I wonder how many stupid kids with color pritners are gonna try printing these up anyway, trying them out in change machines, and do other stupid things with them?
I'm offended that you would call me stupid and there's no way I'm bringing all my new stuff back!
Really though, the images actually don't look half bad. If no one looked closely, they probably could pass. I imagine though that many businesses have been telling their employees about the new bills and what to look for when they come out. Otherwise, if people don't know what the new bills are supposed to look like, people could thrown down any old thing and as long as it looked decent, the cashier would be none the wiser (at first anyways). Of course I also imagine that there are just as many places that don't tell their employees what to look for..
Well, ok, I haven't either really, but I've seen bits and pieces and I think it says something to the tune of up to $250,000 file and 5 years in jail. Distributing illegal copies can indeed be a criminal matter, thought I do believe there is lot of fine print like you have to be making money off of it..
I think you missed the point. I don't think anyone with a reasonable argument (one meant to actually inspire change in the system....there will be no radical leaps) thinks that we should all be downloading whatever we want. On the surface, I would agree with you that the RIAA/MPAA are well within their rights and this is really the way it should be handled.
Unfortunetly, in the real world, that's not exactly the way it works. People who are totally innocent and people who are working within a grey area (such as excersiging their fair use rights) are getting sued. In all but the most obvious of cases (obvious that there is no infringement), these people can only defend themselves by shelling out huge amounts of money. By this I mean thousands and thouasands of dollars. It often comes out as a cheaper and easier alternative to just hand over $10,000 and have it done with. This essnetially allows them to just bully the money right out of people. Our legal system is screwed up, and the RIAA and MPAA take advantage of it. It's also good to keep in mind that probably a good number of people being sued don't even really know what they're doing is illegal. I would be first to point out that ignorance is no excuse, but come on, thousands of dollars in penalties? This just creates activists to rally against them. The penalties are far too harsh. We need to distinguish between people who are just sharing material in a casual manner and those who are out there with full knowledge of what they're doing and making money off of it.
The fines imposed when we are actually talking about criminal copyright infringement are staggering as well. (I'm thinking up to $150000 - $250000 per infringement). Consider this quote from Lawrence Lessig's excellent book, Free Culture.
Can common sense recognize the absurdity in a world where
the maximum fine for downloading two songs off the Internet is more
than the fine for a doctor's negligently butchering a patient?
In all fairness, he is refering to a law that was being considered to cap medical malpractice lawsuits, and I don't know if that ever passed. But still, the point remains, the penalties are absolutely absurd. The system is broken. It wasn't made for a digital society. As we reshape it (think DMCA), we're loosing our rights.
At any rate, a policy where this is the best way to go after "pirates" is a policy where you're guilty until proven innocent. The ironic thing is that with anti-terrorism laws, the guy who makes that bomb threat you mentioned might get the same treatment...
Simply put, you can not break the law and still get sued. The issue simply isn't black and white. There's a lot of grey in there that the lawyers fight over.
My thoughts exactly. Everybody seems to be arguing about whether or not it is ethical for google to remove certain sites, but all they're really doing is removing dead links. What good would it be to have a bunch of interesting headlines that lead nowhere? It's not censoring on google's part, it's the same thing they'd do any other place.
What is the MPAA doing trying to get a take-down notice against an Australian entity anyway? They do not even have rights to the films in Australia, having signed them over to the distributors there.
Copyrights don't work quite exactly how you're thinking. They may have contracts signed for distribution, but that's more of a liscence. The original copyright holder remains the original copyright holder (just like when you buy software, for example..). This means that if there is infringement, it is still their fight to pick.
Terminator: Disk Wiper Grease: media player ET: SETI client Titanic: a poor hashing algorithm (can't avoid collisions...) Independence Day: full screen firework fun Passion of the Christ: file recovery tool Blade: anti-virus
That's the full version though. The upgrade runs $100.
