We send <object> for to have your advice...
on
XHTML 2.0 Working Draft
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Fweeky" writes:
No more <img> or <embed>. They're replaced by the technically superior <object>. Let's hope certain companies can actually be bothered to impliment it properly.
I do not get a secure fuzzy feeling about this element, when I read the relevant w3 spec, and see:
Most user agents have built-in mechanisms for processing common data types such as text, GIF images, colors, fonts, and a handful of graphic elements. To process data types they don't support natively, user agents generally run external applications.
The object element allows authors to control whether data should be processed externally or by some program, specified by the author, that processes the data within the user agent.
So, instead of the relatively safe and well-defined <img> tag, user agents must now support a strange new <object> tag, which (at some unknown author's whim) may decide to run external applications and feed them arbitrary untrusted data.
The w3 example shows the user agent happily downloading and running some unknown chunk of Python code, in the blind hope that it does nothing more "display a clock"!
At a minimum, this means the user agent will need a lot of security configuration, to specify which MIME types it's allowed to handle at all, and exactly which external applications should be allowed to process them. Even then, I predict an amazing new ecosystem of exotic exploits.
Maybe by the time these are ready for flight, a decade or two from now, the entire hull could be made of synthetic diamond. Strong, lightweight, conducts heat really well, and transparent...
are they announcing this when the orbit hasn't been
confirmed yet? I thought that after the embarrassing
1997 XF-11 false alarm, astronomers agreed to wait until
they had enough data to confirm or rule out an impact,
before releasing a press statement...
> We need standard api's, so if you like GTK, > acrobat calls a function - drawToolbar() - > you get a GTK toolbar. If you switch to QT, > then acrobat calls drawToolbar(), QT draws > a toolbar.
> Sorry pal. I call bullshit. I don't think the 16-year-old > with 4,000 MP3s on his two 100GB hard drives would have > bought every single one of the those CDs.
No, but we both know they (actually the parents or whoever gives them money) would've ended up buying *some* of those CDs, if there wasn't the option of evading payment.
True, a 16-year-old can't afford to buy 1000 CDs a year, but they can probably manage 10 or so a year. So that's at least $150 bucks in actual lost sales.
> Don't fall for the RIAA's propaganda - > DL'ed MP3 != Lost Sale
Face it, copying CDs = getting stuff without paying for it. It's no different than jumping the subway turnstile, or sneaking into a movie theater without buying a ticket.
Add in Happy Helmet capability too...
on
DRM Helmet
·
· Score: 1
The problem with such a DRM helmet is that most users wouldn't want to bother wearing them, unless there was much more benefit than just access to licensed content.
So, to make sure -everyone- wears their helm, it should also be designed to trigger constant low-level pleasure feedback in the user's frontal cortex.
This feature, combined with financial grants to provide free helms and educational content via public schools, should entice the vast majority of consumers to begin compulsively using the devices at a young age.
At the risk of sounding like Dean Kamen (the Segway guy), this would revolutionize not only the media industry, but society itself. Unhappiness would be a thing of the past, since the helmets would -ensure- consumers were completely happy, 24 hours a day. The long-sought goal of 100% customer satisfaction would be attained at last, regardless of actual service quality...
Hmmm. RIAA is currently unhappy that digital technology (particularly broadband and P2P software) will soon make it feasible to copy and download movies.
Solution: keep expanding the content of a typical movie so the average viewer feels it's cheaper and easier to just go buy it, rather than spend 10 hours downloading. To quote an old MTV ad, "Too much is never enough".
So, a typical "movie" in 2010 might include 32 different camera angle choices for each scene, dubs for most major languages spoken on earth (complete with CG airbrushing to resync the actors lips), etc. etc. etc.
You might ask the following provisions to be added, since they are entirely reasonable, and hence likely to "poison" the bill. >:K
1. It must be possible for ordinary end-users
who record and produce audiovisual works on
consumer-grade equipment (garage bands,
amateur film-makers and animators, etc.) to
mark/their/ works with any of the watermarks
mandated by the security standard, so their
content can be viewed on all compliant media
devices that require such watermarks.
(otherwise, the bill is essentially asking for
"digital prior restraint" by whoever dispenses
the watermarks, which would surely be found
un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court).
2. Similarly, it must be possible for ordinary
end-users to mark the works they create with
any of the copying control settings defined
by the standard, so they can exercise the
full range of control over how their works
are copied and used.
(i.e. it should not be any more difficult or
expensive for ordinary end-users to mark their
works with digital copyright info than it would
be for RIAA or MPAA members. Otherwise, the U.S.
wouldn't be complying with their Berne Treaty
obligations to automatically grant and uphold
copyright without formal action by the author.)
3. Any software or hardware technologies which
are mandated by the standard must be freely
available, without any patent, licensing, or
royalty requirements, to ensure that it is
possible for open-source "freeware" digital
media tools to comply with the standard.
(In particular, since Microsoft Corporation has
basic patents covering/any/ computer operating
system with embedded digital-rights management,
the U.S. Government must revoke or buy those
patents before mandating all operating systems
software have this function. Otherwise, they
would be simply handing Microsoft exclusive
control of the entire software industry!)
Also available: Voice Impersonator
on
Pitch Perfect Karaoke
·
· Score: 4, Informative
There's also a team in Spain developing Voice Impersonator Karaoke technology.
Now singers can morph their own bland and off-key voices into a full rich Elvis (or anyone else for whom a digital voice template has been computed). Why be yourself, when you can be The King!
Thank'uh ver' much. Can yall' get me sum barbecue 'n diet pills...
