Seriously, information in today's society is pretty robust. For example, the phone company still has logs of who called your business's phone number, and when; and the government could use that as identifying information. Alternately, the government may be able to find you in contempt and lock you up until you can provide identifying information on your customers. IANAL, but the government did this as recently as 10-15 years ago to journalists who refused to reveal their anonymous sources; and the government does it today, under the guise of "material witnesses," to keep "terrorist" suspects from seeing the light of day.
"The illegal distribution of music on the Internet is a serious issue for musicians, songwriters and other copyright owners. .."
The "other" copyright owners are the record companies. In fact, I'm sure the record companies are the only copyright owners most of the time--but it's a lot easier to stick up for the rights of a well-known (or not) musician, than it is to stick up for the rights of a faceless, multi-billion-dollar corporation.
Seriously--if artists owned any share of the copyright after their CD hit the market, do you think we'd see the flood of remade songs that are on the airwaves today?
For three reasons (at least), this "theory" of yours is complete bunk.
First, and most seriously, you say, "Relativity is theory, not law." This indicates a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of the Scientific Method. The fundamental difference between a theory and a law is that a law reflects and may predict observations, while a theory explains observations. This link at the Mad Sci network will give you a bit more background on the distinction.
Second, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle deals not with intensity and position of waves, but with the velocity vs. position of particle-waves. More specifically: "The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known" (American Institute of Physics). Gravity waves are theorized to exist, but to date we have yet to detect one.
Third, you call your hare-brained idea a "theory," which it is not. At the very best, it is a hypothesis; but since you present no observations to support your idea, I hesitate to give it even that distinction. In short, what you have is an opinion--and an unfounded one at that.
A good thought experiment to carry out, which may reflect what the astronomers who performed the experiment attempted to measure, is this: watch a star's position as it nears Jupiter (and watch closely, because when it moves, it won't move much). Jupiter's mass is known; and from that we can predict how far away Jupiter will be when its gravity bends the star's light. If the star's light bends before Jupiter reaches this distance, we can conclude that the effects of Jupiter's gravity reached us before the light from Jupiter reached us, and therefore that gravity is faster than light.
I don't actually have experience with Kazaa - I've never installed it or even seen it. But software firewalls can work against this, too, to a lesser extent. The Sygate personal firewall software I use (Windows OS) allows you to block traffic to and from ranges of IP addresses, in addition to blocking unauthorized ports' traffic. The browser will still open and try to connect to the offending website, but it'll give up after a few minutes.
Not only funny, but true! Most applications make it very easy to block their dishonest ways, though: ICQ, MSN, AIM, and YIM all use port 80 to download banner ads and upload. . . whatever it is they upload; while the actual message traffic is handled along other ports. Denying port 80 traffic to any application but the web browser is a reasonably good means of making sure you only send/receive the content you want to send/receive.
I've been tracking the release date since about November - not at the Apolyton site, but at online retail sites and actual retail stores. The release date has moved up, from 18 January to 15 January, the last couple times I've checked. I think when they say it'll be January, they mean it.
Plus, consider this: If they don't release soon, they risk having the plug pulled. I'd imagine Chantz and company will have to settle for "good enough" within the next few days or weeks if they can't get everything worked out by then.
Line up every guy that's been to the moon and INVITE the people to call them liars to their faces, along with presenting the crackpots with their evidence.
I like this idea, especially if the other moonwalkers take the same approach that Buzz Aldrin did.
There's more at stake here than just, "Do these midshipmen posess copyrighted material?" Unless these kids are sharing the music via CD, they're misusing government resources--namely, bandwidth--to support an illegal activity. This may well be against the Honor Code at the Naval Academy; but in addition, one could make a case for it violating the UCMJ's Article 108, "Loss, Damage, Destruction, or Wrongful Disposition of Government Property."
Almost, except for the Fair Use clause of US Copyright law. I'm legally entitled to make a backup copy of any software I buy. So, is it not a violation of Copyright law on Sony's part to act to prevent this activity?
For as bad spam was, at least the Net used to be free...
It used to also be restricted almost exclusively to universities and government institutions. A dirt road doesn't need lane dividers and yield signs; a highway filled with ten gazillion yahoos does.
Points 1, 3, and 5 are all good. Points 2 and 4, however, weaken your argument substantially. Since when do laws exist to arbitrarily punish Microsoft and benefit Debian?
I'll add--the reason this guy didn't get into any classified information is because the military doesn't store classified information on the NIPRNet, that is, Unclassified but sensitive Internet Protocol Router Network. This NIPRNet is the Internet that DARPA originally developed and that everyone here uses today. Classified information is transmitted only along a SIPRNet, or Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, which is not actually connected to the public Internet.
