Okay, maybe all the technicalities are a bit confusing to the non-geeks, but if you cook, you know 3tsp in 1T, etc...If you use a computer, you should know the basics.
I think a big problem is that broadband providers often drop the actual speeds for a description, like "59x faster than dialup!" If you just want something fast, then you're like "wow!", but if you actually want to know how much bandwidth you're getting, theres a lot more too it. Why is it overly easier to say 10x, 20x, etc than 128kbps, 384kbps, etc. If you want to convert to an effective KBps, divide by 10. That adds in some network slow down and the like, I believe. Works for me, isn't too calculator-intensive.
So I have cable, speedtested (dslreports.com) at around 3300kpbs. I divide by 10, get 330KB/s, and browser downloads confirm that. Also of point is that Grandpa Joe doesn't care if his Matrix trailer is 5 minutes or 14.4 minutes. CDs have requirements a lot of times (not that it's ever really been a problem for me though)
That's a huge difference. I could get the source, change it however I want, and use it myself. Is this legal? I haven't studied it and don't know exactly (and IANAL), but it's kinda a moot point-nobody would know. So I could do whatever I want and Microsoft can't really do anything. I could add CE support to hardware of my choosing for my own benefit. As long as I don't distribute (for $$$ or free) I should be fine.
And seriously, you have to give Microsoft some credit. Who would undermine their entire corporate base? You can say that Red Hat's existance is based around something that would be like if Microsoft GPLed its Windows XP, but it's not. Red Hat makes money off support and the paid packages, and are doing a good job last I checked. Microsoft is set up to make money from selling the OS, not supporting it. That's free, but people like me never really use it. I'm not a Microsoft expert/financial adviser, but it's pretty obvious that they would need to change their cash flow basis to get something like that going.
I was installing a MS WMP Codec package today to try to get some files to display correctly, and browsed through the license, and found this interesting section:
Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ("Secure Content"), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update.
I like the idea that Microsoft thinks it can stop software on my computer from running. I installed it anyways, obviously, figuring that either 1) it really won't be an issue, and 2) I doubt that they seriously can/will do anything that will mess up something of mine. But from a technical or legal standpoint, I don't really like this.
- Dave
If something can be duplicated instantly, obviously it loses value, but nonetheless has value, just not the same value. For instance, if I download and burn the White Album, I don't place the same value on it as if I went out and bought it, but I wouldn't want to lose it. That's a value I place on it, based mostly on how much I like it/want to listen to it and how much time/effort it took to get or would take to replace. The manufacturer is effectively cut out, because the value it places on it is completely lost. On a large scale, if everyone downloads the White Album and burns it, does it really lose value? I think that as entertainment, it is not less valuable just because anyone and everyone can listen to it. Economically, the CDs lose a heck of a lot of value because nobody will go out and buy them.
Moreover, it cannot technically be considered stealing because stealing implies loss of property. Calling it copyright infringement also can be debated, because is it infringing on the copyright for an individual to listen to music that someone else made? Distributing it clearly is, from the first sale doctrine and whatnot, but from the end user point, it's not really. You are not infringing in that you are making money off first sale, or claiming it as your own. So can the manufacturer complain? Sure, because he theoretically loses sales.
What if 250,000 people who don't like Celine Dion and would not listen to her ever download and burn her latest CD? Is that wrong? Is that stealing? Does it really deprive the manufacturer of sales? Clearly not. However, there has to be a line drawn somewhere, otherwise there's no line and the manufacturers make nothing. I don't know what the line is, but I see the potential need for it.
From an ethical point of view, I think that is is immoral to undercut the artist source of income. If nobody pays for music, there is no income, and they make no money. Basically that mean they have to rely on touring and the like. Is that bad? If that happened, then the RIAA and the like would vanish, the artists would make money off promotional items (clearly still a market) and live shows (even if the shows are recorded and distributed, because that's just not the same experience). Some of the filler and manufactured music would vanish, because of the inability to survive in such a world. Would it be harder for startup bands? Sure, but historically everybody at the top now was at one time struggling and surviving by playing clubs, getting a fan base, etc. So in the end, they would still make money. So how "evil" is it, and how immoral is it really? If I wouldn't spend money on a CD, should I burn it?
Why does that harm someone? If it doesn't harm anyone, what's the argument for it being unethical. The RIAA overplays their "potential harm" theory way too much....It's like corporations paying themselves bonuses based on potential earnings and not making them (*cough*Enron*cough*)
I don't think that it's unethical to listen to music. If I can turn on the radio and listen to anything (popular, anyways), or get a CD from the library, I can listen to it. Why not make it easier. This is the kind of thinking that is oh-so-obvious, but gets looked over. It already is free, to the consumer at least. Radio stations pay and libraries spend money, but so what? My taxes support the library, but I don't listen to radio commercials..I flip to another station or throw in my DMB cds.
I think that denying technology is not the way to go. There was an excellent post above regarding the technology to infinitely reproduce, and should it be denied. That is stupid, to me. Why should we turn from progress in the name of preserving how it is now? Who's to say that the way it is now is better than it will be in the future? Progress in the past has proven to be positive (seriously, who wishes that we lived in caves without computers and no written communication, etc...).