Hmm. I'm not a lawyer, but let's look at the relevant U.S. law:
U.S. Code Section 17 Title 102(b) http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/102. html
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an
original work of authorship extend to any
idea, procedure, process, system, method of
operation, concept, principle, or discovery,
regardless of the form in which it is
described, explained, illustrated, or
embodied in such work
A DNA sequence is clearly a set of process instructions for assembling proteins. I don't think the courts will be fooled by a biotech company trying to copyright it in musical form.
Given that the towers/were/ going to collapse,
thanks to two teams of mass-murderers who flew
767s into them at 300 mph and set off a 10,000
gallons jet-fuel firestorm,
We should at least be glad they pancaked down
into their own basements, instead of collapsing
sideways. Had they done so, it might have wiped
out much of Manhattan and perhaps killed 30,000
people instead of 3,000.
Perhaps any new 100+ story buildings built in a
densely populated area/should/ be designed the
same way as the WTC, to collapse inward if the
unthinkable happens and the building cannot be
saved.
(Obviously, if humanly possible buildings should
be designed to stay up long enough to evacuate
everyone; and the WTC did hold up until 90% of
the people got out).
Just an opposing view, to those who say the WTC
should have been designed differently. I doubt
any other designed would have produced as few
casualties after such a horrific attack.
>:K
As other posters have noted, we don't have any materials strong enough for an elevator all the way to geosynchronous orbit, so it's a bit too soon for anyone to claim we could build one in the next 10 years.
HOWEVER, we do have materials strong enough for a "hypersonic tether". This'd be a much shorter tether, only a few thousand km long, and moving at a good clip around the Earth, with the lower end just above the atmosphere.
With this in place, you could use cheap sounding rockets, just barely capable of making it out of the atmosphere, to rendezvous with the tether as it swept past. The cargo would be grabbed by the tether and snatched up into low orbit, while the sounding rocket fell back to Earth.
There aren't any good online references, but you can find USENET discussions of the technology on Google Groups, keywords "hypersonic tether".
What it god's sordid name would that solve? Oh, I guess libraries would only be able to access.kids TLDs?
No, libraries would have.kids-only PCs in the children's book section. Parents could also sign permission if they felt their kids were ready to use the unrestricted PCs.
And besides, they would have the same problem we have now, in trying to decide what's "appropriate" content for a.kids website. Are you on crack or something? help me.
It would be up to the.kids domain registrar. The important thing is: Congress, parents groups, civil liberties groups could go off and fight all they wanted about the AUP for.kids, while leaving the rest of the Net alone. Does that help?
Look, the issue is not going to go away. People want their kids to have free access to the Net, so they can grow up to be well-paid information workers instead of low-paid foodservice workers. But they also don't want six-year olds to be exposed to pr0n, molesters, or serial killer fan sites. IMHO, these are legitimate goals, and the best way to satisfy them without censoring the entire Net is to create kid-safe part of the Net that is appropriate to censor.
Instead of trying to filter kid-unsafe material out of the existing 3 billion or so websites, you'd think the sponsors of COPA could've just told ICANN to get off their asses and set up a .kids (or.minors or whatever) domain where the offending content could not be legally hosted.
What about Open-Source entertainment content, using computer graphics for the actors and sets? i.e. the participants submit scripts, Povray models, etc. to a common pool, sorta like the monthly IRTC animation contests.
Please forgive me for stupidly posting this as the default "HTML Formatted" style.
Is there/any/ way to remark it as "Plain Old Text", so the post is readable?
(Yes, I should have hit Preview. I was less
than fully alert, after manually typing in
the 16 pages from gif images, and having to
resubmit it 4 times because it allegedly "contained too many junk characters", i.e.
the line numbers in the actual bill text.)
107TH CONGRESS
2ND SESSION
S. --- --- ---
To regulate interstate commerce in certain devices by providing for private
sector development of technological protection measures to be imple-
mented and enforced by Federal regulations to protect content
and promote broadband as well as the transition to digital television
and for other purposes
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
MARCH ----, 2002
MR HOLLINGS (for Himself, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. BREAUX, Mr.
NELSON of Florida, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on --------
A BILL
To regulate interstate commerce in certain devices by pro-
viding for private sector development of technological
protection measures to be implemented and enforced by
Federal regulations to protect digital content and pro-
mote broadband as well as the transition to digital tele-
vision, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE: TABLE OF SECTIONS
(a) SHORT TITLE.---This Act may be cited as the
"Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion
Act".
(b) TABLE OF SECTIONS.---The table of sections for
this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title: table of sections.
Sec. 2. Findings
Sec. 3. Adoption of security system standards and encoding rules.
Sec. 4. Preservation of the integrity of security.
Sec. 5. Prohibition on shipment in interstate commerce of
nonconforming digital media devices.
Sec. 6. Prohibition on removal or alteration of security technology;
violation of encoding rules.
Sec. 7. Enforcement.
Sec. 8. Federal Advisory Committee Act exemption
Sec. 9. Definitions.
Sec. 10. Effective Date.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The lack of high quality digital content con-
tinues to hinder consumer adoption of broadband
Internet service and digital television products.
(2) Owners of digital programming and content
are increasingly reluctant to transmit their products
unless digital media devices incorporate technologies
that recognize and respond to content security meas-
ures designed to prevent theft.
(3) Because digital content can be copied quick-
ly, easily, and without degredation, digital progam-
mers and content owners face an exponentially in-
creasing piracy threat in a digital age.
(4) Current agreements reached in the market-
place to include security technologies in certain dig-
ital media devices fail to provide a secure digital en-
vironment because those agreements do not prevent
the continued use and manufacture of digital media
devices that fail to incorporate such security tech-
nologies.
