I don't get why all of you think this sounds so dangerous. 30 lbs of thrust is not that much, and he can easily shut it off by turning off the propane valve. Also, since he has experimented quite a bit with this jet (he actually makes and sells them), he knows what to expect.
And of course there will be no Darwin award unless he dies (those are the rules), which seems MOST unlikely.
The guy sells them in kit form. But since there is only one moving part I imagine the kits are pretty easy to assemble. They range in price from $120 to $390, depending on thrust. He also sells them assembled for slightly higher prices.
The ending was far too abrupt. One minute you have every army-ape in the world against the humans, and the next
they're all buddies. Especially the big guy (2nd in command?). It just wasn't believeable that their acidic hatred of
humans would disappear just like that.
Hah! If that wasn't believable to you, it is only because you don't understand how apes think. Especially, hyper-intelligent, genetically-enhanced apes.
`(A) to `circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure' means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and
`(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
-------end of quote--------
Sounds to me like magic-byte XOR qualifies as protection against copyright infringement under DMCA. Even if you know the magic byte, you can't legally decode the work without the copyright holder's permission. Not sure about rot13, though. There is no hint of permission involved.
While your comment misses the point of the article entirely, I think what you mean to say is something like:
"Wouldn't the amount of energy availbalbe be based on the amp-hour rating and voltage of the battery? So wouldn't the relevant equation be E=Vnom * capacity, where Vnom is the nominal voltage of the battery, and capacity is the capacity in amp hours?"
"In many parts of the US I can even keep a gun in the nightstand."
Where can you *not* keep a gun in your nightstand? I am pretty sure you can do this anywhere in the U.S., unless you don't own the gun legally or have somehow lost your right to own a gun.
Even in California, you can keep a gun in your nightstand. You can keep one in your business (if you are the boss or have the boss's permission) or even in your tent when you go camping. I guess the people who wrote that part of the penal code believed that people posess a fundamental right to defend themselves in their homes, places of business, or temporary encampments.
The second ammendment has basically been interpreted out of existence by the courts. Numerous states have effectively banned a wide variety of arms for one reason or another (All automatics, semi-auto rifles with military styling. There is a.50 cal (BMG) bolt-action rifle that is up for banning in California, I believe, because, uh, it's too big? I don't know the rationale.)
In fact, there is a massive revisionist movement underway to suggest that the second ammendment was never intended and never did guarantee individual people the right to keep and bear arms.
If you are interested, check out www.jpfo.org (Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership) or various other pro-gun websites. If you think the second ammendment is important, you may want to do something to save it. And the rest of the bill of rights, come to think of it.
Check out the full complaint.
And don't be so lazy. It is linked by the full article above, too. The DMCA will not be stricken, just clarified. The plaintiffs are asking for a variety of things, but the most relevant to your question is contained below in an excerpt from the EFF's complaint as posted (see link above):
Declaratory Relief (Second Cause of Action) [...]
E. A declaration that the application of the DMCA to the publication of scientific, academic or technical speech, including the publication of computer programs, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Based on my reading of the DMCA, I don't think software which ignores a bit would constitute a circumvention device.
Here is the relevant portion:
`(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
The emphasis was added by me. So what do they mean by "effectively?" Luckily the authors explain what circumvention and effective control mean to them in the next part:
`(3) As used in this subsection--
`(A) to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
`(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
Realisticly, I don't see how anyone could say that having a bit set (or cleared) in a file "effectively controls access to a work," even using their definition of "effective." (Humorously, if you stick to the normal sense of the word "effective," it would appear that the circumvention issue is inapplicable to DVD's since CSS does not effectively control access to them.)
Well, water is not the only waste product of combustion. Since air is 78% nitrogen (as others have pointed out), and since nitrogen and oxygen combine at high temperatures, combustion engines cause oxides of nitrogen to be formed. In automobiles thes various oxides are lumped into the group NOx. These NOx's cause all sorts of air quality problems down here near ground level.
Basically, the higher the combustion temperature, the more NOx is formed. Unfortunately, the lower the combustion temperature, the less efficient the engine (basic thermodynamics of heat engines). This is one of the fundamental problems facing automobile engines.
Not sure if the production of NOx in the upper atmosphere would be more or less problematic than the production of NOx near ground level.
I am not a nuclear expert, but many space vehicles have had nuclear reactors in them which must have been small and not very massive.
Further, in "Mars Direct" (I think that is what the book was called) the author talks about sending powerful reactors to Mars. He seems to know what he is talking about. So, I think you might be mistaken about the size and weight of a functional powerplant.
