These drives will also be the first drives available with 'digital rights management"
built in. While you may get away with using them in a current MP3 player, be careful. You may find when you get them near a Longhorn system some day that M$ was serious about that "we have the right to delete anything we damn well please" provision in the click through license; even if the company who built the computer clicked it rather than you.
Most Chevy Geo's are not broken into or stolen, so it would be OK for GM to just use the same key on them all, giving the owners the illusion of security.
Glad its just a joke, though considering how the world is, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if this was real.
What difference does it make if it "just" a parody if the journalists and the legislators who come across this don't understand that and act on it as if it was real? As a parody this can do more harm than any real website could as long as it's taken on face value.
At first glance MAVAV seems legit but from what I can tell it *IS* a hoax. But it seems to be constructed well enough that some sensational journalist will pick up the story of this group and its fight. Of course this will make the
parody sight that much more funny to all of us geeks who know what it actually is.
Yea, I find it much more funny when some gub'mint officials pass more laws that take away basic rights, in this case limit what software I can buy or sell, based on a parody rather than doing it based on any real information. Real funny.
So what ever happened to the law that you can't patent a concept like this, only an expression of concept? Apple certainly might be able to build something that changes color and patent the technology that does that, but they can't patent the concept of things that change color. Not only isn't it an expression of a concept, but there is way too much prior art (anyone remember mood rings?).
People posting here seem to have missed the main point. I bought the car. I paid for the computer collecting all of that data. The data does not belong to the auto industry, they have no business securing it with special connectors and custom systems to extract and decrypt it, just so they can sell it back to me when the car needs service. What we need are some nice class action suits against the major auto companys who think they still own the data after they sell us the car.
Sure, it's not that hard. It could also be taken as "giving fraudulent information to gain access to a computer system", and in my state such access to a computer system is a felony, but what the heck, they probably won't catch and prosecute me, and even if they do I have all the money in the world to fight it, right? Seems to me that just not bothering with the NYT makes more sense.
Firewire wasn't designed with the DRM hacks in mind, so a firewire drive would not be crippled enough to make it useless for your needs, so you can't spend your own hard earned money on that.
The only reason for this is to make the disc braindead, to let Hollywood, the Music industry and Microsoft decide what you can and can't store on your own hard drive. And if you think you'll use it with a nice open source OS like Linux, think again.
But technically no, sad to say, the incoming request would still be "a server".
But OptimumOnline seems to make it clear that their users can still download files with p2p, they just can't upload them. Since this is p2p, no one is really a server while someone else is a client, each side is effectively both. Each side has to send information. Look at it this way, if it's OK for me to use p2p to get a list of available songs and then to download that song (something that shortsighted OptimumOnline still wants to promote doing, since it adds value to their service, even if they are too stupid to realize that if everyone does what they do there will be nothing to download), then it's also OK for me to download a request for a song and ack it. OptimumOnline already provides their customers a nice way to transfer files out of their own systems through a smtp server, and likely even promotes the value of using e-mail to send letters, photos, audio files and more through it, so if they are simply saying you can't send out a file (even a file you have legal ownership of, say perhaps your own band) via p2p but are not completely banning p2p, I don't see that such a system as I propose would "technically" be against their rules-de-jour at all.
(It will of course be against tomorrow's rules, but that's a different issue.)
My point, along with hoping that someone will actually do this and bring the OptimumOnline mail server to it's knees, is that telling customers who are buying access to the internet what they can and can't do with that access, and restricting certain types of access based on these rather arbritrary criteria, is pointless and counter productive. The system is flexiable enough that users can find another way to do what they want. However, restrictions that ban a protocol that was intended to do something efficenty and force uers to use work arounds, may not always be in the best interest of the ISP.
So sending a file with a p2p protocol is outlawed by this ISP. Think about it......
You can still download stuff with the p2p protocols. You can even accept file requests (and acknowledge them) with a p2p protocol. And you can still use SMTP to send files, even ones that the RIAA doesn't like, to other people (peers). It would serve OptimumOnline right if someone applied this concept to deliver any file now transfered from their users over p2p through their mail servers instead.
Sometimes doing what people tell you that you are allowed to do can be the best revenge.
