Additionally, you can (more or less) safely keep a very long key by using some long passage in a book, or a large set of numbers from a publicly available collection of numbers (e.g. a financial report, or all the daily high temperatures over the year from every US state capital in alphabetical order)
Basically the trade off is that the secret may be fairly ordered - but if it's sufficiently unobtrusive few attempts to find it will succeed due to the plethora of external data that might be used as keys.
(maybe you should get a copy of "One Million Random Numbers" by RAND, and then never use it to be pissy;)
The best scrolling shoot-em-up games imho are raiden ii, which is rather old but very fun, and Ëïnhändër which is just insanely hard. I actually like raiden more, even though Ëïnhändër is prettier. (yeah, well, there are umlauts in there somewhere - better to be safe than sorry;)
I should've been more clear. I had mean an open spread of a tabloid. However, I find that newspaper columns are generally easy to read - a quick count of the only paper lying around (WSJ) came up with 47 characters.
I mean, I'm clearly not talking about 19th century newspapers (10 columns, each very very narrow)
I definately agree with you about pages where you have to scroll up and down to read. However, a single long column is very nice - after all, on a computer, you can scroll forever.
Back in the days of the ARPANet, I am told, there was a lot of similar agonizing to whether or not it was okay to use a government-sponsored research network for unrelated uses (like personal email).
Guess how that argument panned out;)
I'd say that there should be a limit on uses that are clearly illegal (Napster is not necessarily illegal - it stays unless you can prove otherwise) and that there should be caps on the amount of bandwidth that you can use, determined by the current demand. If it's 3am and the pipes are open, who the hell cares if you hog it all. Just be prepared to give it up when another night owl comes online.
Well, sure mp3 piracy needs to be curtailed, but not at the expense of preventing the use of the mp3 format altogether. Nor at the expense of mp3 sharing mechanisms which can be quite legal, as mp3.com is demonstrating.
Heh. When I was at uni I specifically requested the only freshman dorm with coed halls.
And I ended up living on the bottom floor (affectionally refered to as the Dungeon) which was all male. Now while this might seem to be in order to achieve the same type of thing that your school was doing, the building was built into a hill. The floor above us was _also_ partially at ground level. And it was all-female for some reason.
While I generally agree with you, it is just as (perhaps even more so) important to use your moral faculties when studying, obeying or disobeying the law.
There are a lot of laws which are in effect but which are weird and pointless, there are a lot of laws that must be challenged because they conflict with other laws, and there are laws which are perfectly okay from a legal standpoint, but which are morally repugnant and which must be fought at every turn.
Blindly obeying the law is a *bad* idea. Instead, be sharply critical of it, and don't be afraid to argue and act against a law if it is truly immoral (which I'm using rather loosely to also include those acts which would seek to rob us of our inalienable freedoms too)
Yes, that's a good position. Unfortunately (here in the states, anyway) universities are moving farther and farther away from actually adhering to legal principles (like due process) while taking more legal or quasi-legal action against students.
There's a horribly scary book about this - "The Shadow University" by Kors and Silvergate. Definately worth reading.
If i were a broadcast network. i would want to be pretty sure that the only company making any money off of my $5million prime time drama is me or possibly the people who make it for me.
Yeah, I totally agree with you.
if someone else tapes its and sends it out again, with more ads, even if they don't put the ads in the actualy tv picture, i expect compensation above and beyond what i already got for the orginal ads. Why should i expect it? because I created the content. Period. I own it, i have allowed it to be publicly distributed in a manner that i chose.
Bzzzt. Thank you for playing.
First, no one owns publicly distributed content. That's an absurd idea. I distinctly remember Star Wars. Does this mean that my brain is owned by George Lucas? (note that after seeing TPM I may be willing to donate some brains to Lucas, he needs 'em) Of course not. Copyright confers a temporary monopoly on distribution - not ownership. No one owns intangible things. If you have the only copy of something you may de facto own it, but when someone else has a copy they can do as much as you, sometimes excepting redistributing copies.
