No objection whatsoever, and I much prefer a log-then-review strategy over a blocking strategy (for web, too). Point is, expecting the FCC to manage your children's sensibilities via timeslots is willingly giving censorship privileges to the government for the sake of the children.
The V-Chip is a powerful tool for allowing families to take control of their own censorship, for parents who bother to use it. It doesn't require as much tech-savviness as a logging solution does, and fails "locked" (i.e. if you don't take special measures, it blocks the show) like a good security solution should. Unfortunately, only about a quarter of parents have ever touched a V-Chip, and such self-management techniques are currently falling in the "failure" bucket for lack of interest.
For really hard computations, you can throw together a Boywulf cluster. I heard a scientist tried this and got back computational power in the pedoflops. By hashing information into Bob the Builder and Hannah Montana quotes and distributing amongst the children, storage into the pedobyte magnitude is possible. Unfortunately, he was arrested when the authorities found out his next step was developing a PFS.
Amen. I bought an HD for ~$300, and really couldn't be much happier with it. It has a Rhapsody and Unbox client, the Tivocast content is nicely geek-targeted (much comes from ZDnet/CNet, so you get Dvorak's talk show, DLTV, etc.). More to the point, the box just works.
I sunk $200 in for a lifetime transfer from my Series 2 and another $200 for an external WD 500GB SATA drive, so I guess I'm in for $700 total. Until the next big TV paradigm change, though, I don't see having to touch it again.
Actually, it probably does. Encouraging the sales of one product through the market share of another is only illegal when you have monopoly power. Otherwise, it's simply good software business strategy.
That's really the conflict here. The things that Microsoft does, in and of themselves, aren't heinous at the face of it, and lots of other software companies do similar things. It's only when you consider the entire snowball effect that the implications become clear.
I don't know. I have him more associated with the Code Monkeys theme, for breakout exposure. Plus, he was already well-known among "our" crowd, which is much of the crossover to Code Monkeys -and- Portal. I wouldn't necessarily call Portal a mainstream breakout, either. It's a huge critical success, and I'm sure The Orange Box has sold a lot of copies. I wonder how many of the mundanes actually played Portal through to Coulton's contribution, though.
Some of this is crap. I had both of Avenged Sevenfold's pre-2004 albums, purchased in Tower Records. They were on a smallish metalcore label, sure, but they were on a label, and were starting to get buzz with the mix of traditional metal and emocore/metalcore influences (which has turned out to be a timely trend, as alternative in general turns more and more to metal for inspiration). They may have been between labels in 2004, or just not on a major label, but they weren't unknown and they had plenty of momentum.
JET were also up-and-coming well before Madden, and again, were at the beginning of a rise in 60s/70s retro-rock that pretty much guaranteed they'd be successful.
Seems to me this is like the annoying kid on the soccer team who touches the ball on its way to the goal then claims the assist. I'm not saying the exposure didn't help--it almost certainly did--but I don't buy that the games were pivotal.
There are some bands I've discovered through games. M.O.P. and Freezepop come right to mind. But these are bands that are truly obscure.
There's still considerable debate, so I'm sure it'll go through a few more rounds.
I'm inclined to agree with the current state of it, though. Admitting you know the passcode proves you have access to the documents, and access to the the documents is the incriminating bit, so seems pretty clear to me. Luckily, I have a very short memory, and can very rarely remember any of my passwords under the kind of pressure that this sort of litigation may cause.
Anonymity is just security via obscurity applied to people. Any IT person worth a damn knows security via obscurity is a terrible methodology; once broken, it can never be put back together, and worse, there's no way to know when it's been broken. Eventually, someone will come up with a way to correlate even the most obfuscated and separated data, and they may or may not tell you that they can do it.
Instead, rely on proven methods like encryption, legal assurances, and simple discretion about what you put in the public eye, with an expectation that public starts where your walls end. We're approaching a small-town expectation of privacy, applied globally. You can't hide from your neighbor.
