"Should I then risk being extradited to any of the ten countries? Or maybe to all of them, in turn?"
Yes, if you distributed enough for the act to be criminal nature in all countries involved, including the country in which you reside.
This might lead to unintended consequences, like ample ways to circumvent the legal system.
For instance, in Sweden it's perfectly legal to remove the access protection on a DVD in order to play it on Linux. It's also part of my free speech rights to post instructions for this on a web site.
If I did this and the MPAA wanted me extradited, they could tell the US authorities that I had broken copyright law in several different ways, some of which were illegal in Sweden (they don't need to prove it until I'm in their courts). Once I was extradited, the US courts would convict me for the one act I actually did commit, even though it is perfectly legal in Sweden!
That way, I could be convicted in a foreign court, even though I had done nothing more than exercise my constitutional right to free speech. By working through companies registered in different countries, the copyright holder organisations could pick and choose which legal system they wanted someone to be tried under.
I don't think it's beyond some copyright holder organisations to circumvent consitutional rights in this manner. And I don't think it's beyond mine nor USA:s governement to bend over and let them do it.
This is a tough one, because many Slashdotters see piracy as a victimless crime -- information wants to be free, and all that. Unfortunately, the laws don't always agree with us.
The laws don't always agree with the copyright holders either. That's why they change them to suit their purposes. Like extending copyright to 95 years for corporations.
I don't think people should just sit quiet and let our laws be distorted to suit the purposes of a few big corporations. When a law is passed that the majority of the people disagree with, something is wrong with the system. The laws are there to serve the people, not commercial interests.
That's the nature of the treaty... the only other grounds to deny an extradition request are human rights, and I think it'd be pretty hard to prove that he'd face any worse treatment in the US court system than he'd get in Australia.
I admit that I don't know anything about Australian prisons, but I find it hard to believe they can be as bad as the US ones. USA is renowned for having the worst and most violent prisons of all modern countries. You'd have to go to a poor third-world country or a non-democracy to find a worse treatment of criminals. At least, that's what we believe in Europe.
This isn't an example of American hubris. This is an example of the Australians not wanting to prosecute for something that doesn't affect Australian interests (as in, because the injured parties aren't Australian companies, they've got nothing to gain by using Australian resources and tax money by trying him).
The problem is, USA doesn't return the favour. They sign the extradition treaties, demand that others follow them, but rarely follow them themselves. US authorities seem to think that an american committing a crime on foreign soil is their business (because he's american), a foreigner commiting a crime on Ameican soil is also their business (because it's on american soil), and a foreigner commiting a crime on foreign soil against an american is also their business (because it's against an american).
Yes, there are cases where USA has extradited, but in most cases, they choose to interpret the treaties differently as soon as they apply to themselves.
Isn't it enough that I follow the laws of my own country?
What you have missed here is that your country signed a treaty. Any treaty signed by your country becomes part of the law of your country.
That's not quite how it works here. Sweden has extradition treaties with many countries, but our law also demands that an act must be criminal in both our own country and the country someone is extradited to for the extradition to take place. Breaking a law in the other country is not enough.
Australia signed a treaty on copyright law that essentially made US copyright law become part of Australian law. Presumably, Australian copyright law is also part of US copyright law.
I can say for sure that is not how Sweden's treaties work. To give up part of our legislative power to another nation would be against our constitution (with the stated exception of the laws passed by the European Union).
That is the nature of treaties. That is why the US government refuses to sign so many UN treaties. These high-sounding treaties have all sorts of subtle consequences. Who could oppose a treaty called The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? Well, read it carefully, and think about how some country can interpret some of its provisions -- and then realize that that interpretion is binding on every signatory to the treaty!
Well, not just any country can make an interpretation that becomes binding to the other signatories. There would have to be some kind of international court.
Apart from that, I actually agree with you. These treaties are not all good - for instance, I think some of them contain unacceptable limitations on free speech.
Now you give the murderer a BFG - he sits in Australia picking off Americans one by one via long range death.
To you propose to let him off? He never left Austrailia, never killed anyone there, etc.
He committed a crime in a foriegn country. Both his country and the foriegn country 1) agree that the accusation is about an actionable crime, and 2) agree that people should be tried in the country where the damage was done.
This isn't unusual, this is how law enforcement works, people!
