Because once a few engineers innvoate, we don't need indians or chinese, or hell, factory robots, to build the actual product.
Because everyone can be an engineer! It doesn't take 6-10 years of difficult math, chemistry and physics courses to become an engineer, and everyone, and by this I really do mean everyone, say at least half our 300 million population, can not only be an engineer, but a innovative one too!
Wrong cliche, since they wrote this, rather than saying it aloud, but how can they say this with a straight face? I'll tell you how. Because this asshat is one of the privileged, one of the elite. He gets to write stupid opinions for a living.
At least this opinion isn't nearly as sickening as some of the nascent, not quite formed opinions I see everywhere else. Ask Joe CEO what he thinks, and if he cares to reply at all, it's something to the effect that we should all be daytraders or the like. Too bad we're all sheep.
The supposed victims of copyright law shouldn't be able to ask for taxes on CD's and internet connections
You mean like in Canada and most of Europe, where this happens?
You shouldn't get to copy their stuff without permission, because our laws say you don't have the right to.
You mean except after 28 years, or for that matter, any reasonable delay, when it becomes public domain? Oh, I mean lifetime of author (~60-80) + 75 years.
Laws don't have to say what's right. The beauty of the US Constitution is that I have many rights, that there wasn't any need to explicitly put into writing. That "our" laws, and by this, I'm using your words, not mine, say otherwise, is sad. But "our" isn't so accurate anyway, is it. Some corporate lobbyists sent a Lear jet to DC, to pick up a few congressional friends for a game of golf at a resort. You see, senators like that, because there's not that great a chance that Air Force 1 will ever be theirs. Then, the lobbyist tell them how horrible it is, that Mickey Mouse will be public domain, and they'll lose something they deserve to keep! Oh no! But the senators, high on complimentary nose candy, they're too stupid to realize, hey, only a 2 minute clip, Steamboat Willy is actually going to become public domain, because Mickey is trademarked.
And then, the really fun stuff starts. Millions of apologists like you stand up, and say "Thank god we protected Micke!" even if it means you're being stolen from. As if some korean knockoff could be any worse than the tripe Disney tosses to the public.
There exist many systems far more efficient and fair for compensating creative people. But we're not getting close to those systems, we're moving away from them. So forgive me if I roll my eyes when I see you cheerleading.
If a person can't afford to buy something, they're not morally obligated by ethics? Excuse me?
If someone can't afford their own yacht, so they build a replica of mine from pictures taken with a zoom lense, they aren't just copyright infringers, they're thieves. If nanotechnology ever comes of age, and they can't afford to license my bread recipe, they shouldn't hack some nanobots to make some anyway, even if they're starving.
So a homeless man who can't afford to pay a cab driver can just go ahead and...
Walk home? Hell no, that's stealing from the cabbie. If he had taken the cab home, he would have had to pay, so by not paying, he is stealing. Cabbies have (or at least should) have the state-granted monopoly of moving people, and to try and cheat the system is immoral.
Don't they deserve to make money from their efforts?
Yes, I find it not only sad, but unfair that they're all 100% bankrupt. Those A list actors I saw pandhandling drove it all home, but when I heard that Snoop Dog was having to sell his kidney just so his kid would have food on the table, I broke down in tears. Won't someone please think of poor old Geffen, living in a cardboard box, and wearing that burlap rag? Please, think of the starving millionaires.
Neverminding that it's JUST ENTERTAINMENT
Yes, of course. It has long been proven fact, that human beings are truly only robots, having no pschology to speak of. Like you, I've heard all the myths regarding the idea that a human being in emotional isolation, with no entertainment at all would slowly go mad. No TV, no books, no music or art, and the stress and boredom build up, until they lose all touch with reality, going stark raving bonkers. But science has proven that prison inmates in "the hole" find the monotony peaceful and even enjoyable. Which brings me back to entertainment, what is it good for? Why, making money of course. And when you steal entertainment, it makes no money, which is sinful. Soon enough though, people will have withholdings taken out of their paychecks, to be directly given to the RIAA/MPAA. Then, we will be able to do away with the inefficient entertainment part of "making money". Won't that be a glorious day?
END SARCASM
Your attitude wouldn't be nearly so obnoxious, if the subhumans you were apologizing for didn't try so hard to murder every single bit of free entertainment there used to be. How long til they actively start lobbying against it? With software, we already see the "free/open software threatens the livelyhood's of programmers!" bullshit, and that being true (god, that was hard to type, even as a "for the sake of the argument"), does not the guy that puts up a free novel on the web not steal from those trying to sell theirs? If I play the guitar on my front lawn, am I not robbing poor little Britney Spears?
