Its also a hell of a lot later than when NASA did the same, with technology that is more widespread and cheaper to boot. When NASA did their shots, it had to invent pretty much all of the technology, whereas Scaled Composites had the benefit of all the public knowledge now available about space travel. Not to put a cloud on this success, but come on guys, comparing it to NASA and saying its much cheaper just isnt fair.
This informal poll will ALWAYS suggest a different story, precisely BECAUSE we dont want him to be shown to be right.
Personally? I have 1.3GB of music on my Ipod (10GB, Im not a big fan of music). Roughly 500MB of that music is legal, all from ItunesMS. The rest is stuff Ive collected from various friends, kazaa etc. Im not proud of it, mainly because I take the anti infringement stance here on slashdot, but my collection of infringing files hasnt grown in the past year, while my legal files have, mainly because Im replacing the infringing files with legal files as I can afford it each month.
By the way, I think its cool you are learning welsh. Im Welsh, borne in Haverford West with my fathers side of the family dating back to the late Roman times, but due to my upbringing Ive never learnt welsh or really all that much of our history.
Why not? Kodak is a huge international corporation, and usually such corps have massive and overreaching research arms. Quite a few companies have patents well outside their normal scope. IBM has pharmaceutical orientated patents, yet its doubtful you are going to see them produce medicines any day soon. What was a telephone company doing developing UNIX? Why does Boeing own patents on bridgebuilding? Its not wierd when you think about it.
Satalites have more available bandwidth, and unless theres unique ID going on, the files only have to be SENT once, but RECEIVED many times. Multicast.
No, you cant do whatever you want. The EULA is between you and Blizzard. Returning the goods to the point of sale is between you and the vendor. If you dont agree with the EULA, and the vendor refuses your returns, that does not invalidate the EULA at all, any more than it invalidates copyright or any other part of law. There is the potential that you can take legal action against hte vendor for refusing a valid request for a refund, but apart from that, your post is pure bad conjecture.
i>Any way you slice it, there aren't a whole slew of passengers who would like that kind of ride/risk.
I dont know, I mean there have already been a sizeable number of posts in various space related stories on slashdot saying essentially 'I would risk my life to do it'. Even if 0.5% of slashdotters would jump at the chance, you are looking at over 5,000 people willing to be a passenger with that kind of risk. And personally, 1% is on the low side.
Not really wierd, the record breaking flight was when SS1 did this the first time, during the test flight. This is just another flight for the craft, in essence, and it isnt actually that exciting either. When it completes the second flight on monday, thats when I expect it to be in the media.
The solids are ejected as a normal matter of course during launch, while still ignited and producing optimum thrust. There is no issue with them being ejected before normal points during the launch anyhow, as they would automaticaly be projected outward from the orbiter during the ejection procedure. Watch any launch movie and you will see the SRBs still firing when seperated from the orbiter, they are still ignited and burning when they seperate. To do this earlier is a scenario NASA have to recover the orbiter in the case of a launch failure once the orbiter has left the tower. The Range Safty Destruct is something all spacecraft have, and you will find that the orbiter fuel tank is also fitted with such a device.
A quick note here, but Boeing had a large part to do with Concorde not flying over the Continental US. The US administration and the FAA had no qualms about sonic booms or supersonic flight over the continental US until the Boeing supersonic aircraft project failed, some years after concorde was finalised. A Boeing aircraft would have had exactly the same issues with regards to sound, but the FAA decided to ban supersonic flights across the US citing noise to be the issue. Boeing had been assured that this wouldnt have been a problem when approached by the Kennedy administration with regards to building a Concorde competitor. From where Im standing it looks decidedly like a case of "Not invented here".
These are civil cases, proof is much lower. And the RIAA have plenty of evidence to support their charges, its up to the defendant to invalidate that evidence, otherwise they are found guilty and suffer the consequences. None of this is the 'guilty until proven innocent', its called a legal defense and makes up the standard method of winning or loosing a court case. In neither of those cases i cited did the defendant show that the evidence against them was false, and thus the charges were proven.
Show me these cases, no please do. Supply a list. Of the cases highlighted by the media and slashdot, one was a grandmother who was using a mac, claiming she couldnt have done it because theres no mac clients for the network she was using (a blatant false statement, as soon as I read that a quick google search found a number of clients for that network), and a 12 year old girl, who had been duped into paying to access 'premium material' (IE shared material that had been checked and verified by certain persons, but still copyrighted and shared without permission) on the Kazaa network.
