Oh no... an entire article with thousands of threads dedicated to calling them ATM Machines. My nitpikc nerves are ready and waiting to have their seizure.
Yes, but in the case of humans, it frees up our two other arms to do things like reach up, fight back, and probably most important as far as human evolution goes, use tools.
If our arms weren't good for anything, then we'd have an awful system of running away, but since they are, it makes perfect evolutionary sense that we'd be 100% bipedal.
The reason the library only has one copy of the book is because it gets used very rarely [or lack of funds, but probably not applicable in the case of a library that'll have a hightech book-printing-machine-o-matic]. Just what are you going to do with all that paper used to bind and print the book once you're done writing, throw it away?
Why not charge you for a text PDF, since the machine would need a copy of the text anyway? It's unlikely that you need an ENTIRE book to write a paper. You likely need a few sentences or a chapter.
Re:I believe that's wrong
on
Black Hat
·
· Score: 1
See, this is what the RIAA wants you to think.
Actually, it's illegal to knowingly recieve and use stolen goods or those taken by copyright infringement.
In a server-client*n model, it's much more efficient just to ask the server to stop distributing content. In the (client/server)*n paradigm (like P2P), it's much more efficient to go after the downloader, since it's very difficult to get all those people to stop distributing, but it's very easy to prove that each downloader has been downloading illegal content (they have it).
The difference is, in a P2P model, it's much easier to trick people into not uploading things than it is to get them to stop downloading things, and so they do.
Copyright Law doesn't allow you to use copyrighted goods so long as you recieved them from some intermediary party. It's all illegal, but nodes on a P2P are selfish.
The Point of Attacking "Uploaders"
on
Black Hat
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Perhaps this is a touch offtopic, but I think this is a very misunderstood attack strategy on the part of the RIAA and there are quite a few people who seem not to understand it. Not understanding things technical is the point of this thread. =) If I've misrepresented something, someone ought to tell me.
The point of "attacking uploaders" is that people in a P2P network are essentially selfish. So long as they can get their own content, most parties in the network derive no benefit from uploading to others. People are much more likely to "stop uploading" than they are to "stop downloading" because of this. Instead of attacking people where it matters (Stop getting things for free!), the RIAA strategy works by cutting off the supply (Stop this annoying service that eats up your bandwith and doesn't provide you any benefit).
The problem, of course, is that if *everyone* stops sharing, the P2P network ceases to exist, and if a large enough majority stops sharing, the network becomes bogged down by bandwith issues (because the only way to operate a truly efficient network is to have truly distributed bandwith).
Essentially, the "Stop Uploading" attack has little to do with the fact that the RIAA places some sort of greater moral or legal weight on actually copying a file for someone else. Instead, it's a clever, underhanded way of attacking a P2P network designed to fly under the radar of most pseudo-techies operating nodes.
a) There are sadistic people who like to cause people harm by investing time and money into writing virii that inconvenience, destroy data, and render devices useless - meaning to do ALL of these things ON PURPOSE. b) Viruses evolve.
The fact is, there's no little Virus overlord someplace up in the sky that's trying to cause damage and harm to humans. There *are* lots of other humans who love causing that same damage by writing malicious code.
If everyone decided tomorrow to stop trying to break the machines that others have worked so hard to build, voila - they'd not be broken anymore.
Sadism / Sociopathy has little to do with the Biological Evolution of Viruses. What gives? Why are people so quick to assume that it's okay for people to break things and hurt people just because it's possible to do so?
Oh, come on. Presentation of selective evidence certainly is *distorting* the truth, *twisting* the truth, or whatever it is you want to call it.
If I were to tell you, "Most people are seven feet tall", and then presented you with Example #1, "Shaquille O'Neal", and Example #2, "Yao Ming", etc, you wouldn't say, "Ah. That Ieshan. He's so clever, presenting me perfectly good truth that isn't at all distorted." You'd say, "Jackass. He's taken a few examples out of 7 billion people and expects me to believe that somehow represents something statistically meaningful."
