When you get down to it, what really is the difference between the peer-to-peer model, and the client-server model. When all the bells and whistles are scraped off, and all you've got left is the core, somewhere there's always a client, and there's always a server. The only real difference is that all the world's a potential server under P2P, a "server" that can't necessarily be controlled by some commercial entity.
If anyone looked at the graphic in the article, the method they show describing P2P is something akin to using the Metacrawler search, to search through many search engines (with the distinction that there are still central databases to search, instead of asking all 4 billion hypothetical systems what they've got). Why? Probably because the Internet was created as a peer-to-peer system. From the lowliest PC-XT running DOS-based software, all the way up to the Sun E10000's they're all "equal" on the 'net; if it can be connected, it can provide content (given that it isn't prempted by some silly Internet Content Provider's rules), yet the peer containing the content is the server, and the peer requesting the content is the client.
One last thought for Hemos: A bit that gets taken from Gnutella, or its cousins, is a bit that was contributed to it.
Never buy something that comes in a box that is a low quality black and white copy of the original.
Or for that matter, anything that is a half-way decent color copy of the original. If I didn't hate the bastards so much, I'd love to be an FBI badge at one of those shows. Particularly one on commission:).
As so many other people have noted, the key words are "network segment". On switched Ethernet, the segment (generally) consists of the switch, and the NIC. Thus, the NIC gets all the traffic on its segment.
Further, the card does "tap" everything on its segment, but discards everything not destined for itself.
Actually, that plummet at the end of June was a result of a dividend paid to shareholders: the stock in the various companies SGI was holding. That aside, SGI's price has done a fairly decent job of following the trends on the NASDAQ since March.
Really? I've got USW/ATT, and DSL, with USW as both the transport, and the ISP. I'm still on ATT residential LD. I've had it for a year and a half, now.
Depends on the state. AFAIK (IANAL) it is legal in Minnesota, so long as at least one party besides yourself has knowledge of it. Doesn't necessarily need to be the person on the other end of the line, though. Talk to a lawyer before trying to admit evidence in a court.
Have a look at your Cisco 675 docs, then. The lowest possible baud rate is the one for 640dow/272 up (Note, VISI's pages explicitly say to set the router up for 256 (or so) k service). As for the initial batch theory, there was a time when I first got service that I was pulling 2.5Mbps across my line while downloading a set of kernel sources, a feat that hasn't been achieved since.
As for VISI, I'm planning on moving this winter (with the requirement that the line be RADSL qualified), and will probably switch to Vector then, given that their static ip pricing is still in tact as it was before they were absorbed into dsl.net.
They even bumped up my bandwidth from 256 to 640 for free.
How fast were you really getting before they did that bump? I was been getting ~640 before the "bump". Of course, I've had my modem set to the highest possible baud rates since day 1. I'm thinking that this bump was 100% a marketing ploy, with the thinking being that by upping it to 640K, they can advertise their DSL service as being up to 25 times faster than a 28.8, instead of only 9 times faster.
That said, I've had USWest DSL since June 1999, and since I got my static IP addresses a year or so ago, I haven't had a single outage that I am aware of. 'Course my phone bill runs 150 a month or so after the static IP's, DSL, 2 "Custom Choice" analog lines.
The only complaint I have about them is that the largest block of IP's available is 8, of which 5 are useable. Hmm, maybe I'll have to get another DSL connection on the other line...
Oh, and my connection was ready to go at least the day before they said it would be (I did all the internal setup myself, with a tiny amount of configuration help from their seemingly competent tech support).
Really? Examining my URL, you'll find I've got myself a UMN account. Its an alumni account, but my student account is sstill good through the end of next week. I've received exactly no notification that napster use was prohibited. You wouldn't happen to have an email or a URL from OIT, NTS, or Mark, would you?
That simply is not what the opinion says. In order for Napster to use this argument and refer to this opinion from the Supremes, Napster would need to show not only that the technology can be used in a legitimate manner (as you suggested), but also Napter would need to show that the majority of the actual physical use of the technology is legitimate.
