News flash: not everyone can afford a cell phone. More people have at least dial up internet connections (or access to one) than have cell phones.
Cell phones are a luxury for the rich. I cannot afford one. I don't feel like I'm missing much anyway. It reminds me of people who absolutely must have a laptop even though they are usually either at work or at home. How often do most people really use their laptops outside or on a plane or whatever?
Why would you want to always be reachable anyway. It's a PITA. That's what answering machines and email were invented for. I don't like peck typing on a tiny keyboard anyway. How that could be considered efficient communication is beyond me. What's wrong with just calling them (hence the "phone" part in "cell phone") and leaving a message if they are not available.
I really don't understand the appeal. Maybe you really do have to be a teenager to "get it".
Ah, another Corvette/Lotus fan. Well, welcome aboard. As far as I'm concerned no other cars exist either. Fiberglass is very light, and I don't want to live forever anyway.
When you're only 15, it seems like every problem has a solution, like every problem can "surely be solved". Scientists, shmientists. What do they know. They're adults. All they know is what can't be done. Just give him an hour or two to think about it, and he'll surely come up with a portable fusion reactor or a fuel cell that makes its own hydrogen.
I just wish those scientists would hurry up with a cheap, fast charging, super-mega-ultra-high energy density battery chemistry. I have been waiting, arms crossed, for decades. I am starting to get impatient. Can't we just break the laws of physics once in a while? I don't see the harm if we just do it occasionally. Is a God-like creature going to strike us down with lightning or something?
Many young children, victims of brain damage, and mentally retarded people could not pass that test either. Is "intelligence" really the only defining characteristic of human-ness?
Why not just outlaw dresses if everyone is so worried about it? If a woman is so afraid of someone seeing her panties then she should stop wearing short skirts. Pretty soon men will be arrested for merely glancing (staring has already been outlawed) at an attractive woman.
Any country where only the government can take your picture without permission is not one that I would want to live in.
oops. It seems that a clock designed for the earth's frame of reference will actually tick slower on the spaceship. So, the spaceship's clock may actually only read about 3 minutes (assuming the time dilation factor in the example).
I suppose you could have two different clocks onboard. A normal clock that would display spaceship time and another much faster clock that would compensate for time dilation by ticking x times faster and display earth time.
First, near-light speed is not possible anytime soon. (Not in the time frame of this project.)
Now that's the understatement of the century. The same could be said for human hibernation. This would be a far more important achievement than getting to Mars, which I hope was the point.
Secondly, if we had near-light speed, the trip will take an hour and a half by our time.
I think it's more like 15 minutes.
Near light speed travel will be bad for the astronauts because their time will take forever to pass
From our perspective (say, watching them with a telescope), their onboard clocks are only ticking at 1/10 the speed of ours, but the astronauts are also being slowed down compared to us. So from their perspective the trip will still seem to take about 15 minutes. Both of our clocks should read 15 minutes. It's just that one minute for them may equal about 10 for us. They will only age, say, 3 earth minutes for the round trip. While we would age the full 30 minutes.
4b. Is anyone actually claiming these people have not been illegally copying music? If so, great, love to hear from you.
Is anyone claiming they can prove that they have? If so I would love to hear from them. The truth is that the RIAA are actually on shaky legal ground when it comes to traditional standards of evidence and proof. It's just lucky for them that they don't need any. To be accused is to be guilty when it comes to file sharing of copyrighted works.
Has anyone noticed that the RIAA employed slashdot posters seem to have Saturday off? I'm sure on Monday we will see scores of anti-P2P "it's stealing, you dirty thieves" posts. Hey, it's a living.
You are liable if the RIAA says you are. Unless you happen to be very very rich or live in a small village in Central Africa where they name strange, deadly viruses after the river where you wash your clothes. End of story.
Did you post this anonymously because you're karma is too high? The **AA will be applying for a patent on this exact idea tomorrow. Anyone who tries it will get sued for patent infringement.
And since the RIAA and MPAA more or less own Congress, it's a mute point. They will just have a new law passed that makes any "mathematical derivation" of copyrighted information even more of a violation than the original.
I have little doubt that many of the people paying those RIAA out of court settlements only had partial files. Most people don't have the money to fight a huge corporation in court merely on the chance of getting a sympathetic judge who also believes that the plaintiff needs to actually prove its case.
If you need a good legal defense, it's already too late. That's why I prefer plain old anonymity. Before they can take you to court they have to find you.
Still it's certainly better than nothing and would be infinitely faster than TCP/IP obscuration, many men in the middle, strategies. I've never seen a practical implementation of anonymous p2p that wasn't painfully slow.