(5) Other existing digital rights management
schemes represent proprietary, partial solutions that
limit, rather than promote, consumers' access to the
greatest variety of digital content possible.
(6) Technological solutions can be developed to
protect digital content on digital broadcast television
and over the Internet.
(7) Competing business interests have frus-
trated agreement on the deployment of existing tech-
nology in digital media devices to protect digital con-
tent on the Internet or on digital broadcast tele-
vision.
(8) The secure protection of digital content is
a necessary precondition to the dissemination, and
on-line availability, of high quality digital content
which will benefit consumers and lead to the rapid
growth of broadband networks.
(9) The secure protection of digital content is
a necessary precondition to facilitating and has-
tening the transition to high-definition television
which will benefit consumers.
(10) Today, cable and satellite have a competi-
tive advantage over digital television because the
closed nature of cable and satellite systems permit
encryption, which provides some protection for dig-
ital content.
(11) Over-the-air broadcasts of digital television
are not encrypted for public policy reasons and thus
lack the protections afforded to programming de-
livered via cable or satellite.
(12) A solution to this problem is techno-
logically feasible but will require government action,
including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiq-
uitous adoption.
(13) Consumers receive content such as video
or programming in analog form.
(14) When protected digital content is con-
verted to analog for consumers, it is no longer pro-
tected and is subject to conversion into unprotected
digital form that can in turn be copied or redistrib-
uted illegally.
(15) A solution to this problem is techno-
logically feasible but will require government action,
including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiq-
uitous adoption.
(16) Unprotected digital content on the Inter-
net is subject to significant piracy, through illegal
file sharing, downloading, and redistribution over the
Internet.
(17) Millions of Americans are currently
downloading television programs, movies, and music
on the Internet and by using "file-sharing" tech-
nology. Much of this activity is illegal, but dem-
onstrates consumers' desire to access digital content.
(18) This piracy poses a substantial economic
threat to America's content industries.
(19) A solution to this problem is techno-
logically feasible but will require government action,
including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiq-
uitous adoption.
(20) Providing a secure, protected environment
for digital content should be accompanied by a pres-
ervation of legitimate consumer expectations regard-
ing use of digital content in the home.
(21) Secure technological protections should en-
able content owners to disseminate digital content
over the Internet without frustrating consumers' le-
gitimate expectations to use that content in a legal
manner.
(22) Technologies used to protect digital con-
tent should facilitate legitimate home use of digital
content.
(22) Technologies used to protect digital con-
tent should facilitate individuals' ability to engage in
legitimate use of digital content for educational or
research purposes.
SEC. 3. ADOPTION OF SECURITY SYSTEM STANDARDS AND
ENCODING RULES.
(a) PRIVATE SECTOR EFFORTS.---
(1) IN GENERAL.---The Federal Communica-
tions Commission, in consultation with the Register
of Copyrights, shall make a determination, not more
than 12 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, as to whether---
(A) representatives of digital media device
manufacturers, consumer groups, and copyright
owners have reached agreement on security sys-
tem standards for use in digital media devices
and encoding rules; and
(B) the standards and encoding rules con-
form to the requirements of subsections (d) and
(e).
(2) REPORT TO THE COMMERCE AND JUDICI-
ARY COMMITTEES.---Within 6 months after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall re-
port to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science
and Transportation, the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, the House of Representatives Committee
on Commerce, and the House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary as to whether---
(A) substantial progress has been made to-
ward the development of security system stand-
ards and encoding rules that will conform to
the requirements of subsections (d) and (e);
(B) private sector negotiations are con-
tinuing in good faith;
(C) there is a reasonable expectation that
final agreement will be reached within 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act; and
(D) if it is unlikely that such a final agree-
ment will be reached by the end of that year,
the deadline should be extended.
(b) AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION.---If the Commis-
sion makes a determination under subsection (a)(1) that
an agreement on security system standards and encoding
rules that conform to the requirements of subsections (d)
and (e) has been reached, then the Commission shall---
(1) initial a rulemaking, within 30 days after
the date on which the determination is made, to
adopt those standards and encoding rules; and
(2) publish a final rule pursuant to that rule-
making, not later than 180 days after initiating the
rulemaking, that will take effect 1 year after its pub-
lication.
(c) NEGATIVE DETERMINATION.---If the Commission
makes a determination under subsection (a)(1) that an
agreement on security system standards and encoding
rules that conform to the requirements of subsections (d)
and (e) has been not reached, then the Commission---
(1) in consultation with representatives de-
scribed in subsection (a)(1)(A) and the Register of
Copyrights, shall initiate a rulemaking within 30
days after the date on which the determination is
made, to adopt security system standards and en-
coding rules that conform to the requirements of
of subsections (d) and (e); and
(2) shall publish a final rule pursuant to that
rulemaking, not later than 1 year after initiating the
rulemaking, that will take effect 1 year after its pub-
lication.
(d) SECURITY SYSTEM STANDARDS.---In achieving
the goals of setting open security system standards that
will provide effective security for copyrighted works, the
security system standards shall ensure, to the extent prac-
ticable, that---
(1) the standard security technologies are---
(A) reliable;
(B) renewable;
(C) resistant to attack;
(D) readily implemented;
(E) modular;
(F) applicable to multiple technology plat-
forms;
(G) extensible;
(H) upgradable;
(I) not cost prohibitive;
(2) any software portion of such standards is
based on open source code.
