I would think that it could apply in some way. IANAL, of course, but if you're physically located outside the US but still commit a crime such as this that affects people in the US, couldn't you be expedited? Or at least have a warrant for your arrest should you enter the US? Not totally unlike what happened to Dmitry Sklyarov.
At my school, the CS department has a pretty low graduation rate, partially due to drop-outs and partially due to students switching out of CS and into something else. I've heard numbers before, and while I don't remember them, they were surprisingly low.
The problem is that not everyone can get it working. I'm a CS major and a Linux geek. Definitely not an advanced Linux user, but I know how to setup and use Gentoo, which I do, but I simply could not get CUPS to work on my system. I'm sure if I spent a good deal more time reading the documentation and playing with it, it would be easier in the future, but I, like most computer users, won't NEED to set it up more than once. I should have an easy time getting it setup and working so that I don't have to dick around with it ever again.
It should just take one person with enough resources and time to fight the legal limit of $150 000/copy infringement. From the US Constitution, Amendmend VIII:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
However, US copyright law, Title 17, Chapter 5, Section 504 (c)(2):
In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.
How is $150 000 NOT excessive? Maybe in the case of big business this could be concieveable, but for the average US citizen, $150 000 is the cost of a house, which many people pay off in a 20 year span. Granted, I don't think this fine has ever been imposed, but it's still stated as the legal maximum. That seems pretty GD excessive to me.
When I was a kid my favorite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school we'd all go play in his cave, and every once in a while he would eat one of us. It wasn't until later that I found out that Uncle Caveman was a bear.
Since my server isn't exactly what I'd consider "Slashdot Effect Ready," here are two more mirrors that should be better suited for it. Be nice or I'll have to take them down.
Something like this...
on
Ants Invade iBook
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I heard once about a problem like this before. A few cities in the southern US were having. Apparently, red ants would get into traffic lights' circuitry and completely destroy the stuff, costing a great deal of money.
It turns out that a few ants had got in there and fried. Upon their deaths, their bodies released pheremones, attracted more ants, who promptly got fried, releasing even more pheremones, attracting more ants... You get the idea.
slogg vorbis is shit. Stop whining about your fucking audio codec that no one will ever fucking suport because no one wants it. MP3 is the standard and ogg will fade away into nothing.
Firstly, how can a codec that's gaining momentum "fade into nothing"? It's not mainstream now, but neither were computers, UNIX, digital audio, etc.
Second, more and more companies are picking up OGG Vorbis support. Why is that? Well, let's see. It's a completely FREE codec that is continually getting better. It's supported by an organization that's dedicated to creating free multimedia codecs for use in open, free, and commercial use -- all without charging a cent. Most importantly, however, OGG Vorbis IS superior to WMA and MP3. If you think otherwise, try looking into some of the variouslisteningtests. Or check out Vorbis' Listen page. If you're such a blind zealot that you won't actually test various codecs, you have no right to praise or flame any codec for any reason.
Grow up and leave the technology details to people who know what they're doing and talking about.
While I agree that 60, 60, 24 isn't the most easy thing, it has been done far longer than would be easy to switch. FYI, the whole sets of 60 came from the Babylonians (which is also where we get 360 degrees in a circle). By the way, I don't see anyone trying to get the world to go to gradians (100 grads per quarter circle instead of 90 degrees).
But anyways, I'll bite. Why not go to a "metric time"? Here's why: the entire metric system is based on other parts of the metric system. What is a milliliter? Yes, it's 1/1000th of a Liter, but it's also one centimeter cubed. It's also based on water: one cubic centimeter of (pure) water is one gram. (Here's a hint: this is where mass comes from). But where do we get distances? The meter is derived from the SECOND. Translation: the second _IS_ metric. If you try and introduce a "metric time," it will most definately _NOT_ integrate with the metric system as we know it, and it will seriously mess up any hopes of getting a stardard in science and engineering - at least in the US. The rest of the world has it nailed, except us. What's the Earth's gravitational acceleration at sea level? about 32 feet/sec^2 (imperial) or 9.8 meters/sec^2. You change the second (or introduce a new replacement), and this value, which is very well known to physicists and engineers, you're going to mess everything up.
Force, mass, pressure, acceleration, etc. would all be skewed when trying to go to some "decimal" time system.
This is another reason why this "Internet time" nonsense will (should) never catch on. It's not going to help the world in any way. Not possible.
I hate to stereotype, but at the risk of doing so, I'd wager that Mac users are more likely to listen to Celine Dion than otherwise.
Pooling from all of the computer users I know - if that's any decent demographic - Linux users would most certainly not fall under the Celine Dion fans. Windows users, it seems, tend to be more alternative, pop, rap, ad nauseum. And finally, Mac users are more oldies, soft rock, etc. This of course is NOT any real indication of what people listen to; not science, just my own personal observations generalized.