Want the truth? Michael Moore could compile a tape of you, me, or anyone else on Slashdot saying stupid things from the last four years. George Bush just happens to have cameras following him around. Now, I'm no George Bush supporter - in fact, I *loved* Fahrenheit 9/11 - but the people the Democratic party needs aren't those who buy into Leftwing propaganda, they're the folks who are willing to intelligently think about the issues and come to the decision that Democratic Candidate #1 is better than Republican Candidate #1 because of issues A, B and C.
It's not "lies", it's "propagandist reconstruction of the possible facts concerning Michael Moore's primary Hypothesis!" That just sounds lame. Quack Quack. It's a duck.
I'm assuming that any hostile government you speak of would probably have military support, because Politicians mostly aren't so badass that you'd need guns to stop them. =)
If that's the case, I must have missed the episode of CNN News where they talk about the US Military being downgraded to small arms and handguns and giving up all their big bad cruise missles and navy and things. Most people don't demand the right to operate warships. Exactly what *will* you do against an army with these things when they decide to take over your rights?
No, seriously. I realize it sounds comical, but most people don't think about the consequences of these things. I mean, a seriously oppressive govenrment would probably have some large military backing, not a few policement with handguns, and not anything the Michigan Militia can do that the Iraqi "Freedom Fighters" (I don't agree with their cause and I personally think they're a bunch of whackos, I'm just making an analogy) aren't doing right now.
"Who is talking about morals? WTF? If someone threatens eiter me, my family, or my friends with deadly force, you're goddamed right I'm going to respond in kind, and in spades."
I wholeheartedly agree with you. If you're ever threatened by someone with lethal force who's going to act on it, you probably ought to get them first. That doesn't end the logical inadequacy: "We need guns because other people have guns". Why don't you keep around a nuclear stockpile, on the off chance that you'll be threatened by a nuclear power someday?
The reason: People find the gun to be a respectably useful killing machine to keep around the house and home, even though it's MORE LIKELY that you'll end up with a dead child from a firearm accident than you'll ever shoot someone with that same firearm who's threatening that same child.
Here's the truth: the government cannot be stopped from a military dictatorship by lots of people with handguns, because they've got lots of people with missles. The "we need guns because the government might someday decide to control our lives and we need the power to stop that!" argument is completely overblown and outdated. Yes, there WAS a time in the United States where the militia was a seriously important thing. Now, it's just causing the deaths of countless kids who misfire their dad's weapon.
We don't need guns because other people have guns. We don't need guns because the government might takeover. We *do* need to *put down* our guns because they're a safety hazard to you and your family.
Firearms aren't tools useful for any other purpose than killing. Since we don't kill our own food now (except.000000001% of the population), we've got little excuse for killing. Before you say that there are people who want to kill us, and *thats* why we need guns, remember your 1st grade logic fallacies - two wrongs don't make a right. Acting in "self-defense" doesn't make an action morally defensible.
Your point seems to justify killing and therefore justify guns (so long as it's in the name of Revolution, cheers!). Firearms are used every day to subjugate, murder, and maim. Computers are used every day to heal, educate, and communicate. I fail to see the confusion of importance.
This is the kind of uninspired post that will likely get moderated up.
Gaming is a high adrenaline, competitive activity. It's a lot of fun, but it can be tough on the nerves for cybercafe frequenters. I know. I used to work at one.
The cybercafe I worked at was also in an arcade (which was there long before the cybercafe was installed), and the arcade was required to post Police duty on Friday and Saturday nights and have security detail for after-hours Cybercafe operation.
But, hey, your post is a great idea. That's why it's already been done. Malls are required to have security detail, and theatres almost always have a police detail.
I don't see why it's such a great big deal to reasonably ensure safety for a group of kids *anywhere*.
You know, it might be english class Fodder, but Fahrenheit 451 is a book that every kid should seriously *read*, on their own, and not in a class.
Seriously, it's one of the best lessons you could give a kid in today's world. A nice hardcover would be the perfect addition to a book collection or a great novel to start a love of reading.
My one other recommendation, though esoteric and perhaps more suited to my interests, would be "Descartes Error", by Damasio. It's a book about the tie between logic and emotion in the human brain, and reads like a novel (a non-neurologist could easily read it). I highly recommend it.