(e) ENCODING RULES.---
(1) LIMITATIONS ON THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS
OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.---In achieving the goal of
promoting as many lawful uses of copyrighted works
as possible, while preventing as much infringement
as possible, the encoding rules shall take into ac-
count the limitations on the exclusive rights of copy-
right owners, including the fair use doctrine.
(2) PERSONAL USE COPIES.---No person may
apply a security measure that uses a standatf secu-
rity technology to prevent a lawful recipient from
making a personal copy for lawful use in the home
of programming at the time it is lawfully performed,
on an over-the-air broadcast, premium or non-pre-
mium cable channel, or premium or non-premium
satellite channel, by a television broadcast station
(as defined in section 122(j)(5)(A) or Title 17,
United States Code), a cable syste, (as defined in
section 111(f) of such title), or a satellite carrier (as
defined in section 119(d)(6) of such title).
(f) MEANS OF IMPLEMENTING STANDARDS.---The se-
curity system standards adopted under subsection (b), (c),
or (g) shall provide for secure technical means of imple-
menting directions of copyright owners for copyrighted
works.
(g) COMMISSION MAY REVISE STANDARDS AND
RULES THROUGH RULEMAKING.---
(1) IN GENERAL.---The Commission may con-
duct subsequent rulemakings to modify any security
system standards or encoding rules established
under subsection (b) or (c) or to adopt new security
system standards that conform to the requirements
of subsections (d) and (e).
(2) CONSULTATION REQUIRED.---The Commis-
sion shall conduct any such subsequent rulemaking
in consulation with representatives of digital media
device manufacturers, consumer groups, and copy-
right owners described in subsection (a)(1)(A) and
with the Register of Copyrights.
(3) IMPLEMENTATION.---Any final rule pub-
lished in such a subsequent rulemaking shall---
(A) apply prospectively only; and
(B) take into consideration the effect of
adoption of the modified or new security system
standards and encoding rules on consumers'
ability to utilize digital media devices manufac-
tured before the modified or new standards take
effect.
(h) MODIFICATION OF TECHNOLOGY BY PRIVATE
SECTOR.---
(1) IN GENERAL.---After security system stand-
ards have been established under subsection (b), (c),
or (g) of this section, representatives of digital
media device manufacturers, consumer groups, and
copyright owners described in subsection (a)(1)(A)
may modify the standard security technology that
adheres to the security system standards rules estab-
lished under this section if those representatives de-
termine that a change in the technology is necessary
because---
(A) the technology in use has been com-
promised; or
(B) technological improvements warrant
upgrading the technology in use.
(2) IMPLEMENTATION NOTIFICATION.---The
representatives described in paragraph (1) shall no-
tify the Commission of any such modification before
it is implemented or if immediate implementation is
determined by the representatives to be necessary,
as soon thereafter as possible.
(3) COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION (d) RE-
QUIREMENTS.---The Commission shall ensure that
any modification of standard security technology
under this subsection conforms to the requirements
of subsection (d).
SEC. 4. PRESERVATION OF THE INTEGRITY OF SECURITY.
An interactive computer service shall store and trans-
mit with integrity any security measure associated with
standard security technologies that is used in connection
with copyrighted material such service transmits or stores.
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COM-
MERCE OF NONCONFORMING DIGITAL MEDIA
DEVICES.
(a) IN GENERAL.---A manufacturer, importer, or sell-
er of digital media devices may not---
(1) sell, or offer for sale, in interstate com-
merce, or
(2) cause to be transported in, or in a manner
affecting interstate commerce,
a digital media device unless the device includes and uti-
lizes standard security technologies that adhere to the se-
curity system standards adopted under section 3.
(b) EXCEPTION.---Subsection (a) does not apply to
the sale, offer for sale, or transportation of a digital media
device that was legally manufactured or imported and
sold to the consumer, prior to the effective date of regula-
tions adopted under section 3 and not subsequently modi-
fied in violation of section 6(a).
SEC. 6. PROHIBITION ON REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF SE-
CURITY TECHNOLOGY; VIOLATION OF EN-
CODING RULES.
(a) REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF SECURITY TECH-
NOLOGY.---No person may---
(1) knowingly remove or alter any standard se-
curity technology in a digital media device lawfully
transported in interstate commerce; or
(2) knowingly transmit or make available to the
public any copyrighted material where the security
measure associated with a standard security tech-
nology has been removed or altered, without the au-
thority of the copyright owner.
(b) COMPLIANCE WITH ENCODING RULES.---No per-
son may knowingly apply to a copyrighted work, that has
been distributed to the public, a security measure that
uses a standard security technology in violation of the en-
coding rules adopted under section 3.
SEC. 7. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.---The provisions of section 1203
and 1204 of title 17, United States Code, shall apply to
any violation of this Act as if---
(1) a violation of section 5 or 6(a)(1) of this
Act were a violation of section 1201 of title 17,
United States Code; and
(2) a violation of section 4 or 6(a)(2) of
this Act were a violation of section 1202 of that
title.
(b) STATUTORY DAMAGES.---A court may award
damages for each violation of section 6(b) of not less than
$200 and not more than $2500, as the court considers
just.
SEC. 8. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT EXEMPTION.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)
does not apply to any committee, board, commission, coun-
cil, conference, panel, task force, or similar group
or representatives of digital media devices and representa-
tives of copyright owners convened for the purpose of de-
veloping the security system standards and encoding rules
described in section 3.
SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) STANDARD SECURITY TECHNOLOGY.---The
term "standard security technology" means a secu-
rity technology that adheres to the security system
standards adopted under section 3.
(2) INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE.---The
term "interactive computer service" has the meaning
given that term in section 230(f) of the Communica-
tions Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)).