I mean, keep in mind that nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers are big, in part, because they need to be big! Likewise powerplants.
While I don't find anything particularly wrong with 2600's behavior, I agree in principle with what you are saying. Important precedents are often set by disagreeable people. Larry Flint for example.
I don't know much about the case of Miranda, but I wouldn't be surprised if Miranda were guilty. But that wouldn't have mattered to the supremes, only the principle is important. So now, when police arrest a person, they have to read that person a Miranda rights spiel.
FYI, I believe some judges in the US can be removed from their posistions, but the higher the judge, the less true this is. Supreme court justices serve for life. And, interestingly, they don't always decide the way those who appoint them expect.
IANAL either, but I feel sure you are right. In general it seems as though copyright holders can sue copyright infringers for royalties. It might not be considered damages per se, but it would still be money. Then the copyright holder could donate some or all of the money to the FSF, if desired.
On the other hand, suing *only* for cease and desist (asking for no money) gives an almost overwhelming moral high ground to FSF/VirtuaDub. When Sun *first* sued MS over java logo useage, numerous legal observers felt that because they were only asking MS to cease and desist, they had a tremendous moral advantage in the case. Later, I think Sun asked for royalties or damages, too.
While I like linux as much as anyone, and think rumors of its demise on the desktop are greatly exagerated, I wouldn't cite IBM's support as a plus. In fact, any broad movement or consortium that IBM is willing to support probably *is* a looser. If Motorola *and* IBM jump on the bandwagon, then that is the kiss of death.
Watch as bluetooth fails to ever deliver on its promise.
Re:2600 is completely WRONG on this one.
on
2600 v. Ford Motors
·
· Score: 1
You excerpt only a small part of 2600's argument, and then refute it.
You say that to "99% of people accessing the WWW site, this would look like Ford had registered fuckgeneralmotors.com." This would be true if we were talking about all web users. But, as 2600 has argued, we are not dealing here with the population of all web users. We are only dealing with web users who type in www.fuckgeneralmotors.com into a web browser. Why would anyone do this? Because they read about the domain name in Wired, 2600, or here on slashdot. So it is reasonable to assume that anyone who has done this already knew who registered the domain. Not only that, but most people who read 2600,/., and Wired are technically savvy enough to understand the DNS process somewhat and could either do a whois search or have someone else do it for them.
I might add that you don't need to use linux to do a whois search. You can go to, among others, internic (
http://www.internic.net/whois.html)
Also, if you are really running telnet, I would suggest you switch to SSH.
I would like to think you are right. I hope you are right. But the argument that Ford is using would almost certainly apply just as much to an automatic re-direct webpage as it would to this case. Links? I think it depends. Right now, a link-based lawsuit might not ever see the light of day. After this, a link-based lawsuit might have to be defended. What if I did this:
If 2600 looses this case, I think Ford would have a case against me for doing that. Well, not here, but if I put it directly on a website rather than in a discussion thread.
In any event, I don't think what 2600 did should be subject to punitive or any other type of damages, and now that Ford has initiated the lawsuit, there is no choice for 2600 but to defend vigorously.
Also, even if, as you say, I am exaggerating the importance of the precedent that would be set by a 2600 loss, it could nonetheless put 2600 out of business if the judge awards lawyers fees, and I like reading 2600.
Like I say, I hope you are right!
MM
Re:And these morons are defending DeCSS?
on
2600 v. Ford Motors
·
· Score: 1
Please don't quote out of context.
The following is a somewhat more lengthy excerpt from the materials you allude to which explains the argument more fully:
Plaintiff's allegations clearly do not deal with the Internet population at large, but rather
with a self-selecting sub-population (namely users who type www.fuckgeneralmotors.com,
wondering where that address will take them). How many of them mistakenly believe that
FORD Motor Company actually published the Website pointer? There is no evidence on this
issue. Nor is there any factual basis (and Plaintiff will present none) to infer that the number is greater than zero. Plaintiff bears the burden of proof on this issue, and in the absence of
evidence to validate Plaintiff s speculation, Plaintiff loses.
Even assuming (hypothetically) that a non-zero number of people form such a belief (as
though it isn t obvious enough that the person pointing this Domain Name couldn t possibly
be the Ford Motor Company), what percentage of them lack the basic skill of performing a
Whois search and thereby determining who the real owner of the Domain Name is? Given
that most of the people who get the idea to type the domain name do so from sources like the
2600 Website or Wired (where the story has been publicized), it is only reasonable to expect an
extraordinarily tech-savvy audience that simply is not going to be fooled.
