Please don't insult me. I am Canadian. I was just pointing out that this article seemed to be imply terrorists will take advantage of this. And I don't think that it was appropriate that this article paint stenography this way. I mean, what other 'persecuted political groups' would possibly have a use for this? Those small communist parties that run for election every cycle?
I'm not saying stenography is bad because terrorists will use this. I'm saying we shouldn't relate EVERYTHING with terrorism. It's the buzz word of the new millenium. Just like how 'communist' was back after the second cold war.
Apparently, it will make it easy for persecuted political groups to hide messages in images.
Why just 'persecuted political groups'? (which I hope isn't another name for a terrorist organization). The article says that it is easy to use. Which means that you and I can communicate with each other securely, with no one eavesdropping. It's neither a good or bad thing, it's a tool. This tool can be used for good and bad.
I really think that this post was implying that terrorists will take advantage of this tool. Drop this terrorism crap. Terrorists use many other mundane things to cause damage, why not make a big deal about those items too.
Well i'm glad you're able to finance all the music you listen to and are happy with what the radio plays. You are a better person than me, good for you. I will not read the book on ethics because I already know what's ethical and what's not.
Yes, we do see eye-to-eye, because I do know that it's wrong, but I still do it anyway, like walking across the street when the light is red. In general, people know that it is wrong. But the issue is grey because you will be hard-pressed to prove that someone is actually getting hurt by me downloading 1 song. It's not like stealing a car.
And don't lie, you really aren't saddened and disturbed.
Congratulations on your large music collection. I'm sure you won't let your friends borrow your CDs because they will copy it. Good for you.
You're totally correct. People will probably stop sharing if they just got a warning. I certainly would, because I don't wanna pay a lawyer so that RIAA can sue me.
But as soon as a medium, Kazaa for example, becomes unfeasible to trade files (maybe because it's too much of a risk of getting caught), there will be another medium. Probably more local and underground, but it'll still be there. Like wireless networks. There are projects on the way right now to get entire cities wireless access. People there will be able to share files over the wireless network. There's no way piracy can be stopped. And the RIAA and the record companies are taking the totally wrong approach to this problem. And they will be punished for it, with lower profits.
Ah, that's where you're wrong. I CAN get exactly I what I can get for free. Right? As far as I'm concerned, there's no consequence. Not to me, not to anyone. Tell me, who gets hurt when I download that new Britney Spears song? I'm sure Britney isn't damaged in any way by the act of me downloading that song. So, why would I pay for something when I can get it for free?
The problem isn't me. It's the record companies. If they put more incentive into the CDs, I will buy more CDs. Plain and simple. As of now, there's really no difference between downloading an album and buying the CD, except for the physical CD, and the cover. But a lot of the times, the cover is just not worth the money I spend. If there was more to a CD, like how all the extra stuff is on a DVD, then it will have a larger value to me, and I will buy it. If CDs were cheaper, say $8, I will buy significantly more CDs. It's all economics.
Well, then I admit it, I'm not a moral person, and neither is the majority of the world. We've all walked crossed a road on a red light, I'm sure. We've all downloaded songs. Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean it's wrong. Downloading music isn't wrong. What's wrong is not buying the albums you enjoy. Why should I shell out $20 for that one song I like? I'd be glad to be able to buy just that one song.
Alright, you win this round, it is "wrong" to download music, however, I don't feel that there is anything morally wrong with it (If i did, I would have a hard time living with myself). I am not taking anything from anyone. I really don't give two shits, I still support those bands that I favour the most.
Better watch with the Christian insults, they can be surprisingly vicious.
Yes, you are right, people will hide for cover, still doesn't mean they'll stop sharing. There will be other ways, always. And what about our good friends who aren't American? You think you Americans have a legal reach there? What makes you think that the Russians will be afraid that the RIAA will come after them?
Well, I'm a students, and I have limited funds, and an unlimited love for music. I can't afford to buy every piece of music that I listen to. That's a fact. Just because I can't afford all those CDs, should I not be allowed to listent to music? The way price of CDs is going, music is gonna be just for the rich. And don't tell me to listen to the radio, because radio sucks ass.
I still purchase CDs, but I admit, not as much as I used to, partly because it's too expensive now, and partly because I can get it for free. However, I am attending more concerts because I have more exposure to more musical talent, not just the crap that the radio feeds me.