Perhaps off topic, but does anyone else remember going to the bookstore during the Camus section of senior-year english class and asking for The Plague?
Perfect pitch isn't measured by the ability to name isolated pitches - as is commonly thought - rather, from what I understand, it's the ability to discriminate isolated pitches in a range. It sounds like you definately have it.
I wonder whether or not this has something to do with your ability to tell the difference between the audio compression, as certain pitches present in the original are lost in compression.
I'm feeding a troll, so I'm posting without bonus to lessen the ugly karma hit.
Don't be ridiculous. Caching DOES have very tricky issues dealing with copyright infringement.
My suggestion for Caching, though:
Enable submitter-optional caching, don't cache sites with any ad banners, only cache a site AFTER a cache.txt file has been placed in the home directory of the site with a listing of the files allowed to be cached (check it once every 5 minutes or so).
I'm just curious. Do you have perfect pitch? Are you familiar with the literature on JND of auditory perception?
I only ask (and sincerely, not sarcastically!) because I'm a student doing research on auditory perception in birds, and audio compression might be extremely interesting to test them with.
If you stood outside a bank asking people to sign your petition which was clearly labeled "WhenU Animal Rights*", and under the Animal Rights portion (with that little *) was "and examining all contents of your personal life and subjecting you to a painful strip search", somehow I don't think collecting the signatures from the large percentage of people who signed your document would hold up in court when someone complained:
"Your honor, I *know* I signed the pad, but I didn't want a STRIP SEARCH!"
Slashdot Mirror
Finally caught an annoying nitpicker with that!
Been trying for a long time. =)
Oh no... an entire article with thousands of threads dedicated to calling them ATM Machines. My nitpikc nerves are ready and waiting to have their seizure.
Yes, but in the case of humans, it frees up our two other arms to do things like reach up, fight back, and probably most important as far as human evolution goes, use tools.
If our arms weren't good for anything, then we'd have an awful system of running away, but since they are, it makes perfect evolutionary sense that we'd be 100% bipedal.
Oh come on.
The reason the library only has one copy of the book is because it gets used very rarely [or lack of funds, but probably not applicable in the case of a library that'll have a hightech book-printing-machine-o-matic]. Just what are you going to do with all that paper used to bind and print the book once you're done writing, throw it away?
Why not charge you for a text PDF, since the machine would need a copy of the text anyway? It's unlikely that you need an ENTIRE book to write a paper. You likely need a few sentences or a chapter.
See, this is what the RIAA wants you to think.
Actually, it's illegal to knowingly recieve and use stolen goods or those taken by copyright infringement.
In a server-client*n model, it's much more efficient just to ask the server to stop distributing content. In the (client/server)*n paradigm (like P2P), it's much more efficient to go after the downloader, since it's very difficult to get all those people to stop distributing, but it's very easy to prove that each downloader has been downloading illegal content (they have it).
The difference is, in a P2P model, it's much easier to trick people into not uploading things than it is to get them to stop downloading things, and so they do.
Copyright Law doesn't allow you to use copyrighted goods so long as you recieved them from some intermediary party. It's all illegal, but nodes on a P2P are selfish.
Perhaps this is a touch offtopic, but I think this is a very misunderstood attack strategy on the part of the RIAA and there are quite a few people who seem not to understand it. Not understanding things technical is the point of this thread. =) If I've misrepresented something, someone ought to tell me.
The point of "attacking uploaders" is that people in a P2P network are essentially selfish. So long as they can get their own content, most parties in the network derive no benefit from uploading to others. People are much more likely to "stop uploading" than they are to "stop downloading" because of this. Instead of attacking people where it matters (Stop getting things for free!), the RIAA strategy works by cutting off the supply (Stop this annoying service that eats up your bandwith and doesn't provide you any benefit).
The problem, of course, is that if *everyone* stops sharing, the P2P network ceases to exist, and if a large enough majority stops sharing, the network becomes bogged down by bandwith issues (because the only way to operate a truly efficient network is to have truly distributed bandwith).