Releasing or altering classified information would almost certainly require physical access to one of the computers that's already linked to the military SIPRNet. If the rest of the computers across the military are protected in similar fashion to the ones where I work--behind a foot-thick wall of steel with armed guards stationed at the entrances--I feel pretty good about the security of our classified information networks.
The Constitution doesn't work that way. Look at the Ninth and Tenth Amendments: any power not expressly given to the Federal Government or to the states is granted to the people.
So it's not a question of, "do you have the right to anonymity." It's a question of, does the government have the right to monitor you under a given situation? In this case, because the threat to public safety and the possible information that could be gained from this kind of surveillance are minimal, the answers to both questions should be, "No."
How is this a troll? With many of the same Congresscreatures that passed the DMCA, the COPA, and several other Internet-ignorant, Constitution-unfriendly laws, I too am surprised that our own nation's government didn't beat Panama to the punch, here.
I'm sure it'll be snuck into one of next year's bills, though - as something totally unrelated, at that.
I'm actually in the U.S. military, and I agree with most of this sentiment. From a financial statement, the Space Station makes a far more worthwhile investment than a military which overpowers any five other nations'. Especially given that the cost given is the total cost of the International Space Station, as opposed to the annual cost.
That said, I think the station as it stands now is being horribly mismanaged. What are we doing with it up there? The station should be a scientific tool, not a diplomatic one. We have a platform for large-scale experimentation and research, with the potential to develop zero-g manufacturing methods that might interest companies on the ground enough to invest in space themselves. How much of that are we doing, really?
The space revolution awaits us, but it won't happen until we can make it profitable. The ISS can help us make that happen. In the meantime, it's all I can do to hope and dream that the Department of Defense will one day create a separate Space Force into which I might enlist.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, for all five of your customers.
Seriously, information in today's society is pretty robust. For example, the phone company still has logs of who called your business's phone number, and when; and the government could use that as identifying information. Alternately, the government may be able to find you in contempt and lock you up until you can provide identifying information on your customers. IANAL, but the government did this as recently as 10-15 years ago to journalists who refused to reveal their anonymous sources; and the government does it today, under the guise of "material witnesses," to keep "terrorist" suspects from seeing the light of day.
RIAASpeak:
"The illegal distribution of music on the Internet is a serious issue for musicians, songwriters and other copyright owners. . ."
The "other" copyright owners are the record companies. In fact, I'm sure the record companies are the only copyright owners most of the time--but it's a lot easier to stick up for the rights of a well-known (or not) musician, than it is to stick up for the rights of a faceless, multi-billion-dollar corporation.
Seriously--if artists owned any share of the copyright after their CD hit the market, do you think we'd see the flood of remade songs that are on the airwaves today?
. . .and inversely proportional to the amount of spam to which you actually respond.
For three reasons (at least), this "theory" of yours is complete bunk.
First, and most seriously, you say, "Relativity is theory, not law." This indicates a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of the Scientific Method. The fundamental difference between a theory and a law is that a law reflects and may predict observations, while a theory explains observations. This link at the Mad Sci network will give you a bit more background on the distinction.
Second, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle deals not with intensity and position of waves, but with the velocity vs. position of particle-waves. More specifically: "The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known" (American Institute of Physics). Gravity waves are theorized to exist, but to date we have yet to detect one.
Third, you call your hare-brained idea a "theory," which it is not. At the very best, it is a hypothesis; but since you present no observations to support your idea, I hesitate to give it even that distinction. In short, what you have is an opinion--and an unfounded one at that.
A good thought experiment to carry out, which may reflect what the astronomers who performed the experiment attempted to measure, is this: watch a star's position as it nears Jupiter (and watch closely, because when it moves, it won't move much). Jupiter's mass is known; and from that we can predict how far away Jupiter will be when its gravity bends the star's light. If the star's light bends before Jupiter reaches this distance, we can conclude that the effects of Jupiter's gravity reached us before the light from Jupiter reached us, and therefore that gravity is faster than light.
I don't actually have experience with Kazaa - I've never installed it or even seen it. But software firewalls can work against this, too, to a lesser extent. The Sygate personal firewall software I use (Windows OS) allows you to block traffic to and from ranges of IP addresses, in addition to blocking unauthorized ports' traffic. The browser will still open and try to connect to the offending website, but it'll give up after a few minutes.
In fact, why even bother to get the Hotmail address? Just make one up!
