If you paid full price it is because your university doesn't know how to properly handle software contracts. Any large group can get significant discounts from Microsoft through distributors if purchases go through a central office. We've been paying only $73 a copy at the university where I work for years. The same goes for any of a number of pieces of software. The most I pay for anything is about $150, including Adobe suites, mathematical software, CAD, etc. Heck, we pay TEN DOLLARS for Autodesk AuthCAD 2007. That's $3,995 retail!
While I don't necessarily have an opinion on this particular story (I didn't even RTFA), I can certainly tell you that fire departments immediately try to determine the cause of any fire as soon as possible, before the evidence deteriorates. Once it's safe to be in the building the officers or fire marshal will look for accelerants, burn patterns and debris while the rest of us are still tearing open walls looking for embers. They'll also stop the overhaul work if it's safe to do so in order to preserve evidence. You can actually tell a lot from a "V" pattern on a wall and a pile of melted plastic and circuit boards.
For instance... snipping across the map w/ full res up. The trees disappear on the horizon allowing you to shoot people through them. The dead guy thinks he was concealed behind some branches./shrug I assume the UT3 engine will take care of this;)
Yes, on the moon and mars you will be unable to snipe through the trees.:P
If/when we develop replicators in the real world, I sure hope people are free to use them. Humanity never would have gotten very far if the first person to domesticate fire patented it. Or the wheel was copyrighted forever.
So, tell me this, why exactly would you bother to work if you could have anything you want replicated? Who would bother spending their entire life working in order to make things for the rest of you, who are not working, to copy? The answer is no one. While people still would be creative in terms of art, they would stop producing common items of civilized life. People would stop growing food, shipping food, working to generate energy. They'd tell you to dig for oil yourself if you wanted it. Educators would stop teaching, and society would lose it's collective knowledge. When things started to break, no one would know how to fix them. The planet would be littered with junk, if there happened to still be energy to run the replicators. Civilization would stagnate and eventually collapse. Oh, replicators sound like a good idea but not when you look at the details.
I agree that patents and copyright are heavily abused in today's world, however there must be SOME reward for working or no innovation would ever occur. Fire and the wheel are really poor examples for this discussion. Neither were created under the assumption that the creator would make a living selling it. Individuals did not operate in an economy when those were created. If you try to apply the same rules using a replicator in today's world we would end up with a society exactly like the one that existed when fire and the wheel were invented. There would be no economy as we'd all be about as smart as five year olds.
This article has some interesting timing given the recent problem on Second Life in which someone has created a utility which supposedly can copy any object, even those that deny copy permissions. This has sparked a huge outcry from the users of SL who are unhappy that all of their hard work could end up wasted if their creations are copied. I wonder how many of those individuals have MP3's or movies they've downloaded without paying for?
The blog mentions "Copying does not always mean theft", invokes the DCMA, talks about fair use and basically points out that it's the same analog hole that always gets digital media in the end. It will be interesting to see how this virtual world deals with the issue, but already Second Life's spokesperson has indicated that copyright is up to the copyright holder to enforce and they can't really do all that much about the copying.
I have considered sniffing and spoofing TCP resets to free up some bandwidth but need an automated way to handle new BitTorrent connections. Does anybody have any ideas on how to automate the sniff and reset strategy, or other ways to carve out a little bandwidth from hogs on public wireless?"
When you want to know about the correct way to do it, you ask about QoS and other bandwidth limiting methods. You do NOT, as you've done, talk about TCP resets and "automated sniff and reset strategy".
This TV will use most of the same technology that already exists. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lcos and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLP. I haven't seen a major revolt against DLP due to lorry traffic yet. All they are changing is the light source from a lamp to a laser. Now, you can assume that in order to generate the same image brightness then the same amount of energy has to hit the screen with a laser and a lamp. However, ALL of the laser's energy is used on the screen as opposed to a regular lamp which loses a lot of energy to heat through radiation in directions other than towards the screen. With all that, I'd argue that a laser based TV would generate a lot less heat than one with a lamp.
As I indicated to everyone else in this thread, you are stealing *revenue* not the bits of data. This is exactly what people fail to understand. Copyright wouldn't even need to exist if people didn't steal the revenue from others by reproducing or performing works that they did not create!
Cost shouldn't factor into whether it's right or wrong to do it, however I agree with you are that having to constantly repurchase the rights to something is absurd. Digital backups are a different issue then downloading things that you've never purchased in the first place. However most pirates try to hide behind the concept of backups as if that legitimizes their activities. You know what that does? It ruins our ability to get the media corporations on our side to stop this cycle of constantly repurchasing rights to the same media as new standards come out.