I was thinking about that in the last couple of weeks though. How many people actually buy the full version. Is there anyone out there who doesn't have an old version of windows they can use to qualify for the upgrade? (I don't think long time linux users "count"....if you're savy enough to use linux than you're probably smart enough to realize you can pick up an old version of windows for next to nothing/free and use the upgrade anyways)
I think the concern is that by releasing any information early, they somehow risk the wrong person getting information that can cause a threat.
I guess it really depends on how much/what kind of information they release.
I have to agree though. The part of me that hates big business smells troube. The part of me that is more of an economist thinks the whole thing makes sense. The plain old user side of me doesn't see anything that will affect him.
The Gartner vice president said the notice would be akin to an independent researcher or hacker finding a vulnerability and sharing the information before a patch is available.
There's an idea. If you find a bug, just auction off the information to the highest bidder 3 days before you inform MS...
That would be the prinsoner's dilema. As a group, we're better off just pitching in, but only if we all (or most) of us do. Individually, we're better off just keeping our money rather than risk everyone else not paying up and having our small amount mean nothing.
Unfortunetly, most people have no idea what fair use is. It would be an even worse name. Something about VCR's would be much more applicable than the current one, however...
On the other hand, there is a list of all kinds of things that this bill could effect. Maybe one of them could hint at a better name.
I don't think that McDonalds has a team of hunters out there going after cows and chickens....:)
(I know you said by whatever means, but it still kinda sounded like that..)
My point wasn't really in so much as how often does it get used but do you have it. In other words, you might almost never eat at home (using a knife in particular), but it's still quite likely that you have at least a set of steak knives on hand in case you ever do. On the other hand, I'd say most poeple that pretty much never go out shooting probably don't keep a gun around just in case they do.
At any rate, I'm talking about a "typical case." I don't think your previous situation is one that most people are in. I could just as easily say that I can't afford to eat out every meal and frequently eat at home which is far more often than times I use a gun (not in years now I suppose).
On the other hand, a knife has other uses in the home (food prep..), whereas a gun doesn't (unless you're Homer Simpson...).
It's just not really a fair comparison when applied to a "to have a gun or to not have a gun" type argument. It's proof more along the lines of that you're more likely to have a violent dispute with someone close to you than a stranger.
But then again, I already knew that it really doesn't matter because my wife had it coming anyways...er, n/m
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how many stupid kids with color pritners are gonna try printing these up anyway, trying them out in change machines, and do other stupid things with them?
I'm offended that you would call me stupid and there's no way I'm bringing all my new stuff back!
Really though, the images actually don't look half bad. If no one looked closely, they probably could pass. I imagine though that many businesses have been telling their employees about the new bills and what to look for when they come out. Otherwise, if people don't know what the new bills are supposed to look like, people could thrown down any old thing and as long as it looked decent, the cashier would be none the wiser (at first anyways). Of course I also imagine that there are just as many places that don't tell their employees what to look for..
Ever read the FBI warning?
Well, ok, I haven't either really, but I've seen bits and pieces and I think it says something to the tune of up to $250,000 file and 5 years in jail. Distributing illegal copies can indeed be a criminal matter, thought I do believe there is lot of fine print like you have to be making money off of it..
Unfortunetly, in the real world, that's not exactly the way it works. People who are totally innocent and people who are working within a grey area (such as excersiging their fair use rights) are getting sued. In all but the most obvious of cases (obvious that there is no infringement), these people can only defend themselves by shelling out huge amounts of money. By this I mean thousands and thouasands of dollars. It often comes out as a cheaper and easier alternative to just hand over $10,000 and have it done with. This essnetially allows them to just bully the money right out of people. Our legal system is screwed up, and the RIAA and MPAA take advantage of it. It's also good to keep in mind that probably a good number of people being sued don't even really know what they're doing is illegal. I would be first to point out that ignorance is no excuse, but come on, thousands of dollars in penalties? This just creates activists to rally against them. The penalties are far too harsh. We need to distinguish between people who are just sharing material in a casual manner and those who are out there with full knowledge of what they're doing and making money off of it.
