in theory. It's not "screaming" when people complain about corporate influence; it's legitimate frustration with a political process that has, for many people, become irrelevant or detrimental to society as a whole.
By ignoring the political route and espousing the virtues of a violent overthrow, you have now entered the realm of "terrorist" or "freedom fighter." In a country where the freedom of speech is guaranteed in the very Constitution you want to do away with, you are more than likely to be considered a terrorist. And frankly, I would agree with that assessment.
As has been pointed out, the line between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is extremely thin. It depends what side you're on, and what the terrorists/freedom fighters are fighting for. Wanting to throw off the yoke of authoritarianism can be taken either way, depending whether you actually like your rulers. To some extent, a freedom fighter is a subset of terrorists, one that wishes to ensure freedom and an end to oppressive authority. This is in contrast to terrorists that want to replace one authority with their own, or force everyone to subscribe to their own belief system. A freedom fighter will seek to convince you their cause is just through words as well as deeds, and attack aggressive opposition; a terrorist will just try to kill you if you don't give in. Even then, the definitions aren't completely solid. Try discussing Palestinian liberation sometime, and have fun trying to find an acceptable limit to aggressive resistance. I support defense against IDF incursions, and nonaggressive blocking of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory that the locals didn't agree to, but I don't condone the killing of innocents or attacks on the Israeli side of the Green Line, regardless of target. Some people say I support terrorism; others would say I don't go far enough in supporting the Palestinian struggle for a homeland. It's a tricky line, and more often than not, tactics that are viewed as acceptable in one circumstance are used to tar another cause as horrible and unsupportable.
As for the Constitution... if the government doesn't uphold it, and people don't understand the ideas contained within, then it's nothing more than words on a page. The concepts of liberty and freedom are great, but only if people take responsibility for all the implications, good and bad.
Here's a suggestion: if you don't like the system and don't feel like changing the system, take your bombs and move to Columbia or the middle east.
This treads close to "love it or leave it," saying "love it, try to change it within the existing rules, or forget it." Unfortunately, sometimes the rules don't work, the law doesn't spring from the ethical boundaries agreed to by the people living under that law. And sometimes (often?) authority is just corrupt beyond belief or use.
As I've said before, I think his cracking of websites was the wrong thing to do, and I don't advocate a violent overthrow and imposition of a new regime, but neither do I accept the authority of a government that routinely allows the individuals involved to escape responsibility for harmful actions taken and laws passed, and hides its mistakes from the people that are supposed to ultimately make decisions.
Advocating the violent overthrow of the state should not be illegal. To be sure raisethefist did that, but what all the quotes from the FBI spokespersons *say* he is being nabbed for is for publishing info on bomb-making. That is definitely NOT illegal. I've also seen reports that Sherman "anti" was engaged in cracking or site-defacement or something. If so then why haven't they charged him with that?
Two things.
1) Apparently, distributing information on constructing weapons over the Internet is now illegal under the PATRIOT Act. You don't actually have to build them, or even advocate building them (although the Reclaim guide was neutral on this point). Just publishing the info is good for a charge should the feds decide you're worth taking down.
2) There was a "computer fraud and abuse" charge, and I think this is what the website defacement falls under. I can't defend attacks against sites or people; my aggressiveness ends at self-defense against an immediate attack.
Most people would support an amendment making it illegal to pass around bomb-making information. I do.
Maybe I'm just a hard-core freedom-of-speech advocate, but if most people in your country would support such an amendment, I don't want to live in your country should that ever actually happen. Last I saw, the Constitution was supposed to guarantee rights to people and limit government powers. The last time the Constitution was used to make something illegal, it spectacularly failed.
This, I think, is the page that gave the feds their weapons charge.
You're right, though; that information can be found in numerous other places on the Web, even through Amazon. The FBI obviously knew about the site defacements some time ago, since one of the charges the warrant was issued on was "computer fraud and abuse". I was confused about the reason for this charge until I found out about the defacements.
The timing just seems a bit strange. He could have been nailed a long time ago just on the cracks and scripts. LA Weekly claims that disseminating bombmaking information over the Internet is now illegal under the PATRIOT Act, which to me is just reason to mirror the whole thing and keep the information out there. The information supposedly went up "not long ago"; the text of the Guide seems to indicate it went online somewhere not long before the antiwar protests in Washington, D.C. last September.
I have a theory about why the site was raided now, but it sounds a bit paranoid; namely, there's this little protest thing going on in NYC this week, and police forces haven't been above infiltrating, raiding, and arresting people to collect evidence of "violent intentions" and "weapons" before the actual demonstration to justify use of force during the action, regardless of how aggressive the protesters really are. They also haven't been above confiscating numerous items during protests and displaying them as weapons afterward; in Ottawa last November, a boom microphone clearly marked with CTV's logo somehow made it into a police display of "illegal material" shown on TV, and one reporter pointed out his own gas mask in a related display. An acquaintance who I met while covering demonstrations in Toronto last October had her CDs confiscated by the police, and street medics regularly had their water and eye-flushing solutions poured out. At least one journalist was arrested for not consenting to a search of his camera bags, when he was clearly a photographer; illegal searches and confiscations were rampant.
