Dang. I submitted this question Ask Slashdot style under science, hoping it would get serious attention, seeing as how Dean Kamen has brought a lot of good to this world through scientific advances.
My personal hope is that the Stirling engine discussed on page 2 of this Wired article is approaching commercial viability. Cheap portable power generation using virtually any kind of fuel? Sounds awesome and of great potential beneifet to humanity. Anyone close to the project have any inside info? Anyone familiar with this technology want to further explain its coolness?
Re:Jesus ... now every dipshit on earth will want
on
Boogie Bass Hacked
·
· Score: 5
I dunno, I think pretty much everyone can agree that a Boogie Bass that says "Satan commands you to spread the blood of the innocent" in a demonic voice is pretty damn funny. Er, I guess a schizophrenic might not find it so funny.
Of course it's not impressive - it was taken by some lowly newspaper photographer. Fortunately, I found a picture from a better angle taken by a pro, right here. See the difference a professional photographer can make?
Or more to the point, it doesn't sound as much like the hair-constantly-in-his-face, wears-sunglasses-indoors, chainsmoking lead guitarist from Guns 'n Roses.
Yes, but if it's truly better, people would use the GPLed one over the closed source one, drawing more people away from closed software. If it's not as good, people just won't use it. This is the same reasoning RMS used when he said people should stop using LGPL.
The thing is, the Linux kernel debugger isn't enough to cause a fork, at least. Linus has already stated that he doesn't care if a Linux kernel debugger exists, nor will he ignore patches that were debugged using such a hypothetical debugger per se. He just believes that the current "only the best coders who can see the problem beyond a debugger can do any kernel work at all" system allows for a darwinism that the touchy-feely "debugger for the people" system wouldn't. And, elitist as this may be, I think he's right. The debugger folks could fork - then again they could just write the damn debugger and have it be unofficial. But they haven't. Because with Linux especially, it's the toughest bastard wins, and the kernel debugger faction is less of a bastard than Linus, which is why their arguments sound so good, but they are ultimately doomed. If they fork, they'll be squashed.
This "Troll" of a post is perhaps one of the most incisive indictments of the "force everyone to use.XXX" argument that I have yet read. Perhaps the complete dumbass who assigned this post Troll should spend some time looking up the meanings of irony, sarcasm and parody; that is, of course assuming they can even read at all. The thought that someone might look at this post and pass it by based on the moderation alone -- especially somone who hasn't considered all the sides of the argument against.XXX -- makes me ill. I just hope this joker of a moderator eats it in M2.
The problem is that Netscape is under the delusion that underneath all the garbage is a better browser. It's this kind of hubris that's going to kill them. The attitude that people will put up with the desktop littered with AOL spam, IMs installed by default, the goofy default settings, the need to download and select a non-standard theme before the interface isn't completely foreign to anyone not working at Netscape -- that all of this is worth it, because deep down there's a better browser waiting for you to use it.
But there isn't. Rather, there is a more standards-compliant browser underneath. A slow, bloated buggy one with foreign widgets, but it's more standards compliant, man. Of course if nobody wants to use it because of all the other garbage, does it matter if it's more standards compliant?
IE is successful because it wins on the details. It's not as standards compliant. However, it has none of the shit that you have to wade throught to make Netscape 6 usable. It doesn't install MSN instant messanger. It doesn't install a "Install MSN" icon on your desktop. This of course isn't enough to win the browser wars. But it also has this going for it: It's faster, It uses less RAM, and it's standards compliant enough (TM).
In all the respects that matter to those of us who actually have to code serious HTML it's a worse browser than Netscape 6. But as almost every project based on idealism rather than pragmatism, Netscape misses out on the details. That's why it's Linux not HURD. And that's why it's IE not Netscape. Mozilla could be at best awesome and IE at best adequate. But IE is adequate, right now, and Netscape 6 is poor right now.
I'll end with my new favorite Linus quote (from linux-kernel,) which I now consider the primary reason Linux has done so well so far:
I'm a bastard. I have absolutely no clue why people can ever think otherwise. Yet they do. People think I'm a nice guy, and the fact is that I'm a scheming, conniving bastard who doesn't care for any hurt feelings or lost hours of work if it just results in what I consider to be a better system.
And I'm not just saying that. I'm really not a very nice person. I can say "I don't care" with a straight face, and really mean it.