If only ISPs included anonymous proxies with their service plans and only kept logs for 4-6 hours.
If that's the case you can use one of those old active jammers. I think I still have one around somewhere. You may be able to get a great deal on a used one.
There's nothing like the rush of shooting past a cop at 90 mph without getting chased. Not that I would recommend doing so intentionally. The more common scenario is jamming on your brakes when you see them and not getting a ticket even though you were doing 90 when he shot you (and you had obviously jammed on your breaks).
Up here in the northeast, they use Ka and laser a lot. I guess they used all that ticket revenue to buy new equipment. I hate when I see them using lasers. I think "what if they aim that thing in my eye?".
Guess what pal. "Fair use" is criminal activity too. The DMCA laws are every bit as real and illegal as the "copyright infringement" laws. If copyright infringers are criminals then so are DMCA violators. Neither set of laws has anything to do with theft.
Copyright laws have to do with setting up an artificial monopoly for the creator of an original work which can then be legally transferred to Mega-corparotions for a lot of fame and (depending on marketing factors) either a little or a lot of money. They are not some God-given basic right or anything. And it has nothing to do with property rights. Property is a completely unrelated concept.
Isn't it strange how the more laws like this that they pass the more "criminals" seem to be manufactured to fill our jails. Must seem like a big mystery to you.
Please defend your idea that downloading music is "MORALLY WRONG". Are you going to defend it by saying that it's ILLEGAL? Of course, since illegal=morally wrong.
The truth is that the music industry has no chance to "win" this fight in the long run. Eventually programs like freenet and mute etc. will improve and become more popular as the laws get more and more draconian. Sure music downloading will never be as fast or as efficient as it is now, but that just means people will just have to wait a bit more to download their music. It won't be the end of the world.
OTOH, it's probably a lot more likely that our jails will literally be overflowing with the new P2P criminals (as happened with the drug war) than normal non-anonymous P2P being stopped. The herd mentality to take your chances in the hope that someone else will be chased down by the lion will prevail.
Perhaps in a decade or so, this will even be referred to as the War on Piracy or the War on Illegal File Sharing and it will be seen as hopeless but forever necessary just like the War on Drugs.
"Democracy" is not really a form of government per say, and it is certainly not what the US has or has ever had. It is just a fairly arbitrary way of deciding who (among mostly identical candidates) gets to run things. It has nothing to do with how they are run. That's what a constitution is usually for.
These somewhat trivial decisions (as demonstrated for instance by the nearly identical results of the last few US presidents) can be decided by rolling some dice or by counting votes. Either way the government will function just as it always has.
In theory, you could have a form of communism where the leaders were elected into office: democratic communism or democratic socialism. In fact I don't think democratic socialism is all that uncommon in world politics. If the majority of voters believe in Socialism or Communism, they may elect a politician with such beliefs.
Of course if we had a true "democracy". That is just simple majority rule, where every law was voted as a referendum by every voter in the country, I doubt laws like this would have much of a chance. It's one thing to pay off 30 (admittedly rich) people. It's another thing entirely to try to pay off 30 million P2P users.
Hey Dan. Someone just keyed your Porsche. Evil, evil, evil. It's all around us. God forbid those multibillion dollar Corporate Giants should lose even one penny of possible profits from file sharing 8 year olds who no doubt would have bought every song they downloaded.
Fact: some laws are unjust and have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with what is right or wrong.
You make it seem like Congress is deciding that anyone who gets a drink during commericals is going to jail.
And when they eventually pass such a law (it won't state it as directly as you did), you will still be claiming that the people jailed for breaking that law (criminals by definition)deserved their punishment because they "knowingly" broke the law without regard for their multibillion dollar corporate "victims".
Exactly. Why would you use encryption unless you had something to hide? No one would dare vote against the Internet Decency Act or Internet Fairness Act or whatever it will be called lest they be accused of being pedophiles and common thieves.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as we can all agree that, without exception, anyone protesting this is himself a spammer or uses spamvertising.
You gave yourself away as a spammer through the use of the word "unfairly". Illegal? Maybe. Unwise? Maybe. But unfair!?
Don't like having to get a taste of your own medicine? How's that faux kiddie-porn web site working out for ya?
Maybe it's time for you to consider other forms of advertising or just pay up for your new higher hosting bills.
I just feel that there are other ways to deal with it that will not escalate things into an all out war between spammers and netgilantes.
Care to fill us in on all these great ideas for fighting spammers?