Not only funny, but true! Most applications make it very easy to block their dishonest ways, though: ICQ, MSN, AIM, and YIM all use port 80 to download banner ads and upload. . . whatever it is they upload; while the actual message traffic is handled along other ports. Denying port 80 traffic to any application but the web browser is a reasonably good means of making sure you only send/receive the content you want to send/receive.
Yes, it's funny. But consider--before the iMac, how many colors did PCs come in? In contrast, you can have "designer" colors for PCs today.
I've been tracking the release date since about November - not at the Apolyton site, but at online retail sites and actual retail stores. The release date has moved up, from 18 January to 15 January, the last couple times I've checked. I think when they say it'll be January, they mean it.
Plus, consider this: If they don't release soon, they risk having the plug pulled. I'd imagine Chantz and company will have to settle for "good enough" within the next few days or weeks if they can't get everything worked out by then.
Line up every guy that's been to the moon and INVITE the people to call them liars to their faces, along with presenting the crackpots with their evidence.
I like this idea, especially if the other moonwalkers take the same approach that Buzz Aldrin did.
I wonder, though - if you turn the pipes on end, perhaps you could still have something workable for "normal"-sized people?
There's more at stake here than just, "Do these midshipmen posess copyrighted material?" Unless these kids are sharing the music via CD, they're misusing government resources--namely, bandwidth--to support an illegal activity. This may well be against the Honor Code at the Naval Academy; but in addition, one could make a case for it violating the UCMJ's Article 108, "Loss, Damage, Destruction, or Wrongful Disposition of Government Property."
Better still, tell Tipper that Saddam is going to bomb Israel with "2 Live Crew" CDs if the United States invades Iraq. . .
Almost, except for the Fair Use clause of US Copyright law. I'm legally entitled to make a backup copy of any software I buy. So, is it not a violation of Copyright law on Sony's part to act to prevent this activity?
For as bad spam was, at least the Net used to be free...
It used to also be restricted almost exclusively to universities and government institutions. A dirt road doesn't need lane dividers and yield signs; a highway filled with ten gazillion yahoos does.
Points 1, 3, and 5 are all good. Points 2 and 4, however, weaken your argument substantially. Since when do laws exist to arbitrarily punish Microsoft and benefit Debian?
Well-said!
I'll add--the reason this guy didn't get into any classified information is because the military doesn't store classified information on the NIPRNet, that is, Unclassified but sensitive Internet Protocol Router Network. This NIPRNet is the Internet that DARPA originally developed and that everyone here uses today. Classified information is transmitted only along a SIPRNet, or Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, which is not actually connected to the public Internet.
Releasing or altering classified information would almost certainly require physical access to one of the computers that's already linked to the military SIPRNet. If the rest of the computers across the military are protected in similar fashion to the ones where I work--behind a foot-thick wall of steel with armed guards stationed at the entrances--I feel pretty good about the security of our classified information networks.
2. freedom = slavery;
Just redefine freedom as something completely alien from what it really is. Orwell knew this.
The Constitution doesn't work that way. Look at the Ninth and Tenth Amendments: any power not expressly given to the Federal Government or to the states is granted to the people.
So it's not a question of, "do you have the right to anonymity." It's a question of, does the government have the right to monitor you under a given situation? In this case, because the threat to public safety and the possible information that could be gained from this kind of surveillance are minimal, the answers to both questions should be, "No."
How is this a troll? With many of the same Congresscreatures that passed the DMCA, the COPA, and several other Internet-ignorant, Constitution-unfriendly laws, I too am surprised that our own nation's government didn't beat Panama to the punch, here.
I'm sure it'll be snuck into one of next year's bills, though - as something totally unrelated, at that.
You want to send the Army into space? I can deal with that, but can we leave them up there? ;)
No doubt about that, especially with all the miles they've put on it in just two years!
I'm actually in the U.S. military, and I agree with most of this sentiment. From a financial statement, the Space Station makes a far more worthwhile investment than a military which overpowers any five other nations'. Especially given that the cost given is the total cost of the International Space Station, as opposed to the annual cost.
That said, I think the station as it stands now is being horribly mismanaged. What are we doing with it up there? The station should be a scientific tool, not a diplomatic one. We have a platform for large-scale experimentation and research, with the potential to develop zero-g manufacturing methods that might interest companies on the ground enough to invest in space themselves. How much of that are we doing, really?
The space revolution awaits us, but it won't happen until we can make it profitable. The ISS can help us make that happen. In the meantime, it's all I can do to hope and dream that the Department of Defense will one day create a separate Space Force into which I might enlist.
It's metre, you insensitive clod!
Somewhat offtopic, I know. . . but I think you've confused "oxymoron" with "redundant."