Your metaphor is a good one. But extraditing under these conditions easily becomes absurd when the crime is something abstract like copyright infringement.
Assume, for instance, that I give away a number of copies of a CD which contain 10 pieces of highly priced software, from 10 different companies located in 10 different countries.
Should I then risk being extradited to any of the ten countries? Or maybe to all of them, in turn?
Please note that at this point it is not certain that I have done anything illegal - I may have copied and given away the CDs without being aware that there was copyrighted, commercial material on them. I am only suspected of copyright infringement, not guilty.
It's more reasonable to prosecute in the country where the suspect was located while the alleged crime was being committed. Also, in the information society, it's often very hard for a court to decide where the crime should be considered to have occured. In the case of Internet fraud, does the crime occur in the country where the servers stand? The country where the victim is located? The country where the actual monetary transaction is taking place? Determining where the suspect was located at the time of the alleged crime is much more clear-cut.
If your country has an extradition treaty with the U.S. DON'T break their laws.
Isn't it enough that I follow the laws of my own country?
Should a US citizen be required to follow the laws of my country? There are many acts which are considered illegal and immoral in Sweden, but are legal in the U.S.
(Besides, extradition should only occur if the alleged act is criminal in both the country requesting and the country making the extradition.)
In this case they were stealing software, breaking the anti-piracy measures and redistributing it. What about hacking a computer in another country, stealing credit cards and selling the cards or charging them? What about training radicals to hop onto planes and commit crimes in other countries?
I think it should fall under the jurisdiction of the country where the person was located while committing the alleged crime.
Assuming that an alleged crime was committed where the effects of it can be seen, seems like slippery ground to me. If a person is located in country X and is accused of committing a crime there, it is fair to prosecute him/her according to the laws of country X. It is not fair to risk being prosecuted according to the laws of any country that claims the crime was partly committed there - some of which may have laws that are worded differently, interpreted differently, much harsher/lenient punishments, or different standards for what is considered evidence.
A person has a reasonable chance to read and foresee the effects of the laws of one country, not any country the crime can be considered to have occurred in.
What about private groups of citizens launching rockets across the border into neighboring countries? In what jurisdiction does the crime occur? What if the other government refuses to prosecute? Should it escalate to a national or international conflict?
Mostly, an act has to be criminal in both countries for extradition to occur. If credit card fraud or launching rockets across the border isn't illegal in a country, that country isn't likely to extradite someone for it anyway.
Griffiths has admitted to copyright infringement, which is criminal in both USA and Australia (and almost all other countries). It doesn't matter that the victim of the crime lives in another country; imagine if you could send threatening letters or bombs to someone, and get away with it just because the victim lives outside your country's jurisdiction. As long as you commit the act while being within the borders of your country, and the act is criminal, you could and should be put on trial.
The weird part is putting Griffiths on trial in USA instead of Australia. The act has been perpetrated on Australian soil by an Australian citizen, so Australian law and Australian courts should apply. Only the victim lives in USA.
I suspect this is yet another symptom of the hübris of US-American government: they think their rules should apply to everyone else. If a US citizen commits a crime against someone in a foreign country, he is put on trial in USA. If a foreign citizen commits a crime against someone in the USA, the US government wants to put him on trial in USA too. US government believes it should have the jurisdiction over any crime that is committed in USA, *or* by a US citizen, *or* against a US citizen, even though it conflicts with every other country's right to do the same.
And, of course, it's also a symptom of the lack of backbone of the rest of the world.
Also, its not frozen up here right now for anyone who thinks we freeze all the time. Yes, I know how you feel. People believe there's ice and snow in Sweden all the time, but we actually have several weeks during summer when it rains.
Who among us doesn't own a hammer? I own three. One's kind of small for hanging pictures. Another one is a normal sized hammer that I've had for a long time, and the third is one that replaced my normal hammer when my neighbor borrowed it for 2 months. Am I a criminal because of my hammer collection? No, you misunderstand. You're a potential criminal. As such, we cannot put you in jail, but we have to register and monitor you, since you might do something illegal.
Um, guys, I thought copyright was, like, evil and stuff. Something that only big greedy corporations want to keep. Information wants to be free and stuff.
I think there's a very, very simple reason gaming decreases brain activity...... Because games make you relax.