And yes, the record companies are ripping you off. Record companies have put no effort into making the CD a better product to buy, however, they are charging more.
You and you're rich friends buy your CDs. Me and my poor friends will continue to listen to music.
It's a stupid idea, the second one big distributor gets busted, 3 more are going to pop up, it'll take an enourmous amount of resources to even make a dent in the supply of songs. In the meantime, they'll have to raise the prices of CDs, yet again, to finance this legal effort, and people will even buy less CDs and download more music.
They're just digging themselves deeper into their graves. They're approach should be through sound economics, not through evil lawyers (that's another issue all together!).
Give us an incentive to buy your CDs and we'll buy it. Stop blatently rip us off!
Spam will be gone, in 100 years.
on
Mapping the Spam
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
I think spam will be erradicated, in about 100 years. Spammers are scum, and they should be shot, then deported.
I wonder if we can use this map to somehow take out spam.
The last thing I need is text zooming around the screen. If it's gonna be usable, things have to be static, so that the user can anticipate what to do next. Imagine having a keyboard where the keys change around so that the most probably next letter goes to the key that's easiest to reach.
Why does everyone always assume that all of Microsoft's actions have a sinister undertone in them? I admit, I will look at these new security measures by MS with scrutiny, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt.
Since when does common sense prevail? They're gonna trial-and-error it until they get it right. That's how things are done, and that's how they will be done. Now I have to go compile again to see if this works.....
Might as well put in infrared and x-ray vision along with the bionic eyes. It'll be like every man's dream, now only if it was selective x-ray vision.........
Square dancing is something that all kids have to learn, for some reason. You can't take away square dancing! It's like taking away that teacher who's constantly screaming at the kids, it just wouldn't be school without it.
Slashdot Mirror
And soon linking itself will be illegal. Everybody must type in the full URL of every page they wish to see.
1 6=nested=126
I think It'll be fun to type URLs like this:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/05/20232
I meant second world war... whoops!
Sigh, you are American, right ?
Please don't insult me. I am Canadian. I was just pointing out that this article seemed to be imply terrorists will take advantage of this. And I don't think that it was appropriate that this article paint stenography this way. I mean, what other 'persecuted political groups' would possibly have a use for this? Those small communist parties that run for election every cycle?
I'm not saying stenography is bad because terrorists will use this. I'm saying we shouldn't relate EVERYTHING with terrorism. It's the buzz word of the new millenium. Just like how 'communist' was back after the second cold war.
Apparently, it will make it easy for persecuted political groups to hide messages in images.
Why just 'persecuted political groups'? (which I hope isn't another name for a terrorist organization). The article says that it is easy to use. Which means that you and I can communicate with each other securely, with no one eavesdropping. It's neither a good or bad thing, it's a tool. This tool can be used for good and bad.
I really think that this post was implying that terrorists will take advantage of this tool. Drop this terrorism crap. Terrorists use many other mundane things to cause damage, why not make a big deal about those items too.
I really don't need to prove to you guys that I'm right to make myself feel better.
Well i'm glad you're able to finance all the music you listen to and are happy with what the radio plays. You are a better person than me, good for you. I will not read the book on ethics because I already know what's ethical and what's not.
Yes, we do see eye-to-eye, because I do know that it's wrong, but I still do it anyway, like walking across the street when the light is red. In general, people know that it is wrong. But the issue is grey because you will be hard-pressed to prove that someone is actually getting hurt by me downloading 1 song. It's not like stealing a car.
And don't lie, you really aren't saddened and disturbed.
Congratulations on your large music collection. I'm sure you won't let your friends borrow your CDs because they will copy it. Good for you.
You're totally correct. People will probably stop sharing if they just got a warning. I certainly would, because I don't wanna pay a lawyer so that RIAA can sue me.
But as soon as a medium, Kazaa for example, becomes unfeasible to trade files (maybe because it's too much of a risk of getting caught), there will be another medium. Probably more local and underground, but it'll still be there. Like wireless networks. There are projects on the way right now to get entire cities wireless access. People there will be able to share files over the wireless network. There's no way piracy can be stopped. And the RIAA and the record companies are taking the totally wrong approach to this problem. And they will be punished for it, with lower profits.