I've never seen a person sing "My Heart Will Go On" while recompiling their kernel.
You're right. Posting their copyrighted material online doesn't mean others can make use of it however they like. However, they're going to be fighting an uphill battle. They're posting their content in an environment in which it can be freely accessed, both by anyone and free of charge (generally). If they're going to try and say people can't link, they're going to have to go against years of Internet standards. If they don't like the fact that the entire PLANET uses hyperlinks as a means of communication, they can pull their content from the web, plain and simple.
One could argue that their beef with linking is analagous to me showing a friend an article from a paper I bought. I paid for it and got the article legally, but showing it to my friend precludes him buying the paper. They got screwed out of another sale, so should I be taken to court? The only difference is that they're not making any sale when I go to their site in the first place. Instead, they're getting ad revenue from me going to the site. When I refer my friend to the site, they're STILL making ad revenue, just maybe not quite as much. Overall, they've made more (relatively) by me sending the link to my friend than by me showing him an article.
It should also be noted that no one is REALLY going to wade through a news source's home page to find information. They have a plethora of articles and other publications. If I send an article to someone, it's probably because I think they'll find it of particular interest to them. They're not prone to say, "Gee, I wonder if Such-And-Such Times has an article on the population growth of Three-Toed Sloths." And yet again, they get more revenue simply because of a link, where someone wouldn't have otherwise gone and viewed an article.
Don't delude yourself. As long as something is free, people won't pay for it. The only correlary is that some people will pay more for convienience. But again, be serious...if you bought more than one or two albums worth of songs each week it would STILL be money you don't have for beer. Free is always cheaper than cheap for most people.
There's more to it than money. If you want to pirate music, you have to go through the work of finding it, making sure it's not some no-name band posing as whoever you're looking for, be sure all the tracks are there and are numbered correctly, not to mention they exist in their entirety and aren't cut off halfway through.
Additionally, if you're like me, you don't want to download some half-assed attempt at a CD-rip - 96-128kbits CBR MP3? Please. I rip all my CDs to OGG at a decently high variable bitrate.
Then there's the fact that few of us really WANT to take away from the artists. The only CD I've purchased in probably a year or two was bought simply because I love the band and want to support them. If we could download track-by-track at a low cost, given high audio integrity, and if we know a good deal of this money was going directly to the band, give me one good reason why people wouldn't use this.
Free may be less expensive than cheap, but there's always the time, effort, and honesty that comes into play. The latter with fewer of us, but it's still a part, nonetheless.
1024 bit, of course, is 2^1024 (approx 1.797e308). If you add one more bit (2^1025), you double the possibility of the number of keys, which means you double the computation time... In theory. This assumes brute-forcing it, and that the time it takes equals the maximum theoretical time to break it.
2^2048 is 2^1024 times more than 2^1024 (that is, it's 2^1024 squared). Meaning that to crack 2^2048 - in theory - it would take roughly 1.797e308 times as long to crack.
More numbers: If this $1B computer could crack a 1024-bit key in one second (consistently), it would take 5.7e300 years to crack a 2048-bit. That's much longer than the life of the universe.
All this stuff is theoretical, of course. That's why you don't try to break the encryption, but rather look for holes in the software, or post-it notes on the monitor:)
By buying the game, you're supporting the messenger. Saying "Man, I hate Blizzard, but hot damn, I love this game!" is hypocritical.
Blizzard is evil; here, take my money.
If you hate the messenger, don't support him/her/them by giving them money. Make a stand and say, "No, I'm not going to give you my money because you are trying to crush the little guy." If you tell them that you won't let them do that, they'll soon learn to embrace their user base.
Until then, they'll keep walking all over us. And while they do that, I'll continue to not buy any Blizzard games, simply because I won't stand for that kind of corporate abuse.
I didn't think it was possible to get more advertising in. Hell, a round of commercials in 24 is four minutes long.
Yet another reason why it's time to record and _NEVER_ watch live TV again. Fast-forwarding is a marvelous thing.
Indeed. I've used Dvorak for over a year now, and I've never had a problem, save those 10 hour LANs. I must say that Dvorak is much, much easier on the wrists than Qwerty is, all other things being equal.
Slashdot Mirror
I would think that it could apply in some way. IANAL, of course, but if you're physically located outside the US but still commit a crime such as this that affects people in the US, couldn't you be expedited? Or at least have a warrant for your arrest should you enter the US? Not totally unlike what happened to Dmitry Sklyarov.
Just a thought.
I've used Froogle several times, and for quite some time now, it's had the ability to sort by price and limit to a certain price range.