Cracking web sites was just plain stupid, but I don't entirely trust the intentions of the law enforcement agencies involved, either. And, quite frankly, the federal government of the U.S. has stomped on the Constitution so often that it has become words on a page, little more than legal terms to be weaseled around.
Sherman was a hotheaded kid. The stuff he posted on his site came across more aggressively than some other anarchist sites I can think of, but his opinions on government and hierarchical power are held by a lot of people around the world, and every day more people come to see the government of the U.S. not as their representatives, but as their rulers. I think he shouldn't have cracked any sites, and he has to take responsibility for those acts, but his speech shouldn't be restricted. The First Amendment makes no caveats for "dangerous information," or even calls to overthrow (and don't make me break out the Founding Fathers to demonstrate this one). There were people who said the PATRIOT act was a clear abrogation of the Constitution in several respects, and I think the charge of distributing information on weapons construction, which apparently comes from the Act, demonstrates this. Otherwise, a few hundred other raids should be going down right about now. If the charge was slapped on Sherman because of the political views he expressed on his site, then to some extent, he is being prosecuted for his opinions, at least on charges related to bombmaking information. This doesn't excuse the defacements in the least; that's something that the government has gone after before the PATRIOT Act, regardless of political opinion. The selectivity of enforcement is what concerns me and others, and it's part of the reason I just don't trust power placed in the hands of a few, even if in theory the many selected them, because in practice Lord Acton's axiom about power and corruption kicks in regardless of how the few individuals in power got there.
2 - we have this little thing called freedom of speech. There is no law prohibiting the dissemination of bomb making information. If that is a crime, I guess Amazon.com is a terrorist organization:
In fact, that's exactly what the LA Weekly arrticle says the PATRIOT Act does - makes the dissemination of bombmaking information on the Internet illegal.
I'm not one for violent overthrow, only self-defense, but the weapons-making info should be protected under Amendment 1. I've sometimes been interested in weapons and how to construct them, just for the sake of knowing how to do it and how they work. Mind you, some of the stuff in the Reclaim Guide was apparently more Anarchist Cookbook-like than anything else (and, as someone who identifies with anarchist ideals of freedom, direct democracy, and decentralized authority, I hate typing that book's name), but there was other information - how to make shields, group demonstration tactics, a discussion of what a black bloc is and isn't, etc. Quite frankly, the WTC attack should show that hiding all the weapons-making info in the world won't stop someone determined to destroy stuff. Amendment 1 makes no caveats like "except information that could be used to destroy stuff." The assumption within is that people will be taught to use information responsibly, even so-called dangerous information.
Now, cracking machines, that was stupid, although it explains the "computer fraud and abuse" charge that confused a few of us discussing the raid early on.
I think I visited raisethefist.com once out of curiosity, but really didn't check out the content until the raid went down. It's more hotheaded and aggressive than some other anarchist and activist sites I can think of. He was a hotheaded kid. Be disappointed with his cracking of machines used by others (that violates "the right to swing your fist ends at my nose"), but defend his right to speak about subjects the government would rather people be unaware about, even if "for their own good."
About the "overthrowing the Constitution" claim... here's Google's cache of raisethefist, limited to the occurences of the word "constitution." Overthrowing the government is not necessarily overthrowing the Constitution, especially if that government routinely violates that same Constitution and takes no responsbility for those violations.
Also:
Activist site raisethefist.com raided and shut down by the FBI... last Thursday.
* 2002-01-27 00:27:10 Raisethefist.com Shut Down by FBI (yro,usa) (rejected)
I normally don't complain about my own rejected submissions, but this one sat in the queue for two days, with links to three different items on the raid. K5 posted a piece on this. Meanwhile, Slashdot editors drool over... a stupid studio fight, among other things.
Just this once, can I find out why the story was rejected? Is it because three IMCs were the sources, one of which took the time to contact the FBI and confirm the raid? Was it not "geeky" enough? I would think FBI raids on sites would be news, regardless of how extreme or controversial the sites are.
Some discussion in the items on SF IMC related to the raid indicate a few possible reasons for the raid, including protesting tactics, some Anarchist Cookbook-like material on making weapons and explosives on a budget, and the timing - one week before a major anti-corporate globalization demonstration in New York City, which brings up the spectre of scapegoating should anything get out of hand. In fact, I'm personally pretty sure the main reason for the raid was to collect "evidence" of activist sites encouraging violence in the event the situation degenerates, regardless of which side provokes the violence.
I read this story, remembered how I had snorted about the line from the first one, and just felt like being mean. Watergate was an awfully long time ago though... ;-)
You're not the first one to notice that; shit-disturbing journalist Greg Palast lamented the lack of hard journalism in contemporary North American media in an interview with GNN's Anthony Lappe. The man reported shit for the BBC that should have brought down the Bush regime before it even got off the ground, among other spectacular scandals, that are passed off as "conspiracy-theorist lefty crap" on this continent. Journalists have had numerous stories embarrassing for large corporate entities shot and buried before they saw the light of day, or buried under litigation soon afterward.
