The theory is that showers of electrons caused by cosmic rays, when they encounter the high electric fields present in thunderstorm clouds, can be accelerated to energies above 10 MeV and result in bremsstrahlung photons detectable on the ground.
Ah, analogies. Of course, in this case, wifi routers generally advertise their services and help you access them. So you'd probably need a sign on the hose saying "Have some! Just turn the valve!"
The sign may have come from the store attached to the hose, and the owner may not have noticed it, but there we are.
That's pretty much the point, as I understand the proposal: solar power stations in space, beaming their energy back to ground stations via microwave signals (2450 MHz is often used as a proposal frequency).
If you don't align with the ground station in any case, the power will simply be wasted.
Sorta brings home, doesn't it, how much more difficult it will be to put not only a mirror (which has to be aligned) into space, but an entire solar power station up there instead.
Yu-huh. And tell me, again, why using solar power stations in space, beaming their energy back to earth with high-power beams, wouldn't suffer from similar problems?
The light wouldn't have to be beamed back with the intensity of a magnifying glass on a bug.:) I'm not even sure normal photovoltaic cells would be able to handle that, for one thing, and for another, it could be dangerous as you describe.
Double normal intensity or less would still produce significantly more power, and not instantly fry an inadvertent target.
P.S. -- Ironically, the captcha word for this post is "disaster":) Slashdot does have a sense of humor, after all.
Anyone thought about just putting mirrors in space to concentrate and reflect higher intensity of sunlight back to solar power stations on earth?
I would imagine it would be cheaper than trying to hoist an entire solar power station into space, easier to upgrade as more efficient solar power methodology is developed and not suffer from trying to find the RF bandwidth to beam the energy back.
Sure, Sid. Actually, I was thinking of you specifically when referring to MS apologists. From what I can see, you waste no opportunity to defend MS, no matter how pedantically.
I'm happy to get two "sides" to a story -- when both are honest. When one side is simply dishonest PR marketing spin, that's not a good situation. Unfortunately, that's primarily what I see from MS apologists, on everything from excuse-making over Firefox's success to Vista's failures.
I was wondering how long it would take for Microsoft apologists to scream about this.
I'm actually rather glad Slashdot includes periodic posts such as these. They serve as a useful gauge of how prevalent MS fanboys (paid defenders?) have become on the site.
Right -- because the only reason you'd want to protect your privacy is if you're doing something you shouldn't be doing. We know this because government never over-reaches, and people in power are never corrupted by that power.
Well, this did go to court. The thing is, the RIAA knew (or should have known, but likely knew) that the lawsuit was baseless, and sued anyway in an attempt to keep the pressure on Andersen to send them money.
OK, since you and a few others are claiming that I am factually incorrect I will respond and ask how. They had her IP address didnt they? Thats an honest question, I cant imagine they went after her without an IP address. And please dont respond with some discussion about dynamic IP addresses and so forth, I mean the IP address that was assigned to her at the time they found shared files. If they didnt have an IP address or some other way to identify her how on earth did they find her?
Jorghis, they lost. They sued Andersen knowing their process was error-prone, and they lost on the merits. This has already been litigated.
They supposedly had an IP address, gathered by an unlicensed private investigative company. One of the problems is that they didn't know whether or not it belonged to her, and they knew of that flaw. What's more, they were presented evidence that their claims were in error, and they sued anyway.
Just because nothing was found on the computer doesnt mean she is innocent, it isnt hard to completely remove some files from a computer. Logically, their presence may prove guilt but their absence proves nothing.
It's a lot harder than you seem to think. Anyone who has ever analyzed a hard drive knows that the wiping of specific evidence can be pretty glaring.
Of course, in this case we're talking about the absence of ALL evidence. There was no evidence she had done this. None. No pattern or history of filesharing; no connection of the unique Kazaa name to her (actually, identifying the likely culprit was pretty simple with a Google search), no similarity between Andersen's obvious music taste and the files that were shared. Simply an IP address, which may or may not have been hers at the time. History indicates that the matching of IP addresses after the fact to individuals is actually a rather flawed process.
