I don't recall the details and don't feel like lokoing them up, but there was some concern that the reaction, once started, would spread to some gas in the air.
As far as I can tell from my experience, morpheus hosts that were connected before the upgrade and have stayed connected, will. If they close the client, or reboot, or whatever, they won't be able to re-connect, however.
It'd make a dandy UPS, though. None of the worries abou the gyro effect, it's not mobile so you can armor the case to help contain damage in the case of flywheel disintegration, which shouldn't happen because it's not being jostled and moved all the time anyway.
As a previous response mentions, it IS dangerous. And they knew it was dangerous, and did it anyway. When they did the first nuclear bomb test, the scientists thought there was a reasonable (well, non-zero) chance that it would set the atmosphere on fire, killing all life on earth, and yet they did it anyway. People will do strange things.
Well, I'll say one thing, it certainly will shut up all the people who complain about HTML written in attempt to create a specific look, rather than describing a document structure.
Well, if you stuck the right kind of hub in there, you could have "3-opening action". Hrm. Would it be insanely perverse to run streaming RealMedia out of a RealDoll?
Well, thats what you get for looking for a free lunch:P If you have some sort of other trademark claim on your domain, you can probably get the rights back, but, as I understand oprations like namezero, they essentially view applications as ideas. They then register the name you suggest, and graciously let you use it for a while. Unlike with a real registrar, there's no contract or anything, and you aren't the registered owner. Bad faith buisness, surely, but not really within any bounds of legislation. Buyer beware and all that.
Re:THE BIG FREAKING POINT.
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
Not quite - by definition, a work in the public domain has no copyright, hence isn't a protected work. However, the stuff about distribution of circumvention devices still holds.
Re:Profit is the ONLY motive to create?!
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
Not quite accurate - the people who actually CREATE in the entertainment industry are in the minority and aren't usually in it for the money - at least not at first. They like money, sure, and they need money to do certain things (produce almbums, film movies), but they aren't motivated by the desire for money, but for the creation of art. It's the middlemen - the producers, the executives, the managers - that do it for money, and they are where most of the cash goes. That is the industry that is being protected here, not the artists. Given access to easy, cheap methods of distribution (read: the internet), artists WILl distribute. And that is one of the reasons why the "content" industry wants these controls so bad. They currently control all real channels of distrubution other than the internet, which for technical reasons they cannot. It's arguable whether or not napster, etc has hurt the music or motion picture industry (it certainly has the software, but thats a different issue), but thats not (really) what they care about - what they fear is a new, powerful channel of distribution which they cannot control. If a new artist can tell them to screw off, they'll sell thier own records on the internet and publicize themselves with banner adds, and actually get popular (and rich!) this way, the studios lose. That's what will kill them, not any amount of file trading, and thats why they want this.
it's an interesting question, but ultimatly non-relevent - this technology will never be sold to the end consumer, only licensed. REAl licenses, not EULAs, that will be fully support with signatures and penalty clauses and NDAs and the whole shebang. And you can be damn sure that while there may be some sort of fine if the scheme is cracked in less than X amount of time, there will certainly be an "immunity to damages" clause.
Small workaround for that upgrade message - set your system time to the year 4500 or something equally stupid, then click "upgrade later". Then set time back. Should take care of it.
yes, a lame hack for a lame player. But better than nothing.
The bill defines an interactive digital device at some length - I forget exactly what it said, but I believe it was essentially any digital device which takes input, manipulates it, and outputs it. It might not even need to manipulate it to qualify.
The photos of the lamp are just a clever way of generating random keys (often the hard part of a crypto system), it has nothing to do with the crpyto algorithm itself.
Someone needs to go take polisci again. What's a government for? Hint: It's not for making rich people money, not matter what George W got told when he was growing up. One of the purposes of the government is to provide for the public good - if it didn't have that purpose, there'd be no point in having one at all, and we'd just have small wandering tribal bands.
Now, it's debatable whether or not DSL is a neccesary public service or a luxury good, but the fact is is that people back in the day decided that everyone having telephones would be in the public interest, and therefore used government power to make it possible. It's a similiar situation with radio/TV and cable channels. it's a public good, regulated and controlled by the government, for the greater good of society, because the private sector cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of society as a whole - that whole profit imperative thing.
Right. Lets be clear here, Democrat == soft money from entertainment, thus DMCA. Republican == soft money from Old Boy traditional buisness, thus reduced EPA funding, Enron, etc.
Offtopic so, I'll try to remember to take off my +1 bonus - the grounds for the only (even mildly) successful gun suits are based about predatory marketing (IE, gun makers intentionally market products to be used for criminal purposes), very much the same as the cigarrette cases, and, in fact, much like the DeCSS case (in principle, different laws obviously).
It's pretty simple, really - banks won't do it because the regulations on them to make transaction safe and accountable and whatnot make it cost-prohibitive. Paypal only manages because it's not bound by those rules, so if they start to lose too much money on you, they just take your money.
Does that mean that they're storing this somewhere OTHER than the cd.ini file(or whatever it's called) that's supposed to be used to identify CDs? Since they say "new in this version" I'm guessing maybe yes, and then we do have a reason to cry conspiracy.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't recall the details and don't feel like lokoing them up, but there was some concern that the reaction, once started, would spread to some gas in the air.
