I think most people would agree that stealing is stealing.
I guess that my above post must not have made my point at all. You don't see the difference between stealing a book (hence depriving someone of a physical good) and xeroxing that same book? One causes damage to an individual, and the other does not--provided that you would not have bought a copy anyway.
Copyright infringement is called stealing, but it is a different order of property crime.
2,000 high-quality digital images -- value $0.00 they're just bytes
Hundreds of video files of "Episode II," from concept shots to final clips, valued at $100,000 -- value $0.00, they are talking about computer files, right?
About 113 storyboard images - or sketches outlining scenes from the film - with handwritten notes by Lucas, valued at more than $100,000 -- now this is hard to value. Were they digital or dead tree? Were these the only copies? Given the inflated claims for the other items, I'd be skeptical.
Well I don't know about ideals of safety or such stuff, but I do know how society makes laws. Things that damage society a lot generally get punished more than things that damage society a little. Murder vs. stealing, what not.
The damage to society done by stealing is easy enough to estimate. You steal a car, and you've stolen the value of the car from that person.
Now, is copyright infringement stealing? No, because the damage is on a fundamentally different order. If you copy a copyrighted work, and what is the damage? It's the amount of money that the copyright holder would have otherwise got if the violation had not taken place. This can be more than the cost of an individual copy, less, or even negative. Simply calling all copyright infringement stealing completely ducks the issue and creates a draconian legal system.
He didn't steal something--stealing is depriving someone of a good that they own. No one was deprived, however he did violate copyright law and contract law.
This is illegal, of course. But how much damage did he do? The $450,000 figure is probably silly. I'd imagine that no money was actually lost. Anyone hard up enough to acquire the pirated good before release certainly went to watch it in theatre.
illegal is illegal
Hardly. There are levels of crimes. We don't punish traffic code violators like we do murderers. With no real damage, this is on the level of petty misdemeanor.
Hell, the SR-71 kept getting these wierd black splotches on the wind screen when flying at maximum altitude. The did some tests and found it was running into bugs. Of course, bugs can't be up that high, can they?
Turned out that they had been kicked up by the atomic testing earlier in the decade.
According to RMS: If you even run bitkeeper, you can't contribute to CVS or other competetors.
That seems to be quite a restriction. Imagine a Microsoft EULA that says: if you run Windows, you can't contribute to Linux.
RMS has a point. Licenses like these are there to kill free software alternatives.
Goddamn, but what has happened to slashdot? Judging by the posts from the majority of the slashdot crowd, I think that they'd be happier if slashdot started reporting every new Microsoft Update patch instead of new Kernal releases.
If this is adopted by everyone, you are correct. I'd imagine though, that it would be only a small percentage of web sites that would change their serving method. It would be small, individually run, though popular sites that might try this. Right now the biggest problem with the web is that there is no way to transfer costs to the customer. Ads don't help. Paypal stickers don't help. This might work better than 1-2 cent donations to the web sites that you visit. And in the end, it would end up breaking the current economics of the web.
You are right. In fact, hell, cache the backbone itself so no one gets left out.
But here is what I meant by glut. Most people's connections (with exceptions), broadband or dial-up, are silent most of the time. They don't pay any more whether they use that bandwidth or not. In fact, if upstream is too limited, you can chop individual web pages up, just like you would presumably do with large downloads. For small web pages, the number of users that would be currently downloading the page at any one time would be far smaller than the number of users who had visited the web page recently, and were not using their connection at the moment. Sure, I might look at 5 web pages in a short period. But the amount of time I spend browsing those pages would generally be far greater than the amount of time it would take to send them all on up the pipe.
There are ways to deal with that. 5 minute blacklisting for users who alter what they send (MH5 checks would catch that ) or users who fail to send.
But really, I wouldn't bother with blacklisting or what not, it doesn't matter if a small number of users don't play the game. As long as the majority of clueless IE users follow the herd like sheep, then it won't hurt the overall system.
You don't. Javascript or bust, I'm afraid. Dynamic sites would either have to use traditional means of serving, or go half and half.
Then again, perhaps there is one other possiblity, if the actual dynamic state information is small enough, the main server could send the user-specific information, while the general page is sent out P2P. Then the client computer could assemble everything. For example, the slashdot server would send out your username, while the P2P net sends the general main page. On the client computer, your username is inserted at the top, and the main page would look like it does now.
I looked at both web sites. As far as I could tell neither project did what I have just suggested. Squid is superficially similar, but it is a tool for speeding up web-page loads, not saving bandwidth. It could be altered, of course.
Akamai doesn't do anything about bandwidth. It just stores information in its network closer to the end user.