Neither of the cases highlighted invalidated the charges brought against them. I havent seen one case highlighted where it was proven the person did nothing wrong, and was being sued falsly. Im sorry, but from where Im standing the RIAA are hitting the right people.
Now, Im with you with the automated DCMA takedown requests that have been highlighted (these arent cases of SUING), they shouldnt be doign that. But the cause here is that they are using an automated system, and it pains me to say it, but when the problem has reached such a point where the infringements are too many for a human to process, then it indicates to me that society as a whole is pretty much heading for the shitter.
Bottom line, dont leave yourself wide open, do not share copyrighted material. All p2p applications have ways to turn off sharing, use them. If you dont, and you get one of these cases brought against you, im sorry but you dont have my sympathy.
A number of people on here are commenting on the legal fees these cases mount up, and the maximum potential fines possible. Well, Im afraid thats the cost of not including copyright infringement under criminal law. Its a lesser 'crime' under civil law, but the complainants have more recourse over you.
No, DRM wont work in the long run, but its already been proven that the honor system doesnt work either. What do you suggest? They just give up? If that was the case then nothing would have locks, there would be no PIN code for your ATM access, and drivers licenses would be unworkable. Nothing works 100%, but things do work better than 0%, and anything which works better than 0% while doing its job is a success in this arena.
No, not a difference at all. Infact, both licenses take pretty much the same view.
From the GPL: To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
The CPL basically takes the same stance as the GPL, except it explicitly points out that, although the code is currently released, it may not be distributable in the future due to unforseen patent issues from third parties. If this wasnt the case, then absolutely no OpenSource software would be seen in the wild, as it would require a complete and thorough patent search for every release.
Why? Its a standard disclaimer: "We cant be 100% absolutely totally sure that this code doesnt infringe on someones submarine patent". It doesnt say they can come after you, all it says is the code isnt guarenteed to be patent uninfringing. If Im not mistaken, this is EXACTLY the same stance the GPL takes on patents.
Plan it right and you can migrate application versions with no downtime, plan it really well and hardly anyone will notice the changeover. "No outage in 2 years" doesnt mean "2 year uptime", it means the applications were available to the end user seamlessly during that period.
Would it suprise you to know that the US government and indeed US companies are involved in this sort of stuff all the time, both at home and abroad. At home, US censorship tends to come under the guise of "report this and we pull your whitehouse credentials".
That's what the law says. I have a tough time seeing how prohibiting the distribution of a copyrighted work forever does anything but really obviously run counter to the "limited time" provision set out in the constitution.
Technically, this law states that its illegal to sell unauthorised copies of a copyrighted performance. Wait 75 years, that performance is no longer copyrighted under law, and thus this ceases to be a bootleg. It was just struck off because there was no specific time limit on this law, and it wasnt specifically linked to the standard copyright length, which I dont think is an unreasonable thing to ask.
Technical question here, why would painting it white cause more light to fall on it, surely the same amount of light would hit regardless of what colour the asteroid is, and thus have the same effect? Or does it have to do with the amount of light a white object reflects thus causing an equal and opposite reaction? If this was the case, then surely it would be better to paint it with a mirrored substance?
If there were trade barriers and tariffs in place to force you to purchase your own countries goods, do you think you could afford that PC that you are typing your post on? The price of goods wouldnt just go up, they would go up dramatically. The consumer is the one who is to blame for all of this, because they constantly demand cheaper and better products. Would the consumer be willing to part with double the amount for locally produced items? Youve already answered that question yourself, no. The choice is already there, and people are already making it. Get used to the global economy, or are you one of these that thinks its ok to exploit the global economy until you yourself start feeling the negative effects?
Who's going to run the betting pool on how many minutes it takes someone to crack the keys and modify the information?
How safe are SSL certificates normally used for HTTPS servers? Can you alter the issued information in SSL certs? Both of these are genuine questions I have, and both of these questions are answered so far by the following: Very safe, apart from one or two small problems with different implementations, and no, you cant change the details after the issuing event (or at least Ive never heard of such a happening).
All verisign need to do is use the same type of certificate and procedure for these tokens, and you have basically eliminated the problem of modified information. So long as they get the implementation right, theres no reason these tokens cant be as strong as standard SSL certificates. This doesnt solve the problem of the tokens being lost, but a password for each use solves that to a certain extent, but deliberate sharing of tokens is something I doubt any system can defeat. After all, you cant protect against a company that goes bad after they have had their SSL cert issued to them, or if they obtained it fraudulently.