And the RIAA knew all of this, and even admitted as much. Did you read the filing?
So perhaps you still wish to condemn her because she didn't "prove" her innocence. Of course, that's not the way our justice system works. But you'd have to be pretty hard up to see her as suspect to insist that she could be guilty, regardless.
Logically, their presence may prove guilt but their absence proves nothing. As long as they found her IP address sharing copyrighted material I dont see what the problem is.
Then you haven't read the filing, and aren't familiar with this case.
If they couldnt get enough evidence on top of that to get a guilty verdict that doesnt necessarily mean that suit was motivated by malicous reasons.
Then you haven't read the filing, and aren't familiar with this case.
I mean come on, it costs WAY more than 4000 dollars to go through with a lawsuit like this, if she was innocent they would have no logical reason to pursue it.
Oh, really? How about their explicitly-stated rationale that they didn't want to encourage others to defend themselves? How about the fact that they still hoped she would settle, and they could chalk up another "win" on their record?
Do you really believe that they were sueing her just to be dicks? It makes no sense.
Partially, yes. Partially because they know their "threaten-em-all" PR campaign is a house of cards into which they're totally invested.
I have a very cynical reaction to cries of "person XYZ was sued by the RIAA and is innocent". I mean, its so easy to find people who are guilty that it just seems ridiculous that they would go after someone who has done nothing in spite of all the costs involved.
Then you haven't read the filing, and aren't familiar with this case. The RIAA's actions weren't what you seem to think they were.
All that being said, if she actually is innocent I hope she wins, but I doubt that is the case and if it is she is a very small minority among the people getting sued.
As I said above, for all intents and purposes the RIAA lost on the merits, and there's absolutely, positively no evidence Andersen did anything wrong. By contrast, there's significant evidence the RIAA knowingly pursued baseless allegations in furtherance of a PR campaign.
I should have added a number 6: Andersen's counterclaims (now, simply, "claims") say that RIAA and its associates are engaged in racketeering. In other words, a violation of RICO laws.
At any rate, we're well past concerns of whether Andersen was guilty of copyright violations. That's been decided. Andersen has now filed suit, and it's all about RIAAs (and its associates') allegedly illegal behavior.
Most of what you're talking about has already been litigated. The fact that the RIAA was completely in error has pretty much been decided, which was why they were forced to drop the case before "officially losing". For all intents and purposes, RIAA sued Andersen for copyright infringement and lost.
What this case is about is (among other things):
1) Media Sentry was not a licensed private investigator. What they did (pretending to be a peer, rooting around in computers, etc.) amounted to the actions of a private investigator and was therefore illegal in Oregon (and elsewhere). The RIAA knew this, or should have known it, but proceeded anyway. 2) The RIAA misrepresented the certainty of their evidence when threatening Ms. Andersen in an attempt to get her to pay. 3) The RIAA proceeded with their lawsuit and intimidation tactics despite the fact that they knew, or should have known, how potentially flawed their evidence was. They were even provided evidence that another individual was the guilty party, yet they proceeded with the lawsuit against Andersen. 4) The RIAA used pretexting in an attempt to contact Ms. Andersen's daughter at school. The Court even had to issue a restraining order against them. 5) The RIAA made defamatory claims against her publicly, saying she had listened to misogynistic and racist music.
Holy crap, if you haven't read the claim, take the time. I can see why they are using racketeering as a pretense to sue. I can't believe all the RIAA did to this lady. Click here to read it - Pike and Fischer Internet Law and Regulation
Neither the summary nor any news story I've read so far does it justice. I agree with the comment above: RIAA and the other co-defendants are in very serious trouble. They have screwed up big time, and not just with Ms. Andersen.
