The one linked article mentions that it'd take about 23 seconds per person for the extra security measure.
Assuming 100 people per plane would be checked, if all going thru the same security checkpoint, that would appear to be about 38 minutes spent. Very unreasonable delay I would think most people would consider, especially if it's some business trip.
And of course the cost would ultimately be paid by the U.S. taxpayer most likely.
Uru (newest Myst game) had the main function of it being an online mode (aka "Live"), requiring it to access much of the content of the game by interacting with others.
Apparently, the online function of the game WAS on the game packaging itself, as well as mentioned on the official site.
But Ubi effectively scammed everyone who paid for it for the online function by shutting the Live part down claiming a low amount of subscribers, even though they limited it to 30 people max on a mere 2 servers, while Live function still being buggy and laggy as it was basically still in Beta testing.
Thankfully, one of the founders of Cyan (company who started the series) posted a letter to the fans saying it was basically shutdown down indefinitely until/if they can fix the bugs to make it reasonably playable. And also mentioned that they will switch to the back-up plan of releasing expansions via online and possibly in-store downloads, with the first one being free.
I'd hope if they fix the bugs that Cyan would choose a better company then Ubi to run the game servers, apparently the Uru Live lag was somehow greatly affecting all the other games hosted on Ubi servers.
Ok, I know replying to one's one post is usually not good, but I felt it was worth it to give a warning about the turnofftheinternet url.
It requires popups to be enabled, and remember to use whatever the keyboard combination to close your browser or program window is, otherwise you can use ctrl-alt-delete to end the browser instance (it creates a full-screen window with no browser interface or window buttons visible after clicking on the button)
The 2nd link appears to be basically a web, with numerous links if you click on text inside the various hubs.
Dunno if this counts as art, but it is as bizarre as those links: http://www.turnofftheinternet.com
I admit when I first saw the article, I had thought it was asking about favorite good art sites, was thinking about mentioning my favorite artist's site.
Although somehow I doubt the general reader would be interested in looking at a scaly (aka "herp") anthromorphic art site, which does have some..er..adult content, despite the art being very good quality imo.;)
Not even sure if it's allowed to post links to such a site, but if you are interested just do a google search for "Kaa Starhunter" (artist plugs Mozilla btw:p )
Was wondering when they where gonna start suing people:P Suppose they are either somehow ignorant or more likely deliberately disregarding that the economy has been down a bit lately.
/sung to tune of the seven dwarfs whistling theme - "Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to sue we go."
I'm Canadian, but yeah I do notice how negative/flame-bait-ish my post seemed:P
Was considering moving to the US in the future, but most likely won't now if it's as bad or worse then it is currently:\
And yes, I am getting quite tired of how the peoples rights, etc are continually being trampled by bad laws/big companies just trying to keep/increase profit with seemingly no respect to people in alot of cases.
How sad.../sigh. Not surprised in the least about this, considering how pro-business the current US Powers That Be are lately.
Just how stupid could they be to somehow not be certain that D-Squared is doing something so blatently illegal? (well, either stupid or being influenced/controlled by someone else).
Oh well...heres hoping the US gets better before the whole thing goes to "hell in a handbasket":P A major civil war would be a good thing now imo, before the US becomes even more draconian then it already is *rolls eyes*
Disabling Javascript effectively stops their lock-out code from working, but the site itself still works fine. lol.
Wonder if I'd get in trouble for posting info on how to get around the attempted lock-out of non-IE browsers, maybe even sending an email to BuyMusic saying how easy it is to get around it.
Yes, they might be able to change the code to try to block non-IE browsers from working on the site, although I don't think there is a way they could have a truly un-avoidable lock-out.
I'm not sure if posting info about getting around the lockin would be considered breaking the DMCA though:P
I bet they (BuyMusic people who are trying to enforce the lock-out) are getting $$$ from Microsoft to lock-out other browsers, although I imagine they'd get mad if I sent an email saying how I managed to get around the lock-out, especially if I said I posted on Slashdot here or other places the info:P
It's certainly near-impossible for them to do this, but I imagine they wish they could somehow make it illegal to get around lock-out code:P
Wonder if I'd get in trouble for posting this... lol.