This is not to say that all technology is good. Cloning,
Lending books is not illegal for the very reason that libraries are legal: there is only one copy of the book. Under the First Sale doctrine, the copyright holder only has control of the first sale, ie when you buy a book. If you buy a book, you can sell it, burn it, give it away, loan it, etc. But you can't photocopy it and give away copies of it (assuming no fair use).
File sharing duplicates the files, creating new copies, which is why it is illegal. I'm not saying I agree, but there is a clear difference and definite justification for it.
is a mouseless mouse! No more wires, no more surfaces, no more little boxes!
Seriously, though, these things are kinda cool. I had a prof who used a laptop and a projector to run powerpoint presentations, and he had a remote mouse. It wasn't so much of a mouse as a presentation device (two mouse buttons, a laser, and mouse pointer), so it was kind of hard to do precision moving of the pointer.
We spent a class testing the range on it, though, by moving to other rooms, outside, etc, and changing the slides. That one had over 25 feet range, however, without line of sight required.
"'When public funds are used to support software research and development, the innovations that result from this work should be licensed in ways that take into account both the desirability of broadly sharing those advances as well as the desirability of applying those advances to commercialized products,' the group stated."
Basically, the taxpayers' money should be used to finance "commercialized products" that make money for somebody else...
"In a recent speech delivered to the Government Leaders' Conference in Seattle, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates likened the concept of open source to anti-capitalism. Warning developing countries against using software based on the GPL, Gates said those who put development time into it are denying themselves the benefits of essential taxes."
And we all know that anti-capitalism is..communism. I knew those Chinese were onto something with their Linux.
However, this is not actually true. If a government uses taxes to fund research/development of software, the benefit ti the said government is software--why should it care how it is licensed, as long as it is functional?
Use it instead of a mouse, sort of a touchscreen without touch.
Or, make it wireless and use it as a remote for a TV. Imagine waving your hand to change the channel, volume, etc.
Connect it to your stereo in a similar fashion.
Use it to steer the lawnmower around the yard--just move your hand and fingers, while sipping daquiries from a lawnchair.
Think of the possibilities! It's almost like being a jedi!
Scientists are now working on an 'Autonomous Slashdot User' which can read, post, and reply, all in the pursuit of better karma.
It seems, however, that a bug/feature has developed in these autonomous users, causing them to be unnaturally attracted to other autonomous contests...
I work at a library, and we use laser barcode scanners to identify books, etc to check them in/out/elsewhere. I don't know how they work, and I never actually tried using one underwater, so I don't have really good 'experience', but here's my two cents.
First of all, the supermarket scanners were mentioned before, and I think that might actually be a better design than the library's scanners for this sort of thing. If you ever watch these things in action, the person practically throws them over a glass square about 8x6in or so. It's hardly precision scanning.
At the library, we have standing scanners on arms that direct the red line down onto a book's barcode. If you get a barcode anywhere beneath it, it will read it. I've scanned things in motion, at an angle, etc. I haven't tried in the dark, but I'm pretty sure it would work.
Lastly, and this is purely hypothetical, if a laser scanner worked well enough, a brute force attack would be possible--get a couple scanners on all sides, and just zoom around the tank and record what scans!
Slashdot Mirror
I think a big problem is that broadband providers often drop the actual speeds for a description, like "59x faster than dialup!" If you just want something fast, then you're like "wow!", but if you actually want to know how much bandwidth you're getting, theres a lot more too it. Why is it overly easier to say 10x, 20x, etc than 128kbps, 384kbps, etc. If you want to convert to an effective KBps, divide by 10. That adds in some network slow down and the like, I believe. Works for me, isn't too calculator-intensive.
So I have cable, speedtested (dslreports.com) at around 3300kpbs. I divide by 10, get 330KB/s, and browser downloads confirm that. Also of point is that Grandpa Joe doesn't care if his Matrix trailer is 5 minutes or 14.4 minutes. CDs have requirements a lot of times (not that it's ever really been a problem for me though)
And seriously, you have to give Microsoft some credit. Who would undermine their entire corporate base? You can say that Red Hat's existance is based around something that would be like if Microsoft GPLed its Windows XP, but it's not. Red Hat makes money off support and the paid packages, and are doing a good job last I checked. Microsoft is set up to make money from selling the OS, not supporting it. That's free, but people like me never really use it. I'm not a Microsoft expert/financial adviser, but it's pretty obvious that they would need to change their cash flow basis to get something like that going.
I was installing a MS WMP Codec package today to try to get some files to display correctly, and browsed through the license, and found this interesting section:
Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ("Secure Content"), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update.
I like the idea that Microsoft thinks it can stop software on my computer from running. I installed it anyways, obviously, figuring that either 1) it really won't be an issue, and 2) I doubt that they seriously can/will do anything that will mess up something of mine. But from a technical or legal standpoint, I don't really like this.