Second, there are severe practical problems with what you propose. When is an ad considered to be so intimately associated with a particular block of ad-bearing content that it infringes on those ads?
Can I sell a videotape where the tape is your content but the jacket has my ads on it?
Can I even mention that my company made this particular tape which contains your content?
Can I play your content on one TV and play my ads, simultaneously on a TV right next to the first?
I submit that as long as the ads associated with the original content are intact, and are not obscured then it's okay. Otherwise you are proposing that advertisments are not allowed to overshadow other advertisements. Just for starters you'd be wanting to demolish Times Square then, where people constantly fight to attract the eye away from the other guy.
People can buy descramblers to try to get past any protections i have set up. i don't like that, but air is air and if i'm sending a signal thru that cable that comes into your house then thats my problem.
At this point you reveal that you are not in the TV industry. It is actually illegal to decode a scrambled signal that enters your property (at least in the US). Why? Because of people who are greedy and overprotective of their monopoly and who are unscrupulous enough to twist the government around to their way of thinking, even though there's an argument to be made that this is unconstitutional.
Personally, I agree with you. If someone's signal invades my property then I have every right to listen in, if I can. They can make it difficult for me (encryption), and I am iffy on whether or not I should be able to interfere with their transmission. Sadly though, the law doesn't agree. (You can't power your house off of induction from nearby high-tension wires either, more's the pity)
But what you can't do it record MY programming and then send it out in another medium. especialy if you are making money from it.
Oh ho! But Canadian law (remember iCrave is in Canada) clearly does not grant copyright (which doesn't exist unless it is explicitly granted) on the matter of rebroadcasting unaltered broadcast tv transmissions. This means that you have no redistribution monopoly in this situation, which is typically limited to cable tv.
Cable, you'll recall, started out when people erected jumugous antannas and wired many people up to them. They've grown quite a bit, but that's the basic idea. iCrave doesn't differ in any significant way, and while I have not looked at the specific law, nor am I a lawyer, or even a Canadian, you could probably rebroadcast the signal in any way you liked as long as you didn't alter it. I would be prone to rebroadcast it as modern dance, myself.
That is what iCave is trying to do. Make money from someone else's work.
Precisely. Which is not only legal, but is the natural order of things. Public Domain content is someone else's work, and people make money off of it all the time. I don't see Shakespeare or Homer (the Greek poet, not the yellow clod) cashing any big checks lately. The light bulb, the radio and the telephone were all patented, yet I don't see GE sending money to Tom Edison, Bose paying royalties to Nikola Tesla, or Nokia giving Alexander Bell big sacks of money.
Copyrights, trademarks and patents are *artificial*. They don't exist unless the government says they do. Nor are they forever. Copyrights expire (this is being unconstitutionally sabotaged by big corporations), trademarks require constant use, and patents also expire.
So yeah, it's a grand old tradition to make money from someone else's work. Authors and inventors only get a monopoly for a while to compensate them for the effort of having come up with something to begin with. But then it's free, so as to help everyone out.
Now, I totally believe that you can't claim credit for things that aren't yours, but I'm perfectly willing to build something from an expired patent, or type up a copy of some public domain work, stick the original creator's name on it (I get credit for some particular implementation, but not the source) and be happy with it. And I'd love nothing more than to extend these same rights to other people regarding my own work.
iCrave found a neat law that worked for them. It doesn't impair the creator one whit. (you are still allowed to watch TV on a TV, you know) So I say, yay iCrave.
Then I complain because too much bandwidth is taken up by crappy tv shows.;)
Well, Canadian law grants them the rebroadcasting rights.
And as for moral questions - well, what moral questions? Copyright is not inalienable. It exists purely as an enticement for people to create content, with the understanding that it will pass into the public domain (where it becomes useful for everyone and not just the author).
So there is no moral component. It is *not* immoral to redistribute content, and unless there is a law against it (in this case there isn't) it's not illegal either.
You're just being misled by people who are greedy and lazy.