</BLOCKQUOTH THE POSTER>
Sorry, but the decision only says widely used, which does not equate to majority use.
You also state that Napster cannot prove majority legitimate use. Since the RIAA has admitted it cannot provide a "catalog" of its copyrighted recordings, it makes it difficult to prove that the majority of the use of Napster is infringing
Despite this, you also ignored another statement from the opinion:
<BLOCKQUOTH THE PARENT POST>
Additionally the Court stated, "A use that has no demonstrable effect upon the potential market for, or the value of, the copyrighted work need not be prohibited in order to protect the author's incentive to create."
</BLOCKQUOTH THE PARENT POST>
A while ago,/. ran a story about the RIAA making record profits, despite the existence of the MP3 movement. Seems that the only demonstrable effect on the value of the RIAA's works is causing them to be more valuable. Kind of ironic, isn't it?
Actually, now that everyone is moving towards the Windows Installer method of installation, Microsoft provides this neat editing tool called Orca, which does a fine job of re-arranging, inserting, and removing screens from the install process. Oops. The license screen never got displayed; I don't recall ever seeing a license, much less accepting one...
Exactly. Even a small amount of the knowledge of the law, in the hands of the right person, can be a dangerous thing. A friend and I were talking about Minnesota driving law a while back, specifically the speed limit law. After describing the intricacies of it to him, all he said to me was "If you ever get a speeding ticket, you'll be dangerous in the courtroom."
Let's find a bunch of people who got them through Wired to not only put up code for it, but also widely publicize its location. Get a C/D order from them, and press charges under the postal regulations. IANAL so this should under no circumstances be taken as legal advice. I'd subscribe to Wired, but they would probably consider that to be soliciting the device.
A few others probably did recieve their CueCat with their Forbes and Wired subscription, but in that case it wasn't mailed in violation of subsection (a) either.
Ahh, grasshopper, but you're also missing subsection (d):
(d) For the purposes of this section, ''unordered merchandise'' means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.
Subscribers to Wired and Forbes subscribe, and thus solicit, Wired and Forbes magazines, respectively; they do not subscribe to the Wired Cool New Toy Service or the Forbes Cool New Toy Service. Ergo, unless the merchandise was part of one of those new subscriber offers, and especially if it arrived in its own shipment (any one who got one with a magazine care to comment on this), the CC can be considered unordered merchandise per subsection (d).
As one final note, I know that they will say encryption was broken under the DMCA, however, when you read this you are breaking my encryption of the post. I encrypted it by converting all characters to their ascii values. Everyone who reads this posted has now broken my encryption to view copyrighted material.
The DMCA doesn't even apply to their encryption. If they don't own the work (barcode), they have nothing to which access may be controlled under the DMCA. The only DMCA issue would be the reader serial number.
Gotta give their lawyers credit, though. At least they delivered hard-copies instead of the emails that certain other rights-stomping organizations send.
But, they are probably smart enough to realize that if they made a stink about it it would get that software distributed faster and make more people interested in the product to begin with.
Quite possibly. I remember when I was a lifeguard, I learned that the quickest way to get a kid to run on the pool deck, was to tell them they couldn't. I guess at 23, the generalization of that applies to me. The quickest way to get me to get myself a copy of DeCSS, or the software for this, is to tell me I can't have it.
Well, CNN was owned by Turner Broadcasting, along with a rather large collection of other cable channels. A couple of years ago, Ted Turner sold Turner Broadcasting to Time-Warner.
Slashdot Mirror
When you get down to it, what really is the difference between the peer-to-peer model, and the client-server model. When all the bells and whistles are scraped off, and all you've got left is the core, somewhere there's always a client, and there's always a server. The only real difference is that all the world's a potential server under P2P, a "server" that can't necessarily be controlled by some commercial entity.