Why is perfect standards compliance a bad idea for HTML? Two words: platform widgets. Netscape's decision to use cross platform widgets, as I understand it, was because CSS2 demands that every platform's widgets be able to do stuff that they're not designed to do - stretch, change colors, etc. So to solve this problem, Moz renders its interface, using ugly XP widgets that aren't even the ones they wooed us with way back when.
If anything, the W3C should be chastised for leaning towards standards (such as XHTML too) that are way too complicated and strict and not in the spirit of HTML - a people's programming language which has a loosey-goosey interpreter that allows mistakes that non-programmers tend to make - and that's a good thing!
My prediction is that when somebody takes the "Netscape Gecko(tm)" engine, gets rid of the XP widgets, the XP interface, dolls it up to look all cool-and-draggy like IE5, makes it do all those cool geeky banner/doubleclick elimination features, releases a strong Mac, Unix and Win32 version, all under the GPL (if that's truly possible) this will be a great browser, with both geek and non-geek support. When I tell Windows that my menus are supposed to be gray and in size 16 arial bold, that's how I want it, dammit. I'm not going to load some dang theme. I want the interface to get the hell out of my way so I can use the browser. The best thing about IE5 is that in 5 seconds from the default install, I can customize it exactly how I want it - small and out of my face. No menus to navigate, just clickin' and draggin. On the other hand, if I wanted everything big and out in front with a big ol' "go" button, I could do that too. It's not about whether it's possible to change things around or not in Moz, it's about whether it's more convenient that it is in IE5. And it isn't. 100% standards compliance is a dumb idea. All I want is a browser that loads fast, runs fast, has a brilliant non-interface, is reasonably standards compliant, loaded up with geeky features (tucked away for joeschmoe yet still easy to find and use, of course) with a small memory footprint. I thought this was the promise of Mozilla, but I guess I was wrong. Rather, this is the promise of IE6 - and THAT'S SCARY.
Yeah, mine tells me to burn things. And to purify the sinful. I returned it and the replacement does the same thing. I took out the batteries and it still won't stop. I guess this is a common thing, so I'm gonna file a class-action lawsuit. Anyone else in?
At school, Lisa and all her friends play with their new Talking Malibu Stacy dolls. Stacy: Let's buy makeup so the boys will like us.
Lisa: [sighs] Don't you people see anything wrong what Malibu Stacy says?
Celeste: There's something wrong with what _my_ Stacy says.
Stacy: [in a low voice] My spidey sense is tingling -- anybody call for a web-slinger?
Lisa: No, Celeste. I mean, the things she says are sexist.
Girls: [giggle] Lisa said a dirty word!
---
As blatantly stolen by me from SNPP.com
P.S. When my little brother was a baby, he got this toy called "My Pal 2" It was a robot that played different games and made noises. Well, we discovered that when you push all the buttons at once he started alternately laughing maniacally, barking like a dog, and shouting "God!" in a deep voice as if had just set his hand down on a hot burner or something. We never got tired of that thing.
You'll notice that all the SDMI engineers quoted were still hopefully optimistic that some sort of still-secure-yet-not-quite-as-bad system would emerge. The fact is, they still want the same thing - for the music industry to remain in power, just without the facist copying controls. But what's the fun in that? The fact that SDMI was cracked now doesn't hurt the industry at all, because although the music industry only thinks it's losing money in its absence. But it isn't.
However, if SDMI had been cracked after billions of dollars had been spent on marketing of SDMI (a hard sell, IMO, it would be quite the campaign,) then the industry would have actually lost all that money. Which means less money for future marketing/promotions, which means more opportunity for indie labels and smaller artists to gain a larger market, which means better, cheaper music for everyone. And that's what we really want, right?
I still don't quite get it. I go to the store and buy a CD that is SDMI watermarked. Then, I rip it and put the file on Napster and someone downloads and runs it in Winamp. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but won't SDMI not work unless every single mp3 player checks for the watermark? Is the RIAA's strategy to simply litigate every non-SDMIing player into oblivion?
Yes, I realize that they could trace the file back to the initial ripper, but if I buy the CD with cash, does it matter? Or is their strategy to simply force every music purchase to take place with an archived credit card transaction associated with that specific watermark?
Be sure to check out this article in Wired from a few months back about using porous crystals to do an all-optical switch that is also solid state. Apparently older models used thousands of little rotating mirrors! The same technology can be used for regulating other kinds of waves including sound waves and wave waves (like in the ocean).