(3) DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICE.---The term "digital
media device" means any hardware or software
that---
(A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital
form;
(B) converts copyrighted works in digital
form into a form whereby the images and
sounds are visible or audible; or
(C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works
in digital form and transfers or makes available
for transfer such works to hardware or software
described in subparagraph (B).
(4) COMMISSION.---The term "Commission"
means the Federal Communications Commission.
SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment
of this Act, except that sections 4, 5, and 6 shall take
effect on the day on which the final rule published under
section 3(b) or (c) takes effect.
I think the idea is: resistively-heated concrete could maintain the bridge deck temperature above freezing, so that no ice needs to be melted in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Only half joking: Researchers at U.Michigan hope to
store up to 10 bits per atom, by using Rydberg states.
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/1999/split/pn
>:K
"Fweeky" writes:
I do not get a secure fuzzy feeling about this element, when I read the relevant w3 spec, and see:
So, instead of the relatively safe and well-defined <img> tag, user agents must now support a strange new <object> tag, which (at some unknown author's whim) may decide to run external applications and feed them arbitrary untrusted data.
The w3 example shows the user agent happily downloading and running some unknown chunk of Python code, in the blind hope that it does nothing more "display a clock"!
At a minimum, this means the user agent will need a lot of security configuration, to specify which MIME types it's allowed to handle at all, and exactly which external applications should be allowed to process them. Even then, I predict an amazing new ecosystem of exotic exploits.
>;K
Of course, they -do- make disposable clothes already.
Paper hospital gowns, etc.
Maybe by the time these are ready for flight, a
decade or two from now, the entire hull could be
made of synthetic diamond. Strong, lightweight,
conducts heat really well, and transparent...
are they announcing this when the orbit hasn't been confirmed yet? I thought that after the embarrassing 1997 XF-11 false alarm, astronomers agreed to wait until they had enough data to confirm or rule out an impact, before releasing a press statement...
> We need standard api's, so if you like GTK,
> acrobat calls a function - drawToolbar() -
> you get a GTK toolbar. If you switch to QT,
> then acrobat calls drawToolbar(), QT draws
> a toolbar.
We already have this: it's called Java.
No, really! See: http://news.wizardworld.com/Comics/CB1029-worldsfu nnest.asp
>;K> Sorry pal. I call bullshit. I don't think the 16-year-old
> with 4,000 MP3s on his two 100GB hard drives would have
> bought every single one of the those CDs.
No, but we both know they (actually the parents or whoever
gives them money) would've ended up buying *some* of those
CDs, if there wasn't the option of evading payment.
True, a 16-year-old can't afford to buy 1000 CDs a year,
but they can probably manage 10 or so a year. So that's
at least $150 bucks in actual lost sales.
> Don't fall for the RIAA's propaganda -
> DL'ed MP3 != Lost Sale
Face it, copying CDs = getting stuff without paying for it.
It's no different than jumping the subway turnstile, or
sneaking into a movie theater without buying a ticket.
The problem with such a DRM helmet is that most users
wouldn't want to bother wearing them, unless there was
much more benefit than just access to licensed content.
So, to make sure -everyone- wears their helm, it should
also be designed to trigger constant low-level pleasure
feedback in the user's frontal cortex.
This feature, combined with financial grants to provide
free helms and educational content via public schools,
should entice the vast majority of consumers to begin
compulsively using the devices at a young age.
At the risk of sounding like Dean Kamen (the Segway guy),
this would revolutionize not only the media industry,
but society itself. Unhappiness would be a thing of the past, since the helmets would -ensure- consumers were
completely happy, 24 hours a day. The long-sought goal
of 100% customer satisfaction would be attained at last,
regardless of actual service quality...
Anyone else suspect this'll become a new Xtr3me Sp0rt,
as soon as Segway prices drop to the $300 range ?
Hmmm. RIAA is currently unhappy that digital technology
(particularly broadband and P2P software) will soon make
it feasible to copy and download movies.
Solution: keep expanding the content of a typical movie
so the average viewer feels it's cheaper and easier to
just go buy it, rather than spend 10 hours downloading.
To quote an old MTV ad, "Too much is never enough".
So, a typical "movie" in 2010 might include 32 different
camera angle choices for each scene, dubs for most major
languages spoken on earth (complete with CG airbrushing
to resync the actors lips), etc. etc. etc.
>;K
What did you expect?
/real/ "karma" works...
You install shady software to get music without
paying for it, and surprise, surprise, it has a
trojan in it. That's how
Let's hope none of the volunteers accidentally
use Mr. Alexander Yalt's
Hungarian-English dictionary.
"I will not buy this tobacconist, it is scratched."
>;K
You might ask the following provisions to be
/their/ works with any of the watermarks
/any/ computer operating
added, since they are entirely reasonable, and
hence likely to "poison" the bill. >:K
1. It must be possible for ordinary end-users
who record and produce audiovisual works on
consumer-grade equipment (garage bands,
amateur film-makers and animators, etc.) to
mark
mandated by the security standard, so their
content can be viewed on all compliant media
devices that require such watermarks.
(otherwise, the bill is essentially asking for
"digital prior restraint" by whoever dispenses
the watermarks, which would surely be found
un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court).
2. Similarly, it must be possible for ordinary
end-users to mark the works they create with
any of the copying control settings defined
by the standard, so they can exercise the
full range of control over how their works
are copied and used.
(i.e. it should not be any more difficult or
expensive for ordinary end-users to mark their
works with digital copyright info than it would
be for RIAA or MPAA members. Otherwise, the U.S.
wouldn't be complying with their Berne Treaty
obligations to automatically grant and uphold
copyright without formal action by the author.)