How do either one of these make it cheaper to host a web site?
No problem at all. MH5 everything. The main server still sends out the signature. The software could handle everything. If it gets an altered page, it would simply notify the network of the offending party, and request another download.
Right now there is a major server-side bandwidth shortage. It's expensive to run a major web site. There is a client-side bandwidth glut. It's cheap to browse the internet.
The server-side bandwidth cost means is very hard to host significant content for low cost, especially if you start to get popular. This hurts web content for everyone.
The solution? P2P-type networks. Move that client-side bandwidth over to the server side. Why should someone download a web page or file from a single server when they could download it from the last ten people who viewed that same page or file? Sending every web page you visit on to another person (or 5 people) does not incur a significant rise in the cost of you connection. Sending a web page to a million people a month from one server does.
And when P2P starts to open up the web for everyone, there are going to be a lot of people who are going to be pretty sorry that they were so narrow-minded that they made it easy for colleges, cable companies, and phone companies to restrict bandwidth for P2P networks just to save a few dollars.
1.) Make very good friends with her mother (or anybody that she is likely to contact.)
2.) Lie. This is unfortunate, but necessary. She's lying about you. Lie to that relative about her, and the dangers she presents to your child. Fabricate proof.
3.) Tell the relative that you aren't interested in going to the authorities or even taking your daughter away from her mother. Give messages to the relative to pass on to your daughter, "just in case you hear from her mother."
4.) Wait. Eventually there will be contact. Don't try to take your daughter back yourself, but don't fully trust the police either. Before contacting the authorities, personally make sure that you have direct exact knowledge of your daughter's position so that the mother can't get away in case the police bumble.
I am only suggesting something this extreme because you say that your daughter is in real danger.
Anyone thinking about replying with 5.)??? 6.) Profit to this post needs serious mental help.
No, it doesn't mean that the system is secure. It just means it is secure as practicable. Quite a difference. But it's also kind of meaningless, as the cost of buying an insider is hard to estimate. Depends on what you'll willing to do. Torture is very cheap.
By the way, doable is a real word. Doability seems like a valid extension. Its meaning is obvious and it serves a useful purpose. Feasible and feasiblility are possible synonyms, but they don't have the connotations. 'That is feasible' means 'that is possible.' But 'that is doable' connotes 'I can do that' or some such attitude.
It is not tamper proof. The vulnerability is the enivronment sensors, which can be neutralized. The worst design flaw is that the IBM4732 doesn't have a block of thermite sitting on top that destroys the hardware in case of tampering. That wouldn't be fool-proof, but would mean that your lab would destroy a number of them in the initial 'figuring out how it works' stage. (Even better than thermite is a larger bomb that kills your scientists along with destroying the device. But scientists are replacable, so all you are really doing is raising costs.) Without the thermite, your lab only needs to procure one extra, take it apart, find all the tamper sensors and figure out a method to neutralize them. After that, you can take apart all the IC's with impunity. And really at this point your work is done. You duplicate the RAM contents, figure out the private keys (they have to be stored somewhere), and you have all the information. Very expensive process, but doable.
A very interesting historical parallel is the British bomb defusers, who worked on defusing failed German bombs. At first it was dangerous, but still relatively easy. Afterwards the Germans starting figuring out ways to booby-trap the bombs just in case they didn't go off right away. This was defeated. And finally they engineered bombs specifically to kill bomb defuse teams. Even this was defeated. A very interesting history that includes many of the greatest acts of bravery during the war.
I suppose that people who can't figure out the answers to their own questions exist, but it would be better if the professors didn't help them out. Give a man a fish...what not.
As for your more interesting question:
Twice. Our high school had this huge library with private study rooms. They had windows, but if you went all the way to the back when it was late, there usually wasn't anyone to bother you. For the period of my life between puberty and getting a car, it was make-out central.
Now a public library, that sounds hard. It's easy to pick up a girl at a library, but actually getting laid in the library...
There is always the bathrooms, but that is kind of gross.
Between rows of thick books might be possible, I suppose. The religion section would be a wonderful place to try it. It feels naughty, and there are never that many people checking it out.
Slashdot Mirror
I think most people would agree that stealing is stealing.
I guess that my above post must not have made my point at all. You don't see the difference between stealing a book (hence depriving someone of a physical good) and xeroxing that same book? One causes damage to an individual, and the other does not--provided that you would not have bought a copy anyway.
Copyright infringement is called stealing, but it is a different order of property crime.
This guy, however, is facing thirteen felony counts, with penalties that can lead to incarceration over seven years.
And hence the injustice.
Where is the level of harm to individuals and society that would warrent this?