At my school, the CS department has a pretty low graduation rate, partially due to drop-outs and partially due to students switching out of CS and into something else. I've heard numbers before, and while I don't remember them, they were surprisingly low.
IMHO, CS isn't an extremely difficult field, but it's no inner-tube water polo.
The problem is that not everyone can get it working. I'm a CS major and a Linux geek. Definitely not an advanced Linux user, but I know how to setup and use Gentoo, which I do, but I simply could not get CUPS to work on my system. I'm sure if I spent a good deal more time reading the documentation and playing with it, it would be easier in the future, but I, like most computer users, won't NEED to set it up more than once. I should have an easy time getting it setup and working so that I don't have to dick around with it ever again.
And just in case RoadRunner kills him...
http://www.me.mtu.edu/~aeshirey/duracell_cpumon/
You've got me. This is the same state that elected Jesse Ventura governor.
And yes, I am a Minnesotan. No, I was not of voting age when that happened, so no one can pin that on me.
I feel that by simply writing this letter to you I have irreversibly corrupted my precious bodily fluids.
:)
I love it when someone makes a Stanley Kubrick reference
It should just take one person with enough resources and time to fight the legal limit of $150 000/copy infringement. From the US Constitution, Amendmend VIII:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
However, US copyright law, Title 17, Chapter 5, Section 504 (c)(2):
In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.
How is $150 000 NOT excessive? Maybe in the case of big business this could be concieveable, but for the average US citizen, $150 000 is the cost of a house, which many people pay off in a 20 year span. Granted, I don't think this fine has ever been imposed, but it's still stated as the legal maximum. That seems pretty GD excessive to me.
When I was a kid my favorite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school we'd all go play in his cave, and every once in a while he would eat one of us. It wasn't until later that I found out that Uncle Caveman was a bear.
Since my server isn't exactly what I'd consider "Slashdot Effect Ready," here are two more mirrors that should be better suited for it. Be nice or I'll have to take them down.
mirror 2
mirror 3
I've chucked my own mirror up (sans one image).
Enjoy
-DS
I heard once about a problem like this before. A few cities in the southern US were having. Apparently, red ants would get into traffic lights' circuitry and completely destroy the stuff, costing a great deal of money.
It turns out that a few ants had got in there and fried. Upon their deaths, their bodies released pheremones, attracted more ants, who promptly got fried, releasing even more pheremones, attracting more ants... You get the idea.
Main Entry: Brigadoon
...
...
Function: noun
: a place that is idyllic, unaffected by time, or remote from reality
I picked a that as a word, not as a musical. Get a clue.
slogg vorbis is shit. Stop whining about your fucking audio codec that no one will ever fucking suport because no one wants it. MP3 is the standard and ogg will fade away into nothing.
Firstly, how can a codec that's gaining momentum "fade into nothing"? It's not mainstream now, but neither were computers, UNIX, digital audio, etc.
Second, more and more companies are picking up OGG Vorbis support. Why is that? Well, let's see. It's a completely FREE codec that is continually getting better. It's supported by an organization that's dedicated to creating free multimedia codecs for use in open, free, and commercial use -- all without charging a cent. Most importantly, however, OGG Vorbis IS superior to WMA and MP3. If you think otherwise, try looking into some of the various listening tests. Or check out Vorbis' Listen page. If you're such a blind zealot that you won't actually test various codecs, you have no right to praise or flame any codec for any reason.
Grow up and leave the technology details to people who know what they're doing and talking about.
While I agree that 60, 60, 24 isn't the most easy thing, it has been done far longer than would be easy to switch. FYI, the whole sets of 60 came from the Babylonians (which is also where we get 360 degrees in a circle). By the way, I don't see anyone trying to get the world to go to gradians (100 grads per quarter circle instead of 90 degrees).
But anyways, I'll bite. Why not go to a "metric time"? Here's why: the entire metric system is based on other parts of the metric system. What is a milliliter? Yes, it's 1/1000th of a Liter, but it's also one centimeter cubed. It's also based on water: one cubic centimeter of (pure) water is one gram. (Here's a hint: this is where mass comes from). But where do we get distances? The meter is derived from the SECOND. Translation: the second _IS_ metric. If you try and introduce a "metric time," it will most definately _NOT_ integrate with the metric system as we know it, and it will seriously mess up any hopes of getting a stardard in science and engineering - at least in the US. The rest of the world has it nailed, except us. What's the Earth's gravitational acceleration at sea level? about 32 feet/sec^2 (imperial) or 9.8 meters/sec^2. You change the second (or introduce a new replacement), and this value, which is very well known to physicists and engineers, you're going to mess everything up.
Force, mass, pressure, acceleration, etc. would all be skewed when trying to go to some "decimal" time system.
This is another reason why this "Internet time" nonsense will (should) never catch on. It's not going to help the world in any way. Not possible.