In Mozilla's case, (according to JWZ at least) it was the combination of a poor decisions and bad management of the overall project.
Linux releases are always "late" because they've always been that way, because there is no due date. Who cares when a release comes out? True, Linus would like to get stuff out, but only because it's important to keep things moving. He's certainly not motivated by any corporate interests, if his resistance to whiny coders complaining about features not being added or APIs being changed is any indication of his stalwardness.
But 2.0 and 2.2 did make it out eventually, and they weren't too late to still be a progressively royaler pain in every competing operating systems' ass. What more could one want?
Indeed, this system would only work if your digital identity was somehow inexorably tied to your person. So here's my proposal. We simply need to force everyone to have their personal CueCat ID tatooed to their body in a visible place, such as in their right hands or their foreheads.
I know what you're thinking - people will simply forge each other's barcodes and get stuff for free. I've thought of this. We just need to pass a law that prevents all people both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond to buy or sell save that they have the mark. Once the importance of the mark has been established, those who create forgeries will simply be punished by death.
I'm sure that there will some who will object to the mark, but once everyone realizes how much easier life will be, I'll think they'll go for it. I'm surprised no one else has thought of this.
Where did that number come from? Knowing the single-mindedness of the RIAA, I'm sure they'd want about $(cost of the CD/songs on the CD) per download. That's about $0.75 - $1.00 per track. Then tack Napster's fee on top of that. Otherwise RIAA companies aren't getting the return on investment they deserve, right? I mean, think of it - if someone downloaded 150 songs in one month for $4.95 that would be like $0.50 per album. I'm sure that the industry analyists wouldn't stand for that.
And if they decided to be generous and offer music for, let's say, 1/4th the current price (never going to happen) then wouldn't that be an admission of guilt about the current over-pricedness of CDs?
Cooperating with the music industry will just lead to the destruction of Napster and faster acceptance of alternative swapping services.
Or for that matter the fact that MacOS is closed-source and non-free (in all senses).
I mean, if the headline was "RMS adds '1-Click' to gnu.org website. '1-Click is easy and fun and makes purcasing GNU software so much easier,' Stallman said.' that would be one thing, but, I mean it's Apple. Has the reality distortion field gotten to all of you too?
Apple may be a cooler company and Steve Jobs could probably kick Bill Gates' ass, but there is absolutely NO REASON for Apple to be all "Down with IP" when it comes to acquring a technology they want. They expect everyone else to adhere to the idiocies of IP laws, so I don't know why it sounds so strange for them to do the same.
Are you kidding? Rob wouldn't want to mix booze with whatever the hell he was hopped up on when he posted this article. Yeesh, you'd probably kill the old boy.
So far Linus et al have been rejecting kernel patches that provide solutions for Big Iron scaling problems.
This makes it sound like Linus has been rejecting them because they provide solutions for Big Iron scaling problems. Having read kernel traffic and the linux-kernel list enough, this statement looks immediately suspicious. I have never seen Linus ever purposely reject a patch that's an all-around good fix for a problem. Usually it's "Well, Linus rejected my patch even though it does all this cool stuff and fixes all these problems, so it's probably because he just doesn't like such-and-such feature/platform/interface" and then Linus replies, "no, I rejected them because you're a dumbass and your patch sucked."
The link to the SGI page somewhat confirms this:
9. When will this code be added into 2.3?
Linus agrees in principle to take this code in. It has
already been reviewed by Ingo and Andrea. Linus wants to
clean up the page allocation data structures a bit before
imposing this code on top of it; I am trying to help him
do that. New: As of 2.3.31, this code is in under
CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM.
I just kinda heavily doubt that Linus wouldn't want awesome NUMA support if the potential was there. My best bet is that the people pushing for it just aren't on exactly the same wavelength as Linus (is anyone?) and it's slowing down progress.
Another quote that points in this direction
Linus: "A lot of the problems, especially with NUMA, are that the solutions tend to add complexity that simply isn't needed at all on 'normal' machines,"
I don't think Linus mean any solution, just the solutions presented to him.
