I do the same, but I certainly would NOT want a GPS with me when I do it. The whole point is to have fun trying to find your way back home. I mean really if you're REALLY lost and you REALLY need to get home, just stop and ask for directions, it's usually quicker and more accurate anyway.
I see this as an excellent opportunity to make use of the millitary's super-secret robot project the "AWESOM-O 4000." These robots are just amazing... from the re-inforced rugged paper-based shell to the numerous spare-battery holders on the unit.
This isn't going for skills it's going for battlefield intelligence training. Obviously there are better ways to train a soldier to point a gun than to hand them a mouse. This is entertaining, cheap training that all of the soldiers can use when they aren't on duty. Think checkpoint training...
Apple is doing this to insure that the music you purchase on iTMS can only be used on the iPOD. Isn't that obvious? Why can't you people see it? It's only a side effect that it helps passify the RIAA.
This is, in my opinion, a stupid cause looking to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Why bother protesting TV by not watching?
1.) Your TV time may be reduced permanently? If I want to watch less television, I will You don't have to stop watching for a week to make a plan to stop watching as much and stick to it. 2.) TV may cause ADD in children. Excellent point, let's make movement then to only allow children to watch a set amount of television on a weekly basis. Get government behind it to mandate television manufacturers allow restrictions be placed on the amount of television watched by using a passcode system or just give the children a special remote and have the hours tracked that way. Let the parents of course choose how many hours per week they're allowed. Remember, shutting your television off for a week isn't going to make anyone else a better parent, some people just make bad parents. 3.) Less TV time means kids ask for fewer toys. See #2. 4.) Kids gain weight by wathcing mroe TV. See #2. 5.) Kids spend more time watching TV than studying. See #2, be a good parent, enforce restrictions. 6.) TV news alienates kids, lacks details. This one is just silly, the site complains that the kids are staying up on national events and that kids complain the news lacks details and they want more information. So the TV not only teaches about hte current events, it inspires them to do independent research... how is this bad? 7.) Kids absorb and mimic televised violence. See #2, give the parents the tools to limit what their children watch. If the parents don't care to limit it, they have bigger problems than just what they're watching, they have parents who don't care... lots more risks invovled in that. 8.) Television and Childhood Injuries: Is There A Connection? -- Their argument here is that because the children watch TV their reaction time, etc is impaired and it causes them to get hurt more often. My answer: Let's compare the number of injuries sustained while playing on a playground or in a park or any team sport to those sustained while watching television. I rest my case. Kids get hurt, there are a lot more dangerous things that are OKAY for kids but TV is bad because it's been linked VERY INDIRECTLY by one study to making children more accident prone? Here's an idea, make them play some video games to get their reaction speed and coordination up... or wait, is that against the rules too? 9.) TV Re-inforces sex roles and stereotyping -- TV doesn't re-inforce sex roles and stereotyping, sex roles and stereotyping re-inforces sex roles and stereotyping. Again, go to the government, mandate a 'sex roels and stereotyping' flag just like the other codes used to rate TV and films and then go back to answer #2, and set limits on what you and your children watch. 10.) Less TV means less aggression. *SIGH*I Grow tired of the "GUNS KILL PEOPLE" approach. more AGGRESSION means more AGGRESSION. Set limits on your television or stop watching it. Talk to your children, explain violence is not okay.
Alright enough of this. my point: TV IS Technology. It is not the problem. Turning it off is not going to solve any of your problems except maybe lowering your power bill and disabling your babysitter long enough that you maybe TALK TO YOUR CHILDREN.
I would just like to see an end to the legal protections for bad code. Law has no place in DRM, period. Companies are releasing their works in digital formats of THEIR choosing, but they are still releasing them, let's not forget that. I don't think the law should protect the fact that they release them more open than they intended to. I believe that since I paid for the file I should be able to do whatever I like with it, it's mine. If I want to I should be allowed to turn it into a different format, play it on any device I want or delete it at my own will, PERIOD. If they want to protect their interests, they have two options in my mind.