When people are tense and winded-up, the brain has a high activity (lots of alpha waves). When people wind down and start feeling relaxed, brain activity goes down.
Lots of people play exactly for this reason: it makes them relaxed.
People who game regularly quickly get into the relaxed mode when they start playing. Their brains are conditioned to relax once they hit the 'start' button.
People who never play computer games, find it hard and challenging to play, so their brains go on having a high activity.
I think we would get exactly the same results if we studied people who meditate regularly, and compared them to people who never meditate.
The people who meditate regularly would wind down quickly once they started, and their brain waves would calm down. The people meditating for the first time wouldn't experience any relaxing effect, so their brains would go on having a high activity.
Winding down brain activity is often seen as something desirable.
If the police knows where the CD was made, they can contact the manufacturer and ask who ordered large quantities of CDs during, say, the last 12 months. That narrows the search down when trying to catch a pirate. It may also help them to get a search warrant quicker.
I'm not sure the ID would be possible to remove, either. What if they place the ID code *between* the data layer and the print side? You could probably *read* the code easily, but the large-scale pirate would have to split the CD in half to replace the code. If at all possible, it would be ridiculously expensive to do.
But even if you *had* to split the CD to read the code, it wouldn't matter much -- you only need to split one CD to know from which manufacturing plant it came. The large-scale pirate would have to split each and every one to replace the code.
A simpler solution would be to place the code just inside the innermost data track. The pirate would have to use extreme precision to scratch away the code without hurting the data. If the code was placed, say, 1/4 millimeter below the transparent plastic surface of the CD, it would be extremely difficult to scratch it away without hurting the data placed just 1/10 millimeter to the left.
The alternative would be to set up one's own manufacturing plant -- and that would be hard to do under cover. I don't think the CD piracy industry makes enough money to justify the cost of setting up their own CD manufacturing plants. Only the illegal drug industry makes that much money from their products.
I think ID codes on CDs are a good idea, at least from a practical viewpoint. The only gripe I have is this: is it right to use legislation to *force* all CDs to be produced in a certain way?
I don't think there will be any invasion of privacy of the individual. I mean, how many crimes are committed by use of CDs? I know only one: copyright infringement. There would be no reason to track down anyone by use of CD ID codes, except large-scale pirates. If someone committed, say, a murder, they'd most likely be traced by use of fingerprints, DNA evidence, matching bullets, or typewriter quirks, not through a CD with an ID that revealed the manufacturing plant. So I don't think there would be any risk that the ID codes would be used for other purposes than intended.
I made a search on Google for "duncan campbell echelon", and the first server in the list was removed. Not just the pages, the entire server.
Please don't search for Campbells reports, or they might shut down slashdot too...
Well, first off, I was just making a joke, but if you want to have a serious discussion, sure.
Mathematica is good for creating simulations based on a few simple rules, like cellular automata, not just for handling algebraic expressions. How else would Wolfram have used Mathematica for his own research?
I looked at the site at the bottom of your.sig (your own site?). You seem to reject anything that cannot be understood intuitively, is that correct?
I'm not sure causality actually exists, other than as a high-level approximation to the evolution of matter as described by the equations of physics. Causality may be a psychological thing: we tend to believe that events that occur in the same time and place cause one another, so our minds can create meaningful interrelationships between them.
He owns a company producing software for mathematical and numerical computations.
Then he starts out writing a book that he claims will revolutionise all science and how we look at the universe -- by using computational models instead of the traditional scientific methods.
Then he bypasses the normal peer-review system of science (like submitting his works to scientific journals), publishing the book himself, filling it with elaborate, high-class computer graphics, sells it with a low margin of profit, and clearly aims it at a wider audience -- to convince people that all science, from physics to social sciences, should be done with computational models.
Isn't it obvious what this guy is trying to do?
He's just trying to sell more copies of Mathematica!
Go ahead, monpolist-imperialist porcupine. I will laugh the day the Linux rebellistás storm Bill Gates' mansion, breaks into his bathroom, and finds you wiping his ass.
In a polemic exchange of ideas and opinions, one of the friends here at slashdot wrote:
Are you some kind of moron?
No, I just think we misunderstand each other.
