Obviously I understand the reasons for being against subscription theft, but video extraction seems perfectly legal, and there are already recorders out there that will do it (and a new Panasonic that burns to DVD).
I guess Lessig was right, if each new invention dealing with the media needs to be vetted by incumbent powers in the courts it's really going to kill progress.
The reason for this is that a few years back he got a visit from Interpol, who had searched for a particular string ('illegal drugs for sale' or something), and found that his random ordering contained it. He had a hard job trying to explain that it wasn't a concealed message...
I figured they set things up so that 'searchking' would turn up if you did an actual search for 'searchking', since lots of people were intrested in seeing their site after news of the lawsuit came out.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The output of flipflops isn't at that time, it's just useless. Heisenber's uncertanty principle has nothing to do with computers.
Here's anoher one for your Saturday Night "Isn't that fucked up?" discussions: I've always wondered if time actually is linear. We and our physics are stuck in the current space/time continuum, and therefore we would have no idea if time actually followed say, a sine wave, since we would have no other point of reference.
That's like asking if 'up and down' folow a sine wave.
However, if everyone is a digital projection controlled by a computer program, then how is it the humans inside the matrix are capable of independent thought? Why isn't it like "Big Brother" in George Orwell's 1984, where the Thought Police were always watching for crimethink? Even if the computers' super-advanced AI engine could simulate thoughts *for* the human, and trick them into thinking they came up with it themselves, then why would the system allow a human to discover what is outside the Matrix? Is there a certain amount of "tolerance" built into the system? I guess that would explain the need for "agents."
If it was all a simulation, why would the people running the simulation care at all what people thought? It wouldn't matter if we realized it was a simulation, since there would be no way for us to ever get 'out'. And they certanly wouldn't need big-brother like tactics if they could peer into our minds.
This only makes sense if there was some actual reason for simulating a whole human race over large timescales. It seems like an awfull lot of computer power, and for what? They'd need to simulate our bodies, the world around us, the whole deal.
What this means, everyone, is that they knew of the "offending code" for a while without taking any action, and continued in their Linux business, knowingly distributing the offending code themselves.
They have no legal legs to stand on. Hopefully the courts will get this one right, and SCO will become irrelevant.
It's true they have no legal leg to stand on, but unlike trademarks, patents and copyright do not diminish with disuse. Just look at Unisys. They decided to demand money for their GIF patent just two years before it expired, and succeded.
SCO's extorted $8.8 million so far. I don't know how much of that comes from Microsoft though (it wouldn't surprise me if it was all of it). Interestingly, that's twice their profit from all of last year. (on $20 million revenue)
So apparently this little stunt is profitable. Maybe after their done they'll change their name back to Caldara or Canopy and hope no one notices.
Actualy I got a VCD copy of the first Matrix from a friend at a LAN party a few weeks after it came out. Of course, I'd already seen it in the theater about 3 times before then, but I just wanted to be able to see it again on the cheap. (of course, one of the times in the theater I got in with a theater employee so it was free... hrm, I wonder if the MPAA would try to sue over that)
The copy was off of a cam but it wasn't the final release of the movie. All of the music was missing and a few scenes were gone. The whole bar scene was pretty strange without the rob zombie playing. You could hear footsteps and glasses clinking.
Not only has Apple been selling cinema-style flat panel displays for several years, but last year it filed patent application 20030002246, titled "active enclosure for computing device," which describes a machine that contains an array of rainbow-hued light-emitting diodes.
Don't you see? M$ put blinking LEDs on their case as well. Apple totally thought of that before anyone else ever had and MS is just ripping them off completely.
Oh, and there's something about how MS's new graphics layer is a rip-off of quartz, or something, as if using 'accelerated' features of modern video cards in the general GUI is totally not obvious at all.
When a company has made a living off of copying other ideas and then proclaiming their "innovation" they are going to draw the ire of those who know better.
Oh please, Apple does the same thing but with a good design aesthetic and you people fall all over yourselves to praise them.
MS didn't get those features into their consumer OS until XP, and even then it didn't come for free. They lost backwards compatibility, but it doesn't matter anywhere near as much in 2002 as it did in 1995.
What features? windows 3.1 (in 386 enhanced mode) had protected memory, and win95 introduced premptive multitasking.
Win95 had premtive multitasking. It was 'difficult' for a single app to crash a win95 machine. And almost impossible for one to crash it due to a programming error, as compared to a mac where something like an infinite loop or an ivalid refrence could bring down the whole machine.
