That's great, I like the free software movement too. But just for a moment, think about all the laws and men in suits that say stealing software is illegal, despite the lack of actual property loss. Get off your high horse, just because you think all software should be free doesn't make it so.
Basically what I get from your argument is that privacy must be absolute, unless you want something that someone else works to create, then you should get it free.
what happens if the user is legitimate, but either had a file corrupted or a virus infected it?
Then it's a false positive, it doesn't say 'a user is possibly using cracked software.. then the ss are immediately sent to their house and they are thrown in jail for life without a trial'.
They are reported, showing them a proof of purchase or a legitimate cd or anything of the sort would leave you in the clear.
Let's replace 'piece of software' with, oh I don't know.. 'car'.
The simplest solution is that a car that thinks it is pirated start warning 30 days before it's going to shut itself off to give the user a chance to do something and finally disable itself. That is effective and friendly.
But the point is that the legal ownders of the book, the authors and in most cases a publisher DON'T profit from your piracy of a book. Just because it costs you money doesn't mean that money somehow magically goes to its rightful place.
No, the point is that I don't profit. I don't really care about the publisher, and the author, in the case of books I download, is dead.
And yes, I understand that libraries buys and receives donated books. But then an entire town of people LEECHES off of the 1 or few books a library buys or has been donated. Holy shit we're all pirates! Libraries don't photocopy them no, but they do give them out to anyone who wants one.
Well, nothing is free. It costs me money and effort to download things. I can determine whether I profit for receiving something for minimal cost and effort, I have that much sense.
And as it relates to infringing on copyright. Legally, I obviously am. Morally, I am not. There is negligible difference in downloading a book, or getting it from the library. Both come at a very small cost, and allow me to use the book in the manner in which it is intended.
". fig. The appropriation and reproduction of an invention or work of another for one's own profit, without authority; infringement of the rights conferred by a patent or copyright.
So as long as I don't resell these books then I'm not a pirate.
We don't know it, we assume that under the same situation, things will react the same way. We go with this until we're proven wrong/find out something new we didn't know before.
If you don't want to accept this premise then there's really no reason to believe that in 2 seconds everything you know will cease to exist or any other of the infinite possibilities out there.
The most obvious distinguishing feature of IPv6 is its use of much larger addresses. The size of an address in IPv6 is 128 bits, which is four times larger than an address in IPv4. A 32-bit address space allows for 2^32 or 4,294,967,296 possible addresses. A 128-bit address space allows for 2^128 or 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6 (3.4 × 1038) possible addresses.
So obviously 2^128 = 4 x 2^32. Or, 2^128 = 2^2 x 2^32. 2^128 = 2^34. Gooo microsoft math.
'Scientifically' say it? There's alot of theoretical proof that this is the case. As well as some observed results of time dilation. Not only has it not been observed, but it would also be impossible to observe. (The act of observing disturbs the observed!) If you accept the premise that light speed travel would require infinite energy, then it's obvious that it is impossible based on the definition of infinite. So, the only way to refute the claim is to prove mass dilation false. Go for it!
On the bright side, Toronto has also been blessed with SARS Fest, $20 to see the stones, AC/DC, Guess Who, Rush, and dozens of other bands. Plus I saw the Dears today at SARS Square, aka Yonge-Dundas. It's a good time to be a music fan in Toronto.
I'm not going to bother arguing with the first half of this post, since that's been done already. Here's a neat part.
Just wait six months and someone will be releasing a fantastic new defense against this by limiting the CPU resources of given tasks to defined amounts so they cannot stop the system and only that particular service.
How do you propose this should be done? How can you tell if input is malicious or not? I think that would be pretty tricky/impossible.
Man, who are you and how do you know so little? How would NAT fix this problem? Are the packets not going to make it to the servers or something? If so then there's a problem, since these ARE server programs after all. These aren't just 'stray packets', they are chosen to exploit the worst case run time of algorithms, in this case mostly hash tables I believe.
Worst case is not just an excersize, if you find input that will make an algorithm run in it's worst form then the algorithm will run slower. The obvious example of vanilla qsort pops up.