I was thinking along these lines:
Ten years ago, if a techhead walked into the exec's office saying, "Hey, I think we should install Linux on all our computers becaus it's technically superior", the exec would just shake his head and sigh at these intelligent, but oh-so-naive techies who are blissfully unaware of the realities of a market economy.
Today, the exec would take the techie seriously, because Linux has been all over the headlines, in the news and even large, established companies like Oracle and Sun take it seriously.
Sure, the techies have known about Linux for ten years, but it's only the last few years the execs have known about it.
Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with any Linux company or any company that profits from Linux. I'm using a Microsoft operating system as I'm writing this, in my own home, by my own choice.
The reasons I think Microsoft is "losing out" are:
1. The market has stopped expanding. Microsofts unprecedented success is mainly due to the unprecedented expansion of the personal computer market, allowing it to generate greater and greater revenues every year. Without that expansion, Microsoft has to rely on a much more modest business model: provide existing users with software updates, when and if they decide to update, and breaking into smaller, less lucrative markets, like computer accessories, computer games and handheld computers -- which is exactly what it's doing. Microsoft didn't bother with game consoles (like XBox) ten years ago. They've stopped trying to hog marketshare, and are instead trying to maximize profit as long as they can keep the marketshare they have.
Sure, there is still the enormous Chinese market left to provide with personal computers, but they will most likely not buy expensive software from the West -- especially not when it's locked in a trade war with the West, and Western software may contain deliberate backdoors for spying. Most likely, they'll write it themselves or use open software. So the main reason for Microsofts enormous success -- the enormous expansion of the personal computer market -- is gone. I think this will lead to a substantial decrease in revenue, and a slow but steady decrease in stock value over the next decade.
2. Operating systems are becoming less and less important again. People are becoming more open to using different OS:es for different purposes again. That takes away another one of Microsoft's main competitive edges: control of the operating system. That's why they're launching their.NET initiative. When they can't control the market through the operating system, they have to control the standards and framework upon which platform independent applications are based.
3. Today, common software like word processors and spreadsheets compete not through functionality, but through being easy to deploy and maintain. Most software is "good enough" in terms of functionality and ease of use. Instead, companies are looking for software that is easy to deploy and maintain. There are good reasons for this: The administrative cost for keeping track of licenses is approaching the cost of the software itself. Also, when procuring licensed software, the cost of the software has to be approved by management. This can take weeks in many organizations, and the users can't do the work they needed the software for. This creates an incalculable cost in lost work and revenue. Open software doesn't need to be approved by management, because it's free. So I think traditional software companies have lost their competitive edge, and proprietary software has become a competitive disadvantage. Not for technical reasons, but for administrative.
4. Microsoft is the most powerful software company there is, but the others are more powerful put together. No other company can create an operating system, a server and an office suite that works in conjunction and achieves synergy effects like Microsoft did with Windows, MSOffice and BackOffice -- but with open software, they can each create a piece of it, and make them work together. Open software doesn't allow people to create close standards and use their dominance in one market to gain dominance in others -- so creating software that works together is the most profitable option.
It's pretty funny, I've posted a lot of articles defending Microsoft in the past, now suddenly people think I'm a Linux 'fanboy'.
"Microsoft announces it's new operating system, 'WinLinux', which will combine the security and reliability of Linux with the ease of use and application base of Windows."
Not likely, huh?
The biggest threat against the Windows monopoly is not the presence of a technically superior operating system. The biggest threat to the Windows monopoly, is widespread awareness that an alternative *exists* at all.
Microsoft is better off ignoring Linux than starting campaigns against it, which is largely what it has done. But they are losing anyway.
Which is why they are trying to dominate and control other markets instead, like the handheld computer market (with their PocketPC), the game console market (with their XBox), or the market for platform-independent network-transparent applications (with their.NET framework).
I recall that the developers of the Amiga had written a game for it where you would meditate by balancing the character on screen, using a joyboard you controlled with your feet.
"It's a dumb idea for a vague tax,and clear evidence that this guy hasn't seen enough of the Real World[tm] to have any business in public office, making decisions that impact other people's lives."
Or he's a smart guy who knows how to press dump people's buttons -- a perfect candidate for office, in other words.
"The cop's instincts are pretty good, but as objective as he tries to be, he unconsciously tends to target members of a particular race instead of going by solid scientific indicators."