I hate to reply to posts which are so borderline flamebait, but this attitude that deep linking is a copyright violation only makes sense if you buy into the notion that the web is a complete analog to paper and vice versa. But we both know it isn't. HTTP can prevent (at least good faith) deep linking in the HTTP GET request through the referrer field. Any website programmer who realizes can write a small bit of code that says:
if (referrer != approved referrer) then {forward viewer to main page}
or perhaps
if (referrer != main page) then {double the ads on this page to compensate}
A clever business can adapt to the challenges of making money on the Internet. It's a new way of doing business and those companies who respect The Internet Way (coming up with a clever solution to problems) instead of filing lawsuits to get Their Way deserve our respect. Those who insist that old paradigms are completely compatable with the new ones simply aren't thinking things all the way through.
Slashdot Mirror
Dang. I submitted this question Ask Slashdot style under science, hoping it would get serious attention, seeing as how Dean Kamen has brought a lot of good to this world through scientific advances.
My personal hope is that the Stirling engine discussed on page 2 of this Wired article is approaching commercial viability. Cheap portable power generation using virtually any kind of fuel? Sounds awesome and of great potential beneifet to humanity. Anyone close to the project have any inside info? Anyone familiar with this technology want to further explain its coolness?
I dunno, I think pretty much everyone can agree that a Boogie Bass that says "Satan commands you to spread the blood of the innocent" in a demonic voice is pretty damn funny. Er, I guess a schizophrenic might not find it so funny.
Of course it's not impressive - it was taken by some lowly newspaper photographer. Fortunately, I found a picture from a better angle taken by a pro, right here. See the difference a professional photographer can make?
Just FYI, Word 2000 document format is backwards compatable with 97. And yes, it runs under Win95.
Or more to the point, it doesn't sound as much like the hair-constantly-in-his-face, wears-sunglasses-indoors, chainsmoking lead guitarist from Guns 'n Roses.
Yes, but if it's truly better, people would use the GPLed one over the closed source one, drawing more people away from closed software. If it's not as good, people just won't use it. This is the same reasoning RMS used when he said people should stop using LGPL.
The thing is, the Linux kernel debugger isn't enough to cause a fork, at least. Linus has already stated that he doesn't care if a Linux kernel debugger exists, nor will he ignore patches that were debugged using such a hypothetical debugger per se. He just believes that the current "only the best coders who can see the problem beyond a debugger can do any kernel work at all" system allows for a darwinism that the touchy-feely "debugger for the people" system wouldn't. And, elitist as this may be, I think he's right. The debugger folks could fork - then again they could just write the damn debugger and have it be unofficial. But they haven't. Because with Linux especially, it's the toughest bastard wins, and the kernel debugger faction is less of a bastard than Linus, which is why their arguments sound so good, but they are ultimately doomed. If they fork, they'll be squashed.
I PROTEST THIS BOGUS MODERATION
.XXX" argument that I have yet read. Perhaps the complete dumbass who assigned this post Troll should spend some time looking up the meanings of irony, sarcasm and parody; that is, of course assuming they can even read at all. The thought that someone might look at this post and pass it by based on the moderation alone -- especially somone who hasn't considered all the sides of the argument against .XXX -- makes me ill. I just hope this joker of a moderator eats it in M2.
This "Troll" of a post is perhaps one of the most incisive indictments of the "force everyone to use
But there isn't. Rather, there is a more standards-compliant browser underneath. A slow, bloated buggy one with foreign widgets, but it's more standards compliant, man. Of course if nobody wants to use it because of all the other garbage, does it matter if it's more standards compliant?
IE is successful because it wins on the details. It's not as standards compliant. However, it has none of the shit that you have to wade throught to make Netscape 6 usable. It doesn't install MSN instant messanger. It doesn't install a "Install MSN" icon on your desktop. This of course isn't enough to win the browser wars. But it also has this going for it: It's faster, It uses less RAM, and it's standards compliant enough (TM).
In all the respects that matter to those of us who actually have to code serious HTML it's a worse browser than Netscape 6. But as almost every project based on idealism rather than pragmatism, Netscape misses out on the details. That's why it's Linux not HURD. And that's why it's IE not Netscape. Mozilla could be at best awesome and IE at best adequate. But IE is adequate, right now, and Netscape 6 is poor right now.
I'll end with my new favorite Linus quote (from linux-kernel,) which I now consider the primary reason Linux has done so well so far:
BOO!
Why is perfect standards compliance a bad idea for HTML? Two words: platform widgets. Netscape's decision to use cross platform widgets, as I understand it, was because CSS2 demands that every platform's widgets be able to do stuff that they're not designed to do - stretch, change colors, etc. So to solve this problem, Moz renders its interface, using ugly XP widgets that aren't even the ones they wooed us with way back when.
