Better yet, how long until there are camera-equiped artillery rounds or rockets that simply broadcast their data real-time through an airborne controller station to troops in the field. It would be one hell of an asset to ground troops. And could even eliminate the need for artillery spotters.
Lets also not forget that what allowed the Nazi party to gain power was the fact that the German economy was pretty much in the crapper and there was a HUGE resentment toward non-German people in the country who were taking jobs away from Germans.
Does any of this sound frighteningly familiar to anyone else?
But there is a fairly huge difference between things that _can_ be used to track you and a system designed _specifically_ to do just that.
Re:Interesting technology
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
"so yes i can picture them standing outside a competitors store analyzing the shoppers bags as they exit"
This is exactly why the store would remove them in the first place. Would you really want to use a security device on your wares if that very device could be used by your competition against you?
I can't even imagine how skewed your world view must be to even think this is the case.
Actually I was just illustrating that I could easily make a copy. I know the lyrics, I could write them down easily enough, could I make copies to teach other people the song?
I must disagree. The PUBLISHER was paid for a purchased copy. Not necessarily the creator.
Sharing allows you to distribute an infinte number of copies.
Theoretically, a copy in a library is also able to be used an infinite number of times. Tho not at once.
You still have use of the file after someone else takes a copy from you.
And if I take notes, make personal use copies, aquire knowledge? I still retain that after the copy is placed back into circulation. Heaven help me if I learn the lyrics. As long as I do not seek to profit from or take credit for something that isn't my work why is there such an issue? Imagine if the instructions on making fire were copyrighted.
The creator was only paid for your copy, not the 2, 20, or 2,000 copies you distributed.
Fair enough. Altho I have paid money to the recording industry on every recordable CD I have ever purchased on the grounds that they will be used for illicit music copying, whether or not music was ever recorded to them. And why do only major labels get a take of that tax? Does no one copy indy CD's?
In that situation, you're more akin to a broadcaster than a library. Broadcasters, such as TV and radio stations, either own the IP they broadcast or pay the creator for their IP. Are you paying for the right to broadcast?
If they would bring back the damn D class radio license I sure would but I don't have buckets of money you need for a broadcast license. Net radio and radio in general is a mess. I pay taxes to support a regulatory body that is supposed to fairly govern the PUBLIC airwaves. But back to the point, could I let my friend in Alaska listen to music hosted on my machine as a sample? It's not really "broadcasting" (narrowcasting?) He's really not going to find this stuff any other way.
Irrelevant. Clear Channel doesn't force me to listen to their radio stations,
They basically do if I want to turn on the radio in my area. Sucks but its true.
yet they still pay the creators to pay to broadcast their works.
Will they please pay them to stop????
Ok I'm far too cranky for my age, but this copyright crap needs dire overhaul. How about only actual PEOPLE being able to hold copyright, no corps. And can it please expire after about a generation?
And it is impossible to listen to music in any format or medium without receiving a copy. The point is it only becomes illegal when you press record or save a file.
Under the prevailing logic behind this mess if I hear a song and memorize the lyrics then I and guilty of infringing on the copyright of he/she/it who holds the rights to those lyrics.
If I choose to set up my computer as an open public space then how is that any different than a library? Lets angle the argument a little, say I don't allow people to "copy" music files. Could I allow them to listen to them? I can invite people into my house to listen to music still can't I?
"By making it so easy to copy the files, you would certainly be in danger of contributory infringement."
That's just insipid. One word: KINKO's. Publicly accessable copy machines. Guilty of contributory infringement? Nope.
How about a library?
The whole phrase "copy the files" is just a minefield of possible contributory infringement following your logic.
ISP liable? Computer retailor liable? Chip maker liable? OS maker liable? The very nature of computer technology is full of things that by design create copies. Where do you stop?
"But it _is_ stealing. You are taking something that is not yours, it is a product that you would normally buy to obtain, but you are not paying for it, and most of you had no intention of paying for it. You argue it is about copyrights, but you are completely off there. This is a simple case about taking something without paying for it."
That's just it, as far as the RIAA is concerned, it isn't a _PRODUCT_, its a license to use said product. In which case it should be just fine to download anything you already purchased because you already payed for the right to listen to it. For that matter you should be able to download anything considering that recordable CDs are already taxed under the assumption that they will be used for infringement of music copyright, even if never use them for any music.
Oh, but wait, that means if my CD gets wrecked I should be able to get the media replace for cost and shipping right? I already payed the license fee right? Not according to the RIAA, bring that up and suddenly it _IS_ a product.
So its both a product and a license? WTF?
The RIAA needs to make up its damn mind, until they decide which it is (product or license) I have ZERO sympathy for them.