But statistically speaking, aren't members of disadvantaged groups in society more likely to steal?
The computer would have to take that into account to do an objective statistical analysis.
Maybe a computer doing objective analyses of what characteristics are usually (but not always) associated with criminality, would seem very prejudiced to us.
Slashdot Mirror
"Should I then risk being extradited to any of the ten countries? Or maybe to all of them, in turn?"
Yes, if you distributed enough for the act to be criminal nature in all countries involved, including the country in which you reside.
This might lead to unintended consequences, like ample ways to circumvent the legal system.
For instance, in Sweden it's perfectly legal to remove the access protection on a DVD in order to play it on Linux. It's also part of my free speech rights to post instructions for this on a web site.
If I did this and the MPAA wanted me extradited, they could tell the US authorities that I had broken copyright law in several different ways, some of which were illegal in Sweden (they don't need to prove it until I'm in their courts). Once I was extradited, the US courts would convict me for the one act I actually did commit, even though it is perfectly legal in Sweden!
That way, I could be convicted in a foreign court, even though I had done nothing more than exercise my constitutional right to free speech. By working through companies registered in different countries, the copyright holder organisations could pick and choose which legal system they wanted someone to be tried under.
I don't think it's beyond some copyright holder organisations to circumvent consitutional rights in this manner. And I don't think it's beyond mine nor USA:s governement to bend over and let them do it.
This is a tough one, because many Slashdotters see piracy as a victimless crime -- information wants to be free, and all that. Unfortunately, the laws don't always agree with us.The laws don't always agree with the copyright holders either. That's why they change them to suit their purposes. Like extending copyright to 95 years for corporations.
I don't think people should just sit quiet and let our laws be distorted to suit the purposes of a few big corporations. When a law is passed that the majority of the people disagree with, something is wrong with the system. The laws are there to serve the people, not commercial interests.
I admit that I don't know anything about Australian prisons, but I find it hard to believe they can be as bad as the US ones. USA is renowned for having the worst and most violent prisons of all modern countries. You'd have to go to a poor third-world country or a non-democracy to find a worse treatment of criminals. At least, that's what we believe in Europe.
This isn't an example of American hubris. This is an example of the Australians not wanting to prosecute for something that doesn't affect Australian interests (as in, because the injured parties aren't Australian companies, they've got nothing to gain by using Australian resources and tax money by trying him).The problem is, USA doesn't return the favour. They sign the extradition treaties, demand that others follow them, but rarely follow them themselves. US authorities seem to think that an american committing a crime on foreign soil is their business (because he's american), a foreigner commiting a crime on Ameican soil is also their business (because it's on american soil), and a foreigner commiting a crime on foreign soil against an american is also their business (because it's against an american).
Yes, there are cases where USA has extradited, but in most cases, they choose to interpret the treaties differently as soon as they apply to themselves.
That's where the hubris comes in.
That's not quite how it works here. Sweden has extradition treaties with many countries, but our law also demands that an act must be criminal in both our own country and the country someone is extradited to for the extradition to take place. Breaking a law in the other country is not enough.
Australia signed a treaty on copyright law that essentially made US copyright law become part of Australian law. Presumably, Australian copyright law is also part of US copyright law.I can say for sure that is not how Sweden's treaties work. To give up part of our legislative power to another nation would be against our constitution (with the stated exception of the laws passed by the European Union).
That is the nature of treaties. That is why the US government refuses to sign so many UN treaties. These high-sounding treaties have all sorts of subtle consequences. Who could oppose a treaty called The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? Well, read it carefully, and think about how some country can interpret some of its provisions -- and then realize that that interpretion is binding on every signatory to the treaty!Well, not just any country can make an interpretation that becomes binding to the other signatories. There would have to be some kind of international court.
Apart from that, I actually agree with you. These treaties are not all good - for instance, I think some of them contain unacceptable limitations on free speech.
Now you give the murderer a BFG - he sits in Australia picking off Americans one by one via long range death.
To you propose to let him off? He never left Austrailia, never killed anyone there, etc.
He committed a crime in a foriegn country. Both his country and the foriegn country 1) agree that the accusation is about an actionable crime, and 2) agree that people should be tried in the country where the damage was done.
This isn't unusual, this is how law enforcement works, people!