Features: Compulsory Licensing - Where Are the Defenders of HTTP?
Posted by Ernest Miller on Friday, September 19 @ 13:10:10 EDT
Boston.com has published an AP wirestory on the Berkman Center Summit Digital Media in Cyberspace: The Legislation and Business Effects (Harvard symposium debates future of online file-sharing). A very interesting gathering (why doesn't anyone ever invite me to these things?) of lawyers, lobbyists, artists, economists, academics and etc., discussing the future of digital media (see, Wither Digital Media?).
I found the following quote by Charles Nesson rather interesting, "There was a time that to make a copy, you needed a monk, and a desk, and months, and then Sean Fanning hit the scene." Now, clearly, Nesson was exaggerating his statement for effect. However, his statement does point to a common misconception about filesharing - many people believe that it started with Napster. It didn't. The MP3 format itself was causing concern to the record industry at least since 1997 and Napster was not founded until 1999. So how was music filesharing taking place before Napster? Many of the usual suspects that are routinely ignored in the press even today: Usenet, FTP, IRC... and one suspect that is no longer a major concern: HTTP.
The Era of OF - Original Filesharing
Remember the MP3 search engines? Before Napster, college students and dotcommers were filesharing by putting MP3s on their webpages for download through good ol' http. However, webpages are relatively easy to find and, more importantly, easier to shut down for a number of reasons: primarily, because of contributory and even direct liability for the organization hosting the site. Consequently, such organizations (like ISPs) had (and have) an interest in shutting down copyright infringing websites relatively quickly (even absent the poorly designed notice and takedown "safe harbor" provision of the DMCA).
Yet there hasn't been much outcry over the fact that the RIAA has and continues to shut down hundreds of noncommercial websites offering copyrighted MP3s for download without authorization. The RIAA has even threatened lawsuits and gotten college students expelled over their refusal to remove MP3s from college websites. There has been concern (often expressed on LawMeme) about abuse of the DMCA's notice and takedown procedures, but not much outcry when direct copyright infringement has been shown. Why is there no outraged defense of http filesharing?
Legally Equivalent, but HTTP has Advantages
P2P and http uploading and downloading of copyrighted MP3s are, essentially, functionally equivalent from a copyright point of view. From a technical point of view, however, there are significant differences. If anything, http has some serious advantages over P2P filesharing in many cases. Although P2P would still be useful in a world where http filesharing were allowed, http could easily and more effectively handle the vast majority of filesharing. For example, http:
* Is better at providing access to the obscure stuff. Everytime you log onto a P2P network to download, you are relying on someone else being online at the same time with the materials you desire. For popular stuff, it is a virtual certainty you will find it. However, for more obscure works, or particular versions of works, you may or may not be successful at finding it right away. Having a work available on a website 24/7 generally solves this problem. If it exists, it can be found.
* Is better at sharing 24/7. If you really believe in sharing, wouldn't you want to share 24/7? Why deny people the bounty of your largess when you aren't online? Or, if you are online, but don't want to slow your own surfing experience, wouldn't it be better to move your filesharing to another server rather than turn it off altogether?
* Means security issues may be ameliorated. Many people don't really take security seriously enough. They don't keep their virus files updated, they don't patch vuln
Make any downloads from the microsoft site forced to ask permission before downloading begins (you should be able to do this by changing your browsers security settings).
Perhaps someone might download it, check to see if it disables/destroys anything, and release info about it (perhaps even "hack it" to remove the "destructive" part of the code, although that might be illegal).
There are definitely some things I want to keep private from most people... although if the FBI found out some of my "secrets", I don't think I'd be that upset.
And I really am curious as to how they would react to some of my secrets... although I wouldn't be too surprised if either:
a) They just didn't care / were neutral about it
OR
b) They wanted to do "experiments/testing" on me (but I would probably want some compensation for the latter, although it wouldn't necessarily include giving me money, as I consider certain other things more important).
Slashdot Mirror
The one linked article mentions that it'd take about 23 seconds per person for the extra security measure.