The reason win95 crashed a lot was because it was buggy, included really old code, and supported a lot of funky hardware.
However, you are right in criticizing the lack of protected memory - a source of great irritation and many unnecessary crashes and reboots. The market demanded it, and Apple provided. Where is the criticism here?
That it took 'em like a decade. I mean, even windows 3.1 had protected memory (without premption you one app could still crash the machine, but it still helped).
Yet mac users kept bitching about 'gpf's when the same error could take down a mac, and clamed their system was more stable.
OS X will run on my 8 year old 8500/150 (via XPostoFacto), admittedly poorly, until I drop a G4/800 CPU card, 512MB of Ram (1/2 of what it supports) and a Radeon PCI mac Edition into it, then it'll run quite nicely, thank you very much.
Well, windows2000 will run on an old 8086 if you drop in a p4 mobo, a new hard drive, and a gig of ram.
An assertion with no more evidence then "do a google search", which turns up nothing anyway. I've never heard anything like this, and I suspect that you, like a lot of apple advocates have seriously misinterpreted the facts.
It would be a shame if someone did a google search for "free porn in your email and then signed him up for everything that showed up.
Re:It doesn't seem terribly complicated
on
How to Become A Spammer
·
· Score: 2, Informative
(This is what makes Spam so problematic. *Almost*
makes me want the estamps thing to succeed.)
Estamps are the most idiotic things ever thought up. They introduce so many new parties and variables into the equation it's not even funny.
Email is a relationship between two people. Estamps would require a relationship between the sender, the sender's bank, the receiver's bank, a central authority, etc. It's stupid.
The solution is sender-verification. If you get an email from someone you don't know, send them a response indicating their need to prove their humanity to you. (obviously the other person needs to allow email replies from you as well.). If you need to get mail from some company, you can 'pre-verify' them, for things like receipts from e-commerce companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously I understand the reasons for being against subscription theft, but video extraction seems perfectly legal, and there are already recorders out there that will do it (and a new Panasonic that burns to DVD).
I guess Lessig was right, if each new invention dealing with the media needs to be vetted by incumbent powers in the courts it's really going to kill progress.
You know, people in nigeria do more then just spam people. I can't belive this racist bullshit made the front page.
The reason for this is that a few years back he got a visit from Interpol, who had searched for a particular string ('illegal drugs for sale' or something), and found that his random ordering contained it. He had a hard job trying to explain that it wasn't a concealed message...
Why is it up to him to explain that?
I figured they set things up so that 'searchking' would turn up if you did an actual search for 'searchking', since lots of people were intrested in seeing their site after news of the lawsuit came out.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The output of flipflops isn't at that time, it's just useless. Heisenber's uncertanty principle has nothing to do with computers.
Here's anoher one for your Saturday Night "Isn't that fucked up?" discussions: I've always wondered if time actually is linear. We and our physics are stuck in the current space/time continuum, and therefore we would have no idea if time actually followed say, a sine wave, since we would have no other point of reference.
That's like asking if 'up and down' folow a sine wave.
However, if everyone is a digital projection controlled by a computer program, then how is it the humans inside the matrix are capable of independent thought? Why isn't it like "Big Brother" in George Orwell's 1984, where the Thought Police were always watching for crimethink? Even if the computers' super-advanced AI engine could simulate thoughts *for* the human, and trick them into thinking they came up with it themselves, then why would the system allow a human to discover what is outside the Matrix? Is there a certain amount of "tolerance" built into the system? I guess that would explain the need for "agents."
If it was all a simulation, why would the people running the simulation care at all what people thought? It wouldn't matter if we realized it was a simulation, since there would be no way for us to ever get 'out'. And they certanly wouldn't need big-brother like tactics if they could peer into our minds.
Put me down for $35 on 386
This only makes sense if there was some actual reason for simulating a whole human race over large timescales. It seems like an awfull lot of computer power, and for what? They'd need to simulate our bodies, the world around us, the whole deal.
They are saying that if you can't distribute the source, then you can't distribute the binaries either.
What this means, everyone, is that they knew of the "offending code" for a while without taking any action, and continued in their Linux business, knowingly distributing the offending code themselves.
They have no legal legs to stand on. Hopefully the courts will get this one right, and SCO will become irrelevant.