If anything, the W3C should be chastised for leaning towards standards (such as XHTML too) that are way too complicated and strict and not in the spirit of HTML - a people's programming language which has a loosey-goosey interpreter that allows mistakes that non-programmers tend to make - and that's a good thing!
My prediction is that when somebody takes the "Netscape Gecko(tm)" engine, gets rid of the XP widgets, the XP interface, dolls it up to look all cool-and-draggy like IE5, makes it do all those cool geeky banner/doubleclick elimination features, releases a strong Mac, Unix and Win32 version, all under the GPL (if that's truly possible) this will be a great browser, with both geek and non-geek support. When I tell Windows that my menus are supposed to be gray and in size 16 arial bold, that's how I want it, dammit. I'm not going to load some dang theme. I want the interface to get the hell out of my way so I can use the browser. The best thing about IE5 is that in 5 seconds from the default install, I can customize it exactly how I want it - small and out of my face. No menus to navigate, just clickin' and draggin. On the other hand, if I wanted everything big and out in front with a big ol' "go" button, I could do that too. It's not about whether it's possible to change things around or not in Moz, it's about whether it's more convenient that it is in IE5. And it isn't. 100% standards compliance is a dumb idea. All I want is a browser that loads fast, runs fast, has a brilliant non-interface, is reasonably standards compliant, loaded up with geeky features (tucked away for joeschmoe yet still easy to find and use, of course) with a small memory footprint. I thought this was the promise of Mozilla, but I guess I was wrong. Rather, this is the promise of IE6 - and THAT'S SCARY.
I always get 1 in 500 and 500-to-1 confused. Just to clarify: 500-to-1 is the one where we're screwed, right?
Or how about modifying slashcode so that people can't just use the
tag whenever they want to make their posts look more important?Yeah, mine tells me to burn things. And to purify the sinful. I returned it and the replacement does the same thing. I took out the batteries and it still won't stop. I guess this is a common thing, so I'm gonna file a class-action lawsuit. Anyone else in?
At school, Lisa and all her friends play with their new Talking Malibu Stacy dolls.
Stacy: Let's buy makeup so the boys will like us.
Lisa: [sighs] Don't you people see anything wrong what Malibu Stacy says?
Celeste: There's something wrong with what _my_ Stacy says.
Stacy: [in a low voice] My spidey sense is tingling -- anybody call for a web-slinger?
Lisa: No, Celeste. I mean, the things she says are sexist.
Girls: [giggle] Lisa said a dirty word!
---
As blatantly stolen by me from SNPP.com
P.S. When my little brother was a baby, he got this toy called "My Pal 2" It was a robot that played different games and made noises. Well, we discovered that when you push all the buttons at once he started alternately laughing maniacally, barking like a dog, and shouting "God!" in a deep voice as if had just set his hand down on a hot burner or something. We never got tired of that thing.
Thank you for summarizing my point better than I did.
You'll notice that all the SDMI engineers quoted were still hopefully optimistic that some sort of still-secure-yet-not-quite-as-bad system would emerge. The fact is, they still want the same thing - for the music industry to remain in power, just without the facist copying controls. But what's the fun in that? The fact that SDMI was cracked now doesn't hurt the industry at all, because although the music industry only thinks it's losing money in its absence. But it isn't.
However, if SDMI had been cracked after billions of dollars had been spent on marketing of SDMI (a hard sell, IMO, it would be quite the campaign,) then the industry would have actually lost all that money. Which means less money for future marketing/promotions, which means more opportunity for indie labels and smaller artists to gain a larger market, which means better, cheaper music for everyone. And that's what we really want, right?
I still don't quite get it. I go to the store and buy a CD that is SDMI watermarked. Then, I rip it and put the file on Napster and someone downloads and runs it in Winamp. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but won't SDMI not work unless every single mp3 player checks for the watermark? Is the RIAA's strategy to simply litigate every non-SDMIing player into oblivion?
Yes, I realize that they could trace the file back to the initial ripper, but if I buy the CD with cash, does it matter? Or is their strategy to simply force every music purchase to take place with an archived credit card transaction associated with that specific watermark?
Am I missing something?
Be sure to check out this article in Wired from a few months back about using porous crystals to do an all-optical switch that is also solid state. Apparently older models used thousands of little rotating mirrors! The same technology can be used for regulating other kinds of waves including sound waves and wave waves (like in the ocean).