As someone who has covered two mid-sized demonstrations in Canada, in a small hacked-together broadcast room and on the front line respectively, I can tell you that mainstream media try to avoid disturbing the status quo as much as possible, even if it means burying or exaggerating parts of certain stories to uphold the authorities' story.
Could this be used as an explosive? We all all remember the Hindenburg [vidicom-tv.com] right? (it was filled with Hydrogen).
The hydrogen wasn't the problem - turns out the ship was basically coated with rocket fuel.
One has to wonder how many innocent people are taken from their homes, or all their property confiscated, or even worse: executed.
How's this for a start?
Someday we may see people trying to escape the US as those did in the day of the communist eastern bloc countries...
The exodus has already begun.
Try typing "INS" and "secret evidence" into Google. The INS is infamous for blocking defence access to prosecution information through the use of "secret evidence" that the defence is unable to see in open court, never mind refute.
Just out of curiosity, how much power does one of these 2GHz+ chips use? Combine that chip with the graphics card, the DDR SDRAM, the fans, the perhiperals... those electric meters must spin mighty fast:)
In China, and most of the rest of the world, you are not valued for the quality of your product or for how hard you work. You're valued for "who you are" -- the son of a famous general, the brother of a diplomat, the cousin of the President.
Sure, nepotism never happens in the U.S....
Soon the patenet office is going to accidentally give a patent to someone for urls (oh wait, isn't a British company working on this one?)
British Telecom claims to have a US patent on hyperlinks. Some claims of prior art have come up. BT was soundly flamed for dropping this one on everyone's heads.
pausing TV (oh wait, isn't Tivo {or someone else} claiming this one?)
I believe the company with this particular patent is called Pause Communications or something. However, Tivo and SONICblue both have patents on various other parts of PVR technology. If that's not a disastrous legal war waiting to happen, I don't know what is.
Sooner or later, people are going to start ignoring patent protection on software simply because the patents become so broad and ridiculous that no one respects USPTO decisions anymore, openly flaunt those decisions, and dare patent holders to try and defend those ill-advised patents. Once that part of the patent system breaks down, it's only a matter of time for the rest of the system to be dragged down by the weight of the sick portion.
Fix the unworkable or unenforceable portions of IP law to become realistically applicable in a digital world, or watch the whole regime collapse in flames. That is the choice facing intellectual property-based corporations and organizations. Adapt or die.
There is no 'Monsanto'.
I've seen this argument posted a couple times to the thread. I'm going to play pedant boy for a minute here.
Yes, there is a Monsanto. Under U.S. law, Monsanto is a legal entity. It even has legal status as a person. Now, while the actions of Monsanto may be directed and carried out by thousands of individuals, ultimately, those actions are carried out under the 'Monsanto' corporate personhood.
Now, either the corporation takes a huge legal hit due to the corporation's past actions - halt of operations, massive compensation, et al - or the individuals directly responsible for the decisions must stand to account for the actions of Monsanto. A person - which a corporation legally is in American - may do great work in the community, may support a family, but if that person commits voluntary manslaughter, that person is going to have rights revoked and operations halted for a while, and the people who relied on the convict will have to find other ways to get along. Harsh as hell, but if corporations get to be people, they get to be subject to the same punishments as people.
Either way, someone has to take responsibility for this mess, be that someone a person, or the corporation.
Slashdot had a link to a story on the Percy Schmeiser case a long time ago. It may also be worth checking out this site on his continuing conflict with Monsanto; whois records indicate it's run by a relative of Percy, and it seems rather thorough.
Monsanto is nasty corporation that fights dirty and wants to control everything it touches. It's Microsoft crossed with tobacco companies. Monsanto was one of the companies that produced the Agent Orange defoliant for the US military during 'Nam, and currently produces Roundup and Roundup Ultra. The latter is being indiscriminately dumped on various locations around Colombia as part of the US War on (Some) Drugs. This doesn't even get into Monsanto's legal and technical games with genetics.
Monsanto is also a candidate for being "first up against the wall" when "the revolution" comes. Whatever that turns out to be, it can only mean good things for life on Earth to evolve and exist outside of manipulation for profit.
Captain Midnight!
/FoxNewsChannel/MSNBC transponder - "HTTP://INDYMEDIA.ORG - REUTERS AND AP ARE NOT INDEPENDENT MEDIA!"
It's not just a nice "satellite takeover" story, it's also a great "fight the Man!" tale.
I personally wonder if someone could do a Captain-Midnight job on an MTV transponder and send the message "PLAY SOME DAMN MUSIC SOMETIME, LIKE THAT MUCHMUSIC CHANNEL IN CANADA!" Or a CNN
A man can dream...
Now, where have I seen this story before?
Someone should do a review of which Slashdot editor posts the most repeat stories.