If anyone looked at the graphic in the article, the method they show describing P2P is something akin to using the Metacrawler search, to search through many search engines (with the distinction that there are still central databases to search, instead of asking all 4 billion hypothetical systems what they've got). Why? Probably because the Internet was created as a peer-to-peer system. From the lowliest PC-XT running DOS-based software, all the way up to the Sun E10000's they're all "equal" on the 'net; if it can be connected, it can provide content (given that it isn't prempted by some silly Internet Content Provider's rules), yet the peer containing the content is the server, and the peer requesting the content is the client.
One last thought for Hemos: A bit that gets taken from Gnutella, or its cousins, is a bit that was contributed to it.
Never buy something that comes in a box that is a low quality black and white copy of the original.
:).
Or for that matter, anything that is a half-way decent color copy of the original. If I didn't hate the bastards so much, I'd love to be an FBI badge at one of those shows. Particularly one on commission
Until the point that the 100 Mbps Carnivore port can't handle the bandwith available through the 2.4Gbps switch.
As so many other people have noted, the key words are "network segment". On switched Ethernet, the segment (generally) consists of the switch, and the NIC. Thus, the NIC gets all the traffic on its segment.
Further, the card does "tap" everything on its segment, but discards everything not destined for itself.
Yet, is it legal?
:
I will MAKE it legal.
Yeah, but if FedEx is your competition, you'll probably send it yourself, n'est-ce pas?
Quoth the poster:
I really don't understand why professors would dislike this. Someone is providing their class with study aids and they don't have to lift a finger.
Probably because they're not getting paid for something they didn't do.
Actually, that plummet at the end of June was a result of a dividend paid to shareholders: the stock in the various companies SGI was holding. That aside, SGI's price has done a fairly decent job of following the trends on the NASDAQ since March.
Move on. Nothing to see here.
Really? I've got USW/ATT, and DSL, with USW as both the transport, and the ISP. I'm still on ATT residential LD. I've had it for a year and a half, now.
Depends on the state. AFAIK (IANAL) it is legal in Minnesota, so long as at least one party besides yourself has knowledge of it. Doesn't necessarily need to be the person on the other end of the line, though. Talk to a lawyer before trying to admit evidence in a court.
Have a look at your Cisco 675 docs, then. The lowest possible baud rate is the one for 640dow/272 up (Note, VISI's pages explicitly say to set the router up for 256 (or so) k service). As for the initial batch theory, there was a time when I first got service that I was pulling 2.5Mbps across my line while downloading a set of kernel sources, a feat that hasn't been achieved since.
As for VISI, I'm planning on moving this winter (with the requirement that the line be RADSL qualified), and will probably switch to Vector then, given that their static ip pricing is still in tact as it was before they were absorbed into dsl.net.
Quoth the poster:
They even bumped up my bandwidth from 256 to 640 for free.
How fast were you really getting before they did that bump? I was been getting ~640 before the "bump". Of course, I've had my modem set to the highest possible baud rates since day 1. I'm thinking that this bump was 100% a marketing ploy, with the thinking being that by upping it to 640K, they can advertise their DSL service as being up to 25 times faster than a 28.8, instead of only 9 times faster.
That said, I've had USWest DSL since June 1999, and since I got my static IP addresses a year or so ago, I haven't had a single outage that I am aware of. 'Course my phone bill runs 150 a month or so after the static IP's, DSL, 2 "Custom Choice" analog lines.
The only complaint I have about them is that the largest block of IP's available is 8, of which 5 are useable. Hmm, maybe I'll have to get another DSL connection on the other line...
Oh, and my connection was ready to go at least the day before they said it would be (I did all the internal setup myself, with a tiny amount of configuration help from their seemingly competent tech support).
Really? Examining my URL, you'll find I've got myself a UMN account. Its an alumni account, but my student account is sstill good through the end of next week. I've received exactly no notification that napster use was prohibited. You wouldn't happen to have an email or a URL from OIT, NTS, or Mark, would you?