That poster is dead on that these guys are no good, their stuff comes in without any warning and is a real pain in the arse to get rid of, this stuff is more like virusware than ad-ware.
Definately. I don't think this was a man-in-the-middle maneuver (tho I admit I may be very wrong). LOP.com crap has turned up at my workplace repeatedly, usually 1 or 2 calls a week about "pop-up-porn", and they all get traced back to LOP. Their adware now has some tactic to hijack DNS settings I would imagine. Lovely. Can't someone send them an.mp3 so we can get Hatch to nuke them?
The basic problem is most people that I run into who are not already gifted with a certain level of technical knowledge, have no desire for it (or frankly no NEED for it either, as I see it). Their lives are rich and uncomplicated by most things the Slashdot community revels in.
And while I certainly cannot fault anyone for their choice of an uncomplicated life, where would I find a group of peers in a general population where I find myself very much in the minority?
"3. What ever happened to a fair trial in front of a jury of peers?"
I have question, what exactly would be a jury of a/.er's peers? And what are the odds of you (or me) actually getting one? I seem to be living in the middle of a tribe of "blinking 12:00 people".
Here I spend all this time perfecting my sychophant technique in preparation for our robot masters and it will more than likely be rendered moot when we're all killed off by mutant housepets gone wrong.
Aren't these the same people who won't actually sell your hotmail address but will collect and sell every none hotmail address that you send to or receive mail from?
OK nevermind. Maybe they could show an image or two of the watch face designs rather than only give the fact that it had them a one-line mention at the end of the tech specs.
...why does it only have a nearly microscopic time display.
I mean seriously, the primary function of a wristwatch will always be to tell you the time, why couldn't they have a nice full-face digital or (better even) analog style time display?
Slashdot Mirror
Better yet, how long until there are camera-equiped artillery rounds or rockets that simply broadcast their data real-time through an airborne controller station to troops in the field. It would be one hell of an asset to ground troops. And could even eliminate the need for artillery spotters.
Lets also not forget that what allowed the Nazi party to gain power was the fact that the German economy was pretty much in the crapper and there was a HUGE resentment toward non-German people in the country who were taking jobs away from Germans.
Does any of this sound frighteningly familiar to anyone else?
But there is a fairly huge difference between things that _can_ be used to track you and a system designed _specifically_ to do just that.
"so yes i can picture them standing outside a competitors store analyzing the shoppers bags as they exit"
This is exactly why the store would remove them in the first place. Would you really want to use a security device on your wares if that very device could be used by your competition against you?
I can't even imagine how skewed your world view must be to even think this is the case.
Actually I was just illustrating that I could easily make a copy. I know the lyrics, I could write them down easily enough, could I make copies to teach other people the song?
"It's when you use your memorized song to distribute the song to others that you run into trouble. "
Wasn't there some kind of trouble with the boy scout or girl scout or someone over them _singing_ some camp songs without paying for the rights?
The creator was paid for copy in use.
I must disagree. The PUBLISHER was paid for a purchased copy. Not necessarily the creator.
Sharing allows you to distribute an infinte number of copies.
Theoretically, a copy in a library is also able to be used an infinite number of times. Tho not at once.
You still have use of the file after someone else takes a copy from you.
And if I take notes, make personal use copies, aquire knowledge? I still retain that after the copy is placed back into circulation. Heaven help me if I learn the lyrics. As long as I do not seek to profit from or take credit for something that isn't my work why is there such an issue? Imagine if the instructions on making fire were copyrighted.
The creator was only paid for your copy, not the 2, 20, or 2,000 copies you distributed.
Fair enough. Altho I have paid money to the recording industry on every recordable CD I have ever purchased on the grounds that they will be used for illicit music copying, whether or not music was ever recorded to them. And why do only major labels get a take of that tax? Does no one copy indy CD's?
In that situation, you're more akin to a broadcaster than a library. Broadcasters, such as TV and radio stations, either own the IP they broadcast or pay the creator for their IP. Are you paying for the right to broadcast?
If they would bring back the damn D class radio license I sure would but I don't have buckets of money you need for a broadcast license. Net radio and radio in general is a mess. I pay taxes to support a regulatory body that is supposed to fairly govern the PUBLIC airwaves. But back to the point, could I let my friend in Alaska listen to music hosted on my machine as a sample? It's not really "broadcasting" (narrowcasting?) He's really not going to find this stuff any other way.
Irrelevant. Clear Channel doesn't force me to listen to their radio stations,
They basically do if I want to turn on the radio in my area. Sucks but its true.
yet they still pay the creators to pay to broadcast their works.