- Dave
If something can be duplicated instantly, obviously it loses value, but nonetheless has value, just not the same value. For instance, if I download and burn the White Album, I don't place the same value on it as if I went out and bought it, but I wouldn't want to lose it. That's a value I place on it, based mostly on how much I like it/want to listen to it and how much time/effort it took to get or would take to replace. The manufacturer is effectively cut out, because the value it places on it is completely lost. On a large scale, if everyone downloads the White Album and burns it, does it really lose value? I think that as entertainment, it is not less valuable just because anyone and everyone can listen to it. Economically, the CDs lose a heck of a lot of value because nobody will go out and buy them.
Moreover, it cannot technically be considered stealing because stealing implies loss of property. Calling it copyright infringement also can be debated, because is it infringing on the copyright for an individual to listen to music that someone else made? Distributing it clearly is, from the first sale doctrine and whatnot, but from the end user point, it's not really. You are not infringing in that you are making money off first sale, or claiming it as your own. So can the manufacturer complain? Sure, because he theoretically loses sales. What if 250,000 people who don't like Celine Dion and would not listen to her ever download and burn her latest CD? Is that wrong? Is that stealing? Does it really deprive the manufacturer of sales? Clearly not. However, there has to be a line drawn somewhere, otherwise there's no line and the manufacturers make nothing. I don't know what the line is, but I see the potential need for it.
From an ethical point of view, I think that is is immoral to undercut the artist source of income. If nobody pays for music, there is no income, and they make no money. Basically that mean they have to rely on touring and the like. Is that bad? If that happened, then the RIAA and the like would vanish, the artists would make money off promotional items (clearly still a market) and live shows (even if the shows are recorded and distributed, because that's just not the same experience). Some of the filler and manufactured music would vanish, because of the inability to survive in such a world. Would it be harder for startup bands? Sure, but historically everybody at the top now was at one time struggling and surviving by playing clubs, getting a fan base, etc. So in the end, they would still make money. So how "evil" is it, and how immoral is it really? If I wouldn't spend money on a CD, should I burn it?
Why does that harm someone? If it doesn't harm anyone, what's the argument for it being unethical. The RIAA overplays their "potential harm" theory way too much....It's like corporations paying themselves bonuses based on potential earnings and not making them (*cough*Enron*cough*)
I don't think that it's unethical to listen to music. If I can turn on the radio and listen to anything (popular, anyways), or get a CD from the library, I can listen to it. Why not make it easier. This is the kind of thinking that is oh-so-obvious, but gets looked over. It already is free, to the consumer at least. Radio stations pay and libraries spend money, but so what? My taxes support the library, but I don't listen to radio commercials..I flip to another station or throw in my DMB cds.
I think that denying technology is not the way to go. There was an excellent post above regarding the technology to infinitely reproduce, and should it be denied. That is stupid, to me. Why should we turn from progress in the name of preserving how it is now? Who's to say that the way it is now is better than it will be in the future? Progress in the past has proven to be positive (seriously, who wishes that we lived in caves without computers and no written communication, etc...).
This is not to say that all technology is good. Cloning,
Lending books is not illegal for the very reason that libraries are legal: there is only one copy of the book. Under the First Sale doctrine, the copyright holder only has control of the first sale, ie when you buy a book. If you buy a book, you can sell it, burn it, give it away, loan it, etc. But you can't photocopy it and give away copies of it (assuming no fair use).
File sharing duplicates the files, creating new copies, which is why it is illegal. I'm not saying I agree, but there is a clear difference and definite justification for it.
-deke
Seriously, though, these things are kinda cool. I had a prof who used a laptop and a projector to run powerpoint presentations, and he had a remote mouse. It wasn't so much of a mouse as a presentation device (two mouse buttons, a laser, and mouse pointer), so it was kind of hard to do precision moving of the pointer.
We spent a class testing the range on it, though, by moving to other rooms, outside, etc, and changing the slides. That one had over 25 feet range, however, without line of sight required.
Basically, the taxpayers' money should be used to finance "commercialized products" that make money for somebody else...
And we all know that anti-capitalism is..communism. I knew those Chinese were onto something with their Linux.
However, this is not actually true. If a government uses taxes to fund research/development of software, the benefit ti the said government is software--why should it care how it is licensed, as long as it is functional?
Or, make it wireless and use it as a remote for a TV. Imagine waving your hand to change the channel, volume, etc.
Connect it to your stereo in a similar fashion.
Use it to steer the lawnmower around the yard--just move your hand and fingers, while sipping daquiries from a lawnchair.
Think of the possibilities! It's almost like being a jedi!
It seems, however, that a bug/feature has developed in these autonomous users, causing them to be unnaturally attracted to other autonomous contests...
First of all, the supermarket scanners were mentioned before, and I think that might actually be a better design than the library's scanners for this sort of thing. If you ever watch these things in action, the person practically throws them over a glass square about 8x6in or so. It's hardly precision scanning.
At the library, we have standing scanners on arms that direct the red line down onto a book's barcode. If you get a barcode anywhere beneath it, it will read it. I've scanned things in motion, at an angle, etc. I haven't tried in the dark, but I'm pretty sure it would work.
Lastly, and this is purely hypothetical, if a laser scanner worked well enough, a brute force attack would be possible--get a couple scanners on all sides, and just zoom around the tank and record what scans!