Essentially, the "Stop Uploading" attack has little to do with the fact that the RIAA places some sort of greater moral or legal weight on actually copying a file for someone else. Instead, it's a clever, underhanded way of attacking a P2P network designed to fly under the radar of most pseudo-techies operating nodes.
Comparison:
a) There are sadistic people who like to cause people harm by investing time and money into writing virii that inconvenience, destroy data, and render devices useless - meaning to do ALL of these things ON PURPOSE.
b) Viruses evolve.
The fact is, there's no little Virus overlord someplace up in the sky that's trying to cause damage and harm to humans. There *are* lots of other humans who love causing that same damage by writing malicious code.
If everyone decided tomorrow to stop trying to break the machines that others have worked so hard to build, voila - they'd not be broken anymore.
Sadism / Sociopathy has little to do with the Biological Evolution of Viruses. What gives? Why are people so quick to assume that it's okay for people to break things and hurt people just because it's possible to do so?
Proof of Concept Amish Virus!
You have been infected. This virus works on the honor system. Please delete all files on your computer. Thank you.
Oh, come on. Presentation of selective evidence certainly is *distorting* the truth, *twisting* the truth, or whatever it is you want to call it.
If I were to tell you, "Most people are seven feet tall", and then presented you with Example #1, "Shaquille O'Neal", and Example #2, "Yao Ming", etc, you wouldn't say, "Ah. That Ieshan. He's so clever, presenting me perfectly good truth that isn't at all distorted." You'd say, "Jackass. He's taken a few examples out of 7 billion people and expects me to believe that somehow represents something statistically meaningful."
Want the truth? Michael Moore could compile a tape of you, me, or anyone else on Slashdot saying stupid things from the last four years. George Bush just happens to have cameras following him around. Now, I'm no George Bush supporter - in fact, I *loved* Fahrenheit 9/11 - but the people the Democratic party needs aren't those who buy into Leftwing propaganda, they're the folks who are willing to intelligently think about the issues and come to the decision that Democratic Candidate #1 is better than Republican Candidate #1 because of issues A, B and C.
It's not "lies", it's "propagandist reconstruction of the possible facts concerning Michael Moore's primary Hypothesis!" That just sounds lame. Quack Quack. It's a duck.
And if you've never compiled -
./configure
> tar zxvf whatever.tar.gz
> cd (directory)
>
> make && make install
Assuming you're on Redhat, asking for those RPMs.
Maven is also a perfectly good english word, meaning "expert".
I'm assuming that any hostile government you speak of would probably have military support, because Politicians mostly aren't so badass that you'd need guns to stop them. =)
If that's the case, I must have missed the episode of CNN News where they talk about the US Military being downgraded to small arms and handguns and giving up all their big bad cruise missles and navy and things. Most people don't demand the right to operate warships. Exactly what *will* you do against an army with these things when they decide to take over your rights?
No, seriously. I realize it sounds comical, but most people don't think about the consequences of these things. I mean, a seriously oppressive govenrment would probably have some large military backing, not a few policement with handguns, and not anything the Michigan Militia can do that the Iraqi "Freedom Fighters" (I don't agree with their cause and I personally think they're a bunch of whackos, I'm just making an analogy) aren't doing right now.
"Who is talking about morals? WTF? If someone threatens eiter me, my family, or my friends with deadly force, you're goddamed right I'm going to respond in kind, and in spades."
I wholeheartedly agree with you. If you're ever threatened by someone with lethal force who's going to act on it, you probably ought to get them first. That doesn't end the logical inadequacy: "We need guns because other people have guns". Why don't you keep around a nuclear stockpile, on the off chance that you'll be threatened by a nuclear power someday?
The reason: People find the gun to be a respectably useful killing machine to keep around the house and home, even though it's MORE LIKELY that you'll end up with a dead child from a firearm accident than you'll ever shoot someone with that same firearm who's threatening that same child.