And it goes on. I urge others to read it as it is quite good. Well, there are a few typos that make it look a bit shoddy, but hey, they were in a hurry! Afterall, 2600 is corporate America's favorite defendant.
As for your implicit claim that this is not a real issue, I disagree. If FoMoCo can forbid people they don't like from pointing domain names at their site, then soon coroporations will be saying that only approved links are legal, too. Then bye-bye slashdot. In fact, it could mean bye-bye www. But hey, they can't take usenet and FTP away, can they?
First of all, it's not like a billboard at all. Everyone who drives by sees a billboard. This is something seen only by people who deliberately type "http://fuckgeneralmotors.com" into their web browser.
Second of all, I still maintain that very few people are stupid enough to think that ford would do this. It wouldn't matter that they are technologically clueless. Corporations do not behave that way.
When you see a Ford pickup truck with one of those stupid stickers on the window shoing Calvin pissing on a Chevy logo, do you think Ford sold the truck with that sticker on there? No way.
This is a really important case, despite what you may think of 2600's chief performance artist.
Either you support free speech or you don't. If you think the right to free speech is only important sometimes or for some people then you are just as bad as FoMoCo or the MPAA.
And just so you know, 2600's website specifically states that the EFF is not helping them out on this one.
I don't mean to be a jerk, but you really need to be aware of the facts before you post.
FORD IS NOT SUING 2600 FOR REGISTERING FUCKFORD.COM
The domain name in question is fuckgeneralmotors.com. It does not make sense for Ford to sue 2600 for infringement of GM's trademark. Furthermore, the whole antic was accomplished without using the word Ford. The DNS lookup retrieves an IP address directly, no name involved.
Actually, because Madonna is so famous, she is fair game for parody or farce. If you wrote that she had sex with a monkey, depending on the details, you could probably say that it was an obvious parody, not meant to be taken seriously, and get away with it.
Larry Flint did something similar to Jerry Falwell, IIRC. Of course, I'm basing this on the movie, _the People vs. Larry Flint_
There is no way that any person who is not a complete moron would type "www.fuckgeneralmotors.com" into a web browser and, upon reaching ford, believe that ford was in some way responsible.
Furthermore, they could easily block the redirection technologically, but they did not. They could also have asked 2600 to stop, but they did not. In short, I think you are wrong when you say that they are not trying to control who can link to them. They most certainly are!
Check out www.fordreallysucks.com, also registered by 2600.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get why all of you think this sounds so dangerous. 30 lbs of thrust is not that much, and he can easily shut it off by turning off the propane valve. Also, since he has experimented quite a bit with this jet (he actually makes and sells them), he knows what to expect.
And of course there will be no Darwin award unless he dies (those are the rules), which seems MOST unlikely.
--MM
The guy sells them in kit form. But since there is only one moving part I imagine the kits are pretty easy to assemble. They range in price from $120 to $390, depending on thrust. He also sells them assembled for slightly higher prices.
Scroll to the bottom of this page for more info.
--MM
Cool.
Dropping rocks on people from space. Just like in Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
Of course, in TMIAHM, they were dropping rocks from the moon.
Also, TMIAHM is the origin of the famous acronym TANSTAAFL.
The ending was far too abrupt. One minute you have every army-ape in the world against the humans, and the next they're all buddies. Especially the big guy (2nd in command?). It just wasn't believeable that their acidic hatred of humans would disappear just like that.
Hah! If that wasn't believable to you, it is only because you don't understand how apes think. Especially, hyper-intelligent, genetically-enhanced apes.
---MM
Yeah, following is a quote from the DMCA:
`(2) As used in this subsection--
`(A) to `circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure' means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and
`(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
-------end of quote--------
Sounds to me like magic-byte XOR qualifies as protection against copyright infringement under DMCA. Even if you know the magic byte, you can't legally decode the work without the copyright holder's permission. Not sure about rot13, though. There is no hint of permission involved.
MM
V=IR has little to do with energy.
While your comment misses the point of the article entirely, I think what you mean to say is something like:
"Wouldn't the amount of energy availbalbe be based on the amp-hour rating and voltage of the battery? So wouldn't the relevant equation be E=Vnom * capacity, where Vnom is the nominal voltage of the battery, and capacity is the capacity in amp hours?"
regards,
MM
"In many parts of the US I can even keep a gun in the nightstand."
Where can you *not* keep a gun in your nightstand? I am pretty sure you can do this anywhere in the U.S., unless you don't own the gun legally or have somehow lost your right to own a gun.