Lower usage users are paying exactly the same. Higher usage users are paying more but with a cap on price, but not on transfer amount. If you take off the price cap, more money is made. Which is why big companies probably wouldn't do this.
Slashdot Mirror
nt
Ah, even better, then the article is me=].
That's great, I like the free software movement too. But just for a moment, think about all the laws and men in suits that say stealing software is illegal, despite the lack of actual property loss. Get off your high horse, just because you think all software should be free doesn't make it so.
Basically what I get from your argument is that privacy must be absolute, unless you want something that someone else works to create, then you should get it free.
They are reported, showing them a proof of purchase or a legitimate cd or anything of the sort would leave you in the clear.
No, though I didn't rtfa, the little snippet says only when the software thinks it is cracked.
Let's replace 'piece of software' with, oh I don't know.. 'car'.
The simplest solution is that a car that thinks it is pirated start warning 30 days before it's going to shut itself off to give the user a chance to do something and finally disable itself. That is effective and friendly.
Make sense to you?
Well I never claimed not to be breaking the law, I admitted that straight off the bat. I was speaking of the morality issue.
No, the point is that I don't profit. I don't really care about the publisher, and the author, in the case of books I download, is dead.
And yes, I understand that libraries buys and receives donated books. But then an entire town of people LEECHES off of the 1 or few books a library buys or has been donated. Holy shit we're all pirates! Libraries don't photocopy them no, but they do give them out to anyone who wants one.
Well, nothing is free. It costs me money and effort to download things. I can determine whether I profit for receiving something for minimal cost and effort, I have that much sense.
And as it relates to infringing on copyright. Legally, I obviously am. Morally, I am not. There is negligible difference in downloading a book, or getting it from the library. Both come at a very small cost, and allow me to use the book in the manner in which it is intended.
". fig. The appropriation and reproduction of an invention or work of another for one's own profit, without authority; infringement of the rights conferred by a patent or copyright.
So as long as I don't resell these books then I'm not a pirate.
We don't know it, we assume that under the same situation, things will react the same way. We go with this until we're proven wrong/find out something new we didn't know before.
If you don't want to accept this premise then there's really no reason to believe that in 2 seconds everything you know will cease to exist or any other of the infinite possibilities out there.
Thank libdvdcss for that.
you get what you pay for.
Lectures are also more comfortable without shoes.
What, they'll have to apply a patch to their router?
Oh god! Billion dollar multi-national corporations will have to HIRE NEW PEOPLE to make the changeover! Capitilism is failing, the sky is falling!
'Scientifically' say it? There's alot of theoretical proof that this is the case. As well as some observed results of time dilation. Not only has it not been observed, but it would also be impossible to observe. (The act of observing disturbs the observed!) If you accept the premise that light speed travel would require infinite energy, then it's obvious that it is impossible based on the definition of infinite. So, the only way to refute the claim is to prove mass dilation false. Go for it!
How about, an object with mass cannot move at the speed of light. Doing so would take infinite energy.
On the bright side, Toronto has also been blessed with SARS Fest, $20 to see the stones, AC/DC, Guess Who, Rush, and dozens of other bands. Plus I saw the Dears today at SARS Square, aka Yonge-Dundas. It's a good time to be a music fan in Toronto.
Sorry about the ad hom. attacks.. I was fairly drunk when I wrote that.
Upon closer inspection and soberness, you have a good point. I didn't really read the entire article last night.
How do you propose this should be done? How can you tell if input is malicious or not? I think that would be pretty tricky/impossible.
Man, who are you and how do you know so little?
How would NAT fix this problem? Are the packets not going to make it to the servers or something? If so then there's a problem, since these ARE server programs after all. These aren't just 'stray packets', they are chosen to exploit the worst case run time of algorithms, in this case mostly hash tables I believe.
Worst case is not just an excersize, if you find input that will make an algorithm run in it's worst form then the algorithm will run slower. The obvious example of vanilla qsort pops up.
Sorry but your post is stupid.
I'm sure bandwidth can get quite insane for servers. But for users who can only look at one page at a time, the numbers would be fairly low.
Lower usage users are paying exactly the same. Higher usage users are paying more but with a cap on price, but not on transfer amount. If you take off the price cap, more money is made. Which is why big companies probably wouldn't do this.