You arguments are old and tired, and have nothing to do with logic. If they want to be artists, fine, you'd think they'd be flattered so many want their "art". But no one said that they had a god-given right to make a job of it, or that they have any say in how I arrange bits on my hard drive. That they could make a living out of it, for a few decades, that doesn't make it any more profound or righteous. You will never understand why things are the way they are though. I might as well be mashing the keys for all the sense this will make to you. For now, that is sad. But your attitude is ultimately dangerous, so don't be suprised when someday someone deals with that attitude in an extreme way.
Why cna't human beings, particular the borderline variety known as politicians, get it in their head that just because [insert abstract concept here] exists, it is not a target for taxation. A much more fair and more logical system exists. That is, we decide what things need to be bought in common (military defense, roads, city water) and then we decide who it is that benefits from it the most. For defense, we'd all chip in, but that water main put in for the corporate headquarters that just moved in... well, they see 95% of the benefit for it, make them pay for the bulk of it. Tax whatever it is that they make. When they've mostly paid for that, repeal that tax... they should only be paying for their shares of roads/defense.
Politicians that wake up one morning with "Hey! If we tax air breathing, we can generate $9 trillion in revenue!!!" should be barred from public office.
Wouldn't 100baseT be more appropriate? A single cat5 jack in the backs of the seats, and no worry that if someone switches to 802.11g instead of 802.11b that the plane's navsystem will hiccup.
Wireless is for me sitting out in the backyard and websurfing, or walking around the worksite with my iPaq. It's not that great of a replacement for wires, it's for doing what wires never could. Duh.
My own personal issue, is Apple II software. Most of the early stuff would have become public domain here in the next few years, and we could legally start to archive it before bitrot steals it from humanity forever.
This is something that is impossible to do hiding in the shadows, because warez kiddies simply don't care about it. Add to that, trying to rescue obscure titles, when doing so would be illegal, and that can be a problem for some grandma that has that old disk in her attic. How much will be lost, and even if its 0.0001%, who knows if that will end up being important somehow?
You, you'll drag out all sorts of lameass arguments though. Who cares about 30 year old software? Some authors are making it public domain (wow, 1 out of 100). No one uses these computers. You should buy it through ebay (better act quick, if you wait til June will summer heat finally flip that one bit?). Maybe you'll trot out the "sacrifices have to be made, to protect the greater Britney Spears albums" bullshit.
As a grown adult, a taxpayer, and a human being with just as much right as any songwriter, you're damned straight I judge who should get paid for what. I have a brain that works, and when I see a elementary school teacher getting paid $19,500 a year, and an athlete playing a child's game 3 months out of the year for $50 million, not only am I allowed to say "What the fuck?", it would be wrong not to.
On that note, maybe the issue of songwriting is a worthy one, maybe not. But it seems to me that it could be solved more fairly, more efficiently, without shackling me to eternal copyrights, database copyrights (did you know they were making a comeback?), and all the other stupid shit the corporate lobbyists can dream up.
Invite and welcome any japanese people to my own network. For that matter, anyone anywhere. I tend to think that a full-fledged IPv4/IPv6 net is superior to file-trading only protocols, and I have to wonder if that isn't part of this guys problem. Assume for a moment, that his network had a miniature "web" all of its own, where he could have posted this anonymously. Isn't much of their case based on his own statements, that could be traced back to him?
File-trading is nice, but years from now we'll want these networks, just so we can say something without being penalized for it.
You and the boss had a pre-existing agreement. Worse, if you happen to work in a factory or something, does everything you assembled now belong to you?
No such agreement exists between Britney Spears and myself. Worse, the generic agreement that should exist between me and her (14 years renewable to 28, fair use, etc) has intentionally and maliciously been twisted to the point that it's not even close to being fair. Because of that, I consider that generic agreement null and void, and whenever I feel like it I'll copy anything I can figure out how to. If Britney can't pay her cocaine bills because she still believes this agreement in force, or if she tries to sic police forces on me, because I'm not adhering to it, too damn bad.
Musicians should get paid because they play music, not because some 11 yr old arranges the bits on his hard drive platter in a certain way. That would fix the Britney Spears problem too...
You are talking about a breeder reaction, something that is possible for fissionable materials (specifically uranium), but I've never heard of such a reaction postulated for AM.