The RIAA who do not seem to embrace a newer distribution model for music ( for their own reasons) seem not to be technophobic, evident by utilizing companies such as SafeNet. Is it not possible they employ a similar method in attempting to shape forums which are appear to not work in their favour ( pay people to put a certain view on a high traffic sitelike digg or Slashdot).
In a word: "yes".
In fact, I would imagine at this point such tactics would be considered "time-honored".
Not sure they could nail him for anything. At worst, it would be perjury, but you'd have to prove that he lied on something material. Sounds to me like he admitted the flaws in his investigation when questioned. The damage done is mostly to his reputation, IMHO.
In fact, this entire thread could probably have been pre-empted had the OP read the actual filing. There's a lot going on in this case, and evidently a lot of misperceptions out there regarding the RIAA's actions.
You have to pay people to investigate it, people to organize contacting everyone involved, and then hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in legal fees for anyone who doesnt immediately settle.
That last part has only come into play recently, and it's why the scheme isn't a particularly good one: you only have to pick on one wrong person, and the whole thing comes crashing down (an extortion scheme in question doesn't have to be smart or ultimately successful to be extortion).
Up until that point, it seems to me the RIAA is actually doing pretty well. What does it cost per person to send a threatening form letter and perhaps make a couple of phone calls? Yeah, you might need the added stamp or two to send form letters to ISP's to get names to go with the IP addresses, but again, pretty routine. What's more, even if Media Sentry were particularly careful in actually identifying IP addresses of infringers (something that's never been adequately addressed, IMHO), that process is likely automated, too. Against that, at $4000 a pop, and, what, 10,000 settlements by now? we're talking $40,000,000 or more coming in.
So yeah, sounds like a moneymaker to me. But perhaps my envelope only takes "new math".:)
Slashdot Mirror
Feel free. You won't be going to jail for stealing. Rather, you'll be running afoul of counterfeiting laws.
Yep. They're everywhere. :)
Sure. I was just going to say that.
Ah, analogies. Of course, in this case, wifi routers generally advertise their services and help you access them. So you'd probably need a sign on the hose saying "Have some! Just turn the valve!"
The sign may have come from the store attached to the hose, and the owner may not have noticed it, but there we are.
Naturally, then, the next goal is to produce a material that's stronger than paper.
That's pretty much the point, as I understand the proposal: solar power stations in space, beaming their energy back to ground stations via microwave signals (2450 MHz is often used as a proposal frequency).
If you don't align with the ground station in any case, the power will simply be wasted.
Sorta brings home, doesn't it, how much more difficult it will be to put not only a mirror (which has to be aligned) into space, but an entire solar power station up there instead.
Yu-huh. And tell me, again, why using solar power stations in space, beaming their energy back to earth with high-power beams, wouldn't suffer from similar problems?
The light wouldn't have to be beamed back with the intensity of a magnifying glass on a bug. :) I'm not even sure normal photovoltaic cells would be able to handle that, for one thing, and for another, it could be dangerous as you describe.
:) Slashdot does have a sense of humor, after all.
Double normal intensity or less would still produce significantly more power, and not instantly fry an inadvertent target.
P.S. -- Ironically, the captcha word for this post is "disaster"
Anyone thought about just putting mirrors in space to concentrate and reflect higher intensity of sunlight back to solar power stations on earth?
I would imagine it would be cheaper than trying to hoist an entire solar power station into space, easier to upgrade as more efficient solar power methodology is developed and not suffer from trying to find the RF bandwidth to beam the energy back.
Yes, one side is dishonest spin -- the OSS side.
Sure, Sid. Actually, I was thinking of you specifically when referring to MS apologists. From what I can see, you waste no opportunity to defend MS, no matter how pedantically.
I'm happy to get two "sides" to a story -- when both are honest. When one side is simply dishonest PR marketing spin, that's not a good situation. Unfortunately, that's primarily what I see from MS apologists, on everything from excuse-making over Firefox's success to Vista's failures.