But canadian cable stations operate under the same rules as iCrave - they don't have to pay for it either. (they may in order to get other considerations, like a cleaner signal, or the ability to change advertisements, but they don't HAVE to)
iCrave's ads, afaik (I really have no interest in watching anything but the simpsons, and I get that fine in the US) were alongside the regular ads. The only argument that could be made to claim that iCrave's ads were detracting from the network ads would be if too much advertising impairs the ability to see ads. However - if this is the case, it should be equally illegal for (say) a sports bar to put up an ad next to an actual tv set, or to display tv on the jumbotron in times square (convieniently moved to canada)
That's a dumb argument. The law doesn't say that the rebroadcast advertisers get exclusive rights over some particular area other than that of the broadcast display itself.
While I think it's a waste of bandwidth, I'm on iCrave's side here. They found a fun niche in the law so more power to 'em. It's hardly as though the networks are lilly white.
The law basically sides with iCrave. Call me crazy, but I think that rule by law is a lot better than rule by corporate goals. (and who wanted that law passed - corporations. who's been responsible for increasingly unjust uses of copyright - corporations. let 'em be hoist by their own petard)
suck goes to an extreme, but there is a reason for having long, narrow columns of text.
basically while your eye can easily take in text up to a certain width, reading speed drops quite a bit when you start to have to turn your head in order to read the text.
this is why it would suck just about as bad to have a 21" monitor filled with text from edge to edge.
of course, iirc, the reason that people started using those narrow columns was b/c it was easier to set up by hand;)
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations - you just invented wireless Napster.
Sadly NH still hasn't gotten around to changing it to "Live Free or Die, Punk"
Additionally, you can (more or less) safely keep a very long key by using some long passage in a book, or a large set of numbers from a publicly available collection of numbers (e.g. a financial report, or all the daily high temperatures over the year from every US state capital in alphabetical order)
;)
Basically the trade off is that the secret may be fairly ordered - but if it's sufficiently unobtrusive few attempts to find it will succeed due to the plethora of external data that might be used as keys.
(maybe you should get a copy of "One Million Random Numbers" by RAND, and then never use it to be pissy
there are states other than Massachusetts? ;)
Boston's not the Hub for nothing...
For six million dollars it had better run Linux ;)
The best scrolling shoot-em-up games imho are raiden ii, which is rather old but very fun, and Ëïnhändër which is just insanely hard. I actually like raiden more, even though Ëïnhändër is prettier. (yeah, well, there are umlauts in there somewhere - better to be safe than sorry ;)
Well, if that's how you pronounce the name, then the mascot should really be a giant foot...
o/~ Insert Liberty Bell March Here o/~
I should've been more clear. I had mean an open spread of a tabloid. However, I find that newspaper columns are generally easy to read - a quick count of the only paper lying around (WSJ) came up with 47 characters.
I mean, I'm clearly not talking about 19th century newspapers (10 columns, each very very narrow)
I definately agree with you about pages where you have to scroll up and down to read. However, a single long column is very nice - after all, on a computer, you can scroll forever.
Spelling is Harvard. Sience is MIT ;)
Heh. 50,000 points of allies would be sweet.
(Who's going to stop you? Why, me, and _this_ army)
Goods sold within the same state via any means (with certain exceptions - YMMV by state) are subject to state taxation.
I live in WA and if Amazon _didn't_ tax my purchases, they would get in big trouble with the WA Dept. of Revenue.
This has always been the case, just as with mail order.
Of course, there are no levels in GURPS (the flagship Steve Jackson rpg)
;)
Back in the days of the ARPANet, I am told, there was a lot of similar agonizing to whether or not it was okay to use a government-sponsored research network for unrelated uses (like personal email).
;)
Guess how that argument panned out
I'd say that there should be a limit on uses that are clearly illegal (Napster is not necessarily illegal - it stays unless you can prove otherwise) and that there should be caps on the amount of bandwidth that you can use, determined by the current demand. If it's 3am and the pipes are open, who the hell cares if you hog it all. Just be prepared to give it up when another night owl comes online.