More practical, would be to cool a few copper atoms to absolute zero, and alter some of the resulting tweaks so that they act as virtual strings. You could use such a setup to locally alter supersymetry, and cause normal matter to "mirro" to AM. I was going to do that tomorrow night, except there is a new episode of Sopranos on. New and advanced energy production methods will just have to wait until after I find out whether Tony B betrays Christopher...
***NOTE TO IDIOT MODERATORS*** The first paragraph is serious, and correct to the extent of my knowledge. The second is a lame midnight attempt at a joke, with nearly plagiarized methods from a better than average scifi novel I read a few years back. Which one? I leave that as an exercise to the reader.
You know, I'm rabidly against cameras in public places, watching me.
But I truly like the idea of these. I can't imagine any argument against them, and for once, it might be a good use of my tax dollars. Why the hell aren't they putting these at every street corner?
Don't suppose anyone has the IPs of BayTSP? I've been trying to find them for months, with no luck. Publish the damn things, and 15 minutes later it will be a non-problem.
For the small minority that plays sports. As a matter of fact, maybe because it cooincides closely with a school year, football and basketball tend to be the most popular/successful sports for the effect described. So any undue attention school sports recieve, isn't divided evenly among all them.
Personally, I think it's nothing short of hilarious, mostly because I was in the same class as someone who was predicted to become a pro football player. He did, briefly, before his hip blew out, and now he's a used car salesman in the backwards little town that I got the hell out of as soon as it was possible. Don't believe me, sounds a little too much like a bad Rick Moranis comedy movie or something? Look up the name on the web, Alex Smith.
No, we don't. Living life legally costs alot. Jobs aren't exactly government apportioned to all that need them. And while most are lucky enough to struggle and afford the means to a "legal" life, what about those that can't?
If you were even slightly articulate, I think you would have said "we have the right..."
Which is slightly different. If you mean legal rights, well then this statement is completely circular and meaningless. Stupid even. And if you meant some sort of higher, god-given rights... well, at that point we have the right to live illegal lives, to a point. Whenever those laws interfere with such a god-given right, well then, which has priority? The implication of god-given rights, that your nearly incoherent statement hints at, contradicts the entire point you're trying to make.
People like you have just enough tunnel vision, just enough single-mindedness, and just enough disdain for subtle distinctions to ignore that all that is legal is not necessarily good, and that all that is illegal is not necessarily bad. Does it make you feel good, that dull-headed arguments like yours allow greedy ratbastards to profit outrageously with SEC loopholes and such (think Enron, those of them that will get away with things on a technicality), while I would beome a felon for downloading software for a 1970's era computer, simply because it is no longer for sale?
You need to think long and carefully about whether you would like to live in the world that you would create. You are well on your way to getting it.
No one would have any problem with them slightly changing it, and getting cheap rates since they would only have copyright on the new work.
Napster could still legally shuffle the old version around, after all.
Most importantly, and no one seems to realize this, they should be required to publically release keys so they (now) public domain works are accessible. Else none of the rest really matters, they might as well keep copyrights forever.
Prosecuting those who misuse technology is an easy, simple and fair method to fix the problem...
Except when it's the prosecutors misusing it. Then, you'll find that it would not only have been easier to not let them have the tech in the first place, but that it may be the only way to avoid the abuse.
Well, I think it's rather dishonest, for Valenti to keep ranting about how it's to stop people copying movies, when the only possible thing it accomplishes is stopping people from writing their own playback software.
Are they in the movie business, or the DVD player business?
Dead ends gain you alot. First, you know it's a waste of time, and can concentrate on one of the other areas I outlined. Personally, I suspect one of them is indeed worthwhile, but I will concede that the odds are all will be dead ends. So we dump this shitload of cash on them, and if they all turn out to be dead ends, well, then you're right, at that point it is purely a research problem again.
But with my monthly electric bill what it is, I certainly hope that wouldn't be the case. And with the federal government spending my tax dollars are angora sheep subsidies, you'd think they'd wake up and spend it on something important like this.
Slashdot Mirror
Because once a few engineers innvoate, we don't need indians or chinese, or hell, factory robots, to build the actual product.
Because everyone can be an engineer! It doesn't take 6-10 years of difficult math, chemistry and physics courses to become an engineer, and everyone, and by this I really do mean everyone, say at least half our 300 million population, can not only be an engineer, but a innovative one too!
Wrong cliche, since they wrote this, rather than saying it aloud, but how can they say this with a straight face? I'll tell you how. Because this asshat is one of the privileged, one of the elite. He gets to write stupid opinions for a living.