I was wondering how long it would take for Microsoft apologists to scream about this.
I'm actually rather glad Slashdot includes periodic posts such as these. They serve as a useful gauge of how prevalent MS fanboys (paid defenders?) have become on the site.
Right -- because the only reason you'd want to protect your privacy is if you're doing something you shouldn't be doing. We know this because government never over-reaches, and people in power are never corrupted by that power.
Well, this did go to court. The thing is, the RIAA knew (or should have known, but likely knew) that the lawsuit was baseless, and sued anyway in an attempt to keep the pressure on Andersen to send them money.
OK, since you and a few others are claiming that I am factually incorrect I will respond and ask how. They had her IP address didnt they? Thats an honest question, I cant imagine they went after her without an IP address. And please dont respond with some discussion about dynamic IP addresses and so forth, I mean the IP address that was assigned to her at the time they found shared files. If they didnt have an IP address or some other way to identify her how on earth did they find her?
Jorghis, they lost. They sued Andersen knowing their process was error-prone, and they lost on the merits. This has already been litigated.
They supposedly had an IP address, gathered by an unlicensed private investigative company. One of the problems is that they didn't know whether or not it belonged to her, and they knew of that flaw. What's more, they were presented evidence that their claims were in error, and they sued anyway.
Just because nothing was found on the computer doesnt mean she is innocent, it isnt hard to completely remove some files from a computer. Logically, their presence may prove guilt but their absence proves nothing.
It's a lot harder than you seem to think. Anyone who has ever analyzed a hard drive knows that the wiping of specific evidence can be pretty glaring.
Of course, in this case we're talking about the absence of ALL evidence. There was no evidence she had done this. None. No pattern or history of filesharing; no connection of the unique Kazaa name to her (actually, identifying the likely culprit was pretty simple with a Google search), no similarity between Andersen's obvious music taste and the files that were shared. Simply an IP address, which may or may not have been hers at the time. History indicates that the matching of IP addresses after the fact to individuals is actually a rather flawed process.
And the RIAA knew all of this, and even admitted as much. Did you read the filing?
So perhaps you still wish to condemn her because she didn't "prove" her innocence. Of course, that's not the way our justice system works. But you'd have to be pretty hard up to see her as suspect to insist that she could be guilty, regardless.
Logically, their presence may prove guilt but their absence proves nothing. As long as they found her IP address sharing copyrighted material I dont see what the problem is.
Then you haven't read the filing, and aren't familiar with this case.
If they couldnt get enough evidence on top of that to get a guilty verdict that doesnt necessarily mean that suit was motivated by malicous reasons.
Then you haven't read the filing, and aren't familiar with this case.
I mean come on, it costs WAY more than 4000 dollars to go through with a lawsuit like this, if she was innocent they would have no logical reason to pursue it.
Oh, really? How about their explicitly-stated rationale that they didn't want to encourage others to defend themselves? How about the fact that they still hoped she would settle, and they could chalk up another "win" on their record?
Do you really believe that they were sueing her just to be dicks? It makes no sense.
Partially, yes. Partially because they know their "threaten-em-all" PR campaign is a house of cards into which they're totally invested.
I have a very cynical reaction to cries of "person XYZ was sued by the RIAA and is innocent". I mean, its so easy to find people who are guilty that it just seems ridiculous that they would go after someone who has done nothing in spite of all the costs involved.
Then you haven't read the filing, and aren't familiar with this case. The RIAA's actions weren't what you seem to think they were.
All that being said, if she actually is innocent I hope she wins, but I doubt that is the case and if it is she is a very small minority among the people getting sued.
As I said above, for all intents and purposes the RIAA lost on the merits, and there's absolutely, positively no evidence Andersen did anything wrong. By contrast, there's significant evidence the RIAA knowingly pursued baseless allegations in furtherance of a PR campaign.
I should have added a number 6:
Andersen's counterclaims (now, simply, "claims") say that RIAA and its associates are engaged in racketeering. In other words, a violation of RICO laws.