Assuming 100 people per plane would be checked, if all going thru the same security checkpoint, that would appear to be about 38 minutes spent. Very unreasonable delay I would think most people would consider, especially if it's some business trip.
And of course the cost would ultimately be paid by the U.S. taxpayer most likely.
Uru (newest Myst game) had the main function of it being an online mode (aka "Live"), requiring it to access much of the content of the game by interacting with others.
Apparently, the online function of the game WAS on the game packaging itself, as well as mentioned on the official site.
But Ubi effectively scammed everyone who paid for it for the online function by shutting the Live part down claiming a low amount of subscribers, even though they limited it to 30 people max on a mere 2 servers, while Live function still being buggy and laggy as it was basically still in Beta testing.
Thankfully, one of the founders of Cyan (company who started the series) posted a letter to the fans saying it was basically shutdown down indefinitely until/if they can fix the bugs to make it reasonably playable. And also mentioned that they will switch to the back-up plan of releasing expansions via online and possibly in-store downloads, with the first one being free.
I'd hope if they fix the bugs that Cyan would choose a better company then Ubi to run the game servers, apparently the Uru Live lag was somehow greatly affecting all the other games hosted on Ubi servers.
IMO the Silent Hill series does have very well-done emotional impact, especially in the 2nd/3rd game.
Fear, love, hate, sadness, terror, greed, emotional/mental breakdown, and in a few cases humor.
Ok, I know replying to one's one post is usually not good, but I felt it was worth it to give a warning about the turnofftheinternet url.
It requires popups to be enabled, and remember to use whatever the keyboard combination to close your browser or program window is, otherwise you can use ctrl-alt-delete to end the browser instance (it creates a full-screen window with no browser interface or window buttons visible after clicking on the button)
The 2nd link appears to be basically a web, with numerous links if you click on text inside the various hubs.
;)
:p )
Dunno if this counts as art, but it is as bizarre as those links: http://www.turnofftheinternet.com
I admit when I first saw the article, I had thought it was asking about favorite good art sites, was thinking about mentioning my favorite artist's site.
Although somehow I doubt the general reader would be interested in looking at a scaly (aka "herp") anthromorphic art site, which does have some..er..adult content, despite the art being very good quality imo.
Not even sure if it's allowed to post links to such a site, but if you are interested just do a google search for "Kaa Starhunter" (artist plugs Mozilla btw
Pong. Move paddle left, or right, try to line up paddle with moving ball coming towards it. Can't possibly get simpler then that, can it? lol.
Was wondering when they where gonna start suing people :P Suppose they are either somehow ignorant or more likely deliberately disregarding that the economy has been down a bit lately.
/sung to tune of the seven dwarfs whistling theme -
"Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to sue we go."
I'm Canadian, but yeah I do notice how negative/flame-bait-ish my post seemed :P
Was considering moving to the US in the future, but most likely won't now if it's as bad or worse then it is currently :\
And yes, I am getting quite tired of how the peoples rights, etc are continually being trampled by bad laws/big companies just trying to keep/increase profit with seemingly no respect to people in alot of cases.
How sad... /sigh. Not surprised in the least about this, considering how pro-business the current US Powers That Be are lately.
Just how stupid could they be to somehow not be certain that D-Squared is doing something so blatently illegal? (well, either stupid or being influenced/controlled by someone else).
Oh well...heres hoping the US gets better before the whole thing goes to "hell in a handbasket" :P A major civil war would be a good thing now imo, before the US becomes even more draconian then it already is *rolls eyes*
Disabling Javascript effectively stops their lock-out code from working, but the site itself still works fine. lol.
:P
:P
:P
Wonder if I'd get in trouble for posting info on how to get around the attempted lock-out of non-IE browsers, maybe even sending an email to BuyMusic saying how easy it is to get around it.
Yes, they might be able to change the code to try to block non-IE browsers from working on the site, although I don't think there is a way they could have a truly un-avoidable lock-out.
I'm not sure if posting info about getting around the lockin would be considered breaking the DMCA though
I bet they (BuyMusic people who are trying to enforce the lock-out) are getting $$$ from Microsoft to lock-out other browsers, although I imagine they'd get mad if I sent an email saying how I managed to get around the lock-out, especially if I said I posted on Slashdot here or other places the info
It's certainly near-impossible for them to do this, but I imagine they wish they could somehow make it illegal to get around lock-out code
Wonder if I'd get in trouble for posting this... lol.