Passkey-as-testimony was covered a couple of parents up; the precedent's been set. This subthread is from QuantumG suggesting that the same protection doesn't apply to civil court.
Re: DNA vs. passkey, the generality seems to be that in security terms, "what-you-are" or "what-you-have" factors are evidence (they can be taken with a warrant) but a "what-you-know" factor is testimony and cannot be forcibly extracted from you (Fifth Amendment).
"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right against self-incrimination applies whether the witness is in Federal or state court (see Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)), and whether the proceeding itself is criminal or civil (see McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924))."
McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924) Privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment "applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it."
If copyright violation didn't have a criminal component to it, you might be right. But it does, particularly since the DMCA specifically criminalized copyright violations of digital material.
There's no impossibility here. What you're describing is the result of attempting to subvert a general right by adding a bunch of exceptions between the weasel words.
For example, let's say the First Amendment said, in plain language, "The government may not, in any way, prevent any citizen or group of citizens from expressing a fact or opinion, or from publishing a creative work that is represented as such. This applies to all expression or publication, whether verbal or non-verbal. The government is not required to act to enable expression or publication, but cannot act to prevent it." That's a fairly easy right to enforce consistently, once you define "fact" and "opinion" elsewhere.
Would that change our expectations of what security would do and what privacy protects? Sure would, because once someone knows something, there'd be no way to put the cat back in the bag. Would all hate-speech legislation be unconstitutional? Yep (is now too, but that's neither here nor there). It'd be a different world than we have now, but a better one IMO.
If you're out to enforce rights, the rights need to be legislated explicitly, not poetically, and they need to be simple, general concepts with simple, general litmus tests. Anything that doesn't fall into that category probably shouldn't be legislation--if you can't enforce it simply, you can't understand and comply simply either.
The biggest problem with our system of law is that it's -too- specific.
In XP, at least, that's a switch under Display Properties | Appearance | Effects. I turn the accelerator hiding off on every new install. Whoever decided that hiding an important visual cue was a good idea needs to get whipped.
Why not just set value at the point of sale (of rights, not an individual license, a la CD or box of software) with reassessment on each sale, and possibly periodic reassessment based on gross revenue to cover appreciation/depreciation? The process could be legally part of assigning the copyright. Giving something away would be considered price $0, still allowing open source and other free contributions. If you need to dump something you don't want to pay a minimal tax on, giving public domain eliminates taxation entirely.
Basically, treat it like housing, except it starts at $0 until you sell it.
The current copyright expiration would then basically become a timeout.
I think "Unwanted" is the key there. Some higher number probably did engage in sex talk with other children. Most of them did not consider it unwanted.
I think the OP's point (and I agree) is that the shows tend to use fairly reasonable devices, they just don't always use them correctly.
Numb3rs' equations are generally appropriate to task, at least insofar as I can follow them. The equipment they use on CSI does by and large exist, even if it's much rarer and considerably less slick than they make out. Law & Order usually references at least halfway appropriate legal doctrine, and House is at least usually (not always, but usually) fact-checked/consulted to the point of distant plausibility, even if they do often represent extremely rare situations or exaggerations as predictable lifesavers.
As for the rest, I'm OK chalking it up to dramatic device. Sometimes I'll see something headslap-worthy (normally something computery, given my usual focus) but I can generally maintain some level of distance from reality. All fiction takes shortcuts.
Yikes. Brake fluid leaks must be hell on whatever is on top of them.
Yeah, until I finally bypassed the core completely in lieu of fixing it, you used to be able to tell in my Chevy -exactly- when the thermostat opened--especially if you happened to leave it in the defrost position. Of course, you also usually had to pull over and wipe the windows frantically. Can't say as I miss that.:)
There's nothing idiosyncratic about a heater core leak, which is what usually dumps water/coolant into your floorboards in a failure. Heaters usually work by routing the coolant through another miniature radiator (the heater core) on your side of the firewall. When you turn the heater on, it opens a valve that starts routing coolant through that loop. Fans blow heat from the core into the cabin. This is why turning the heater onto full can lower the temperature on an overheating car--you're actually putting another radiator into action.