3. Any software or hardware technologies which
are mandated by the standard must be freely
available, without any patent, licensing, or
royalty requirements, to ensure that it is
possible for open-source "freeware" digital
media tools to comply with the standard.
(In particular, since Microsoft Corporation has
basic patents covering
system with embedded digital-rights management,
the U.S. Government must revoke or buy those
patents before mandating all operating systems
software have this function. Otherwise, they
would be simply handing Microsoft exclusive
control of the entire software industry!)
There's also a team in Spain developing Voice Impersonator Karaoke technology.
Now singers can morph their own bland and off-key voices into a full rich Elvis (or anyone else for whom a digital voice template has been computed). Why be yourself, when you can be The King!
Hmm. I'm not a lawyer, but let's look at the
. html
relevant U.S. law:
U.S. Code Section 17 Title 102(b)
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/102
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an
original work of authorship extend to any
idea, procedure, process, system, method of
operation, concept, principle, or discovery,
regardless of the form in which it is
described, explained, illustrated, or
embodied in such work
A DNA sequence is clearly a set of process
instructions for assembling proteins. I don't
think the courts will be fooled by a biotech
company trying to copyright it in musical form.
>:K
Given that the towers /were/ going to collapse,
thanks to two teams of mass-murderers who flew
767s into them at 300 mph and set off a 10,000
gallons jet-fuel firestorm,
We should at least be glad they pancaked down
into their own basements, instead of collapsing
sideways. Had they done so, it might have wiped
out much of Manhattan and perhaps killed 30,000
people instead of 3,000.
Perhaps any new 100+ story buildings built in a
densely populated area /should/ be designed the
same way as the WTC, to collapse inward if the
unthinkable happens and the building cannot be
saved.
(Obviously, if humanly possible buildings should
be designed to stay up long enough to evacuate
everyone; and the WTC did hold up until 90% of
the people got out).
Just an opposing view, to those who say the WTC
should have been designed differently. I doubt
any other designed would have produced as few
casualties after such a horrific attack.
>:K
As other posters have noted, we don't have any
materials strong enough for an elevator all the
way to geosynchronous orbit, so it's a bit too
soon for anyone to claim we could build one in
the next 10 years.
HOWEVER, we do have materials strong enough for
a "hypersonic tether". This'd be a much shorter
tether, only a few thousand km long, and moving
at a good clip around the Earth, with the lower
end just above the atmosphere.
With this in place, you could use cheap sounding
rockets, just barely capable of making it out of
the atmosphere, to rendezvous with the tether as
it swept past. The cargo would be grabbed by the
tether and snatched up into low orbit, while the
sounding rocket fell back to Earth.
There aren't any good online references, but you
can find USENET discussions of the technology on
Google Groups, keywords "hypersonic tether".
are available here.
No, libraries would have .kids-only PCs in the children's book section. Parents could also sign permission if they felt their kids were ready to use the unrestricted PCs.
It would be up to the .kids domain registrar. The important thing is: Congress, parents groups, civil liberties groups could go off and fight all they wanted about the AUP for .kids, while leaving the rest of the Net alone. Does that help?
Look, the issue is not going to go away. People want their kids to have free access to the Net, so they can grow up to be well-paid information workers instead of low-paid foodservice workers. But they also don't want six-year olds to be exposed to pr0n, molesters, or serial killer fan sites. IMHO, these are legitimate goals, and the best way to satisfy them without censoring the entire Net is to create kid-safe part of the Net that is appropriate to censor.
Instead of trying to filter kid-unsafe material .minors or whatever) domain where the
out of the existing 3 billion or so websites,
you'd think the sponsors of COPA could've just
told ICANN to get off their asses and set up a
.kids (or
offending content could not be legally hosted.
What about Open-Source entertainment content,
using computer graphics for the actors and sets?
i.e. the participants submit scripts, Povray models, etc. to a common pool, sorta like the
monthly IRTC animation contests.
Please forgive me for stupidly posting this
/any/ way to remark it as
as the default "HTML Formatted" style.
Is there
"Plain Old Text", so the post is readable?
(Yes, I should have hit Preview. I was less
than fully alert, after manually typing in
the 16 pages from gif images, and having to
resubmit it 4 times because it allegedly
"contained too many junk characters", i.e.
the line numbers in the actual bill text.)