1.) They can make me agree to a contract or license stating how I am permitted to use the media.
2.) They can keep trying to write unbreakable encryption... good luck.
Now, you're going to say that yes, they did choose both options, and thus I've broken the rules by changing the format of my media, and if I break the contract/license I agreed to then you're right, and they shoudl take me to court and sue me to protect their interests. But the second part is entirely seperate. I still should have the right to write a program that will play any kind of file I want. I want the same protection on the internet and with computers that all other industries have. Just because guns are used to kill people you don't see the families of victims sending Cease and Decist orders to Smith&Wesson... or at least they have no fear of having to stop making their guns. It's rediculous and it's high time we start taking our rights back in America.
This is not at all the same. In this case you're the ONLY one copying and distributing the book. Thus you are infriginging COPYrights. In the case of Linux a LOT of people are copying and thus infringing. Let's start a list:
1.) The person who submitted the code.
2.) The person who committed the code.
3.) The person who uploaded the kernel.
4.) Everyone who offers the kernel for download
4a.) All websites/mirrors that offer the kernel.
4b.) All products with the kernel incorporated into them (PVRs, mp3 players, toasters, who knows).
4c.) All makes of linux distributions (RH, Novell, etc)
4d.) All computer manufacturers that sell computers with linux (HP, IBM, etc).
Alright, have I made my point? Not just the person committing the infringed code is at risk.
I'm not saying it isn't doable, I'm saying that the cost of an insurance plan that could handle a full blown attack by Microsoft would be more expensive that most people would be willing to pay. It's also difficult to sell insurance on something you get for free. I'm skeptical about this business plan working. That's all I'm saying.
And yet you still aren't smart enough to figure out it was just an example. Another good example is if John Doe puts win2k source into linux for shits and giggles. The result is the same except that MS hasn't done anything illegal this time, and they're the ones being infringed upon. Back away from the microscope, put it away, and look at the big picture.
I'll bite. Because MS can pay John Doe to contribute code from the leaked win2k source into linux and then sue every distributor of linux out of existance for copyright infringement. The problem here is that if something like this happens where MS gets turned loose, no insurance company will stick by without going bankrupt.
Don't mod this guy positively. While he makes a good point he does it in a childish immature troll-like fashion. These are exactly the kind of people we DON'T WANT pursueing violations of the GPL. It's these kinds of people that destroy the whole spirit of the GPL. The point of the GPL is not to try to weasel money out of people for a violation that is corrected with a casual mention and not even a C&D letter. The point of the GPL is to make sure people redistribute the software with any improvements they make.
On the other side of this if you place two strong magnets next to eachother pointing north to south like this: [ ] And place attach them to a series of cogs such that when they pull closer they cause a rotation, and attach a DC motor to that rotation, you will generate electricity off of the motor when they pull together. I don't know of a way to significantly harness the power that the two magnets display, but this does prove that the magnets can be used to generate electricity. Movement requires energy of some kind, and magnets are able to make this movement, which means they do contain energy. It's not totally impossible that he's found a way to get some of the energy out of these magnets, but i'm VERY, VERY skeptical.
I have a question.... How (in)efficient is it to connect two DC motors directly together. Let's say you have apply 100mW 9V to one motor (rated accordingly) with the shaft directly connected to an identical motor. What will be the output on the second motor? What percentage of loss will there be? If this guy is actually harnessing the power of a magnet to turn the fans he builds... Why can't this same technology be applied to generators? If his theory is correct that he is actually taking energy from the earth (non electro-) magnet, and he actually gets 80% of the energy in this way... Let's see...
Let's assume that the motor-to-motor hookup i described provides 16% of the original power; giving the motor a 40% loss of power when turning electricity into rotation and another 40% loss when translating rotation back to electricity (100 *.4*.4=16) (THIS IS ENTIRELY A GUESS. I can't find any rating on how much power loss is involved).