As a "common carrier", the ISP is not responsiable for uploads by the user any more than the telephone company is responsiable if you make a threatening or harassing call. However, if they start censoring, then they assume responsability for anything later done that they didn't catch, a point I doubt the RIAA thugs pointed out in their threats.
Clearly not all shared content is illegal (although there is little doubt that most of it is). Small artists have been able to use it legally for self-promotion, a perfectly legal use that the RIAA is also glad to put a stop to, as it might slightly impeed their ability to steal from artists.
And read what I wrote! The gizmo I tried was quite capable of tossing the riders around (If I remember correctly it could even invert them, as well as moving them very fast), but in that limited space you just can't sustain the g forces like my grandpa's 'coaster can. I don't see that this device is any different, except that it lacks the passable eye candy graphics.
I agree, it's a nice idea, but hardly "agressively priced". I would much rather see them just stick a cheap 10/100 ethernet port on the back of the unit and not charge me for the wireless technology. Such a product (more agressively priced) would appeal to more users - those who want to direct connect to their network could; those who want to go wireless could use an external device.
Three or four years ago I rode a virtual rollercoaster in a local mall. You pay too much, then get in a coaster seat in an enclosed room on some controlled arms, and watch the track on a video display while the "car" moves in response to the virtual track. You could even program your own track (by selecting a sequence from a dozen or so pre-created sections).
It was interesting, but while they do a nice job of a simulation, they can't get the g forces right for more than an instant. Without gravity generators (which most of use wearing our protective tinfoil hats know the gub'mint is keeping from us) this will never really replace a real 'coaster.
The page you speak of wants information like
my state and zip code (and I don't know what the idiot used). There is a "I forgot my password" link that claims they will mail you a new password without this info, but this is the one piece of e-mail that I never seem to get from them. I tried again today, but they will not send it!
Some idiot signed up for a passport account and gave them a dummy e-mail address that he just made up. Unfortunately it happens to be for a mailbox that I've used for years. The MS "welcome to.NEt passport" letter doesn't even give you an
option to tell them that this address was subscribed in error and to take ou off their lists. I've tried sending e-mails to addresses of real people there, but everything has been ignored. I continue to get crap from them as a result of this bogus sign-up, and can't get rid of them.
and you gotta register before you can buy one, but they need your support.
If they need my support so much they wouldn't make me register just to become their customer. We all know that Hitler used the pretext of registering Crusoe development systems in the 1930's, and then had a handy list when he confiscated them in the 1940's! Heck, anyone that can see this conspiracy coming is likely to believe we put a man on the moon, too!
Making a move right now would be a big mistake. The problem is that almost all those big screen devices and the fancy plasma displays claim that they are digital ready and that you hook up an external digital tuner to get great DTV, but there are no digital tuners to let the consumer hook up to them and get the maximum high resolution that DTV offers. The industry has been fighting this for years and, as the article cited here shows, will simply not let the high quality high resolution signal be available without their not-yet-available copy protection system and copy protection every step along the way.
What this means for consumers is simple: No matter what the sales clerk tells you, and no matter how much you spend on a fancy digital ready monitor or plasma display today, there will never be a tuner that puts out a signal that your expensive monitor will accept at the high definition resolutions you want and expect.
Buy now and you will be screwed! Once they figure out how to copy protection hobble the system, then and only then will you be able to get a display that might someday display the full promise of DTV, but unless you plan on being part of a massive class action consumer lawsuit, stay away from any new equipment until they figure out how they are going to cripple the equipment you pay for.
God of games? Hardly! IMHO, Nintendo has long had second rate games and second rate hardware. Maybe not as bad as Atari, but in relation to the rest of their competitors. It's not the games that have them where they are today, it's the marketing. Saying that Nintendo has the best games is like saying that McD's has the best hamburgers or that McBill's has the best software.
As to more mature games, I'm not looking for more sex and/or violence in a game (although the Quakes and the Dooms and similar FSPs are certainly games I enjoy for many reasons). I don't need or want Street Fighting Ninjas #62. I want gameplay, and it can be as stark as Tetris, as simple as Marble Maze, or as cute as Crystal Castles, as long as it's innovative, interesting and challenging and not a rehash of the last ten titles. Does anyone really expect anything new or different from the next 10 mario titles? I sure do't. Sure, they sell, but not for reasons of gameplay. When the Cube first came out there was a title in the franchise that was stated to not be expected to do as well as other similar games for one reason: It featured "Louigi" rather than "Mario"! Clearly game play and innovation are not issues here; it's just marketing of the franchise and selling of a brand to kids who see Mario on morning cartoons and on printed on their cereal boxes and underwear.