Even in California, you can keep a gun in your nightstand. You can keep one in your business (if you are the boss or have the boss's permission) or even in your tent when you go camping. I guess the people who wrote that part of the penal code believed that people posess a fundamental right to defend themselves in their homes, places of business, or temporary encampments.
MM
The second ammendment has basically been interpreted out of existence by the courts. Numerous states have effectively banned a wide variety of arms for one reason or another (All automatics, semi-auto rifles with military styling. There is a .50 cal (BMG) bolt-action rifle that is up for banning in California, I believe, because, uh, it's too big? I don't know the rationale.)
In fact, there is a massive revisionist movement underway to suggest that the second ammendment was never intended and never did guarantee individual people the right to keep and bear arms.
If you are interested, check out www.jpfo.org (Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership) or various other pro-gun websites. If you think the second ammendment is important, you may want to do something to save it. And the rest of the bill of rights, come to think of it.
MM
MM
Based on my reading of the DMCA, I don't think software which ignores a bit would constitute a circumvention device.
Here is the relevant portion:
The emphasis was added by me. So what do they mean by "effectively?" Luckily the authors explain what circumvention and effective control mean to them in the next part:
Realisticly, I don't see how anyone could say that having a bit set (or cleared) in a file "effectively controls access to a work," even using their definition of "effective." (Humorously, if you stick to the normal sense of the word "effective," it would appear that the circumvention issue is inapplicable to DVD's since CSS does not effectively control access to them.)
MM
Well, water is not the only waste product of combustion. Since air is 78% nitrogen (as others have pointed out), and since nitrogen and oxygen combine at high temperatures, combustion engines cause oxides of nitrogen to be formed. In automobiles thes various oxides are lumped into the group NOx. These NOx's cause all sorts of air quality problems down here near ground level.
Basically, the higher the combustion temperature, the more NOx is formed. Unfortunately, the lower the combustion temperature, the less efficient the engine (basic thermodynamics of heat engines). This is one of the fundamental problems facing automobile engines.
Not sure if the production of NOx in the upper atmosphere would be more or less problematic than the production of NOx near ground level.
MM
I am not a nuclear expert, but many space vehicles have had nuclear reactors in them which must have been small and not very massive.
Further, in "Mars Direct" (I think that is what the book was called) the author talks about sending powerful reactors to Mars. He seems to know what he is talking about. So, I think you might be mistaken about the size and weight of a functional powerplant.
I mean, keep in mind that nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers are big, in part, because they need to be big! Likewise powerplants.
I am not contesting your other points, however.
Also, the OP was probably trolling.
MM
Actually, there is no need for Bin Laden to describe how to make TNT.
A potential terrorist could just do a patent search. Check this out.
Also, I believe dynamite was patented.
MM
While I don't find anything particularly wrong with 2600's behavior, I agree in principle with what you are saying. Important precedents are often set by disagreeable people. Larry Flint for example.
I don't know much about the case of Miranda, but I wouldn't be surprised if Miranda were guilty. But that wouldn't have mattered to the supremes, only the principle is important. So now, when police arrest a person, they have to read that person a Miranda rights spiel.
MM
FYI, I believe some judges in the US can be removed from their posistions, but the higher the judge, the less true this is. Supreme court justices serve for life. And, interestingly, they don't always decide the way those who appoint them expect.
MM
IANAL either, but I feel sure you are right. In general it seems as though copyright holders can sue copyright infringers for royalties. It might not be considered damages per se, but it would still be money. Then the copyright holder could donate some or all of the money to the FSF, if desired.
On the other hand, suing *only* for cease and desist (asking for no money) gives an almost overwhelming moral high ground to FSF/VirtuaDub. When Sun *first* sued MS over java logo useage, numerous legal observers felt that because they were only asking MS to cease and desist, they had a tremendous moral advantage in the case. Later, I think Sun asked for royalties or damages, too.
Something to think about.
MM
While I like linux as much as anyone, and think rumors of its demise on the desktop are greatly exagerated, I wouldn't cite IBM's support as a plus. In fact, any broad movement or consortium that IBM is willing to support probably *is* a looser. If Motorola *and* IBM jump on the bandwagon, then that is the kiss of death.
Watch as bluetooth fails to ever deliver on its promise.
You excerpt only a small part of 2600's argument, and then refute it.
/., and Wired are technically savvy enough to understand the DNS process somewhat and could either do a whois search or have someone else do it for them.