Okay so let's say I hook up two of this guys motors together in the same way. According to the article it takes 80% less wattage (1/5th of normally required amount of power) to provide the same power... So let's say I apply 100mW again. I'm really getting the effect of applying 500mW to a conventional motor. Let's assume the same loss rate in conversion to force and back (40% each time) except now I have 500*.4=200mW of rotational force. Let's do this again for the generator... but since it's 5 times as efficient I have 200mW*5*.4=400mW. So my end effect would be 100mW into 400mW. I don't for a second think this is possible, but assuming my 40% guess for loss in power with DC motors and Generators isn't way off base then it's exactly what this guy is trying to tell us...
That's the part you're not understanding. It IS possible for a court to rule that part of the GPL is unenforcable. They could easily say that the restrictions on re-releasing derivitive works under GPL is not legal because it seeks to take rights awaay from the creator of the derivitive work. I know, I know, now you're thinking, "Well fine, then the writer of the derivitive work is in violation because they have no right to use the parent work." But that's only if the court decides to interpret it that way. What if the court decides to say instead, that all terms are allowed except the redistribution terms. That because the original owner of the work has already given the writer of the derivitive work license to use and to create derivitive works, because, in fact they have. It's not an all or nothing case, the GPL can lose... I hope it doesn't, but it can.
Because we all know that only researchers and vendors who report their findings to CERT immediately are capable of finding problems in code. And we also know from his article that the only way to create an exploit for a vulnerability is to wait until the patch comes out and reverse engineer it.
Okay, honestly though, I can agree with some of his arguments, they are fine, but to make backward assumptions like they did by not mentioning the fact that black-hats can actually find and exploit vulnerabilities for months before a single report makes it to CERT or to the vendor is just irresponsible journalism.
If WhenU wins the court will make a statement which will limit what laws the government are allowed to make. They're near viral already. Have you ever tried to remove one of the bad ones using "Add/remove programs?" It simply re-installs itself as a different name. That's VERY borderline viral already. They also use misleading popups to install themselves. Some will install using the plugin-style remark, "You need to download and install this plug-in for internet explorer in order to view the current webpage."
If they win, they will do things like the following scenario with a particularly unskilled computer user, we'll call him "Cloobie":
1.) Cloobie searches the web for a program to synchronize his computer's clock to a standard source.
2.) Cloobie gets stuck in a recursive pop-up asking for authorization to install a piece of software, once he gives up, and agrees he sees a 500 page EULA stating that the software has to right to do basically whatever it wants and he agrees to allow it.
3.) Cloobie is happy, he has found what he wanted.
4.) Cloobie happens to be on a company-owned computer and the software writes itself to all open shares, doing techniques like renaming other executable files and taking their names. The program silently installs on anyone's computer who runs the executables, and then the executable simply passes on to the real app they wanted to run.
End result is a virus that could technically be construed as legal, even if on shakey ground.
Imagine if WhenU wins. I can just see the massive amounts of viral spam that will flood the internet. People will begin writing viruses for the sole purpose of spreading their advertisements. No longer will they just mislead and trick helpless users into installing their "applications," but also they'll be proactive and force people to install their "applications" by exploiting bugs in common e-mail clients and internet browsers.
The good side is that the problem is self healing. If they lose, no problem it's all good. If they win, spammers will take it too far and it will get repealed.
Perhaps for this very reason he asked a friend who lives in a country where it's not an issue to test it for him. You're making blind unfounded assumptions. Just because something seems very likely, and it would be silly for it not to be, does not in fact mean that it is. Oh, and yes, I'm serious.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely, I did misread. That does sound cool :)
It seems like anyone's not liking of criminal mismanagement and Pump-And-Dump rules would trump their like of IP lawsuits...
I wonder if they'll let Darl share cells with Martha Stewart?