When that radiator fails, it will leak from under the dash onto the floorboards.
Lots of cars have this setup. I've had it happen in a Mazda-designed Ford and an older Chevy, and remember my dad's VW Rabbit had the issue too. It's a common configuration, and could be a perfectly good explanation for removing the seat so you can fully dry the carpet and work on it.
Er, photon has sufficient momentum to kick other things around. Normally, momentum is given by p = gamma * m * v (gamma = 1 for v much less than c), but for particles with m = 0, this is wrong and momentum is now given by p = E / c (where E, for photons, is given by h*f).
This has been a really interesting discussion. Not nitpicking, just asking for clarification. Isn't momentum consistent between m > 0 and m = 0, as long as you always put it in terms of E?
E = mc^2 m = E/c^2
P = gamma * m * v P = gamma * E/c^2 * v
(since for a photon, v = c)
P = gamma * E/c^2 * c P = gamma * E/c
As long as gamma is 1, seems equivalent. I know you said gamma approaches 1 as v approaches 0, and photons are v = c. Does this mean gamma approaching 1 is also a factor of rest mass (i.e., if you have none, it's always 1?)
Slashdot Mirror
No objection whatsoever, and I much prefer a log-then-review strategy over a blocking strategy (for web, too). Point is, expecting the FCC to manage your children's sensibilities via timeslots is willingly giving censorship privileges to the government for the sake of the children.
The V-Chip is a powerful tool for allowing families to take control of their own censorship, for parents who bother to use it. It doesn't require as much tech-savviness as a logging solution does, and fails "locked" (i.e. if you don't take special measures, it blocks the show) like a good security solution should. Unfortunately, only about a quarter of parents have ever touched a V-Chip, and such self-management techniques are currently falling in the "failure" bucket for lack of interest.
What, your TV doesn't have a v-chip?
Technology obviated the need for "decency timeslots" a long time ago...if only parents would use it.
For really hard computations, you can throw together a Boywulf cluster. I heard a scientist tried this and got back computational power in the pedoflops. By hashing information into Bob the Builder and Hannah Montana quotes and distributing amongst the children, storage into the pedobyte magnitude is possible. Unfortunately, he was arrested when the authorities found out his next step was developing a PFS.
Amen. I bought an HD for ~$300, and really couldn't be much happier with it. It has a Rhapsody and Unbox client, the Tivocast content is nicely geek-targeted (much comes from ZDnet/CNet, so you get Dvorak's talk show, DLTV, etc.). More to the point, the box just works.
I sunk $200 in for a lifetime transfer from my Series 2 and another $200 for an external WD 500GB SATA drive, so I guess I'm in for $700 total. Until the next big TV paradigm change, though, I don't see having to touch it again.
Actually, it probably does. Encouraging the sales of one product through the market share of another is only illegal when you have monopoly power. Otherwise, it's simply good software business strategy.
That's really the conflict here. The things that Microsoft does, in and of themselves, aren't heinous at the face of it, and lots of other software companies do similar things. It's only when you consider the entire snowball effect that the implications become clear.
I don't know. I have him more associated with the Code Monkeys theme, for breakout exposure. Plus, he was already well-known among "our" crowd, which is much of the crossover to Code Monkeys -and- Portal. I wouldn't necessarily call Portal a mainstream breakout, either. It's a huge critical success, and I'm sure The Orange Box has sold a lot of copies. I wonder how many of the mundanes actually played Portal through to Coulton's contribution, though.