Your metaphor is a good one. But extraditing under these conditions easily becomes absurd when the crime is something abstract like copyright infringement.
Assume, for instance, that I give away a number of copies of a CD which contain 10 pieces of highly priced software, from 10 different companies located in 10 different countries.
Should I then risk being extradited to any of the ten countries? Or maybe to all of them, in turn?
Please note that at this point it is not certain that I have done anything illegal - I may have copied and given away the CDs without being aware that there was copyrighted, commercial material on them. I am only suspected of copyright infringement, not guilty.
It's more reasonable to prosecute in the country where the suspect was located while the alleged crime was being committed. Also, in the information society, it's often very hard for a court to decide where the crime should be considered to have occured. In the case of Internet fraud, does the crime occur in the country where the servers stand? The country where the victim is located? The country where the actual monetary transaction is taking place? Determining where the suspect was located at the time of the alleged crime is much more clear-cut.
Isn't it enough that I follow the laws of my own country?
Should a US citizen be required to follow the laws of my country? There are many acts which are considered illegal and immoral in Sweden, but are legal in the U.S.
(Besides, extradition should only occur if the alleged act is criminal in both the country requesting and the country making the extradition.)
I think it should fall under the jurisdiction of the country where the person was located while committing the alleged crime.
Assuming that an alleged crime was committed where the effects of it can be seen, seems like slippery ground to me. If a person is located in country X and is accused of committing a crime there, it is fair to prosecute him/her according to the laws of country X. It is not fair to risk being prosecuted according to the laws of any country that claims the crime was partly committed there - some of which may have laws that are worded differently, interpreted differently, much harsher/lenient punishments, or different standards for what is considered evidence.
A person has a reasonable chance to read and foresee the effects of the laws of one country, not any country the crime can be considered to have occurred in.
What about private groups of citizens launching rockets across the border into neighboring countries? In what jurisdiction does the crime occur? What if the other government refuses to prosecute? Should it escalate to a national or international conflict?Mostly, an act has to be criminal in both countries for extradition to occur. If credit card fraud or launching rockets across the border isn't illegal in a country, that country isn't likely to extradite someone for it anyway.
I think some people may be missing the point.
Griffiths has admitted to copyright infringement, which is criminal in both USA and Australia (and almost all other countries). It doesn't matter that the victim of the crime lives in another country; imagine if you could send threatening letters or bombs to someone, and get away with it just because the victim lives outside your country's jurisdiction. As long as you commit the act while being within the borders of your country, and the act is criminal, you could and should be put on trial.
The weird part is putting Griffiths on trial in USA instead of Australia. The act has been perpetrated on Australian soil by an Australian citizen, so Australian law and Australian courts should apply. Only the victim lives in USA.
I suspect this is yet another symptom of the hübris of US-American government: they think their rules should apply to everyone else. If a US citizen commits a crime against someone in a foreign country, he is put on trial in USA. If a foreign citizen commits a crime against someone in the USA, the US government wants to put him on trial in USA too. US government believes it should have the jurisdiction over any crime that is committed in USA, *or* by a US citizen, *or* against a US citizen, even though it conflicts with every other country's right to do the same.
And, of course, it's also a symptom of the lack of backbone of the rest of the world.
Um, guys, I thought copyright was, like, evil and stuff. Something that only big greedy corporations want to keep. Information wants to be free and stuff.
I presume you mean 2^8^4, ie 256^4.
I think there's a very, very simple reason gaming decreases brain activity... ... Because games make you relax.
When people are tense and winded-up, the brain has a high activity (lots of alpha waves). When people wind down and start feeling relaxed, brain activity goes down.
Lots of people play exactly for this reason: it makes them relaxed.
People who game regularly quickly get into the relaxed mode when they start playing. Their brains are conditioned to relax once they hit the 'start' button.
People who never play computer games, find it hard and challenging to play, so their brains go on having a high activity.
I think we would get exactly the same results if we studied people who meditate regularly, and compared them to people who never meditate.
The people who meditate regularly would wind down quickly once they started, and their brain waves would calm down. The people meditating for the first time wouldn't experience any relaxing effect, so their brains would go on having a high activity.
Winding down brain activity is often seen as something desirable.
If the police knows where the CD was made, they can contact the manufacturer and ask who ordered large quantities of CDs during, say, the last 12 months. That narrows the search down when trying to catch a pirate. It may also help them to get a search warrant quicker.