I do the same, but I certainly would NOT want a GPS with me when I do it. The whole point is to have fun trying to find your way back home. I mean really if you're REALLY lost and you REALLY need to get home, just stop and ask for directions, it's usually quicker and more accurate anyway.
I see this as an excellent opportunity to make use of the millitary's super-secret robot project the "AWESOM-O 4000." These robots are just amazing... from the re-inforced rugged paper-based shell to the numerous spare-battery holders on the unit.
This isn't going for skills it's going for battlefield intelligence training. Obviously there are better ways to train a soldier to point a gun than to hand them a mouse. This is entertaining, cheap training that all of the soldiers can use when they aren't on duty. Think checkpoint training...
Apple is doing this to insure that the music you purchase on iTMS can only be used on the iPOD. Isn't that obvious? Why can't you people see it? It's only a side effect that it helps passify the RIAA.
[n/t]
This is, in my opinion, a stupid cause looking to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Why bother protesting TV by not watching?
1.) Your TV time may be reduced permanently? If I want to watch less television, I will You don't have to stop watching for a week to make a plan to stop watching as much and stick to it.
2.) TV may cause ADD in children. Excellent point, let's make movement then to only allow children to watch a set amount of television on a weekly basis. Get government behind it to mandate television manufacturers allow restrictions be placed on the amount of television watched by using a passcode system or just give the children a special remote and have the hours tracked that way. Let the parents of course choose how many hours per week they're allowed. Remember, shutting your television off for a week isn't going to make anyone else a better parent, some people just make bad parents.
3.) Less TV time means kids ask for fewer toys. See #2.
4.) Kids gain weight by wathcing mroe TV. See #2.
5.) Kids spend more time watching TV than studying. See #2, be a good parent, enforce restrictions.
6.) TV news alienates kids, lacks details. This one is just silly, the site complains that the kids are staying up on national events and that kids complain the news lacks details and they want more information. So the TV not only teaches about hte current events, it inspires them to do independent research... how is this bad?
7.) Kids absorb and mimic televised violence. See #2, give the parents the tools to limit what their children watch. If the parents don't care to limit it, they have bigger problems than just what they're watching, they have parents who don't care... lots more risks invovled in that.
8.) Television and Childhood Injuries: Is There A Connection? -- Their argument here is that because the children watch TV their reaction time, etc is impaired and it causes them to get hurt more often. My answer: Let's compare the number of injuries sustained while playing on a playground or in a park or any team sport to those sustained while watching television. I rest my case. Kids get hurt, there are a lot more dangerous things that are OKAY for kids but TV is bad because it's been linked VERY INDIRECTLY by one study to making children more accident prone? Here's an idea, make them play some video games to get their reaction speed and coordination up... or wait, is that against the rules too?
9.) TV Re-inforces sex roles and stereotyping -- TV doesn't re-inforce sex roles and stereotyping, sex roles and stereotyping re-inforces sex roles and stereotyping. Again, go to the government, mandate a 'sex roels and stereotyping' flag just like the other codes used to rate TV and films and then go back to answer #2, and set limits on what you and your children watch.
10.) Less TV means less aggression. *SIGH*I Grow tired of the "GUNS KILL PEOPLE" approach. more AGGRESSION means more AGGRESSION. Set limits on your television or stop watching it. Talk to your children, explain violence is not okay.
Alright enough of this. my point: TV IS Technology. It is not the problem. Turning it off is not going to solve any of your problems except maybe lowering your power bill and disabling your babysitter long enough that you maybe TALK TO YOUR CHILDREN.
I would just like to see an end to the legal protections for bad code. Law has no place in DRM, period. Companies are releasing their works in digital formats of THEIR choosing, but they are still releasing them, let's not forget that. I don't think the law should protect the fact that they release them more open than they intended to. I believe that since I paid for the file I should be able to do whatever I like with it, it's mine. If I want to I should be allowed to turn it into a different format, play it on any device I want or delete it at my own will, PERIOD. If they want to protect their interests, they have two options in my mind.