19 CD-ROM disks -- value $9.00 at Best Buy
2,000 high-quality digital images -- value $0.00 they're just bytes
Hundreds of video files of "Episode II," from concept shots to final clips, valued at $100,000 -- value $0.00, they are talking about computer files, right?
About 113 storyboard images - or sketches outlining scenes from the film - with handwritten notes by Lucas, valued at more than $100,000 -- now this is hard to value. Were they digital or dead tree? Were these the only copies? Given the inflated claims for the other items, I'd be skeptical.
Total: $9.00
Slashdot has been hacked, right? That's the explanation for this story. It has to be..
Well I don't know about ideals of safety or such stuff, but I do know how society makes laws. Things that damage society a lot generally get punished more than things that damage society a little. Murder vs. stealing, what not.
The damage to society done by stealing is easy enough to estimate. You steal a car, and you've stolen the value of the car from that person.
Now, is copyright infringement stealing? No, because the damage is on a fundamentally different order. If you copy a copyrighted work, and what is the damage? It's the amount of money that the copyright holder would have otherwise got if the violation had not taken place. This can be more than the cost of an individual copy, less, or even negative. Simply calling all copyright infringement stealing completely ducks the issue and creates a draconian legal system.
He didn't steal something--stealing is depriving someone of a good that they own. No one was deprived, however he did violate copyright law and contract law.
This is illegal, of course. But how much damage did he do? The $450,000 figure is probably silly. I'd imagine that no money was actually lost. Anyone hard up enough to acquire the pirated good before release certainly went to watch it in theatre.
illegal is illegal
Hardly. There are levels of crimes. We don't punish traffic code violators like we do murderers. With no real damage, this is on the level of petty misdemeanor.
Hell, the SR-71 kept getting these wierd black splotches on the wind screen when flying at maximum altitude. The did some tests and found it was running into bugs. Of course, bugs can't be up that high, can they?
Turned out that they had been kicked up by the atomic testing earlier in the decade.
I don't know about you, but I've never agreed to a software EULA in my life. That's what 12 year-old younger brothers are for.
According to RMS: If you even run bitkeeper, you can't contribute to CVS or other competetors.
That seems to be quite a restriction. Imagine a Microsoft EULA that says: if you run Windows, you can't contribute to Linux.
RMS has a point. Licenses like these are there to kill free software alternatives.
Goddamn, but what has happened to slashdot? Judging by the posts from the majority of the slashdot crowd, I think that they'd be happier if slashdot started reporting every new Microsoft Update patch instead of new Kernal releases.
That's about 8k/s per student. Doesn't sound like much compared to tuition and fees. What was your cost per student?
If this is adopted by everyone, you are correct. I'd imagine though, that it would be only a small percentage of web sites that would change their serving method. It would be small, individually run, though popular sites that might try this. Right now the biggest problem with the web is that there is no way to transfer costs to the customer. Ads don't help. Paypal stickers don't help. This might work better than 1-2 cent donations to the web sites that you visit. And in the end, it would end up breaking the current economics of the web.
But so what?
You are right. In fact, hell, cache the backbone itself so no one gets left out.
But here is what I meant by glut. Most people's connections (with exceptions), broadband or dial-up, are silent most of the time. They don't pay any more whether they use that bandwidth or not. In fact, if upstream is too limited, you can chop individual web pages up, just like you would presumably do with large downloads. For small web pages, the number of users that would be currently downloading the page at any one time would be far smaller than the number of users who had visited the web page recently, and were not using their connection at the moment. Sure, I might look at 5 web pages in a short period. But the amount of time I spend browsing those pages would generally be far greater than the amount of time it would take to send them all on up the pipe.
There are ways to deal with that. 5 minute blacklisting for users who alter what they send (MH5 checks would catch that ) or users who fail to send.
But really, I wouldn't bother with blacklisting or what not, it doesn't matter if a small number of users don't play the game. As long as the majority of clueless IE users follow the herd like sheep, then it won't hurt the overall system.
You don't. Javascript or bust, I'm afraid. Dynamic sites would either have to use traditional means of serving, or go half and half.
Then again, perhaps there is one other possiblity, if the actual dynamic state information is small enough, the main server could send the user-specific information, while the general page is sent out P2P. Then the client computer could assemble everything. For example, the slashdot server would send out your username, while the P2P net sends the general main page. On the client computer, your username is inserted at the top, and the main page would look like it does now.
I looked at both web sites. As far as I could tell neither project did what I have just suggested. Squid is superficially similar, but it is a tool for speeding up web-page loads, not saving bandwidth. It could be altered, of course.
Akamai doesn't do anything about bandwidth. It just stores information in its network closer to the end user.