You say that to "99% of people accessing the WWW site, this would look like Ford had registered fuckgeneralmotors.com." This would be true if we were talking about all web users. But, as 2600 has argued, we are not dealing here with the population of all web users. We are only dealing with web users who type in www.fuckgeneralmotors.com into a web browser. Why would anyone do this? Because they read about the domain name in Wired, 2600, or here on slashdot. So it is reasonable to assume that anyone who has done this already knew who registered the domain. Not only that, but most people who read 2600,
I might add that you don't need to use linux to do a whois search. You can go to, among others, internic (
http://www.internic.net/whois.html)
Also, if you are really running telnet, I would suggest you switch to SSH.
MM
Check this out: http://www.RenaultSucks.com
If 2600 looses this case, I think Ford would have a case against me for doing that. Well, not here, but if I put it directly on a website rather than in a discussion thread.
In any event, I don't think what 2600 did should be subject to punitive or any other type of damages, and now that Ford has initiated the lawsuit, there is no choice for 2600 but to defend vigorously.
Also, even if, as you say, I am exaggerating the importance of the precedent that would be set by a 2600 loss, it could nonetheless put 2600 out of business if the judge awards lawyers fees, and I like reading 2600. Like I say, I hope you are right! MM
The following is a somewhat more lengthy excerpt from the materials you allude to which explains the argument more fully:
Plaintiff's allegations clearly do not deal with the Internet population at large, but rather with a self-selecting sub-population (namely users who type www.fuckgeneralmotors.com, wondering where that address will take them). How many of them mistakenly believe that FORD Motor Company actually published the Website pointer? There is no evidence on this issue. Nor is there any factual basis (and Plaintiff will present none) to infer that the number is greater than zero. Plaintiff bears the burden of proof on this issue, and in the absence of evidence to validate Plaintiff s speculation, Plaintiff loses.
Even assuming (hypothetically) that a non-zero number of people form such a belief (as though it isn t obvious enough that the person pointing this Domain Name couldn t possibly be the Ford Motor Company), what percentage of them lack the basic skill of performing a Whois search and thereby determining who the real owner of the Domain Name is? Given that most of the people who get the idea to type the domain name do so from sources like the 2600 Website or Wired (where the story has been publicized), it is only reasonable to expect an extraordinarily tech-savvy audience that simply is not going to be fooled.
And it goes on. I urge others to read it as it is quite good. Well, there are a few typos that make it look a bit shoddy, but hey, they were in a hurry! Afterall, 2600 is corporate America's favorite defendant.
As for your implicit claim that this is not a real issue, I disagree. If FoMoCo can forbid people they don't like from pointing domain names at their site, then soon coroporations will be saying that only approved links are legal, too. Then bye-bye slashdot. In fact, it could mean bye-bye www. But hey, they can't take usenet and FTP away, can they?
MM
First of all, it's not like a billboard at all. Everyone who drives by sees a billboard. This is something seen only by people who deliberately type "http://fuckgeneralmotors.com" into their web browser.
Second of all, I still maintain that very few people are stupid enough to think that ford would do this. It wouldn't matter that they are technologically clueless. Corporations do not behave that way.
When you see a Ford pickup truck with one of those stupid stickers on the window shoing Calvin pissing on a Chevy logo, do you think Ford sold the truck with that sticker on there? No way.
MM
Emmanuel Goldstein == Larry Flynt
Does that make it any easier to swallow?
This is a really important case, despite what you may think of 2600's chief performance artist.
Either you support free speech or you don't. If you think the right to free speech is only important sometimes or for some people then you are just as bad as FoMoCo or the MPAA.
And just so you know, 2600's website specifically states that the EFF is not helping them out on this one.
MM
I don't mean to be a jerk, but you really need to be aware of the facts before you post.
FORD IS NOT SUING 2600 FOR REGISTERING FUCKFORD.COM
The domain name in question is fuckgeneralmotors.com. It does not make sense for Ford to sue 2600 for infringement of GM's trademark. Furthermore, the whole antic was accomplished without using the word Ford. The DNS lookup retrieves an IP address directly, no name involved.
MM
Actually, because Madonna is so famous, she is fair game for parody or farce. If you wrote that she had sex with a monkey, depending on the details, you could probably say that it was an obvious parody, not meant to be taken seriously, and get away with it.
Larry Flint did something similar to Jerry Falwell, IIRC. Of course, I'm basing this on the movie, _the People vs. Larry Flint_
MM
There is no way that any person who is not a complete moron would type "www.fuckgeneralmotors.com" into a web browser and, upon reaching ford, believe that ford was in some way responsible.
Furthermore, they could easily block the redirection technologically, but they did not. They could also have asked 2600 to stop, but they did not. In short, I think you are wrong when you say that they are not trying to control who can link to them. They most certainly are!
Check out www.fordreallysucks.com, also registered by 2600.
MM