I'm not sure the ID would be possible to remove, either. What if they place the ID code *between* the data layer and the print side?
You could probably *read* the code easily, but the large-scale pirate would have to split the CD in half to replace the code. If at all possible, it would be ridiculously expensive to do.
But even if you *had* to split the CD to read the code, it wouldn't matter much -- you only need to split one CD to know from which manufacturing plant it came. The large-scale pirate would have to split each and every one to replace the code.
A simpler solution would be to place the code just inside the innermost data track. The pirate would have to use extreme precision to scratch away the code without hurting the data. If the code was placed, say, 1/4 millimeter below the transparent plastic surface of the CD, it would be extremely difficult to scratch it away without hurting the data placed just 1/10 millimeter to the left.
The alternative would be to set up one's own manufacturing plant -- and that would be hard to do under cover. I don't think the CD piracy industry makes enough money to justify the cost of setting up their own CD manufacturing plants. Only the illegal drug industry makes that much money from their products.
I think ID codes on CDs are a good idea, at least from a practical viewpoint. The only gripe I have is this: is it right to use legislation to *force* all CDs to be produced in a certain way?
I don't think there will be any invasion of privacy of the individual. I mean, how many crimes are committed by use of CDs? I know only one: copyright infringement. There would be no reason to track down anyone by use of CD ID codes, except large-scale pirates. If someone committed, say, a murder, they'd most likely be traced by use of fingerprints, DNA evidence, matching bullets, or typewriter quirks, not through a CD with an ID that revealed the manufacturing plant.
So I don't think there would be any risk that the ID codes would be used for other purposes than intended.
I made a search on Google for "duncan campbell echelon", and the first server in the list was removed. Not just the pages, the entire server. Please don't search for Campbells reports, or they might shut down slashdot too...
Well, first off, I was just making a joke, but if you want to have a serious discussion, sure.
.sig (your own site?). You seem to reject anything that cannot be understood intuitively, is that correct?
Mathematica is good for creating simulations based on a few simple rules, like cellular automata, not just for handling algebraic expressions. How else would Wolfram have used Mathematica for his own research?
I looked at the site at the bottom of your
I'm not sure causality actually exists, other than as a high-level approximation to the evolution of matter as described by the equations of physics. Causality may be a psychological thing: we tend to believe that events that occur in the same time and place cause one another, so our minds can create meaningful interrelationships between them.
There have been philosophers espousing this view.
Wolfram is wrong! Einstein is wrong too! And newton also! They're all wrong!
All of the universe can be described as a single atom of plutonium.
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/Ludwig Plutonium/.
Think about it.
He owns a company producing software for mathematical and numerical computations.
Then he starts out writing a book that he claims will revolutionise all science and how we look at the universe -- by using computational models instead of the traditional scientific methods.
Then he bypasses the normal peer-review system of science (like submitting his works to scientific journals), publishing the book himself, filling it with elaborate, high-class computer graphics, sells it with a low margin of profit, and clearly aims it at a wider audience -- to convince people that all science, from physics to social sciences, should be done with computational models.
Isn't it obvious what this guy is trying to do?
He's just trying to sell more copies of Mathematica!
Go ahead, monpolist-imperialist porcupine. I will laugh the day the Linux rebellistás storm Bill Gates' mansion, breaks into his bathroom, and finds you wiping his ass.
RMS! RMS! RMS! RMS! RMS! RMS! ...
In a polemic exchange of ideas and opinions, one of the friends here at slashdot wrote:
Are you some kind of moron?
No, I just think we misunderstand each other.
I was thinking along these lines:
Ten years ago, if a techhead walked into the exec's office saying, "Hey, I think we should install Linux on all our computers becaus it's technically superior", the exec would just shake his head and sigh at these intelligent, but oh-so-naive techies who are blissfully unaware of the realities of a market economy.
Today, the exec would take the techie seriously, because Linux has been all over the headlines, in the news and even large, established companies like Oracle and Sun take it seriously.
Sure, the techies have known about Linux for ten years, but it's only the last few years the execs have known about it.
Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with any Linux company or any company that profits from Linux. I'm using a Microsoft operating system as I'm writing this, in my own home, by my own choice.