Someone may have done a lot more work to produce the original item, but you're not depriving them of the original item or the use of it, nor anyone else.
What you are doing, however, is ruining that item's marketability by eliminating its scarcity. You could argue that such a thing in itself is stealing, but if you made such an extension in a criminal sense and apply legal enforcement, you're essentially outlawing a lot of other things that don't make sense. For example, if you manufactured product A that is twice as efficient as product B and selling it for half the price, your actions are ruining the marketability of product B and destroying the projected value of the labor that was put into its creation. Should that be illegal?
Unlike most of the other replies you actually understand the concept of lost revenue which I applaud. However you misapply your example. The proper way to relate copying software to real world products is that you are making product B that is identical in every way to product A and is *labeled and sold as product A*. That's called a counterfeit item and it is already illegal to do that kind of thing with physical object in most countries. It has nothing to do with marketplace competition.
It's not our job to make their business model work. If they think they can make money by making a piece of information to the public and then charging for copies of it, knowing full well that (1) information can be copied at little to no cost, (2) methods to stop copying are fundamentally unsound and have been shown not to work in practice, and (3) copyright violations are usually undetectable, making copyright law largely unenforceable except for the largest scale violations... then they deserve whatever happens.
Excellent theory! Please post your address, since I now know that if I can ever get into your house and take any of your stuff then you deserve it!
I simply do not understand where people come up with this kind of BS. It's easy for me to kill you, should I be justified in doing so? *sigh* Of course not, just like I shouldn't copy data I'm not supposed to just because it's easy.
You have more than proven my point that people do not understand these concepts. You focus on the digital data as the "thing" being stolen, but it truth what you are stealing are the revenues which could have been generated by that digital data. When you take sales away from the original creator/owner of that digital information, it's gone from them, you've deprived them of that income. Your argument is the common one used to rationalize the theft of anything digital, but it just doesn't hold water.
If you duplicated the ticket exactly and used the resource single time then it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Software piracy involves using a resource more times than you've paid for it, or "using someone else's seat". Your arguement doesn't apply. Like I said, people don't understand these concepts very well.
Try it out with some other things to see if your logic makes sense:
- Well officer, I had a license to drive cars but you know I didn't keep track of it so why do you care if I use this one someone else gave me? I mean I had a license at one point! - I had a ticket to get on this plane, but since I lost it I just made this one in photoshop. What do you mean you won't take it? I'll just take an empty seat!
This boils down to main issue of the digital revolution which is the pathological belief of a large number of individuals that if it's easy to copy then there is no harm in stealing it regardless of the resources put into creating it. Yes, open source yada yada but it's a different matter if something was created with resources and plans designed around free distribution compared to copying something that was created under a business model expecting a return on the investment. You can argue all you want about which model is better but that doesn't change the fact that if you copy something created by people expecting to get paid for it, you are stealing.
Wow, that went a little farther then I expected when I hit reply.:)
This "expert" in language fails to make the technical distinction between the license for a product and the product itself. The counterfeit license is definitely not genuine and was not "made (or sold) by the same company" to the end user. It gets to the root of all of the problems with digital products. People do not understand the implications of a creation that can be duplicated at will with little effort, and how or even if to control it.
Furthermore, must we have such useless ego-stroaking stories on slashdot? "On look! Some blog dissed Microsoft! Quick, post it on slashdot!" *sigh*
I believe this article is talking about the technology described here: http://tinyurl.com/fa3oj (Science Direct)
The original research paper states "The proposed fuel-cell system offers applications longevity owing to its more concentrated (up to 10 wt% H2) hydrogen storage than found with H2 stored under common tank pressures or in typical metal hydrides."
Is the storage of liquid hydrogen considered a "common tank pressure"? I wouldn't think so. The big deal about this technology is that it stores the hydrogen in a very safe, room temperature, inert and non-flamable liquid until the instant it passes into the fuel cell.
We need a new superhero. He will be called The Googler and he will bring enlightenment to the world in the form of teaching people to find information for themselves. Did they stop teaching that since I was in school many moons (get it, MOONS) ago?.
The part of the moon in darkness and the "dark side of the moon" are actually different things. Typically the "dark side of the moon" refers to the far side or the part of the moon that always faces away from Earth (and is technically an incorrect statement).
Slashdot Mirror
If you paid full price it is because your university doesn't know how to properly handle software contracts. Any large group can get significant discounts from Microsoft through distributors if purchases go through a central office. We've been paying only $73 a copy at the university where I work for years. The same goes for any of a number of pieces of software. The most I pay for anything is about $150, including Adobe suites, mathematical software, CAD, etc. Heck, we pay TEN DOLLARS for Autodesk AuthCAD 2007. That's $3,995 retail!