At least this opinion isn't nearly as sickening as some of the nascent, not quite formed opinions I see everywhere else. Ask Joe CEO what he thinks, and if he cares to reply at all, it's something to the effect that we should all be daytraders or the like. Too bad we're all sheep.
Baaaah! Baaaaah!
The supposed victims of copyright law shouldn't be able to ask for taxes on CD's and internet connections
You mean like in Canada and most of Europe, where this happens?
You shouldn't get to copy their stuff without permission, because our laws say you don't have the right to.
You mean except after 28 years, or for that matter, any reasonable delay, when it becomes public domain? Oh, I mean lifetime of author (~60-80) + 75 years.
Laws don't have to say what's right. The beauty of the US Constitution is that I have many rights, that there wasn't any need to explicitly put into writing. That "our" laws, and by this, I'm using your words, not mine, say otherwise, is sad. But "our" isn't so accurate anyway, is it. Some corporate lobbyists sent a Lear jet to DC, to pick up a few congressional friends for a game of golf at a resort. You see, senators like that, because there's not that great a chance that Air Force 1 will ever be theirs. Then, the lobbyist tell them how horrible it is, that Mickey Mouse will be public domain, and they'll lose something they deserve to keep! Oh no! But the senators, high on complimentary nose candy, they're too stupid to realize, hey, only a 2 minute clip, Steamboat Willy is actually going to become public domain, because Mickey is trademarked.
And then, the really fun stuff starts. Millions of apologists like you stand up, and say "Thank god we protected Micke!" even if it means you're being stolen from. As if some korean knockoff could be any worse than the tripe Disney tosses to the public.
There exist many systems far more efficient and fair for compensating creative people. But we're not getting close to those systems, we're moving away from them. So forgive me if I roll my eyes when I see you cheerleading.
If a person can't afford to buy something, they're not morally obligated by ethics? Excuse me?
If someone can't afford their own yacht, so they build a replica of mine from pictures taken with a zoom lense, they aren't just copyright infringers, they're thieves. If nanotechnology ever comes of age, and they can't afford to license my bread recipe, they shouldn't hack some nanobots to make some anyway, even if they're starving.
So a homeless man who can't afford to pay a cab driver can just go ahead and...
Walk home? Hell no, that's stealing from the cabbie. If he had taken the cab home, he would have had to pay, so by not paying, he is stealing. Cabbies have (or at least should) have the state-granted monopoly of moving people, and to try and cheat the system is immoral.
Don't they deserve to make money from their efforts?
Yes, I find it not only sad, but unfair that they're all 100% bankrupt. Those A list actors I saw pandhandling drove it all home, but when I heard that Snoop Dog was having to sell his kidney just so his kid would have food on the table, I broke down in tears. Won't someone please think of poor old Geffen, living in a cardboard box, and wearing that burlap rag? Please, think of the starving millionaires.
Neverminding that it's JUST ENTERTAINMENT
Yes, of course. It has long been proven fact, that human beings are truly only robots, having no pschology to speak of. Like you, I've heard all the myths regarding the idea that a human being in emotional isolation, with no entertainment at all would slowly go mad. No TV, no books, no music or art, and the stress and boredom build up, until they lose all touch with reality, going stark raving bonkers. But science has proven that prison inmates in "the hole" find the monotony peaceful and even enjoyable. Which brings me back to entertainment, what is it good for? Why, making money of course. And when you steal entertainment, it makes no money, which is sinful. Soon enough though, people will have withholdings taken out of their paychecks, to be directly given to the RIAA/MPAA. Then, we will be able to do away with the inefficient entertainment part of "making money". Won't that be a glorious day?
END SARCASM
Your attitude wouldn't be nearly so obnoxious, if the subhumans you were apologizing for didn't try so hard to murder every single bit of free entertainment there used to be. How long til they actively start lobbying against it? With software, we already see the "free/open software threatens the livelyhood's of programmers!" bullshit, and that being true (god, that was hard to type, even as a "for the sake of the argument"), does not the guy that puts up a free novel on the web not steal from those trying to sell theirs? If I play the guitar on my front lawn, am I not robbing poor little Britney Spears?
You arguments are old and tired, and have nothing to do with logic. If they want to be artists, fine, you'd think they'd be flattered so many want their "art". But no one said that they had a god-given right to make a job of it, or that they have any say in how I arrange bits on my hard drive. That they could make a living out of it, for a few decades, that doesn't make it any more profound or righteous. You will never understand why things are the way they are though. I might as well be mashing the keys for all the sense this will make to you. For now, that is sad. But your attitude is ultimately dangerous, so don't be suprised when someday someone deals with that attitude in an extreme way.