107TH CONGRESS 2ND SESSION S. --- --- --- To regulate interstate commerce in certain devices by providing for private sector development of technological protection measures to be imple- mented and enforced by Federal regulations to protect content and promote broadband as well as the transition to digital television and for other purposes IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES MARCH ----, 2002 MR HOLLINGS (for Himself, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. NELSON of Florida, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill which was read twice and referred to the Committee on -------- A BILL To regulate interstate commerce in certain devices by pro- viding for private sector development of technological protection measures to be implemented and enforced by Federal regulations to protect digital content and pro- mote broadband as well as the transition to digital tele- vision, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE: TABLE OF SECTIONS (a) SHORT TITLE.---This Act may be cited as the "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act". (b) TABLE OF SECTIONS.---The table of sections for this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title: table of sections. Sec. 2. Findings Sec. 3. Adoption of security system standards and encoding rules. Sec. 4. Preservation of the integrity of security. Sec. 5. Prohibition on shipment in interstate commerce of nonconforming digital media devices. Sec. 6. Prohibition on removal or alteration of security technology; violation of encoding rules. Sec. 7. Enforcement. Sec. 8. Federal Advisory Committee Act exemption Sec. 9. Definitions. Sec. 10. Effective Date. SEC. 2. FINDINGS The Congress finds the following: (1) The lack of high quality digital content con- tinues to hinder consumer adoption of broadband Internet service and digital television products. (2) Owners of digital programming and content are increasingly reluctant to transmit their products unless digital media devices incorporate technologies that recognize and respond to content security meas- ures designed to prevent theft. (3) Because digital content can be copied quick- ly, easily, and without degredation, digital progam- mers and content owners face an exponentially in- creasing piracy threat in a digital age. (4) Current agreements reached in the market- place to include security technologies in certain dig- ital media devices fail to provide a secure digital en- vironment because those agreements do not prevent the continued use and manufacture of digital media devices that fail to incorporate such security tech- nologies. (5) Other existing digital rights management schemes represent proprietary, partial solutions that limit, rather than promote, consumers' access to the greatest variety of digital content possible. (6) Technological solutions can be developed to protect digital content on digital broadcast television and over the Internet. (7) Competing business interests have frus- trated agreement on the deployment of existing tech- nology in digital media devices to protect digital con- tent on the Internet or on digital broadcast tele- vision. (8) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary precondition to the dissemination, and on-line availability, of high quality digital content which will benefit consumers and lead to the rapid growth of broadband networks. (9) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary precondition to facilitating and has- tening the transition to high-definition television which will benefit consumers. (10) Today, cable and satellite have a competi- tive advantage over digital television because the closed nature of cable and satellite systems permit encryption, which provides some protection for dig- ital content. (11) Over-the-air broadcasts of digital television are not encrypted for public policy reasons and thus lack the protections afforded to programming de- livered via cable or satellite. (12) A solution to this problem is techno- logically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiq- uitous adoption. (13) Consumers receive content such as video or programming in analog form. (14) When protected digital content is con- verted to analog for consumers, it is no longer pro- tected and is subject to conversion into unprotected digital form that can in turn be copied or redistrib- uted illegally. (15) A solution to this problem is techno- logically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiq- uitous adoption. (16) Unprotected digital content on the Inter- net is subject to significant piracy, through illegal file sharing, downloading, and redistribution over the Internet. (17) Millions of Americans are currently downloading television programs, movies, and music on the Internet and by using "file-sharing" tech- nology. Much of this activity is illegal, but dem- onstrates consumers' desire to access digital content. (18) This piracy poses a substantial economic threat to America's content industries. (19) A solution to this problem is techno- logically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiq- uitous adoption. (20) Providing a secure, protected environment for digital content should be accompanied by a pres- ervation of legitimate consumer expectations regard- ing use of digital content in the home. (21) Secure technological protections should en- able content owners to disseminate digital content over the Internet without frustrating consumers' le- gitimate expectations to use that content in a legal manner. (22) Technologies used to protect digital con- tent should facilitate legitimate home use of digital content. (22) Technologies used to protect digital con- tent should facilitate individuals' ability to engage in legitimate use of digital content for educational or research purposes. SEC. 3. ADOPTION OF SECURITY SYSTEM STANDARDS AND ENCODING RULES. (a) PRIVATE SECTOR EFFORTS.--- (1) IN GENERAL.---The Federal Communica- tions Commission, in consultation with the Register of Copyrights, shall make a determination, not more than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, as to whether--- (A) representatives of digital media device manufacturers, consumer groups, and copyright owners have reached agreement on security sys- tem standards for use in digital media devices and encoding rules; and (B) the standards and encoding rules con- form to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e). (2) REPORT TO THE COMMERCE AND JUDICI- ARY COMMITTEES.---Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall re- port to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the House of Representatives Committee on Commerce, and the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary as to whether--- (A) substantial progress has been made to- ward the development of security system stand- ards and encoding rules that will conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e); (B) private sector negotiations are con- tinuing in good faith; (C) there is a reasonable expectation that final agreement will be reached within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act; and (D) if it is unlikely that such a final agree- ment will be reached by the end of that year, the deadline should be extended. (b) AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION.---If the Commis- sion makes a determination under subsection (a)(1) that an agreement on security system standards and encoding rules that conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) has been reached, then the Commission shall--- (1) initial a rulemaking, within 30 days after the date on which the determination is made, to adopt those standards and encoding rules; and (2) publish a final rule pursuant to that rule- making, not later than 180 days after initiating the rulemaking, that will take effect 1 year after its pub- lication. (c) NEGATIVE DETERMINATION.---If the Commission makes a determination under subsection (a)(1) that an agreement on security system standards and encoding rules that conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) has been not reached, then the Commission--- (1) in consultation with representatives de- scribed in subsection (a)(1)(A) and the Register of Copyrights, shall initiate a rulemaking within 30 days after the date on which the determination is made, to adopt security system standards and en- coding rules that conform to the requirements of of subsections (d) and (e); and (2) shall publish a final rule pursuant to that rulemaking, not later than 1 year after initiating the rulemaking, that will take effect 1 year after its pub- lication. (d) SECURITY SYSTEM STANDARDS.