How do either one of these make it cheaper to host a web site?
Because my website won't let you view my pages until you do.
Multiply by all the web sites in the world that don't want to pay so much for what they serve.
No problem at all. MH5 everything. The main server still sends out the signature. The software could handle everything. If it gets an altered page, it would simply notify the network of the offending party, and request another download.
Before everyone goes off on P2P:
Right now there is a major server-side bandwidth shortage. It's expensive to run a major web site. There is a client-side bandwidth glut. It's cheap to browse the internet.
The server-side bandwidth cost means is very hard to host significant content for low cost, especially if you start to get popular. This hurts web content for everyone.
The solution? P2P-type networks. Move that client-side bandwidth over to the server side. Why should someone download a web page or file from a single server when they could download it from the last ten people who viewed that same page or file? Sending every web page you visit on to another person (or 5 people) does not incur a significant rise in the cost of you connection. Sending a web page to a million people a month from one server does.
And when P2P starts to open up the web for everyone, there are going to be a lot of people who are going to be pretty sorry that they were so narrow-minded that they made it easy for colleges, cable companies, and phone companies to restrict bandwidth for P2P networks just to save a few dollars.
1.) Make very good friends with her mother (or anybody that she is likely to contact.)
2.) Lie. This is unfortunate, but necessary. She's lying about you. Lie to that relative about her, and the dangers she presents to your child. Fabricate proof.
3.) Tell the relative that you aren't interested in going to the authorities or even taking your daughter away from her mother. Give messages to the relative to pass on to your daughter, "just in case you hear from her mother."
4.) Wait. Eventually there will be contact. Don't try to take your daughter back yourself, but don't fully trust the police either. Before contacting the authorities, personally make sure that you have direct exact knowledge of your daughter's position so that the mother can't get away in case the police bumble.
I am only suggesting something this extreme because you say that your daughter is in real danger.
Anyone thinking about replying with 5.)??? 6.) Profit to this post needs serious mental help.
No, it doesn't mean that the system is secure. It just means it is secure as practicable. Quite a difference. But it's also kind of meaningless, as the cost of buying an insider is hard to estimate. Depends on what you'll willing to do. Torture is very cheap.
By the way, doable is a real word. Doability seems like a valid extension. Its meaning is obvious and it serves a useful purpose. Feasible and feasiblility are possible synonyms, but they don't have the connotations. 'That is feasible' means 'that is possible.' But 'that is doable' connotes 'I can do that' or some such attitude.
So I'd suggest leaving the [sic] out next time.
It is not tamper proof. The vulnerability is the enivronment sensors, which can be neutralized. The worst design flaw is that the IBM4732 doesn't have a block of thermite sitting on top that destroys the hardware in case of tampering. That wouldn't be fool-proof, but would mean that your lab would destroy a number of them in the initial 'figuring out how it works' stage. (Even better than thermite is a larger bomb that kills your scientists along with destroying the device. But scientists are replacable, so all you are really doing is raising costs.) Without the thermite, your lab only needs to procure one extra, take it apart, find all the tamper sensors and figure out a method to neutralize them. After that, you can take apart all the IC's with impunity. And really at this point your work is done. You duplicate the RAM contents, figure out the private keys (they have to be stored somewhere), and you have all the information. Very expensive process, but doable.
A very interesting historical parallel is the British bomb defusers, who worked on defusing failed German bombs. At first it was dangerous, but still relatively easy. Afterwards the Germans starting figuring out ways to booby-trap the bombs just in case they didn't go off right away. This was defeated. And finally they engineered bombs specifically to kill bomb defuse teams. Even this was defeated. A very interesting history that includes many of the greatest acts of bravery during the war.
So Stanley is facing life in jail because this guy Barker (a murder suspect) testified that Stanley kidnapped him? I wouldn't take Barker at his word.
Hell, you can even program a computer to do it for you automagically.
Are you saying that the aliens who built the pyramids were actually DINOSAURS?
I suppose that people who can't figure out the answers to their own questions exist, but it would be better if the professors didn't help them out. Give a man a fish...what not.
As for your more interesting question:
Twice. Our high school had this huge library with private study rooms. They had windows, but if you went all the way to the back when it was late, there usually wasn't anyone to bother you. For the period of my life between puberty and getting a car, it was make-out central.
Now a public library, that sounds hard. It's easy to pick up a girl at a library, but actually getting laid in the library...
There is always the bathrooms, but that is kind of gross.
Between rows of thick books might be possible, I suppose. The religion section would be a wonderful place to try it. It feels naughty, and there are never that many people checking it out.
Thank you, AC, I'll report back to you in a week.