Actually, no. Office has always been available at these prices to universities who know a thing or two about negotiations and contracts.
While I don't necessarily have an opinion on this particular story (I didn't even RTFA), I can certainly tell you that fire departments immediately try to determine the cause of any fire as soon as possible, before the evidence deteriorates. Once it's safe to be in the building the officers or fire marshal will look for accelerants, burn patterns and debris while the rest of us are still tearing open walls looking for embers. They'll also stop the overhaul work if it's safe to do so in order to preserve evidence. You can actually tell a lot from a "V" pattern on a wall and a pile of melted plastic and circuit boards.
You can see the video linked on CNN's article (after an ad of course):
s quid.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/12/22/giant.
For instance... snipping across the map w/ full res up. The trees disappear on the horizon allowing you to shoot people through them. The dead guy thinks he was concealed behind some branches. /shrug ;)
:P
I assume the UT3 engine will take care of this
Yes, on the moon and mars you will be unable to snipe through the trees.
If/when we develop replicators in the real world, I sure hope people are free to use them. Humanity never would have gotten very far if the first person to domesticate fire patented it. Or the wheel was copyrighted forever.
So, tell me this, why exactly would you bother to work if you could have anything you want replicated? Who would bother spending their entire life working in order to make things for the rest of you, who are not working, to copy? The answer is no one. While people still would be creative in terms of art, they would stop producing common items of civilized life. People would stop growing food, shipping food, working to generate energy. They'd tell you to dig for oil yourself if you wanted it. Educators would stop teaching, and society would lose it's collective knowledge. When things started to break, no one would know how to fix them. The planet would be littered with junk, if there happened to still be energy to run the replicators. Civilization would stagnate and eventually collapse. Oh, replicators sound like a good idea but not when you look at the details.
I agree that patents and copyright are heavily abused in today's world, however there must be SOME reward for working or no innovation would ever occur. Fire and the wheel are really poor examples for this discussion. Neither were created under the assumption that the creator would make a living selling it. Individuals did not operate in an economy when those were created. If you try to apply the same rules using a replicator in today's world we would end up with a society exactly like the one that existed when fire and the wheel were invented. There would be no economy as we'd all be about as smart as five year olds.
This article has some interesting timing given the recent problem on Second Life in which someone has created a utility which supposedly can copy any object, even those that deny copy permissions. This has sparked a huge outcry from the users of SL who are unhappy that all of their hard work could end up wasted if their creations are copied. I wonder how many of those individuals have MP3's or movies they've downloaded without paying for?
Copyrights and Content Creation in Second Life
The blog mentions "Copying does not always mean theft", invokes the DCMA, talks about fair use and basically points out that it's the same analog hole that always gets digital media in the end. It will be interesting to see how this virtual world deals with the issue, but already Second Life's spokesperson has indicated that copyright is up to the copyright holder to enforce and they can't really do all that much about the copying.
I have considered sniffing and spoofing TCP resets to free up some bandwidth but need an automated way to handle new BitTorrent connections. Does anybody have any ideas on how to automate the sniff and reset strategy, or other ways to carve out a little bandwidth from hogs on public wireless?"
When you want to know about the correct way to do it, you ask about QoS and other bandwidth limiting methods. You do NOT, as you've done, talk about TCP resets and "automated sniff and reset strategy".
This TV will use most of the same technology that already exists. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lcos and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLP. I haven't seen a major revolt against DLP due to lorry traffic yet. All they are changing is the light source from a lamp to a laser. Now, you can assume that in order to generate the same image brightness then the same amount of energy has to hit the screen with a laser and a lamp. However, ALL of the laser's energy is used on the screen as opposed to a regular lamp which loses a lot of energy to heat through radiation in directions other than towards the screen. With all that, I'd argue that a laser based TV would generate a lot less heat than one with a lamp.
This story wouldn't be interesting without the sensationalism! It has to be there!
It remains unclear how many times the ground-based laser was tested against U.S. spacecraft or whether it was successful.
End sensationalism now!
As I indicated to everyone else in this thread, you are stealing *revenue* not the bits of data. This is exactly what people fail to understand. Copyright wouldn't even need to exist if people didn't steal the revenue from others by reproducing or performing works that they did not create!
Cost shouldn't factor into whether it's right or wrong to do it, however I agree with you are that having to constantly repurchase the rights to something is absurd. Digital backups are a different issue then downloading things that you've never purchased in the first place. However most pirates try to hide behind the concept of backups as if that legitimizes their activities. You know what that does? It ruins our ability to get the media corporations on our side to stop this cycle of constantly repurchasing rights to the same media as new standards come out.