An unnamed spokesman for the RIAA stated "Sure, they had 156 drives, but since we put less than 30 minutes of music on a piece of media that can hold 64 or more, we were able to calculate that these devices were able to pirate at an effective rate of 421 drives."
All 3-D movies at IMDB are here [imdb.com] (215 matches).
A quick inspection shows it misses (at a minimum) Andy Warhol's Frankenstien and Andy Warhol's Dracula, two polorized 3D flicks from the 70's. Surprising since it does include "The Stewardesses".
Slashdot Mirror
These drives will also be the first drives available with 'digital rights management" built in. While you may get away with using them in a current MP3 player, be careful. You may find when you get them near a Longhorn system some day that M$ was serious about that "we have the right to delete anything we damn well please" provision in the click through license; even if the company who built the computer clicked it rather than you.
Most Chevy Geo's are not broken into or stolen, so it would be OK for GM to just use the same key on them all, giving the owners the illusion of security.
Sure, how could any joystick with a name like Thrustmaster be accused of having any hidden Freudian meaning?
What difference does it make if it "just" a parody if the journalists and the legislators who come across this don't understand that and act on it as if it was real? As a parody this can do more harm than any real website could as long as it's taken on face value.
Yea, I find it much more funny when some gub'mint officials pass more laws that take away basic rights, in this case limit what software I can buy or sell, based on a parody rather than doing it based on any real information. Real funny.
So what ever happened to the law that you can't patent a concept like this, only an expression of concept? Apple certainly might be able to build something that changes color and patent the technology that does that, but they can't patent the concept of things that change color. Not only isn't it an expression of a concept, but there is way too much prior art (anyone remember mood rings?).
People posting here seem to have missed the main point. I bought the car. I paid for the computer collecting all of that data. The data does not belong to the auto industry, they have no business securing it with special connectors and custom systems to extract and decrypt it, just so they can sell it back to me when the car needs service. What we need are some nice class action suits against the major auto companys who think they still own the data after they sell us the car.
Sure, it's not that hard. It could also be taken as "giving fraudulent information to gain access to a computer system", and in my state such access to a computer system is a felony, but what the heck, they probably won't catch and prosecute me, and even if they do I have all the money in the world to fight it, right? Seems to me that just not bothering with the NYT makes more sense.
Firewire wasn't designed with the DRM hacks in mind, so a firewire drive would not be crippled enough to make it useless for your needs, so you can't spend your own hard earned money on that.
The only reason for this is to make the disc braindead, to let Hollywood, the Music industry and Microsoft decide what you can and can't store on your own hard drive. And if you think you'll use it with a nice open source OS like Linux, think again.
It may cost more than your whole house, that doesn't make it worth more.
But OptimumOnline seems to make it clear that their users can still download files with p2p, they just can't upload them. Since this is p2p, no one is really a server while someone else is a client, each side is effectively both. Each side has to send information. Look at it this way, if it's OK for me to use p2p to get a list of available songs and then to download that song (something that shortsighted OptimumOnline still wants to promote doing, since it adds value to their service, even if they are too stupid to realize that if everyone does what they do there will be nothing to download), then it's also OK for me to download a request for a song and ack it. OptimumOnline already provides their customers a nice way to transfer files out of their own systems through a smtp server, and likely even promotes the value of using e-mail to send letters, photos, audio files and more through it, so if they are simply saying you can't send out a file (even a file you have legal ownership of, say perhaps your own band) via p2p but are not completely banning p2p, I don't see that such a system as I propose would "technically" be against their rules-de-jour at all.
(It will of course be against tomorrow's rules, but that's a different issue.)
My point, along with hoping that someone will actually do this and bring the OptimumOnline mail server to it's knees, is that telling customers who are buying access to the internet what they can and can't do with that access, and restricting certain types of access based on these rather arbritrary criteria, is pointless and counter productive. The system is flexiable enough that users can find another way to do what they want. However, restrictions that ban a protocol that was intended to do something efficenty and force uers to use work arounds, may not always be in the best interest of the ISP.