Slashdot Mirror
Its also a hell of a lot later than when NASA did the same, with technology that is more widespread and cheaper to boot. When NASA did their shots, it had to invent pretty much all of the technology, whereas Scaled Composites had the benefit of all the public knowledge now available about space travel. Not to put a cloud on this success, but come on guys, comparing it to NASA and saying its much cheaper just isnt fair.
This informal poll will ALWAYS suggest a different story, precisely BECAUSE we dont want him to be shown to be right.
Personally? I have 1.3GB of music on my Ipod (10GB, Im not a big fan of music). Roughly 500MB of that music is legal, all from ItunesMS. The rest is stuff Ive collected from various friends, kazaa etc. Im not proud of it, mainly because I take the anti infringement stance here on slashdot, but my collection of infringing files hasnt grown in the past year, while my legal files have, mainly because Im replacing the infringing files with legal files as I can afford it each month.
By the way, I think its cool you are learning welsh. Im Welsh, borne in Haverford West with my fathers side of the family dating back to the late Roman times, but due to my upbringing Ive never learnt welsh or really all that much of our history.
Why not? Kodak is a huge international corporation, and usually such corps have massive and overreaching research arms. Quite a few companies have patents well outside their normal scope. IBM has pharmaceutical orientated patents, yet its doubtful you are going to see them produce medicines any day soon. What was a telephone company doing developing UNIX? Why does Boeing own patents on bridgebuilding? Its not wierd when you think about it.
Satalites have more available bandwidth, and unless theres unique ID going on, the files only have to be SENT once, but RECEIVED many times. Multicast.
No, you cant do whatever you want. The EULA is between you and Blizzard. Returning the goods to the point of sale is between you and the vendor. If you dont agree with the EULA, and the vendor refuses your returns, that does not invalidate the EULA at all, any more than it invalidates copyright or any other part of law. There is the potential that you can take legal action against hte vendor for refusing a valid request for a refund, but apart from that, your post is pure bad conjecture.
Ahhh slashdot, where the opinions are one sided, alternative viewpoints are disallowed, and idiots reign supreme.
And Slashdot does it for free, at least these guys are intelligent enough to get money for it.
i>Any way you slice it, there aren't a whole slew of passengers who would like that kind of ride/risk.
I dont know, I mean there have already been a sizeable number of posts in various space related stories on slashdot saying essentially 'I would risk my life to do it'. Even if 0.5% of slashdotters would jump at the chance, you are looking at over 5,000 people willing to be a passenger with that kind of risk. And personally, 1% is on the low side.
Not really wierd, the record breaking flight was when SS1 did this the first time, during the test flight. This is just another flight for the craft, in essence, and it isnt actually that exciting either. When it completes the second flight on monday, thats when I expect it to be in the media.
The solids are ejected as a normal matter of course during launch, while still ignited and producing optimum thrust. There is no issue with them being ejected before normal points during the launch anyhow, as they would automaticaly be projected outward from the orbiter during the ejection procedure. Watch any launch movie and you will see the SRBs still firing when seperated from the orbiter, they are still ignited and burning when they seperate. To do this earlier is a scenario NASA have to recover the orbiter in the case of a launch failure once the orbiter has left the tower. The Range Safty Destruct is something all spacecraft have, and you will find that the orbiter fuel tank is also fitted with such a device.
A quick note here, but Boeing had a large part to do with Concorde not flying over the Continental US. The US administration and the FAA had no qualms about sonic booms or supersonic flight over the continental US until the Boeing supersonic aircraft project failed, some years after concorde was finalised. A Boeing aircraft would have had exactly the same issues with regards to sound, but the FAA decided to ban supersonic flights across the US citing noise to be the issue. Boeing had been assured that this wouldnt have been a problem when approached by the Kennedy administration with regards to building a Concorde competitor. From where Im standing it looks decidedly like a case of "Not invented here".
These are civil cases, proof is much lower. And the RIAA have plenty of evidence to support their charges, its up to the defendant to invalidate that evidence, otherwise they are found guilty and suffer the consequences. None of this is the 'guilty until proven innocent', its called a legal defense and makes up the standard method of winning or loosing a court case. In neither of those cases i cited did the defendant show that the evidence against them was false, and thus the charges were proven.
Show me these cases, no please do. Supply a list. Of the cases highlighted by the media and slashdot, one was a grandmother who was using a mac, claiming she couldnt have done it because theres no mac clients for the network she was using (a blatant false statement, as soon as I read that a quick google search found a number of clients for that network), and a 12 year old girl, who had been duped into paying to access 'premium material' (IE shared material that had been checked and verified by certain persons, but still copyrighted and shared without permission) on the Kazaa network.