News flash: not everyone can afford a cell phone. More people have at least dial up internet connections (or access to one) than have cell phones.
Cell phones are a luxury for the rich. I cannot afford one. I don't feel like I'm missing much anyway. It reminds me of people who absolutely must have a laptop even though they are usually either at work or at home. How often do most people really use their laptops outside or on a plane or whatever?
Why would you want to always be reachable anyway. It's a PITA. That's what answering machines and email were invented for. I don't like peck typing on a tiny keyboard anyway. How that could be considered efficient communication is beyond me. What's wrong with just calling them (hence the "phone" part in "cell phone") and leaving a message if they are not available.
I really don't understand the appeal. Maybe you really do have to be a teenager to "get it".
Doing drugs? Listening to loud music? Am I missing something?
Unless, by "partying", you mean LAN partying. I've never been to an actual "party" but I've seen lots of them on TV.
Ah, another Corvette/Lotus fan. Well, welcome aboard. As far as I'm concerned no other cars exist either. Fiberglass is very light, and I don't want to live forever anyway.
When you're only 15, it seems like every problem has a solution, like every problem can "surely be solved". Scientists, shmientists. What do they know. They're adults. All they know is what can't be done. Just give him an hour or two to think about it, and he'll surely come up with a portable fusion reactor or a fuel cell that makes its own hydrogen.
I just wish those scientists would hurry up with a cheap, fast charging, super-mega-ultra-high energy density battery chemistry. I have been waiting, arms crossed, for decades. I am starting to get impatient. Can't we just break the laws of physics once in a while? I don't see the harm if we just do it occasionally. Is a God-like creature going to strike us down with lightning or something?
Many young children, victims of brain damage, and mentally retarded people could not pass that test either. Is "intelligence" really the only defining characteristic of human-ness?
Why not just outlaw dresses if everyone is so worried about it? If a woman is so afraid of someone seeing her panties then she should stop wearing short skirts. Pretty soon men will be arrested for merely glancing (staring has already been outlawed) at an attractive woman.
Any country where only the government can take your picture without permission is not one that I would want to live in.
In what way is a photo "sexual"?
or I might be manoeuvering to take photos into the dressing room.
I wonder what kind of photos you would want to take with you into the dressing room. I'd rather not think about that one too much.
If that does not qualify as "unconcerned" (as in they just don't care), I cannot imagine what would.
Wasn't Orwell himself a socialist? Maybe he was just playing Devil's Advocate in his book.
oops. It seems that a clock designed for the earth's frame of reference will actually tick slower on the spaceship. So, the spaceship's clock may actually only read about 3 minutes (assuming the time dilation factor in the example).
I suppose you could have two different clocks onboard. A normal clock that would display spaceship time and another much faster clock that would compensate for time dilation by ticking x times faster and display earth time.
First, near-light speed is not possible anytime soon. (Not in the time frame of this project.)
Now that's the understatement of the century. The same could be said for human hibernation. This would be a far more important achievement than getting to Mars, which I hope was the point.
Secondly, if we had near-light speed, the trip will take an hour and a half by our time.
I think it's more like 15 minutes.
Near light speed travel will be bad for the astronauts because their time will take forever to pass
From our perspective (say, watching them with a telescope), their onboard clocks are only ticking at 1/10 the speed of ours, but the astronauts are also being slowed down compared to us. So from their perspective the trip will still seem to take about 15 minutes. Both of our clocks should read 15 minutes. It's just that one minute for them may equal about 10 for us. They will only age, say, 3 earth minutes for the round trip. While we would age the full 30 minutes.
4b. Is anyone actually claiming these people have not been illegally copying music? If so, great, love to hear from you.
Is anyone claiming they can prove that they have? If so I would love to hear from them. The truth is that the RIAA are actually on shaky legal ground when it comes to traditional standards of evidence and proof. It's just lucky for them that they don't need any. To be accused is to be guilty when it comes to file sharing of copyrighted works.
Has anyone noticed that the RIAA employed slashdot posters seem to have Saturday off? I'm sure on Monday we will see scores of anti-P2P "it's stealing, you dirty thieves" posts. Hey, it's a living.
You are liable if the RIAA says you are. Unless you happen to be very very rich or live in a small village in Central Africa where they name strange, deadly viruses after the river where you wash your clothes. End of story.
Did you post this anonymously because you're karma is too high? The **AA will be applying for a patent on this exact idea tomorrow. Anyone who tries it will get sued for patent infringement.