Features: Compulsory Licensing - Where Are the Defenders of HTTP?
... and one suspect that is no longer a major concern: HTTP.
Posted by Ernest Miller on Friday, September 19 @ 13:10:10 EDT
Boston.com has published an AP wirestory on the Berkman Center Summit Digital Media in Cyberspace: The Legislation and Business Effects (Harvard symposium debates future of online file-sharing). A very interesting gathering (why doesn't anyone ever invite me to these things?) of lawyers, lobbyists, artists, economists, academics and etc., discussing the future of digital media (see, Wither Digital Media?).
I found the following quote by Charles Nesson rather interesting, "There was a time that to make a copy, you needed a monk, and a desk, and months, and then Sean Fanning hit the scene." Now, clearly, Nesson was exaggerating his statement for effect. However, his statement does point to a common misconception about filesharing - many people believe that it started with Napster. It didn't. The MP3 format itself was causing concern to the record industry at least since 1997 and Napster was not founded until 1999. So how was music filesharing taking place before Napster? Many of the usual suspects that are routinely ignored in the press even today: Usenet, FTP, IRC
The Era of OF - Original Filesharing
Remember the MP3 search engines? Before Napster, college students and dotcommers were filesharing by putting MP3s on their webpages for download through good ol' http. However, webpages are relatively easy to find and, more importantly, easier to shut down for a number of reasons: primarily, because of contributory and even direct liability for the organization hosting the site. Consequently, such organizations (like ISPs) had (and have) an interest in shutting down copyright infringing websites relatively quickly (even absent the poorly designed notice and takedown "safe harbor" provision of the DMCA).
Yet there hasn't been much outcry over the fact that the RIAA has and continues to shut down hundreds of noncommercial websites offering copyrighted MP3s for download without authorization. The RIAA has even threatened lawsuits and gotten college students expelled over their refusal to remove MP3s from college websites. There has been concern (often expressed on LawMeme) about abuse of the DMCA's notice and takedown procedures, but not much outcry when direct copyright infringement has been shown. Why is there no outraged defense of http filesharing?
Legally Equivalent, but HTTP has Advantages
P2P and http uploading and downloading of copyrighted MP3s are, essentially, functionally equivalent from a copyright point of view. From a technical point of view, however, there are significant differences. If anything, http has some serious advantages over P2P filesharing in many cases. Although P2P would still be useful in a world where http filesharing were allowed, http could easily and more effectively handle the vast majority of filesharing. For example, http:
* Is better at providing access to the obscure stuff. Everytime you log onto a P2P network to download, you are relying on someone else being online at the same time with the materials you desire. For popular stuff, it is a virtual certainty you will find it. However, for more obscure works, or particular versions of works, you may or may not be successful at finding it right away. Having a work available on a website 24/7 generally solves this problem. If it exists, it can be found.
* Is better at sharing 24/7. If you really believe in sharing, wouldn't you want to share 24/7? Why deny people the bounty of your largess when you aren't online? Or, if you are online, but don't want to slow your own surfing experience, wouldn't it be better to move your filesharing to another server rather than turn it off altogether?
* Means security issues may be ameliorated. Many people don't really take security seriously enough. They don't keep their virus files updated, they don't patch vuln
Make any downloads from the microsoft site forced to ask permission before downloading begins (you should be able to do this by changing your browsers security settings). Perhaps someone might download it, check to see if it disables/destroys anything, and release info about it (perhaps even "hack it" to remove the "destructive" part of the code, although that might be illegal).
There are definitely some things I want to keep private from most people... although if the FBI found out some of my "secrets", I don't think I'd be that upset.
And I really am curious as to how they would react to some of my secrets... although I wouldn't be too surprised if either:
a) They just didn't care / were neutral about it
OR
b) They wanted to do "experiments/testing" on me (but I would probably want some compensation for the latter, although it wouldn't necessarily include giving me money, as I consider certain other things more important).