Why cna't human beings, particular the borderline variety known as politicians, get it in their head that just because [insert abstract concept here] exists, it is not a target for taxation. A much more fair and more logical system exists. That is, we decide what things need to be bought in common (military defense, roads, city water) and then we decide who it is that benefits from it the most. For defense, we'd all chip in, but that water main put in for the corporate headquarters that just moved in... well, they see 95% of the benefit for it, make them pay for the bulk of it. Tax whatever it is that they make. When they've mostly paid for that, repeal that tax... they should only be paying for their shares of roads/defense.
Politicians that wake up one morning with "Hey! If we tax air breathing, we can generate $9 trillion in revenue!!!" should be barred from public office.
There is a safe network though... contact me if you like the idea.
The kind of person who would install Bonzi Buddy on his work computer certainly wouldn't miss the chance to install it at home too...
Wouldn't 100baseT be more appropriate? A single cat5 jack in the backs of the seats, and no worry that if someone switches to 802.11g instead of 802.11b that the plane's navsystem will hiccup.
Wireless is for me sitting out in the backyard and websurfing, or walking around the worksite with my iPaq. It's not that great of a replacement for wires, it's for doing what wires never could. Duh.
My own personal issue, is Apple II software. Most of the early stuff would have become public domain here in the next few years, and we could legally start to archive it before bitrot steals it from humanity forever.
This is something that is impossible to do hiding in the shadows, because warez kiddies simply don't care about it. Add to that, trying to rescue obscure titles, when doing so would be illegal, and that can be a problem for some grandma that has that old disk in her attic. How much will be lost, and even if its 0.0001%, who knows if that will end up being important somehow?
You, you'll drag out all sorts of lameass arguments though. Who cares about 30 year old software? Some authors are making it public domain (wow, 1 out of 100). No one uses these computers. You should buy it through ebay (better act quick, if you wait til June will summer heat finally flip that one bit?). Maybe you'll trot out the "sacrifices have to be made, to protect the greater Britney Spears albums" bullshit.
As a grown adult, a taxpayer, and a human being with just as much right as any songwriter, you're damned straight I judge who should get paid for what. I have a brain that works, and when I see a elementary school teacher getting paid $19,500 a year, and an athlete playing a child's game 3 months out of the year for $50 million, not only am I allowed to say "What the fuck?", it would be wrong not to.
On that note, maybe the issue of songwriting is a worthy one, maybe not. But it seems to me that it could be solved more fairly, more efficiently, without shackling me to eternal copyrights, database copyrights (did you know they were making a comeback?), and all the other stupid shit the corporate lobbyists can dream up.
Invite and welcome any japanese people to my own network. For that matter, anyone anywhere. I tend to think that a full-fledged IPv4/IPv6 net is superior to file-trading only protocols, and I have to wonder if that isn't part of this guys problem. Assume for a moment, that his network had a miniature "web" all of its own, where he could have posted this anonymously. Isn't much of their case based on his own statements, that could be traced back to him?
File-trading is nice, but years from now we'll want these networks, just so we can say something without being penalized for it.
You and the boss had a pre-existing agreement. Worse, if you happen to work in a factory or something, does everything you assembled now belong to you?
No such agreement exists between Britney Spears and myself. Worse, the generic agreement that should exist between me and her (14 years renewable to 28, fair use, etc) has intentionally and maliciously been twisted to the point that it's not even close to being fair. Because of that, I consider that generic agreement null and void, and whenever I feel like it I'll copy anything I can figure out how to. If Britney can't pay her cocaine bills because she still believes this agreement in force, or if she tries to sic police forces on me, because I'm not adhering to it, too damn bad.
Musicians should get paid because they play music, not because some 11 yr old arranges the bits on his hard drive platter in a certain way. That would fix the Britney Spears problem too...
You are talking about a breeder reaction, something that is possible for fissionable materials (specifically uranium), but I've never heard of such a reaction postulated for AM.
More practical, would be to cool a few copper atoms to absolute zero, and alter some of the resulting tweaks so that they act as virtual strings. You could use such a setup to locally alter supersymetry, and cause normal matter to "mirro" to AM. I was going to do that tomorrow night, except there is a new episode of Sopranos on. New and advanced energy production methods will just have to wait until after I find out whether Tony B betrays Christopher...