Neither of the cases highlighted invalidated the charges brought against them. I havent seen one case highlighted where it was proven the person did nothing wrong, and was being sued falsly. Im sorry, but from where Im standing the RIAA are hitting the right people.
Now, Im with you with the automated DCMA takedown requests that have been highlighted (these arent cases of SUING), they shouldnt be doign that. But the cause here is that they are using an automated system, and it pains me to say it, but when the problem has reached such a point where the infringements are too many for a human to process, then it indicates to me that society as a whole is pretty much heading for the shitter.
Bottom line, dont leave yourself wide open, do not share copyrighted material. All p2p applications have ways to turn off sharing, use them. If you dont, and you get one of these cases brought against you, im sorry but you dont have my sympathy.
A number of people on here are commenting on the legal fees these cases mount up, and the maximum potential fines possible. Well, Im afraid thats the cost of not including copyright infringement under criminal law. Its a lesser 'crime' under civil law, but the complainants have more recourse over you.
No, DRM wont work in the long run, but its already been proven that the honor system doesnt work either. What do you suggest? They just give up? If that was the case then nothing would have locks, there would be no PIN code for your ATM access, and drivers licenses would be unworkable. Nothing works 100%, but things do work better than 0%, and anything which works better than 0% while doing its job is a success in this arena.
No, not a difference at all. Infact, both licenses take pretty much the same view.
From the GPL:
To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
The CPL basically takes the same stance as the GPL, except it explicitly points out that, although the code is currently released, it may not be distributable in the future due to unforseen patent issues from third parties. If this wasnt the case, then absolutely no OpenSource software would be seen in the wild, as it would require a complete and thorough patent search for every release.
Why? Its a standard disclaimer: "We cant be 100% absolutely totally sure that this code doesnt infringe on someones submarine patent". It doesnt say they can come after you, all it says is the code isnt guarenteed to be patent uninfringing. If Im not mistaken, this is EXACTLY the same stance the GPL takes on patents.
Plan it right and you can migrate application versions with no downtime, plan it really well and hardly anyone will notice the changeover. "No outage in 2 years" doesnt mean "2 year uptime", it means the applications were available to the end user seamlessly during that period.
Redhat sells linux distributions, their software comes without any inherent warrenty.
Would it suprise you to know that the US government and indeed US companies are involved in this sort of stuff all the time, both at home and abroad. At home, US censorship tends to come under the guise of "report this and we pull your whitehouse credentials".
That's what the law says. I have a tough time seeing how prohibiting the distribution of a copyrighted work forever does anything but really obviously run counter to the "limited time" provision set out in the constitution.
Technically, this law states that its illegal to sell unauthorised copies of a copyrighted performance. Wait 75 years, that performance is no longer copyrighted under law, and thus this ceases to be a bootleg. It was just struck off because there was no specific time limit on this law, and it wasnt specifically linked to the standard copyright length, which I dont think is an unreasonable thing to ask.
Technical question here, why would painting it white cause more light to fall on it, surely the same amount of light would hit regardless of what colour the asteroid is, and thus have the same effect? Or does it have to do with the amount of light a white object reflects thus causing an equal and opposite reaction? If this was the case, then surely it would be better to paint it with a mirrored substance?
Mickey Mouse is a trademark. Whole different kettle of mice.
If there were trade barriers and tariffs in place to force you to purchase your own countries goods, do you think you could afford that PC that you are typing your post on? The price of goods wouldnt just go up, they would go up dramatically. The consumer is the one who is to blame for all of this, because they constantly demand cheaper and better products. Would the consumer be willing to part with double the amount for locally produced items? Youve already answered that question yourself, no. The choice is already there, and people are already making it. Get used to the global economy, or are you one of these that thinks its ok to exploit the global economy until you yourself start feeling the negative effects?
Who's going to run the betting pool on how many minutes it takes someone to crack the keys and modify the information?
How safe are SSL certificates normally used for HTTPS servers? Can you alter the issued information in SSL certs? Both of these are genuine questions I have, and both of these questions are answered so far by the following: Very safe, apart from one or two small problems with different implementations, and no, you cant change the details after the issuing event (or at least Ive never heard of such a happening).
All verisign need to do is use the same type of certificate and procedure for these tokens, and you have basically eliminated the problem of modified information. So long as they get the implementation right, theres no reason these tokens cant be as strong as standard SSL certificates. This doesnt solve the problem of the tokens being lost, but a password for each use solves that to a certain extent, but deliberate sharing of tokens is something I doubt any system can defeat. After all, you cant protect against a company that goes bad after they have had their SSL cert issued to them, or if they obtained it fraudulently.