---In achieving the goals of setting open security system standards that will provide effective security for copyrighted works, the security system standards shall ensure, to the extent prac- ticable, that--- (1) the standard security technologies are--- (A) reliable; (B) renewable; (C) resistant to attack; (D) readily implemented; (E) modular; (F) applicable to multiple technology plat- forms; (G) extensible; (H) upgradable; (I) not cost prohibitive; (2) any software portion of such standards is based on open source code. (e) ENCODING RULES.--- (1) LIMITATIONS ON THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.---In achieving the goal of promoting as many lawful uses of copyrighted works as possible, while preventing as much infringement as possible, the encoding rules shall take into ac- count the limitations on the exclusive rights of copy- right owners, including the fair use doctrine. (2) PERSONAL USE COPIES.---No person may apply a security measure that uses a standatf secu- rity technology to prevent a lawful recipient from making a personal copy for lawful use in the home of programming at the time it is lawfully performed, on an over-the-air broadcast, premium or non-pre- mium cable channel, or premium or non-premium satellite channel, by a television broadcast station (as defined in section 122(j)(5)(A) or Title 17, United States Code), a cable syste, (as defined in section 111(f) of such title), or a satellite carrier (as defined in section 119(d)(6) of such title). (f) MEANS OF IMPLEMENTING STANDARDS.---The se- curity system standards adopted under subsection (b), (c), or (g) shall provide for secure technical means of imple- menting directions of copyright owners for copyrighted works. (g) COMMISSION MAY REVISE STANDARDS AND RULES THROUGH RULEMAKING.--- (1) IN GENERAL.---The Commission may con- duct subsequent rulemakings to modify any security system standards or encoding rules established under subsection (b) or (c) or to adopt new security system standards that conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e). (2) CONSULTATION REQUIRED.---The Commis- sion shall conduct any such subsequent rulemaking in consulation with representatives of digital media device manufacturers, consumer groups, and copy- right owners described in subsection (a)(1)(A) and with the Register of Copyrights. (3) IMPLEMENTATION.---Any final rule pub- lished in such a subsequent rulemaking shall--- (A) apply prospectively only; and (B) take into consideration the effect of adoption of the modified or new security system standards and encoding rules on consumers' ability to utilize digital media devices manufac- tured before the modified or new standards take effect. (h) MODIFICATION OF TECHNOLOGY BY PRIVATE SECTOR.--- (1) IN GENERAL.---After security system stand- ards have been established under subsection (b), (c), or (g) of this section, representatives of digital media device manufacturers, consumer groups, and copyright owners described in subsection (a)(1)(A) may modify the standard security technology that adheres to the security system standards rules estab- lished under this section if those representatives de- termine that a change in the technology is necessary because--- (A) the technology in use has been com- promised; or (B) technological improvements warrant upgrading the technology in use. (2) IMPLEMENTATION NOTIFICATION.---The representatives described in paragraph (1) shall no- tify the Commission of any such modification before it is implemented or if immediate implementation is determined by the representatives to be necessary, as soon thereafter as possible. (3) COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION (d) RE- QUIREMENTS.---The Commission shall ensure that any modification of standard security technology under this subsection conforms to the requirements of subsection (d). SEC. 4. PRESERVATION OF THE INTEGRITY OF SECURITY. An interactive computer service shall store and trans- mit with integrity any security measure associated with standard security technologies that is used in connection with copyrighted material such service transmits or stores. SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COM- MERCE OF NONCONFORMING DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICES. (a) IN GENERAL.---A manufacturer, importer, or sell- er of digital media devices may not--- (1) sell, or offer for sale, in interstate com- merce, or (2) cause to be transported in, or in a manner affecting interstate commerce, a digital media device unless the device includes and uti- lizes standard security technologies that adhere to the se- curity system standards adopted under section 3. (b) EXCEPTION.---Subsection (a) does not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or transportation of a digital media device that was legally manufactured or imported and sold to the consumer, prior to the effective date of regula- tions adopted under section 3 and not subsequently modi- fied in violation of section 6(a). SEC. 6. PROHIBITION ON REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF SE- CURITY TECHNOLOGY; VIOLATION OF EN- CODING RULES. (a) REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF SECURITY TECH- NOLOGY.---No person may--- (1) knowingly remove or alter any standard se- curity technology in a digital media device lawfully transported in interstate commerce; or (2) knowingly transmit or make available to the public any copyrighted material where the security measure associated with a standard security tech- nology has been removed or altered, without the au- thority of the copyright owner. (b) COMPLIANCE WITH ENCODING RULES.---No per- son may knowingly apply to a copyrighted work, that has been distributed to the public, a security measure that uses a standard security technology in violation of the en- coding rules adopted under section 3. SEC. 7. ENFORCEMENT. (a) IN GENERAL.---The provisions of section 1203 and 1204 of title 17, United States Code, shall apply to any violation of this Act as if--- (1) a violation of section 5 or 6(a)(1) of this Act were a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; and (2) a violation of section 4 or 6(a)(2) of this Act were a violation of section 1202 of that title. (b) STATUTORY DAMAGES.---A court may award damages for each violation of section 6(b) of not less than $200 and not more than $2500, as the court considers just. SEC. 8. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT EXEMPTION. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) does not apply to any committee, board, commission, coun- cil, conference, panel, task force, or similar group or representatives of digital media devices and representa- tives of copyright owners convened for the purpose of de- veloping the security system standards and encoding rules described in section 3. SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) STANDARD SECURITY TECHNOLOGY.---The term "standard security technology" means a secu- rity technology that adheres to the security system standards adopted under section 3. (2) INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE.---The term "interactive computer service" has the meaning given that term in section 230(f) of the Communica- tions Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)). (3) DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICE.---The term "digital media device" means any hardware or software that--- (A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form; (B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or (C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to hardware or software described in subparagraph (B). (4) COMMISSION.---The term "Commission" means the Federal Communications Commission. SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act, except that sections 4, 5, and 6 shall take effect on the day on which the final rule published under section 3(b) or (c) takes effect.
I think the idea is: resistively-heated concrete could maintain the bridge deck temperature above freezing, so that no ice needs to be melted in the first place.