Different reasons for different projects.
In Mozilla's case, (according to JWZ at least) it was the combination of a poor decisions and bad management of the overall project.
Linux releases are always "late" because they've always been that way, because there is no due date. Who cares when a release comes out? True, Linus would like to get stuff out, but only because it's important to keep things moving. He's certainly not motivated by any corporate interests, if his resistance to whiny coders complaining about features not being added or APIs being changed is any indication of his stalwardness.
But 2.0 and 2.2 did make it out eventually, and they weren't too late to still be a progressively royaler pain in every competing operating systems' ass. What more could one want?
Indeed, this system would only work if your digital identity was somehow inexorably tied to your person. So here's my proposal. We simply need to force everyone to have their personal CueCat ID tatooed to their body in a visible place, such as in their right hands or their foreheads.
I know what you're thinking - people will simply forge each other's barcodes and get stuff for free. I've thought of this. We just need to pass a law that prevents all people both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond to buy or sell save that they have the mark. Once the importance of the mark has been established, those who create forgeries will simply be punished by death.
I'm sure that there will some who will object to the mark, but once everyone realizes how much easier life will be, I'll think they'll go for it. I'm surprised no one else has thought of this.
Where did that number come from? Knowing the single-mindedness of the RIAA, I'm sure they'd want about $(cost of the CD/songs on the CD) per download. That's about $0.75 - $1.00 per track. Then tack Napster's fee on top of that. Otherwise RIAA companies aren't getting the return on investment they deserve, right? I mean, think of it - if someone downloaded 150 songs in one month for $4.95 that would be like $0.50 per album. I'm sure that the industry analyists wouldn't stand for that.
And if they decided to be generous and offer music for, let's say, 1/4th the current price (never going to happen) then wouldn't that be an admission of guilt about the current over-pricedness of CDs?
Cooperating with the music industry will just lead to the destruction of Napster and faster acceptance of alternative swapping services.
Apple to charge Licensing Fees for FireWire
Or for that matter the fact that MacOS is closed-source and non-free (in all senses).
I mean, if the headline was "RMS adds '1-Click' to gnu.org website. '1-Click is easy and fun and makes purcasing GNU software so much easier,' Stallman said.' that would be one thing, but, I mean it's Apple. Has the reality distortion field gotten to all of you too?
Apple may be a cooler company and Steve Jobs could probably kick Bill Gates' ass, but there is absolutely NO REASON for Apple to be all "Down with IP" when it comes to acquring a technology they want. They expect everyone else to adhere to the idiocies of IP laws, so I don't know why it sounds so strange for them to do the same.
Are you kidding? Rob wouldn't want to mix booze with whatever the hell he was hopped up on when he posted this article. Yeesh, you'd probably kill the old boy.
This makes it sound like Linus has been rejecting them because they provide solutions for Big Iron scaling problems. Having read kernel traffic and the linux-kernel list enough, this statement looks immediately suspicious. I have never seen Linus ever purposely reject a patch that's an all-around good fix for a problem. Usually it's "Well, Linus rejected my patch even though it does all this cool stuff and fixes all these problems, so it's probably because he just doesn't like such-and-such feature/platform/interface" and then Linus replies, "no, I rejected them because you're a dumbass and your patch sucked."
The link to the SGI page somewhat confirms this:
I just kinda heavily doubt that Linus wouldn't want awesome NUMA support if the potential was there. My best bet is that the people pushing for it just aren't on exactly the same wavelength as Linus (is anyone?) and it's slowing down progress.
Another quote that points in this direction
I don't think Linus mean any solution, just the solutions presented to him.
I hate to reply to posts which are so borderline flamebait, but this attitude that deep linking is a copyright violation only makes sense if you buy into the notion that the web is a complete analog to paper and vice versa. But we both know it isn't. HTTP can prevent (at least good faith) deep linking in the HTTP GET request through the referrer field. Any website programmer who realizes can write a small bit of code that says:
if (referrer != approved referrer) then {forward viewer to main page}
or perhaps
if (referrer != main page) then {double the ads on this page to compensate}
A clever business can adapt to the challenges of making money on the Internet. It's a new way of doing business and those companies who respect The Internet Way (coming up with a clever solution to problems) instead of filing lawsuits to get Their Way deserve our respect. Those who insist that old paradigms are completely compatable with the new ones simply aren't thinking things all the way through.