***NOTE TO IDIOT MODERATORS***
The first paragraph is serious, and correct to the extent of my knowledge. The second is a lame midnight attempt at a joke, with nearly plagiarized methods from a better than average scifi novel I read a few years back. Which one? I leave that as an exercise to the reader.
You know, I'm rabidly against cameras in public places, watching me.
But I truly like the idea of these. I can't imagine any argument against them, and for once, it might be a good use of my tax dollars. Why the hell aren't they putting these at every street corner?
But subscribers can read it early.
Don't suppose anyone has the IPs of BayTSP? I've been trying to find them for months, with no luck. Publish the damn things, and 15 minutes later it will be a non-problem.
For the small minority that plays sports. As a matter of fact, maybe because it cooincides closely with a school year, football and basketball tend to be the most popular/successful sports for the effect described. So any undue attention school sports recieve, isn't divided evenly among all them.
Personally, I think it's nothing short of hilarious, mostly because I was in the same class as someone who was predicted to become a pro football player. He did, briefly, before his hip blew out, and now he's a used car salesman in the backwards little town that I got the hell out of as soon as it was possible. Don't believe me, sounds a little too much like a bad Rick Moranis comedy movie or something? Look up the name on the web, Alex Smith.
The GPL's purpose is to create something free, which copyrights thwarted. If copyright is fixed, the GPL isn't as important.
But hell, it's all moot, because they'll never fix copyright law.
You say that now. Wait 5 years til they get good at it.
We have the freedom to live LEGAL lives.
No, we don't. Living life legally costs alot. Jobs aren't exactly government apportioned to all that need them. And while most are lucky enough to struggle and afford the means to a "legal" life, what about those that can't?
If you were even slightly articulate, I think you would have said "we have the right..."
Which is slightly different. If you mean legal rights, well then this statement is completely circular and meaningless. Stupid even. And if you meant some sort of higher, god-given rights... well, at that point we have the right to live illegal lives, to a point. Whenever those laws interfere with such a god-given right, well then, which has priority? The implication of god-given rights, that your nearly incoherent statement hints at, contradicts the entire point you're trying to make.
People like you have just enough tunnel vision, just enough single-mindedness, and just enough disdain for subtle distinctions to ignore that all that is legal is not necessarily good, and that all that is illegal is not necessarily bad. Does it make you feel good, that dull-headed arguments like yours allow greedy ratbastards to profit outrageously with SEC loopholes and such (think Enron, those of them that will get away with things on a technicality), while I would beome a felon for downloading software for a 1970's era computer, simply because it is no longer for sale?
You need to think long and carefully about whether you would like to live in the world that you would create. You are well on your way to getting it.
No one would have any problem with them slightly changing it, and getting cheap rates since they would only have copyright on the new work.
Napster could still legally shuffle the old version around, after all.
Most importantly, and no one seems to realize this, they should be required to publically release keys so they (now) public domain works are accessible. Else none of the rest really matters, they might as well keep copyrights forever.
Forget the back taxes, have it so people who fail to pay the tax waiver their copyrights. If they want to retain copyrights, then they have to pay.
That way, we don't create tax criminals, and Apple II software from 1978, that wasn't making money for anyone anyway, is public domain.
Simple, doesn't rob anyone of the ability to make money, fair, maybe even elegant. So you know there is no chance in hell of it ever becoming a law.
Prosecuting those who misuse technology is an easy, simple and fair method to fix the problem...
Except when it's the prosecutors misusing it. Then, you'll find that it would not only have been easier to not let them have the tech in the first place, but that it may be the only way to avoid the abuse.
Some good samaritan needs to install a laser pointer aimed directly at the lense.
Or better, yet, some automated turret system that can track the lense as you pass through the intersection...
Well, I think it's rather dishonest, for Valenti to keep ranting about how it's to stop people copying movies, when the only possible thing it accomplishes is stopping people from writing their own playback software.
Are they in the movie business, or the DVD player business?
But Cpt. Kirk was always on the lookout for vulnerable holes.
Dead ends gain you alot. First, you know it's a waste of time, and can concentrate on one of the other areas I outlined. Personally, I suspect one of them is indeed worthwhile, but I will concede that the odds are all will be dead ends. So we dump this shitload of cash on them, and if they all turn out to be dead ends, well, then you're right, at that point it is purely a research problem again.
But with my monthly electric bill what it is, I certainly hope that wouldn't be the case. And with the federal government spending my tax dollars are angora sheep subsidies, you'd think they'd wake up and spend it on something important like this.