1.) They can make me agree to a contract or license stating how I am permitted to use the media.
2.) They can keep trying to write unbreakable encryption... good luck.
Now, you're going to say that yes, they did choose both options, and thus I've broken the rules by changing the format of my media, and if I break the contract/license I agreed to then you're right, and they shoudl take me to court and sue me to protect their interests. But the second part is entirely seperate. I still should have the right to write a program that will play any kind of file I want. I want the same protection on the internet and with computers that all other industries have. Just because guns are used to kill people you don't see the families of victims sending Cease and Decist orders to Smith&Wesson... or at least they have no fear of having to stop making their guns. It's rediculous and it's high time we start taking our rights back in America.
What's with the horrible examples today?
This is not at all the same. In this case you're the ONLY one copying and distributing the book. Thus you are infriginging COPYrights. In the case of Linux a LOT of people are copying and thus infringing. Let's start a list:
1.) The person who submitted the code.
2.) The person who committed the code.
3.) The person who uploaded the kernel.
4.) Everyone who offers the kernel for download
4a.) All websites/mirrors that offer the kernel.
4b.) All products with the kernel incorporated into them (PVRs, mp3 players, toasters, who knows).
4c.) All makes of linux distributions (RH, Novell, etc)
4d.) All computer manufacturers that sell computers with linux (HP, IBM, etc).
Alright, have I made my point? Not just the person committing the infringed code is at risk.
I'm not saying it isn't doable, I'm saying that the cost of an insurance plan that could handle a full blown attack by Microsoft would be more expensive that most people would be willing to pay. It's also difficult to sell insurance on something you get for free. I'm skeptical about this business plan working. That's all I'm saying.
And yet you still aren't smart enough to figure out it was just an example. Another good example is if John Doe puts win2k source into linux for shits and giggles. The result is the same except that MS hasn't done anything illegal this time, and they're the ones being infringed upon. Back away from the microscope, put it away, and look at the big picture.
But why would they want to expend them on something with such a HUGE and totally unpredictable risk.
You'll now have to flamebait other companies by comparing them to SCO.
Not nearly as much as -1 offtopic posters.
I'll bite. Because MS can pay John Doe to contribute code from the leaked win2k source into linux and then sue every distributor of linux out of existance for copyright infringement. The problem here is that if something like this happens where MS gets turned loose, no insurance company will stick by without going bankrupt.
Don't mod this guy positively. While he makes a good point he does it in a childish immature troll-like fashion. These are exactly the kind of people we DON'T WANT pursueing violations of the GPL. It's these kinds of people that destroy the whole spirit of the GPL. The point of the GPL is not to try to weasel money out of people for a violation that is corrected with a casual mention and not even a C&D letter. The point of the GPL is to make sure people redistribute the software with any improvements they make.
Do the GPL a favor and mod parent TROLL.
That's the worst example you could have possibly given. You did not write the windows source code. Justin wrote the WASTE code.
On the other side of this if you place two strong magnets next to eachother pointing north to south like this: [ ] And place attach them to a series of cogs such that when they pull closer they cause a rotation, and attach a DC motor to that rotation, you will generate electricity off of the motor when they pull together. I don't know of a way to significantly harness the power that the two magnets display, but this does prove that the magnets can be used to generate electricity. Movement requires energy of some kind, and magnets are able to make this movement, which means they do contain energy. It's not totally impossible that he's found a way to get some of the energy out of these magnets, but i'm VERY, VERY skeptical.
I have a question.... How (in)efficient is it to connect two DC motors directly together. Let's say you have apply 100mW 9V to one motor (rated accordingly) with the shaft directly connected to an identical motor. What will be the output on the second motor? What percentage of loss will there be? If this guy is actually harnessing the power of a magnet to turn the fans he builds... Why can't this same technology be applied to generators? If his theory is correct that he is actually taking energy from the earth (non electro-) magnet, and he actually gets 80% of the energy in this way... Let's see...