Well, sure mp3 piracy needs to be curtailed, but not at the expense of preventing the use of the mp3 format altogether. Nor at the expense of mp3 sharing mechanisms which can be quite legal, as mp3.com is demonstrating.
Heh. When I was at uni I specifically requested the only freshman dorm with coed halls.
And I ended up living on the bottom floor (affectionally refered to as the Dungeon) which was all male. Now while this might seem to be in order to achieve the same type of thing that your school was doing, the building was built into a hill. The floor above us was _also_ partially at ground level. And it was all-female for some reason.
D'oh!
While I generally agree with you, it is just as (perhaps even more so) important to use your moral faculties when studying, obeying or disobeying the law.
There are a lot of laws which are in effect but which are weird and pointless, there are a lot of laws that must be challenged because they conflict with other laws, and there are laws which are perfectly okay from a legal standpoint, but which are morally repugnant and which must be fought at every turn.
Blindly obeying the law is a *bad* idea. Instead, be sharply critical of it, and don't be afraid to argue and act against a law if it is truly immoral (which I'm using rather loosely to also include those acts which would seek to rob us of our inalienable freedoms too)
Yes, that's a good position. Unfortunately (here in the states, anyway) universities are moving farther and farther away from actually adhering to legal principles (like due process) while taking more legal or quasi-legal action against students.
There's a horribly scary book about this - "The Shadow University" by Kors and Silvergate. Definately worth reading.
Yeah, I totally agree with you.
if someone else tapes its and sends it out again, with more ads, even if they don't put the ads in the actualy tv picture, i expect compensation above and beyond what i already got for the orginal ads. Why should i expect it? because I created the content. Period. I own it, i have allowed it to be publicly distributed in a manner that i chose.
Bzzzt. Thank you for playing.
First, no one owns publicly distributed content. That's an absurd idea. I distinctly remember Star Wars. Does this mean that my brain is owned by George Lucas? (note that after seeing TPM I may be willing to donate some brains to Lucas, he needs 'em) Of course not. Copyright confers a temporary monopoly on distribution - not ownership. No one owns intangible things. If you have the only copy of something you may de facto own it, but when someone else has a copy they can do as much as you, sometimes excepting redistributing copies.
Second, there are severe practical problems with what you propose. When is an ad considered to be so intimately associated with a particular block of ad-bearing content that it infringes on those ads?
- Can I sell a videotape where the tape is your content but the jacket has my ads on it?
- Can I even mention that my company made this particular tape which contains your content?
- Can I play your content on one TV and play my ads, simultaneously on a TV right next to the first?
I submit that as long as the ads associated with the original content are intact, and are not obscured then it's okay. Otherwise you are proposing that advertisments are not allowed to overshadow other advertisements. Just for starters you'd be wanting to demolish Times Square then, where people constantly fight to attract the eye away from the other guy.People can buy descramblers to try to get past any protections i have set up. i don't like that, but air is air and if i'm sending a signal thru that cable that comes into your house then thats my problem.
At this point you reveal that you are not in the TV industry. It is actually illegal to decode a scrambled signal that enters your property (at least in the US). Why? Because of people who are greedy and overprotective of their monopoly and who are unscrupulous enough to twist the government around to their way of thinking, even though there's an argument to be made that this is unconstitutional.
Personally, I agree with you. If someone's signal invades my property then I have every right to listen in, if I can. They can make it difficult for me (encryption), and I am iffy on whether or not I should be able to interfere with their transmission. Sadly though, the law doesn't agree. (You can't power your house off of induction from nearby high-tension wires either, more's the pity)
But what you can't do it record MY programming and then send it out in another medium. especialy if you are making money from it.
Oh ho! But Canadian law (remember iCrave is in Canada) clearly does not grant copyright (which doesn't exist unless it is explicitly granted) on the matter of rebroadcasting unaltered broadcast tv transmissions. This means that you have no redistribution monopoly in this situation, which is typically limited to cable tv.