Someone may have done a lot more work to produce the original item, but you're not depriving them of the original item or the use of it, nor anyone else.
What you are doing, however, is ruining that item's marketability by eliminating its scarcity. You could argue that such a thing in itself is stealing, but if you made such an extension in a criminal sense and apply legal enforcement, you're essentially outlawing a lot of other things that don't make sense. For example, if you manufactured product A that is twice as efficient as product B and selling it for half the price, your actions are ruining the marketability of product B and destroying the projected value of the labor that was put into its creation. Should that be illegal?
Unlike most of the other replies you actually understand the concept of lost revenue which I applaud. However you misapply your example. The proper way to relate copying software to real world products is that you are making product B that is identical in every way to product A and is *labeled and sold as product A*. That's called a counterfeit item and it is already illegal to do that kind of thing with physical object in most countries. It has nothing to do with marketplace competition.
It's not our job to make their business model work. If they think they can make money by making a piece of information to the public and then charging for copies of it, knowing full well that (1) information can be copied at little to no cost, (2) methods to stop copying are fundamentally unsound and have been shown not to work in practice, and (3) copyright violations are usually undetectable, making copyright law largely unenforceable except for the largest scale violations... then they deserve whatever happens.
Excellent theory! Please post your address, since I now know that if I can ever get into your house and take any of your stuff then you deserve it!
I simply do not understand where people come up with this kind of BS. It's easy for me to kill you, should I be justified in doing so? *sigh* Of course not, just like I shouldn't copy data I'm not supposed to just because it's easy.
You have more than proven my point that people do not understand these concepts. You focus on the digital data as the "thing" being stolen, but it truth what you are stealing are the revenues which could have been generated by that digital data. When you take sales away from the original creator/owner of that digital information, it's gone from them, you've deprived them of that income. Your argument is the common one used to rationalize the theft of anything digital, but it just doesn't hold water.
If you duplicated the ticket exactly and used the resource single time then it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Software piracy involves using a resource more times than you've paid for it, or "using someone else's seat". Your arguement doesn't apply. Like I said, people don't understand these concepts very well.
Brilliant!
Try it out with some other things to see if your logic makes sense:
:)
- Well officer, I had a license to drive cars but you know I didn't keep track of it so why do you care if I use this one someone else gave me? I mean I had a license at one point!
- I had a ticket to get on this plane, but since I lost it I just made this one in photoshop. What do you mean you won't take it? I'll just take an empty seat!
This boils down to main issue of the digital revolution which is the pathological belief of a large number of individuals that if it's easy to copy then there is no harm in stealing it regardless of the resources put into creating it. Yes, open source yada yada but it's a different matter if something was created with resources and plans designed around free distribution compared to copying something that was created under a business model expecting a return on the investment. You can argue all you want about which model is better but that doesn't change the fact that if you copy something created by people expecting to get paid for it, you are stealing.
Wow, that went a little farther then I expected when I hit reply.
This "expert" in language fails to make the technical distinction between the license for a product and the product itself. The counterfeit license is definitely not genuine and was not "made (or sold) by the same company" to the end user. It gets to the root of all of the problems with digital products. People do not understand the implications of a creation that can be duplicated at will with little effort, and how or even if to control it.
Furthermore, must we have such useless ego-stroaking stories on slashdot? "On look! Some blog dissed Microsoft! Quick, post it on slashdot!" *sigh*
I believe this article is talking about the technology described here:
http://tinyurl.com/fa3oj (Science Direct)
The original research paper states "The proposed fuel-cell system offers applications longevity owing to its more concentrated (up to 10 wt% H2) hydrogen storage than found with H2 stored under common tank pressures or in typical metal hydrides."
Is the storage of liquid hydrogen considered a "common tank pressure"? I wouldn't think so. The big deal about this technology is that it stores the hydrogen in a very safe, room temperature, inert and non-flamable liquid until the instant it passes into the fuel cell.
A screen shot is typically much lower resolution than what you'd normally scan documents at for OCR. It's not a good test.
We need a new superhero. He will be called The Googler and he will bring enlightenment to the world in the form of teaching people to find information for themselves. Did they stop teaching that since I was in school many moons (get it, MOONS) ago?.
t ml
PS: Here's one of the many publically available maps of mineral resources on the moon: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/clemen/clemen.h
The part of the moon in darkness and the "dark side of the moon" are actually different things. Typically the "dark side of the moon" refers to the far side or the part of the moon that always faces away from Earth (and is technically an incorrect statement).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
I give up. I link to an article with a direct response from the EPA where even they say it's sensationalism and you claim it's "light".