Let's assume that the motor-to-motor hookup i described provides 16% of the original power; giving the motor a 40% loss of power when turning electricity into rotation and another 40% loss when translating rotation back to electricity (100 *.4*.4=16) (THIS IS ENTIRELY A GUESS. I can't find any rating on how much power loss is involved).
Okay so let's say I hook up two of this guys motors together in the same way. According to the article it takes 80% less wattage (1/5th of normally required amount of power) to provide the same power... So let's say I apply 100mW again. I'm really getting the effect of applying 500mW to a conventional motor. Let's assume the same loss rate in conversion to force and back (40% each time) except now I have 500*.4=200mW of rotational force. Let's do this again for the generator... but since it's 5 times as efficient I have 200mW*5*.4=400mW. So my end effect would be 100mW into 400mW. I don't for a second think this is possible, but assuming my 40% guess for loss in power with DC motors and Generators isn't way off base then it's exactly what this guy is trying to tell us...
That's the part you're not understanding. It IS possible for a court to rule that part of the GPL is unenforcable. They could easily say that the restrictions on re-releasing derivitive works under GPL is not legal because it seeks to take rights awaay from the creator of the derivitive work. I know, I know, now you're thinking, "Well fine, then the writer of the derivitive work is in violation because they have no right to use the parent work." But that's only if the court decides to interpret it that way. What if the court decides to say instead, that all terms are allowed except the redistribution terms. That because the original owner of the work has already given the writer of the derivitive work license to use and to create derivitive works, because, in fact they have. It's not an all or nothing case, the GPL can lose... I hope it doesn't, but it can.
Because we all know that only researchers and vendors who report their findings to CERT immediately are capable of finding problems in code. And we also know from his article that the only way to create an exploit for a vulnerability is to wait until the patch comes out and reverse engineer it.
Okay, honestly though, I can agree with some of his arguments, they are fine, but to make backward assumptions like they did by not mentioning the fact that black-hats can actually find and exploit vulnerabilities for months before a single report makes it to CERT or to the vendor is just irresponsible journalism.
If WhenU wins the court will make a statement which will limit what laws the government are allowed to make. They're near viral already. Have you ever tried to remove one of the bad ones using "Add/remove programs?" It simply re-installs itself as a different name. That's VERY borderline viral already. They also use misleading popups to install themselves. Some will install using the plugin-style remark, "You need to download and install this plug-in for internet explorer in order to view the current webpage."
If they win, they will do things like the following scenario with a particularly unskilled computer user, we'll call him "Cloobie":
1.) Cloobie searches the web for a program to synchronize his computer's clock to a standard source.
2.) Cloobie gets stuck in a recursive pop-up asking for authorization to install a piece of software, once he gives up, and agrees he sees a 500 page EULA stating that the software has to right to do basically whatever it wants and he agrees to allow it.
3.) Cloobie is happy, he has found what he wanted.
4.) Cloobie happens to be on a company-owned computer and the software writes itself to all open shares, doing techniques like renaming other executable files and taking their names. The program silently installs on anyone's computer who runs the executables, and then the executable simply passes on to the real app they wanted to run.
End result is a virus that could technically be construed as legal, even if on shakey ground.
Imagine if WhenU wins. I can just see the massive amounts of viral spam that will flood the internet. People will begin writing viruses for the sole purpose of spreading their advertisements. No longer will they just mislead and trick helpless users into installing their "applications," but also they'll be proactive and force people to install their "applications" by exploiting bugs in common e-mail clients and internet browsers.
The good side is that the problem is self healing. If they lose, no problem it's all good. If they win, spammers will take it too far and it will get repealed.
Perhaps for this very reason he asked a friend who lives in a country where it's not an issue to test it for him. You're making blind unfounded assumptions. Just because something seems very likely, and it would be silly for it not to be, does not in fact mean that it is. Oh, and yes, I'm serious.