Cable, you'll recall, started out when people erected jumugous antannas and wired many people up to them. They've grown quite a bit, but that's the basic idea. iCrave doesn't differ in any significant way, and while I have not looked at the specific law, nor am I a lawyer, or even a Canadian, you could probably rebroadcast the signal in any way you liked as long as you didn't alter it. I would be prone to rebroadcast it as modern dance, myself.
That is what iCave is trying to do. Make money from someone else's work.
Precisely. Which is not only legal, but is the natural order of things. Public Domain content is someone else's work, and people make money off of it all the time. I don't see Shakespeare or Homer (the Greek poet, not the yellow clod) cashing any big checks lately. The light bulb, the radio and the telephone were all patented, yet I don't see GE sending money to Tom Edison, Bose paying royalties to Nikola Tesla, or Nokia giving Alexander Bell big sacks of money.
Copyrights, trademarks and patents are *artificial*. They don't exist unless the government says they do. Nor are they forever. Copyrights expire (this is being unconstitutionally sabotaged by big corporations), trademarks require constant use, and patents also expire.
So yeah, it's a grand old tradition to make money from someone else's work. Authors and inventors only get a monopoly for a while to compensate them for the effort of having come up with something to begin with. But then it's free, so as to help everyone out.
Now, I totally believe that you can't claim credit for things that aren't yours, but I'm perfectly willing to build something from an expired patent, or type up a copy of some public domain work, stick the original creator's name on it (I get credit for some particular implementation, but not the source) and be happy with it. And I'd love nothing more than to extend these same rights to other people regarding my own work.
iCrave found a neat law that worked for them. It doesn't impair the creator one whit. (you are still allowed to watch TV on a TV, you know) So I say, yay iCrave.
Then I complain because too much bandwidth is taken up by crappy tv shows. ;)
Well you don't need multiple columns onscreen you know. You can just keep scrolling down and down and down...
besides, aspect ratio aside, reading narrow columns is still easier. a tabloid is much wider than a monitor but you don't use a 1 column layout.
Well, Canadian law grants them the rebroadcasting rights.
And as for moral questions - well, what moral questions? Copyright is not inalienable. It exists purely as an enticement for people to create content, with the understanding that it will pass into the public domain (where it becomes useful for everyone and not just the author).
So there is no moral component. It is *not* immoral to redistribute content, and unless there is a law against it (in this case there isn't) it's not illegal either.
You're just being misled by people who are greedy and lazy.
Bad argument actually. It's just a matter of time before you get great quality on the net too.
But canadian cable stations operate under the same rules as iCrave - they don't have to pay for it either. (they may in order to get other considerations, like a cleaner signal, or the ability to change advertisements, but they don't HAVE to)
iCrave's ads, afaik (I really have no interest in watching anything but the simpsons, and I get that fine in the US) were alongside the regular ads. The only argument that could be made to claim that iCrave's ads were detracting from the network ads would be if too much advertising impairs the ability to see ads. However - if this is the case, it should be equally illegal for (say) a sports bar to put up an ad next to an actual tv set, or to display tv on the jumbotron in times square (convieniently moved to canada)
That's a dumb argument. The law doesn't say that the rebroadcast advertisers get exclusive rights over some particular area other than that of the broadcast display itself.
While I think it's a waste of bandwidth, I'm on iCrave's side here. They found a fun niche in the law so more power to 'em. It's hardly as though the networks are lilly white.
The law basically sides with iCrave. Call me crazy, but I think that rule by law is a lot better than rule by corporate goals. (and who wanted that law passed - corporations. who's been responsible for increasingly unjust uses of copyright - corporations. let 'em be hoist by their own petard)
Today is Clark Kent's birthday. (yes, _that_ Clark Kent)
suck goes to an extreme, but there is a reason for having long, narrow columns of text.
;)
basically while your eye can easily take in text up to a certain width, reading speed drops quite a bit when you start to have to turn your head in order to read the text.
this is why it would suck just about as bad to have a 21" monitor filled with text from edge to edge.
of course, iirc, the reason that people started using those narrow columns was b/c it was easier to set up by hand