Ah, that's where you're wrong. I CAN get exactly I what I can get for free. Right? As far as I'm concerned, there's no consequence. Not to me, not to anyone. Tell me, who gets hurt when I download that new Britney Spears song? I'm sure Britney isn't damaged in any way by the act of me downloading that song. So, why would I pay for something when I can get it for free?
The problem isn't me. It's the record companies. If they put more incentive into the CDs, I will buy more CDs. Plain and simple. As of now, there's really no difference between downloading an album and buying the CD, except for the physical CD, and the cover. But a lot of the times, the cover is just not worth the money I spend. If there was more to a CD, like how all the extra stuff is on a DVD, then it will have a larger value to me, and I will buy it. If CDs were cheaper, say $8, I will buy significantly more CDs. It's all economics.
Well, then I admit it, I'm not a moral person, and neither is the majority of the world. We've all walked crossed a road on a red light, I'm sure. We've all downloaded songs. Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean it's wrong. Downloading music isn't wrong. What's wrong is not buying the albums you enjoy. Why should I shell out $20 for that one song I like? I'd be glad to be able to buy just that one song.
Christians. Remember Dogma? There were death threats sent out because of that movie.
Alright, you win this round, it is "wrong" to download music, however, I don't feel that there is anything morally wrong with it (If i did, I would have a hard time living with myself). I am not taking anything from anyone. I really don't give two shits, I still support those bands that I favour the most.
Better watch with the Christian insults, they can be surprisingly vicious.
Yes, you are right, people will hide for cover, still doesn't mean they'll stop sharing. There will be other ways, always. And what about our good friends who aren't American? You think you Americans have a legal reach there? What makes you think that the Russians will be afraid that the RIAA will come after them?
Well, I'm a students, and I have limited funds, and an unlimited love for music. I can't afford to buy every piece of music that I listen to. That's a fact. Just because I can't afford all those CDs, should I not be allowed to listent to music? The way price of CDs is going, music is gonna be just for the rich. And don't tell me to listen to the radio, because radio sucks ass.
I still purchase CDs, but I admit, not as much as I used to, partly because it's too expensive now, and partly because I can get it for free. However, I am attending more concerts because I have more exposure to more musical talent, not just the crap that the radio feeds me.
And yes, the record companies are ripping you off. Record companies have put no effort into making the CD a better product to buy, however, they are charging more.
You and you're rich friends buy your CDs. Me and my poor friends will continue to listen to music.
It's a stupid idea, the second one big distributor gets busted, 3 more are going to pop up, it'll take an enourmous amount of resources to even make a dent in the supply of songs. In the meantime, they'll have to raise the prices of CDs, yet again, to finance this legal effort, and people will even buy less CDs and download more music.
They're just digging themselves deeper into their graves. They're approach should be through sound economics, not through evil lawyers (that's another issue all together!).
Give us an incentive to buy your CDs and we'll buy it. Stop blatently rip us off!
I think spam will be erradicated, in about 100 years. Spammers are scum, and they should be shot, then deported. I wonder if we can use this map to somehow take out spam.
The last thing I need is text zooming around the screen. If it's gonna be usable, things have to be static, so that the user can anticipate what to do next. Imagine having a keyboard where the keys change around so that the most probably next letter goes to the key that's easiest to reach.
Why does everyone always assume that all of Microsoft's actions have a sinister undertone in them? I admit, I will look at these new security measures by MS with scrutiny, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt.
Help bring down Microsoft by buying XBox! Microsoft loses money on every XBox they sell! DOWN WITH M$!
Just means you can fit more porno on the CD, I wouldn't mind seeing a naked woman every time I plop in a CD into my drive.
Kids should learn how to write on paper before they learn graffiti. When I was a kid......
Since when does common sense prevail? They're gonna trial-and-error it until they get it right. That's how things are done, and that's how they will be done. Now I have to go compile again to see if this works.....
All Celine Dion's work should be copy protected, to protect consumers from listening to that crap.
Might as well put in infrared and x-ray vision along with the bionic eyes. It'll be like every man's dream, now only if it was selective x-ray vision.........
Square dancing is something that all kids have to learn, for some reason. You can't take away square dancing! It's like taking away that teacher who's constantly screaming at the kids, it just wouldn't be school without it.