That simply is not what the opinion says. In order for Napster to use this argument and refer to this opinion from the Supremes, Napster would need to show not only that the technology can be used in a legitimate manner (as you suggested), but also Napter would need to show that the majority of the actual physical use of the technology is legitimate.
</BLOCKQUOTH THE POSTER>
Sorry, but the decision only says widely used, which does not equate to majority use.
You also state that Napster cannot prove majority legitimate use. Since the RIAA has admitted it cannot provide a "catalog" of its copyrighted recordings, it makes it difficult to prove that the majority of the use of Napster is infringing
Despite this, you also ignored another statement from the opinion:
<BLOCKQUOTH THE PARENT POST>
Additionally the Court stated, "A use that has no demonstrable effect upon the potential market for, or the value of, the copyrighted work need not be prohibited in order to protect the author's incentive to create."
</BLOCKQUOTH THE PARENT POST>
A while ago,
Actually, now that everyone is moving towards the Windows Installer method of installation, Microsoft provides this neat editing tool called Orca, which does a fine job of re-arranging, inserting, and removing screens from the install process. Oops. The license screen never got displayed; I don't recall ever seeing a license, much less accepting one...
Exactly. Even a small amount of the knowledge of the law, in the hands of the right person, can be a dangerous thing. A friend and I were talking about Minnesota driving law a while back, specifically the speed limit law. After describing the intricacies of it to him, all he said to me was "If you ever get a speeding ticket, you'll be dangerous in the courtroom."
Let's find a bunch of people who got them through Wired to not only put up code for it, but also widely publicize its location. Get a C/D order from them, and press charges under the postal regulations. IANAL so this should under no circumstances be taken as legal advice. I'd subscribe to Wired, but they would probably consider that to be soliciting the device.
A few others probably did recieve their CueCat with their Forbes and Wired subscription, but in that case it wasn't mailed in violation of subsection (a) either.
Ahh, grasshopper, but you're also missing subsection (d):
(d) For the purposes of this section, ''unordered merchandise'' means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.
Subscribers to Wired and Forbes subscribe, and thus solicit, Wired and Forbes magazines, respectively; they do not subscribe to the Wired Cool New Toy Service or the Forbes Cool New Toy Service. Ergo, unless the merchandise was part of one of those new subscriber offers, and especially if it arrived in its own shipment (any one who got one with a magazine care to comment on this), the CC can be considered unordered merchandise per subsection (d).
Better still, use one of the audio in jacks on the sound card, especially if the card is DMA-able.
As one final note, I know that they will say encryption was broken under the DMCA, however, when you read this you are breaking my encryption of the post. I encrypted it by converting all characters to their ascii values. Everyone who reads this posted has now broken my encryption to view copyrighted material.
The DMCA doesn't even apply to their encryption. If they don't own the work (barcode), they have nothing to which access may be controlled under the DMCA. The only DMCA issue would be the reader serial number.
And you're planning on doing a clean-room implementation without the using the hardware exactly how?
Gotta give their lawyers credit, though. At least they delivered hard-copies instead of the emails that certain other rights-stomping organizations send.
Quoth the poster:
But, they are probably smart enough to realize that if they made a stink about it it would get that software distributed faster and make more people interested in the product to begin with.
Quite possibly. I remember when I was a lifeguard, I learned that the quickest way to get a kid to run on the pool deck, was to tell them they couldn't. I guess at 23, the generalization of that applies to me. The quickest way to get me to get myself a copy of DeCSS, or the software for this, is to tell me I can't have it.
scratch that...should be in concert with 2600.com.
Well, CNN was owned by Turner Broadcasting, along with a rather large collection of other cable channels. A couple of years ago, Ted Turner sold Turner Broadcasting to Time-Warner.
Ah, but I seem to remember the injunction only applying to anyone in concert with 2600.
Now, let us proceed to debate whether or not CNN, as a "subsidiary" of the plaintiff, is thusly acting in concert with CNN.....