.NET initiative. When they can't control the market through the operating system, they have to control the standards and framework upon which platform independent applications are based.
The reasons I think Microsoft is "losing out" are:
1. The market has stopped expanding. Microsofts unprecedented success is mainly due to the unprecedented expansion of the personal computer market, allowing it to generate greater and greater revenues every year. Without that expansion, Microsoft has to rely on a much more modest business model: provide existing users with software updates, when and if they decide to update, and breaking into smaller, less lucrative markets, like computer accessories, computer games and handheld computers -- which is exactly what it's doing. Microsoft didn't bother with game consoles (like XBox) ten years ago. They've stopped trying to hog marketshare, and are instead trying to maximize profit as long as they can keep the marketshare they have.
Sure, there is still the enormous Chinese market left to provide with personal computers, but they will most likely not buy expensive software from the West -- especially not when it's locked in a trade war with the West, and Western software may contain deliberate backdoors for spying. Most likely, they'll write it themselves or use open software.
So the main reason for Microsofts enormous success -- the enormous expansion of the personal computer market -- is gone. I think this will lead to a substantial decrease in revenue, and a slow but steady decrease in stock value over the next decade.
2. Operating systems are becoming less and less important again. People are becoming more open to using different OS:es for different purposes again. That takes away another one of Microsoft's main competitive edges: control of the operating system.
That's why they're launching their
3. Today, common software like word processors and spreadsheets compete not through functionality, but through being easy to deploy and maintain. Most software is "good enough" in terms of functionality and ease of use. Instead, companies are looking for software that is easy to deploy and maintain.
There are good reasons for this: The administrative cost for keeping track of licenses is approaching the cost of the software itself.
Also, when procuring licensed software, the cost of the software has to be approved by management. This can take weeks in many organizations, and the users can't do the work they needed the software for. This creates an incalculable cost in lost work and revenue.
Open software doesn't need to be approved by management, because it's free.
So I think traditional software companies have lost their competitive edge, and proprietary software has become a competitive disadvantage. Not for technical reasons, but for administrative.
4. Microsoft is the most powerful software company there is, but the others are more powerful put together. No other company can create an operating system, a server and an office suite that works in conjunction and achieves synergy effects like Microsoft did with Windows, MSOffice and BackOffice -- but with open software, they can each create a piece of it, and make them work together.
Open software doesn't allow people to create close standards and use their dominance in one market to gain dominance in others -- so creating software that works together is the most profitable option.
It's pretty funny, I've posted a lot of articles defending Microsoft in the past, now suddenly people think I'm a Linux 'fanboy'.
lol -- you expected Microsoft to prune Linux search results from their engines just to keep people from knowing about it?
First off, that would be such an obvious "dirty trick" it would give Microsoft a lot of badwill.
Second, people who type "Linux" into the search engine *already* know about it.
I can see the headlines...
.NET framework).
"Microsoft announces it's new operating system, 'WinLinux', which will combine the security and reliability of Linux with the ease of use and application base of Windows."
Not likely, huh?
The biggest threat against the Windows monopoly is not the presence of a technically superior operating system. The biggest threat to the Windows monopoly, is widespread awareness that an alternative *exists* at all.
Microsoft is better off ignoring Linux than starting campaigns against it, which is largely what it has done. But they are losing anyway.
Which is why they are trying to dominate and control other markets instead, like the handheld computer market (with their PocketPC), the game console market (with their XBox), or the market for platform-independent network-transparent applications (with their
I recall that the developers of the Amiga had written a game for it where you would meditate by balancing the character on screen, using a joyboard you controlled with your feet.
Anybody got details?
"It's a dumb idea for a vague tax,and clear evidence that this guy hasn't seen enough of the Real World[tm] to have any business in public office, making decisions that impact other people's lives."
Or he's a smart guy who knows how to press dump people's buttons -- a perfect candidate for office, in other words.
"The cop's instincts are pretty good, but as objective as he tries to be, he unconsciously tends to target members of a particular race instead of going by solid scientific indicators."
But statistically speaking, aren't members of disadvantaged groups in society more likely to steal?
The computer would have to take that into account to do an objective statistical analysis.
Maybe a computer doing objective analyses of what characteristics are usually (but not always) associated with criminality, would seem very prejudiced to us.