Here's the truth: the government cannot be stopped from a military dictatorship by lots of people with handguns, because they've got lots of people with missles. The "we need guns because the government might someday decide to control our lives and we need the power to stop that!" argument is completely overblown and outdated. Yes, there WAS a time in the United States where the militia was a seriously important thing. Now, it's just causing the deaths of countless kids who misfire their dad's weapon.
We don't need guns because other people have guns. We don't need guns because the government might takeover. We *do* need to *put down* our guns because they're a safety hazard to you and your family.
Damn.
.000000001% of the population), we've got little excuse for killing. Before you say that there are people who want to kill us, and *thats* why we need guns, remember your 1st grade logic fallacies - two wrongs don't make a right. Acting in "self-defense" doesn't make an action morally defensible.
Firearms aren't tools useful for any other purpose than killing. Since we don't kill our own food now (except
Your point seems to justify killing and therefore justify guns (so long as it's in the name of Revolution, cheers!). Firearms are used every day to subjugate, murder, and maim. Computers are used every day to heal, educate, and communicate. I fail to see the confusion of importance.
This is the kind of uninspired post that will likely get moderated up.
Gaming is a high adrenaline, competitive activity. It's a lot of fun, but it can be tough on the nerves for cybercafe frequenters. I know. I used to work at one.
The cybercafe I worked at was also in an arcade (which was there long before the cybercafe was installed), and the arcade was required to post Police duty on Friday and Saturday nights and have security detail for after-hours Cybercafe operation.
But, hey, your post is a great idea. That's why it's already been done. Malls are required to have security detail, and theatres almost always have a police detail.
I don't see why it's such a great big deal to reasonably ensure safety for a group of kids *anywhere*.
You know, it might be english class Fodder, but Fahrenheit 451 is a book that every kid should seriously *read*, on their own, and not in a class.
Seriously, it's one of the best lessons you could give a kid in today's world. A nice hardcover would be the perfect addition to a book collection or a great novel to start a love of reading.
My one other recommendation, though esoteric and perhaps more suited to my interests, would be "Descartes Error", by Damasio. It's a book about the tie between logic and emotion in the human brain, and reads like a novel (a non-neurologist could easily read it). I highly recommend it.
Perhaps off topic, but does anyone else remember going to the bookstore during the Camus section of senior-year english class and asking for The Plague?
Watch out, man. You've picked a fight with a philosophy major.
//smirk
He'd totally come by your place and kick your ass, if he could afford transportation to your house.
(on that note, I totally agree with Greg's post =P)
That's exactly what Godwin said. Exactly.
//smirk
I can't believe more people haven't picked up on this Hitler connection.
Perfect pitch isn't measured by the ability to name isolated pitches - as is commonly thought - rather, from what I understand, it's the ability to discriminate isolated pitches in a range. It sounds like you definately have it.
I wonder whether or not this has something to do with your ability to tell the difference between the audio compression, as certain pitches present in the original are lost in compression.
I'm feeding a troll, so I'm posting without bonus to lessen the ugly karma hit.
Don't be ridiculous. Caching DOES have very tricky issues dealing with copyright infringement.
My suggestion for Caching, though:
Enable submitter-optional caching, don't cache sites with any ad banners, only cache a site AFTER a cache.txt file has been placed in the home directory of the site with a listing of the files allowed to be cached (check it once every 5 minutes or so).
I'm just curious. Do you have perfect pitch? Are you familiar with the literature on JND of auditory perception?
I only ask (and sincerely, not sarcastically!) because I'm a student doing research on auditory perception in birds, and audio compression might be extremely interesting to test them with.
I definately invited you. Check your spam?
Just to play on a metaphor-
...
If you stood outside a bank asking people to sign your petition which was clearly labeled "WhenU Animal Rights*", and under the Animal Rights portion (with that little *) was "and examining all contents of your personal life and subjecting you to a painful strip search", somehow I don't think collecting the signatures from the large percentage of people who signed your document would hold up in court when someone complained:
"Your honor, I *know* I signed the pad, but I didn't want a STRIP SEARCH!"
WhenU defense: "But they consented!"
Have one configured to ping a webserver you operate every 30 minutes?
If someone steals it, it'll stop pinging right quick...