Some of this is crap. I had both of Avenged Sevenfold's pre-2004 albums, purchased in Tower Records. They were on a smallish metalcore label, sure, but they were on a label, and were starting to get buzz with the mix of traditional metal and emocore/metalcore influences (which has turned out to be a timely trend, as alternative in general turns more and more to metal for inspiration). They may have been between labels in 2004, or just not on a major label, but they weren't unknown and they had plenty of momentum.
JET were also up-and-coming well before Madden, and again, were at the beginning of a rise in 60s/70s retro-rock that pretty much guaranteed they'd be successful.
Seems to me this is like the annoying kid on the soccer team who touches the ball on its way to the goal then claims the assist. I'm not saying the exposure didn't help--it almost certainly did--but I don't buy that the games were pivotal.
There are some bands I've discovered through games. M.O.P. and Freezepop come right to mind. But these are bands that are truly obscure.
There's still considerable debate, so I'm sure it'll go through a few more rounds.
I'm inclined to agree with the current state of it, though. Admitting you know the passcode proves you have access to the documents, and access to the the documents is the incriminating bit, so seems pretty clear to me. Luckily, I have a very short memory, and can very rarely remember any of my passwords under the kind of pressure that this sort of litigation may cause.
Anonymity is just security via obscurity applied to people. Any IT person worth a damn knows security via obscurity is a terrible methodology; once broken, it can never be put back together, and worse, there's no way to know when it's been broken. Eventually, someone will come up with a way to correlate even the most obfuscated and separated data, and they may or may not tell you that they can do it.
Instead, rely on proven methods like encryption, legal assurances, and simple discretion about what you put in the public eye, with an expectation that public starts where your walls end. We're approaching a small-town expectation of privacy, applied globally. You can't hide from your neighbor.
Given that they don't know if they're a wave or a particle, I suspect that they're Unitarian Universalist.
Come on, don't show your bias; try to be Objective-C.
Passkey-as-testimony was covered a couple of parents up; the precedent's been set. This subthread is from QuantumG suggesting that the same protection doesn't apply to civil court.
Re: DNA vs. passkey, the generality seems to be that in security terms, "what-you-are" or "what-you-have" factors are evidence (they can be taken with a warrant) but a "what-you-know" factor is testimony and cannot be forcibly extracted from you (Fifth Amendment).
Laaaaaw. It means what it means. You can't be compelled to offer testimony that may result in a criminal charge.
No, he's informed. What's your excuse?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right against self-incrimination applies whether the witness is in Federal or state court (see Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)), and whether the proceeding itself is criminal or civil (see McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924))."
And more specifically,
http://www.sorrelsudashen.com/papers/Fifth_Amendment_Right_Against_Self_Incrimination_in_Civil_Cases.pdf (pdf)
McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924) Privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment "applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it."
If copyright violation didn't have a criminal component to it, you might be right. But it does, particularly since the DMCA specifically criminalized copyright violations of digital material.
There's no impossibility here. What you're describing is the result of attempting to subvert a general right by adding a bunch of exceptions between the weasel words.
For example, let's say the First Amendment said, in plain language, "The government may not, in any way, prevent any citizen or group of citizens from expressing a fact or opinion, or from publishing a creative work that is represented as such. This applies to all expression or publication, whether verbal or non-verbal. The government is not required to act to enable expression or publication, but cannot act to prevent it." That's a fairly easy right to enforce consistently, once you define "fact" and "opinion" elsewhere.
Would that change our expectations of what security would do and what privacy protects? Sure would, because once someone knows something, there'd be no way to put the cat back in the bag. Would all hate-speech legislation be unconstitutional? Yep (is now too, but that's neither here nor there). It'd be a different world than we have now, but a better one IMO.
If you're out to enforce rights, the rights need to be legislated explicitly, not poetically, and they need to be simple, general concepts with simple, general litmus tests. Anything that doesn't fall into that category probably shouldn't be legislation--if you can't enforce it simply, you can't understand and comply simply either.
The biggest problem with our system of law is that it's -too- specific.