-Xyphoid
Certainly not anyone I know who owns a mac
I hate to stereotype, but at the risk of doing so, I'd wager that Mac users are more likely to listen to Celine Dion than otherwise.
Pooling from all of the computer users I know - if that's any decent demographic - Linux users would most certainly not fall under the Celine Dion fans. Windows users, it seems, tend to be more alternative, pop, rap, ad nauseum. And finally, Mac users are more oldies, soft rock, etc. This of course is NOT any real indication of what people listen to; not science, just my own personal observations generalized.
I've never seen a person sing "My Heart Will Go On" while recompiling their kernel.
-X
You're right. Posting their copyrighted material online doesn't mean others can make use of it however they like. However, they're going to be fighting an uphill battle. They're posting their content in an environment in which it can be freely accessed, both by anyone and free of charge (generally). If they're going to try and say people can't link, they're going to have to go against years of Internet standards. If they don't like the fact that the entire PLANET uses hyperlinks as a means of communication, they can pull their content from the web, plain and simple.
One could argue that their beef with linking is analagous to me showing a friend an article from a paper I bought. I paid for it and got the article legally, but showing it to my friend precludes him buying the paper. They got screwed out of another sale, so should I be taken to court? The only difference is that they're not making any sale when I go to their site in the first place. Instead, they're getting ad revenue from me going to the site. When I refer my friend to the site, they're STILL making ad revenue, just maybe not quite as much. Overall, they've made more (relatively) by me sending the link to my friend than by me showing him an article.
It should also be noted that no one is REALLY going to wade through a news source's home page to find information. They have a plethora of articles and other publications. If I send an article to someone, it's probably because I think they'll find it of particular interest to them. They're not prone to say, "Gee, I wonder if Such-And-Such Times has an article on the population growth of Three-Toed Sloths." And yet again, they get more revenue simply because of a link, where someone wouldn't have otherwise gone and viewed an article.
-X
Don't delude yourself. As long as something is free, people won't pay for it. The only correlary is that some people will pay more for convienience. But again, be serious...if you bought more than one or two albums worth of songs each week it would STILL be money you don't have for beer. Free is always cheaper than cheap for most people.
There's more to it than money. If you want to pirate music, you have to go through the work of finding it, making sure it's not some no-name band posing as whoever you're looking for, be sure all the tracks are there and are numbered correctly, not to mention they exist in their entirety and aren't cut off halfway through.
Additionally, if you're like me, you don't want to download some half-assed attempt at a CD-rip - 96-128kbits CBR MP3? Please. I rip all my CDs to OGG at a decently high variable bitrate.
Then there's the fact that few of us really WANT to take away from the artists. The only CD I've purchased in probably a year or two was bought simply because I love the band and want to support them. If we could download track-by-track at a low cost, given high audio integrity, and if we know a good deal of this money was going directly to the band, give me one good reason why people wouldn't use this.
Free may be less expensive than cheap, but there's always the time, effort, and honesty that comes into play. The latter with fewer of us, but it's still a part, nonetheless.
-X
1024 bit, of course, is 2^1024 (approx 1.797e308). If you add one more bit (2^1025), you double the possibility of the number of keys, which means you double the computation time... In theory. This assumes brute-forcing it, and that the time it takes equals the maximum theoretical time to break it.
:)
2^2048 is 2^1024 times more than 2^1024 (that is, it's 2^1024 squared). Meaning that to crack 2^2048 - in theory - it would take roughly 1.797e308 times as long to crack.
More numbers: If this $1B computer could crack a 1024-bit key in one second (consistently), it would take 5.7e300 years to crack a 2048-bit. That's much longer than the life of the universe.
All this stuff is theoretical, of course. That's why you don't try to break the encryption, but rather look for holes in the software, or post-it notes on the monitor
-Xyphoid
By buying the game, you're supporting the messenger. Saying "Man, I hate Blizzard, but hot damn, I love this game!" is hypocritical.
Blizzard is evil; here, take my money.
If you hate the messenger, don't support him/her/them by giving them money. Make a stand and say, "No, I'm not going to give you my money because you are trying to crush the little guy." If you tell them that you won't let them do that, they'll soon learn to embrace their user base.
Until then, they'll keep walking all over us. And while they do that, I'll continue to not buy any Blizzard games, simply because I won't stand for that kind of corporate abuse.
I didn't think it was possible to get more advertising in. Hell, a round of commercials in 24 is four minutes long. Yet another reason why it's time to record and _NEVER_ watch live TV again. Fast-forwarding is a marvelous thing.
Indeed. I've used Dvorak for over a year now, and I've never had a problem, save those 10 hour LANs. I must say that Dvorak is much, much easier on the wrists than Qwerty is, all other things being equal.