It's true they have no legal leg to stand on, but unlike trademarks, patents and copyright do not diminish with disuse. Just look at Unisys. They decided to demand money for their GIF patent just two years before it expired, and succeded.
SCO's extorted $8.8 million so far. I don't know how much of that comes from Microsoft though (it wouldn't surprise me if it was all of it). Interestingly, that's twice their profit from all of last year. (on $20 million revenue)
So apparently this little stunt is profitable. Maybe after their done they'll change their name back to Caldara or Canopy and hope no one notices.
Actualy I got a VCD copy of the first Matrix from a friend at a LAN party a few weeks after it came out. Of course, I'd already seen it in the theater about 3 times before then, but I just wanted to be able to see it again on the cheap. (of course, one of the times in the theater I got in with a theater employee so it was free... hrm, I wonder if the MPAA would try to sue over that)
The copy was off of a cam but it wasn't the final release of the movie. All of the music was missing and a few scenes were gone. The whole bar scene was pretty strange without the rob zombie playing. You could hear footsteps and glasses clinking.
Anyone else ever see that file?
Now that there are acceptable games on most cellphones these days. The real market for this is little kids.
Oh yeah, let me just say the slashdot games logo/graphics are butt ugly.
GM, Ford and AMC don't churn out great cars. No Lamborghini's, no Roll's Royces, not even a Beamer.
Beamer's are shit these days, and they've merged with 'amc'. Get witht the times.
Not only has Apple been selling cinema-style flat panel displays for several years, but last year it filed patent application 20030002246, titled "active enclosure for computing device," which describes a machine that contains an array of rainbow-hued light-emitting diodes.
Don't you see? M$ put blinking LEDs on their case as well. Apple totally thought of that before anyone else ever had and MS is just ripping them off completely.
Oh, and there's something about how MS's new graphics layer is a rip-off of quartz, or something, as if using 'accelerated' features of modern video cards in the general GUI is totally not obvious at all.
When a company has made a living off of copying other ideas and then proclaiming their "innovation" they are going to draw the ire of those who know better.
Oh please, Apple does the same thing but with a good design aesthetic and you people fall all over yourselves to praise them.
MS didn't get those features into their consumer OS until XP, and even then it didn't come for free. They lost backwards compatibility, but it doesn't matter anywhere near as much in 2002 as it did in 1995.
What features? windows 3.1 (in 386 enhanced mode) had protected memory, and win95 introduced premptive multitasking.
Win95 had premtive multitasking. It was 'difficult' for a single app to crash a win95 machine. And almost impossible for one to crash it due to a programming error, as compared to a mac where something like an infinite loop or an ivalid refrence could bring down the whole machine.
The reason win95 crashed a lot was because it was buggy, included really old code, and supported a lot of funky hardware.
However, you are right in criticizing the lack of protected memory - a source of great irritation and many unnecessary crashes and reboots. The market demanded it, and Apple provided. Where is the criticism here?
That it took 'em like a decade. I mean, even windows 3.1 had protected memory (without premption you one app could still crash the machine, but it still helped).
Yet mac users kept bitching about 'gpf's when the same error could take down a mac, and clamed their system was more stable.
OS X will run on my 8 year old 8500/150 (via XPostoFacto), admittedly poorly, until I drop a G4/800 CPU card, 512MB of Ram (1/2 of what it supports) and a Radeon PCI mac Edition into it, then it'll run quite nicely, thank you very much.
Well, windows2000 will run on an old 8086 if you drop in a p4 mobo, a new hard drive, and a gig of ram.
An assertion with no more evidence then "do a google search", which turns up nothing anyway. I've never heard anything like this, and I suspect that you, like a lot of apple advocates have seriously misinterpreted the facts.
Show some real evidence, please.
It would be a shame if someone did a google search for "free porn in your email and then signed him up for everything that showed up.
(This is what makes Spam so problematic. *Almost* makes me want the estamps thing to succeed.)
Estamps are the most idiotic things ever thought up. They introduce so many new parties and variables into the equation it's not even funny.
Email is a relationship between two people. Estamps would require a relationship between the sender, the sender's bank, the receiver's bank, a central authority, etc. It's stupid.
The solution is sender-verification. If you get an email from someone you don't know, send them a response indicating their need to prove their humanity to you. (obviously the other person needs to allow email replies from you as well.). If you need to get mail from some company, you can 'pre-verify' them, for things like receipts from e-commerce companies.
If you ask the post office not to recive bulk-rate mail, then they will not give it to you.