In XP, at least, that's a switch under Display Properties | Appearance | Effects. I turn the accelerator hiding off on every new install. Whoever decided that hiding an important visual cue was a good idea needs to get whipped.
Tumorigenic cells want to die ...and so begins the Goth Theory of cancer.
Why not just set value at the point of sale (of rights, not an individual license, a la CD or box of software) with reassessment on each sale, and possibly periodic reassessment based on gross revenue to cover appreciation/depreciation? The process could be legally part of assigning the copyright. Giving something away would be considered price $0, still allowing open source and other free contributions. If you need to dump something you don't want to pay a minimal tax on, giving public domain eliminates taxation entirely.
Basically, treat it like housing, except it starts at $0 until you sell it.
The current copyright expiration would then basically become a timeout.
I think "Unwanted" is the key there. Some higher number probably did engage in sex talk with other children. Most of them did not consider it unwanted.
I think the OP's point (and I agree) is that the shows tend to use fairly reasonable devices, they just don't always use them correctly.
Numb3rs' equations are generally appropriate to task, at least insofar as I can follow them. The equipment they use on CSI does by and large exist, even if it's much rarer and considerably less slick than they make out. Law & Order usually references at least halfway appropriate legal doctrine, and House is at least usually (not always, but usually) fact-checked/consulted to the point of distant plausibility, even if they do often represent extremely rare situations or exaggerations as predictable lifesavers.
As for the rest, I'm OK chalking it up to dramatic device. Sometimes I'll see something headslap-worthy (normally something computery, given my usual focus) but I can generally maintain some level of distance from reality. All fiction takes shortcuts.
Yikes. Brake fluid leaks must be hell on whatever is on top of them.
:)
Yeah, until I finally bypassed the core completely in lieu of fixing it, you used to be able to tell in my Chevy -exactly- when the thermostat opened--especially if you happened to leave it in the defrost position. Of course, you also usually had to pull over and wipe the windows frantically. Can't say as I miss that.
Gotcha. So your particular leak was idiosyncratic.
I just meant that as thoughts go, it's actually a pretty good one, and there's a super-common failure that does the exact same thing.
There's nothing idiosyncratic about a heater core leak, which is what usually dumps water/coolant into your floorboards in a failure. Heaters usually work by routing the coolant through another miniature radiator (the heater core) on your side of the firewall. When you turn the heater on, it opens a valve that starts routing coolant through that loop. Fans blow heat from the core into the cabin. This is why turning the heater onto full can lower the temperature on an overheating car--you're actually putting another radiator into action.
When that radiator fails, it will leak from under the dash onto the floorboards.
Lots of cars have this setup. I've had it happen in a Mazda-designed Ford and an older Chevy, and remember my dad's VW Rabbit had the issue too. It's a common configuration, and could be a perfectly good explanation for removing the seat so you can fully dry the carpet and work on it.
Er, photon has sufficient momentum to kick other things around. Normally, momentum is given by p = gamma * m * v (gamma = 1 for v much less than c), but for particles with m = 0, this is wrong and momentum is now given by p = E / c (where E, for photons, is given by h*f).
This has been a really interesting discussion. Not nitpicking, just asking for clarification. Isn't momentum consistent between m > 0 and m = 0, as long as you always put it in terms of E?
E = mc^2
m = E/c^2
P = gamma * m * v
P = gamma * E/c^2 * v
(since for a photon, v = c)
P = gamma * E/c^2 * c
P = gamma * E/c
As long as gamma is 1, seems equivalent. I know you said gamma approaches 1 as v approaches 0, and photons are v = c. Does this mean gamma approaching 1 is also a factor of rest mass (i.e., if you have none, it's always 1?)
Assuming they can date their work before yours, I have no idea. If they have something that demonstrably predates yours, you infringed.
Whatever the case, I think it's a tangent to the overall discussion. Nobody's talking about the issue of lawsuits of other authors but you.