And since the RIAA and MPAA more or less own Congress, it's a mute point. They will just have a new law passed that makes any "mathematical derivation" of copyrighted information even more of a violation than the original.
I have little doubt that many of the people paying those RIAA out of court settlements only had partial files. Most people don't have the money to fight a huge corporation in court merely on the chance of getting a sympathetic judge who also believes that the plaintiff needs to actually prove its case.
If you need a good legal defense, it's already too late. That's why I prefer plain old anonymity. Before they can take you to court they have to find you.
Still it's certainly better than nothing and would be infinitely faster than TCP/IP obscuration, many men in the middle, strategies. I've never seen a practical implementation of anonymous p2p that wasn't painfully slow.
If only ISPs included anonymous proxies with their service plans and only kept logs for 4-6 hours.
the cops here still predominately use X band
If that's the case you can use one of those old active jammers. I think I still have one around somewhere. You may be able to get a great deal on a used one.
There's nothing like the rush of shooting past a cop at 90 mph without getting chased. Not that I would recommend doing so intentionally. The more common scenario is jamming on your brakes when you see them and not getting a ticket even though you were doing 90 when he shot you (and you had obviously jammed on your breaks).
Up here in the northeast, they use Ka and laser a lot. I guess they used all that ticket revenue to buy new equipment. I hate when I see them using lasers. I think "what if they aim that thing in my eye?".
Guess what pal. "Fair use" is criminal activity too. The DMCA laws are every bit as real and illegal as the "copyright infringement" laws. If copyright infringers are criminals then so are DMCA violators. Neither set of laws has anything to do with theft.
Copyright laws have to do with setting up an artificial monopoly for the creator of an original work which can then be legally transferred to Mega-corparotions for a lot of fame and (depending on marketing factors) either a little or a lot of money. They are not some God-given basic right or anything. And it has nothing to do with property rights. Property is a completely unrelated concept.
Isn't it strange how the more laws like this that they pass the more "criminals" seem to be manufactured to fill our jails. Must seem like a big mystery to you.
Please defend your idea that downloading music is "MORALLY WRONG". Are you going to defend it by saying that it's ILLEGAL? Of course, since illegal=morally wrong.
The truth is that the music industry has no chance to "win" this fight in the long run. Eventually programs like freenet and mute etc. will improve and become more popular as the laws get more and more draconian. Sure music downloading will never be as fast or as efficient as it is now, but that just means people will just have to wait a bit more to download their music. It won't be the end of the world.
OTOH, it's probably a lot more likely that our jails will literally be overflowing with the new P2P criminals (as happened with the drug war) than normal non-anonymous P2P being stopped. The herd mentality to take your chances in the hope that someone else will be chased down by the lion will prevail.
Perhaps in a decade or so, this will even be referred to as the War on Piracy or the War on Illegal File Sharing and it will be seen as hopeless but forever necessary just like the War on Drugs.
"Democracy" is not really a form of government per say, and it is certainly not what the US has or has ever had. It is just a fairly arbitrary way of deciding who (among mostly identical candidates) gets to run things. It has nothing to do with how they are run. That's what a constitution is usually for.
These somewhat trivial decisions (as demonstrated for instance by the nearly identical results of the last few US presidents) can be decided by rolling some dice or by counting votes. Either way the government will function just as it always has.
In theory, you could have a form of communism where the leaders were elected into office: democratic communism or democratic socialism. In fact I don't think democratic socialism is all that uncommon in world politics. If the majority of voters believe in Socialism or Communism, they may elect a politician with such beliefs.
Of course if we had a true "democracy". That is just simple majority rule, where every law was voted as a referendum by every voter in the country, I doubt laws like this would have much of a chance. It's one thing to pay off 30 (admittedly rich) people. It's another thing entirely to try to pay off 30 million P2P users.
Hey Dan. Someone just keyed your Porsche. Evil, evil, evil. It's all around us. God forbid those multibillion dollar Corporate Giants should lose even one penny of possible profits from file sharing 8 year olds who no doubt would have bought every song they downloaded.
Fact: some laws are unjust and have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with what is right or wrong.
You make it seem like Congress is deciding that anyone who gets a drink during commericals is going to jail.
And when they eventually pass such a law (it won't state it as directly as you did), you will still be claiming that the people jailed for breaking that law (criminals by definition)deserved their punishment because they "knowingly" broke the law without regard for their multibillion dollar corporate "victims".
Exactly. Why would you use encryption unless you had something to hide? No one would dare vote against the Internet Decency Act or Internet Fairness Act or whatever it will be called lest they be accused of being pedophiles and common thieves.