You can still download stuff with the p2p protocols. You can even accept file requests ( and acknowledge them ) with a p2p protocol. And you can still use SMTP to send files, even ones that the RIAA doesn't like, to other people (peers). It would serve OptimumOnline right if someone applied this concept to deliver any file now transfered from their users over p2p through their mail servers instead.
Sometimes doing what people tell you that you are allowed to do can be the best revenge.
Clearly not all shared content is illegal (although there is little doubt that most of it is). Small artists have been able to use it legally for self-promotion, a perfectly legal use that the RIAA is also glad to put a stop to, as it might slightly impeed their ability to steal from artists.
And read what I wrote! The gizmo I tried was quite capable of tossing the riders around (If I remember correctly it could even invert them, as well as moving them very fast), but in that limited space you just can't sustain the g forces like my grandpa's 'coaster can. I don't see that this device is any different, except that it lacks the passable eye candy graphics.
I agree, it's a nice idea, but hardly "agressively priced". I would much rather see them just stick a cheap 10/100 ethernet port on the back of the unit and not charge me for the wireless technology. Such a product (more agressively priced) would appeal to more users - those who want to direct connect to their network could; those who want to go wireless could use an external device.
It was interesting, but while they do a nice job of a simulation, they can't get the g forces right for more than an instant. Without gravity generators (which most of use wearing our protective tinfoil hats know the gub'mint is keeping from us) this will never really replace a real 'coaster.
The page you speak of wants information like my state and zip code (and I don't know what the idiot used). There is a "I forgot my password" link that claims they will mail you a new password without this info, but this is the one piece of e-mail that I never seem to get from them. I tried again today, but they will not send it!
Some idiot signed up for a passport account and gave them a dummy e-mail address that he just made up. Unfortunately it happens to be for a mailbox that I've used for years. The MS "welcome to .NEt passport" letter doesn't even give you an
option to tell them that this address was subscribed in error and to take ou off their lists. I've tried sending e-mails to addresses of real people there, but everything has been ignored. I continue to get crap from them as a result of this bogus sign-up, and can't get rid of them.
If they need my support so much they wouldn't make me register just to become their customer. We all know that Hitler used the pretext of registering Crusoe development systems in the 1930's, and then had a handy list when he confiscated them in the 1940's! Heck, anyone that can see this conspiracy coming is likely to believe we put a man on the moon, too!
What this means for consumers is simple: No matter what the sales clerk tells you, and no matter how much you spend on a fancy digital ready monitor or plasma display today, there will never be a tuner that puts out a signal that your expensive monitor will accept at the high definition resolutions you want and expect. Buy now and you will be screwed! Once they figure out how to copy protection hobble the system, then and only then will you be able to get a display that might someday display the full promise of DTV, but unless you plan on being part of a massive class action consumer lawsuit, stay away from any new equipment until they figure out how they are going to cripple the equipment you pay for.
As to more mature games, I'm not looking for more sex and/or violence in a game (although the Quakes and the Dooms and similar FSPs are certainly games I enjoy for many reasons). I don't need or want Street Fighting Ninjas #62. I want gameplay, and it can be as stark as Tetris, as simple as Marble Maze, or as cute as Crystal Castles, as long as it's innovative, interesting and challenging and not a rehash of the last ten titles. Does anyone really expect anything new or different from the next 10 mario titles? I sure do't. Sure, they sell, but not for reasons of gameplay. When the Cube first came out there was a title in the franchise that was stated to not be expected to do as well as other similar games for one reason: It featured "Louigi" rather than "Mario"! Clearly game play and innovation are not issues here; it's just marketing of the franchise and selling of a brand to kids who see Mario on morning cartoons and on printed on their cereal boxes and underwear.
An unnamed spokesman for the RIAA stated "Sure, they had 156 drives, but since we put less than 30 minutes of music on a piece of media that can hold 64 or more, we were able to calculate that these devices were able to pirate at an effective rate of 421 drives."
opps, I just fround Andy's Frankenstien under a different name. His Dracula is missing however.
A quick inspection shows it misses (at a minimum) Andy Warhol's Frankenstien and Andy Warhol's Dracula, two polorized 3D flicks from the 70's. Surprising since it does include "The Stewardesses".