RE:"There's no well-supported digital equivalent to a negative"
While it's not absolute proof of ownership, most digital formats these days include a specification called EXIF. (Google for "EXIF" or see http://www.exif.org/ for more info). The extraneous information in a digital photo containg EXIF data includes such information as Make & model of camera, etc. While such information is not absolute, it can, in a pinch, providde reasonable proof of ownership, as long as you can show you own the equipment specified, and that all the images point to your equipment.
No.. I didn't RTFA, but... I think the only hope this has of catching on, is if the "shared" portion of the bandwith is minimal (as in the usage of the bit-torrent protocol). As a frequent hotspot user, I'm already bugged enough by limited wifi bandwith speeds.
I think if I were to have to share some of that speed I might be hesitant to participate. yes, it's a selfish thought, but I'm sure I'm not alone.
"'We use these accounts to...view internet sites...".
I'm sorry, but when I hear a media spokesperson hiccup like that, my bullshit detector sends up an immediate flag. What was this email server really used for???
"telecoms will be liable for medical malpractice if the network connections fail during remote robotic surgery."
This would never fly... It would be akin to a hospital trying to sue the city if an ambulance encounters roadwork delays while trying to transport a patient. Assumption of risk lies with the user of the system.
This looks like it could be the next big thing in preventing the download of large bogus files.
Currently, in p2p programs (ala Kazaa, etc), you'd have to download the entire 600 MB file "Lord of the Rings.avi" (or "Busty Nurses. avi".. depending on your cinematic preferences), only to realize that someone has posted a bogus video in it's place.
Swarming the file (ie: "Lord of the Rings.avi"), would allow you to preview various portions of the file to ensure it's integrity... (personal integrity aside) before downloading the entire file to your local PC.
My neighbour, who DOESN'T read slashdot, and who HASN'T implemented the fix for his Linksys WiFi router, well... His WRT54G screams "All your base are belong to DOS4WHO" !!!
Unless I'm misreading your comment, I must disagree. The pool scenario.. some jerk tears down my pool fence. I have a legal obligation to repair it in a timely manner, to "protect some innocent kid from wandering in and falling in".
Now, back to the open WLAN. Somebody drops illegal porn on my open server.. Do I now have an obligation to block access or remove the file to "protect some innocent kid from wandering in and viewing it"? IMO, I would think so.
Now, IANAL, but I believe the legalese term is "Force Majeur", meaning you have to use "reasonable force" to protect things, people, etc., including yourself.
The reference used here before was an example of a swimming pool owner - leave it unprotected, with no fence around it, and YOU are responsible for waht happens in it. IE: Some kid wanders into your yard and drowns, it's YOUR ASS that lands in jail.
The same would apply here. Intentenionally leave your network open to the world, and see who ends up standing before the judge after Officer Friendly views illegal content that was anonymously uploaded onto YOUR open server!
Seriously.. A lot of gas stations have removed the little tab for jamming the pump handle on, so sometimes I use my 2nd cell phone (a cheap Nokia model) to jam the squeeze handle open.
Yes.. I leave it turned on. No, it has never rung while doing so...
Did anyone else read "International Federation of the Pornographic Industry"? I swear my heart skipped a beat. Man, it's early here on the west coast!
~m
Slashdot Mirror
AND... Let's not forget www.MEGACAR.com
~m
Awesome! I'd like one that spits out hex code "29A"! I'll save you from dusting off that scientific calculator... in decimal, it's "666". ~m
... and kill people??
RE:"There's no well-supported digital equivalent to a negative"
While it's not absolute proof of ownership, most digital formats these days include a specification called EXIF. (Google for "EXIF" or see http://www.exif.org/ for more info).
The extraneous information in a digital photo containg EXIF data includes such information as Make & model of camera, etc. While such information is not absolute, it can, in a pinch, providde reasonable proof of ownership, as long as you can show you own the equipment specified, and that all the images point to your equipment.
I think if I were to have to share some of that speed I might be hesitant to participate. yes, it's a selfish thought, but I'm sure I'm not alone.
Any comments?
- Users of toilet paper made from recycled paper products, because they're not supporting the logging industry?
- Users of wind, solar or other alternate energy sources, for not supporting "the grid"?
- Those wo live abord marine vessels (ie: houseboats or sailboats) year-round, for not paying property taxes?
The list can go on forever, people... We need to stand up against this bullshit!
I'm sorry, but when I hear a media spokesperson hiccup like that, my bullshit detector sends up an immediate flag. What was this email server really used for???
On second thought... She'd never leave...
This would never fly... It would be akin to a hospital trying to sue the city if an ambulance encounters roadwork delays while trying to transport a patient. Assumption of risk lies with the user of the system.
2 tin cans and a VERY LONG string...
Signed: Garfield
This looks like it could be the next big thing in preventing the download of large bogus files.
Currently, in p2p programs (ala Kazaa, etc), you'd have to download the entire 600 MB file "Lord of the Rings.avi" (or "Busty Nurses. avi".. depending on your cinematic preferences), only to realize that someone has posted a bogus video in it's place.
Swarming the file (ie: "Lord of the Rings.avi"), would allow you to preview various portions of the file to ensure it's integrity... (personal integrity aside) before downloading the entire file to your local PC.
This is going to really pi$$ off the MPAA
..Scroll down to bottom of page...see REJECTED!
Now, back to the open WLAN. Somebody drops illegal porn on my open server.. Do I now have an obligation to block access or remove the file to "protect some innocent kid from wandering in and viewing it"? IMO, I would think so.
The reference used here before was an example of a swimming pool owner - leave it unprotected, with no fence around it, and YOU are responsible for waht happens in it. IE: Some kid wanders into your yard and drowns, it's YOUR ASS that lands in jail.
The same would apply here. Intentenionally leave your network open to the world, and see who ends up standing before the judge after Officer Friendly views illegal content that was anonymously uploaded onto YOUR open server!
~m
Yes.. I leave it turned on. No, it has never rung while doing so...
~m
..How about trying to get CowboyNeal a date?
~m
I once worked the "back end" for a gay porn site.. ~m
Did anyone else read "International Federation of the Pornographic Industry"? I swear my heart skipped a beat. Man, it's early here on the west coast! ~m
~m