At any rate, we're well past concerns of whether Andersen was guilty of copyright violations. That's been decided. Andersen has now filed suit, and it's all about RIAAs (and its associates') allegedly illegal behavior.
Most of what you're talking about has already been litigated. The fact that the RIAA was completely in error has pretty much been decided, which was why they were forced to drop the case before "officially losing". For all intents and purposes, RIAA sued Andersen for copyright infringement and lost.
What this case is about is (among other things):
1) Media Sentry was not a licensed private investigator. What they did (pretending to be a peer, rooting around in computers, etc.) amounted to the actions of a private investigator and was therefore illegal in Oregon (and elsewhere). The RIAA knew this, or should have known it, but proceeded anyway.
2) The RIAA misrepresented the certainty of their evidence when threatening Ms. Andersen in an attempt to get her to pay.
3) The RIAA proceeded with their lawsuit and intimidation tactics despite the fact that they knew, or should have known, how potentially flawed their evidence was. They were even provided evidence that another individual was the guilty party, yet they proceeded with the lawsuit against Andersen.
4) The RIAA used pretexting in an attempt to contact Ms. Andersen's daughter at school. The Court even had to issue a restraining order against them.
5) The RIAA made defamatory claims against her publicly, saying she had listened to misogynistic and racist music.
Holy crap, if you haven't read the claim, take the time. I can see why they are using racketeering as a pretense to sue. I can't believe all the RIAA did to this lady. Click here to read it - Pike and Fischer Internet Law and Regulation
Neither the summary nor any news story I've read so far does it justice. I agree with the comment above: RIAA and the other co-defendants are in very serious trouble. They have screwed up big time, and not just with Ms. Andersen.
The RIAA who do not seem to embrace a newer distribution model for music ( for their own reasons) seem not to be technophobic, evident by utilizing companies such as SafeNet. Is it not possible they employ a similar method in attempting to shape forums which are appear to not work in their favour ( pay people to put a certain view on a high traffic sitelike digg or Slashdot).
In a word: "yes".
In fact, I would imagine at this point such tactics would be considered "time-honored".
Not sure they could nail him for anything. At worst, it would be perjury, but you'd have to prove that he lied on something material. Sounds to me like he admitted the flaws in his investigation when questioned. The damage done is mostly to his reputation, IMHO.
That's a pretty good summary.
In fact, this entire thread could probably have been pre-empted had the OP read the actual filing. There's a lot going on in this case, and evidently a lot of misperceptions out there regarding the RIAA's actions.
Actually, the filing does allege that MediaSentry/SafeNet broke the law, and the RIAA knew about it.
You have to pay people to investigate it, people to organize contacting everyone involved, and then hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in legal fees for anyone who doesnt immediately settle.
:)
That last part has only come into play recently, and it's why the scheme isn't a particularly good one: you only have to pick on one wrong person, and the whole thing comes crashing down (an extortion scheme in question doesn't have to be smart or ultimately successful to be extortion).
Up until that point, it seems to me the RIAA is actually doing pretty well. What does it cost per person to send a threatening form letter and perhaps make a couple of phone calls? Yeah, you might need the added stamp or two to send form letters to ISP's to get names to go with the IP addresses, but again, pretty routine. What's more, even if Media Sentry were particularly careful in actually identifying IP addresses of infringers (something that's never been adequately addressed, IMHO), that process is likely automated, too. Against that, at $4000 a pop, and, what, 10,000 settlements by now? we're talking $40,000,000 or more coming in.
So yeah, sounds like a moneymaker to me. But perhaps my envelope only takes "new math".
It is not extortion because extortion is done to make money.
It is, indeed. And threatening people who can't defend themselves unless they pay $4000 sounds to me an awful lot like a moneymaking scheme.
Just because it serves the dual purpose of "deterring" copyright violation doesn't mean it isn't extortion.