He generally gets permission, but there's no legal requirement for him to do so - it's fair use.
As far as I can tell from my experience, morpheus hosts that were connected before the upgrade and have stayed connected, will. If they close the client, or reboot, or whatever, they won't be able to re-connect, however.
It'd make a dandy UPS, though. None of the worries abou the gyro effect, it's not mobile so you can armor the case to help contain damage in the case of flywheel disintegration, which shouldn't happen because it's not being jostled and moved all the time anyway.
As a previous response mentions, it IS dangerous. And they knew it was dangerous, and did it anyway. When they did the first nuclear bomb test, the scientists thought there was a reasonable (well, non-zero) chance that it would set the atmosphere on fire, killing all life on earth, and yet they did it anyway. People will do strange things.
Well, I'll say one thing, it certainly will shut up all the people who complain about HTML written in attempt to create a specific look, rather than describing a document structure.
Well, if you stuck the right kind of hub in there, you could have "3-opening action". Hrm. Would it be insanely perverse to run streaming RealMedia out of a RealDoll?
450 thousand dollars is hardly small claims court :P
Well, thats what you get for looking for a free lunch :P If you have some sort of other trademark claim on your domain, you can probably get the rights back, but, as I understand oprations like namezero, they essentially view applications as ideas. They then register the name you suggest, and graciously let you use it for a while. Unlike with a real registrar, there's no contract or anything, and you aren't the registered owner. Bad faith buisness, surely, but not really within any bounds of legislation. Buyer beware and all that.
Not quite - by definition, a work in the public domain has no copyright, hence isn't a protected work. However, the stuff about distribution of circumvention devices still holds.
Not quite accurate - the people who actually CREATE in the entertainment industry are in the minority and aren't usually in it for the money - at least not at first. They like money, sure, and they need money to do certain things (produce almbums, film movies), but they aren't motivated by the desire for money, but for the creation of art. It's the middlemen - the producers, the executives, the managers - that do it for money, and they are where most of the cash goes. That is the industry that is being protected here, not the artists. Given access to easy, cheap methods of distribution (read: the internet), artists WILl distribute. And that is one of the reasons why the "content" industry wants these controls so bad. They currently control all real channels of distrubution other than the internet, which for technical reasons they cannot. It's arguable whether or not napster, etc has hurt the music or motion picture industry (it certainly has the software, but thats a different issue), but thats not (really) what they care about - what they fear is a new, powerful channel of distribution which they cannot control. If a new artist can tell them to screw off, they'll sell thier own records on the internet and publicize themselves with banner adds, and actually get popular (and rich!) this way, the studios lose. That's what will kill them, not any amount of file trading, and thats why they want this.
it's an interesting question, but ultimatly non-relevent - this technology will never be sold to the end consumer, only licensed. REAl licenses, not EULAs, that will be fully support with signatures and penalty clauses and NDAs and the whole shebang. And you can be damn sure that while there may be some sort of fine if the scheme is cracked in less than X amount of time, there will certainly be an "immunity to damages" clause.
Funny you mention a dime of royalties, since thats probably exactly how much he gets :P
yes, a lame hack for a lame player. But better than nothing.
They did? Damn, and I thought they tried really hard for a while and then gave it up as a bad job and repealed the amendment.
The bill defines an interactive digital device at some length - I forget exactly what it said, but I believe it was essentially any digital device which takes input, manipulates it, and outputs it. It might not even need to manipulate it to qualify.
The photos of the lamp are just a clever way of generating random keys (often the hard part of a crypto system), it has nothing to do with the crpyto algorithm itself.
Now, it's debatable whether or not DSL is a neccesary public service or a luxury good, but the fact is is that people back in the day decided that everyone having telephones would be in the public interest, and therefore used government power to make it possible. It's a similiar situation with radio/TV and cable channels. it's a public good, regulated and controlled by the government, for the greater good of society, because the private sector cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of society as a whole - that whole profit imperative thing.
The FAQ mentions that they don't want to do that in order to maintain the integrity of the keygen algorithm, which makes lots of sense.
Right. Lets be clear here, Democrat == soft money from entertainment, thus DMCA. Republican == soft money from Old Boy traditional buisness, thus reduced EPA funding, Enron, etc.
Offtopic so, I'll try to remember to take off my +1 bonus - the grounds for the only (even mildly) successful gun suits are based about predatory marketing (IE, gun makers intentionally market products to be used for criminal purposes), very much the same as the cigarrette cases, and, in fact, much like the DeCSS case (in principle, different laws obviously).
It's pretty simple, really - banks won't do it because the regulations on them to make transaction safe and accountable and whatnot make it cost-prohibitive. Paypal only manages because it's not bound by those rules, so if they start to lose too much money on you, they just take your money.
I'll agree with the bloat - I have a fair amount of bug issues, too - especially when using non-mp3 file formats like vqf and ogg.
Does that mean that they're storing this somewhere OTHER than the cd.ini file(or whatever it's called) that's supposed to be used to identify CDs? Since they say "new in this version" I'm guessing maybe yes, and then we do have a reason to cry conspiracy.
well, he could probably have sex with a dozen, but not impregnate - sperm only gets created so fast, you know.