Will they please pay them to stop????
Ok I'm far too cranky for my age, but this copyright crap needs dire overhaul. How about only actual PEOPLE being able to hold copyright, no corps. And can it please expire after about a generation?
And it is impossible to listen to music in any format or medium without receiving a copy. The point is it only becomes illegal when you press record or save a file.
Under the prevailing logic behind this mess if I hear a song and memorize the lyrics then I and guilty of infringing on the copyright of he/she/it who holds the rights to those lyrics.
Seriously, Comcast actually uses the ability to quickly download whatever music you want as a selling point for its cablemodem service?
If I choose to set up my computer as an open public space then how is that any different than a library? Lets angle the argument a little, say I don't allow people to "copy" music files. Could I allow them to listen to them? I can invite people into my house to listen to music still can't I?
Besides, you aren't PUSHING any files on anyone.
"By making it so easy to copy the files, you would certainly be in danger of contributory infringement."
That's just insipid. One word: KINKO's. Publicly accessable copy machines. Guilty of contributory infringement? Nope.
How about a library?
The whole phrase "copy the files" is just a minefield of possible contributory infringement following your logic.
ISP liable? Computer retailor liable? Chip maker liable? OS maker liable? The very nature of computer technology is full of things that by design create copies. Where do you stop?
"But it _is_ stealing. You are taking something that is not yours, it is a product that you would normally buy to obtain, but you are not paying for it, and most of you had no intention of paying for it. You argue it is about copyrights, but you are completely off there. This is a simple case about taking something without paying for it."
That's just it, as far as the RIAA is concerned, it isn't a _PRODUCT_, its a license to use said product. In which case it should be just fine to download anything you already purchased because you already payed for the right to listen to it. For that matter you should be able to download anything considering that recordable CDs are already taxed under the assumption that they will be used for infringement of music copyright, even if never use them for any music.
Oh, but wait, that means if my CD gets wrecked I should be able to get the media replace for cost and shipping right? I already payed the license fee right? Not according to the RIAA, bring that up and suddenly it _IS_ a product.
So its both a product and a license? WTF?
The RIAA needs to make up its damn mind, until they decide which it is (product or license) I have ZERO sympathy for them.
BTW where the hell is my check for $12?
"the janitors of data"
Wow. And I thought it was bad enough when a network guy I knew called himself a high-tech plumber.
"let the FBI get back to busting organized crime et al."
Like going after the **AA's?
That poster is dead on that these guys are no good, their stuff comes in without any warning and is a real pain in the arse to get rid of, this stuff is more like virusware than ad-ware.
Definately. I don't think this was a man-in-the-middle maneuver (tho I admit I may be very wrong). LOP.com crap has turned up at my workplace repeatedly, usually 1 or 2 calls a week about "pop-up-porn", and they all get traced back to LOP. Their adware now has some tactic to hijack DNS settings I would imagine. Lovely. Can't someone send them an .mp3 so we can get Hatch to nuke them?
"recreating conditions a fraction of a second after the birth of the universe"
Hopefully they aren't gunning for "Universe Conception" or we're all fscked.
Ok, yeah I'm bored senseless today.
The basic problem is most people that I run into who are not already gifted with a certain level of technical knowledge, have no desire for it (or frankly no NEED for it either, as I see it). Their lives are rich and uncomplicated by most things the Slashdot community revels in.
And while I certainly cannot fault anyone for their choice of an uncomplicated life, where would I find a group of peers in a general population where I find myself very much in the minority?
Please tell me you ran that through a spell-checker.
"3. What ever happened to a fair trial in front of a jury of peers?"
/.er's peers? And what are the odds of you (or me) actually getting one? I seem to be living in the middle of a tribe of "blinking 12:00 people".
I have question, what exactly would be a jury of a
Here I spend all this time perfecting my sychophant technique in preparation for our robot masters and it will more than likely be rendered moot when we're all killed off by mutant housepets gone wrong.
Why do I even bother.....
Aren't these the same people who won't actually sell your hotmail address but will collect and sell every none hotmail address that you send to or receive mail from?
Of course we keep building more gadgets and robotic doodads, its just the natural order of things.
Think about it, how are the robots going to rise up and kill their human masters if we don't make enough of them?
Frankly I'm still waiting on those flying cars and maybe a robot housekeeper like on the "Jetsons".
OK nevermind. Maybe they could show an image or two of the watch face designs rather than only give the fact that it had them a one-line mention at the end of the tech specs.
...why does it only have a nearly microscopic time display.
I mean seriously, the primary function of a wristwatch will always be to tell you the time, why couldn't they have a nice full-face digital or (better even) analog style time display?