The fines imposed when we are actually talking about criminal copyright infringement are staggering as well. (I'm thinking up to $150000 - $250000 per infringement). Consider this quote from Lawrence Lessig's excellent book, Free Culture.
In all fairness, he is refering to a law that was being considered to cap medical malpractice lawsuits, and I don't know if that ever passed. But still, the point remains, the penalties are absolutely absurd. The system is broken. It wasn't made for a digital society. As we reshape it (think DMCA), we're loosing our rights.
At any rate, a policy where this is the best way to go after "pirates" is a policy where you're guilty until proven innocent. The ironic thing is that with anti-terrorism laws, the guy who makes that bomb threat you mentioned might get the same treatment...
Simply put, you can not break the law and still get sued. The issue simply isn't black and white. There's a lot of grey in there that the lawyers fight over.
Woa....they can reject patents? ;)
They claim a 99.991% accuracy. Apparently this is 10 times more accurate then a human.
So humans are only 9.9991% accurate at detecting spam?..
Ahh, the same principal as MT Blacklist. Good stuff, works half way descent and you're pretty much sure to not get a false possitive, unless...
From: Mom
Hi, honey, I just wanted to see how you were doing. We're doing great around here. Write back soon. I love you.
Do you yahoo? Enlarge your penis [penis-enlarge.com] today!
You never know I guess...
I feel like that new logo should be subtitled "Message for you, sir!"
Perhaps a good "thwooop!" sound effect would go well with it too.
My thoughts exactly. Everybody seems to be arguing about whether or not it is ethical for google to remove certain sites, but all they're really doing is removing dead links. What good would it be to have a bunch of interesting headlines that lead nowhere? It's not censoring on google's part, it's the same thing they'd do any other place.
Don't blame Bush. Blame how you voted in the last election (or didn't vote).
Hey now, I voted for the guy who ended up with the most votes, but we still got the other guy. I'll feel free to blame Bush as much as I please.
What is the MPAA doing trying to get a take-down notice against an Australian entity anyway? They do not even have rights to the films in Australia, having signed them over to the distributors there.
Copyrights don't work quite exactly how you're thinking. They may have contracts signed for distribution, but that's more of a liscence. The original copyright holder remains the original copyright holder (just like when you buy software, for example..). This means that if there is infringement, it is still their fight to pick.
Here's a start:
Terminator: Disk Wiper
Grease: media player
ET: SETI client
Titanic: a poor hashing algorithm (can't avoid collisions...)
Independence Day: full screen firework fun
Passion of the Christ: file recovery tool
Blade: anti-virus
That's the full version though. The upgrade runs $100.
I was thinking about that in the last couple of weeks though. How many people actually buy the full version. Is there anyone out there who doesn't have an old version of windows they can use to qualify for the upgrade? (I don't think long time linux users "count"....if you're savy enough to use linux than you're probably smart enough to realize you can pick up an old version of windows for next to nothing/free and use the upgrade anyways)
...seems to be available in a reasonably wide distribution for anime.
This seems to be 47 theaters, still a disappointing low number.
I was kidding... :)
Me neither...if there's not a patch, I don't hear about it and I usually don't care.
The plain old user side of me doesn't see anything that will affect him.
Exactly. It's not like they were telling us about the holes in a timely manner before.
I meant I already get daily text messages with all the details. It's $80,000 a month, but it's money well spent.
I think the concern is that by releasing any information early, they somehow risk the wrong person getting information that can cause a threat. I guess it really depends on how much/what kind of information they release. I have to agree though. The part of me that hates big business smells troube. The part of me that is more of an economist thinks the whole thing makes sense. The plain old user side of me doesn't see anything that will affect him.
The Gartner vice president said the notice would be akin to an independent researcher or hacker finding a vulnerability and sharing the information before a patch is available.
There's an idea. If you find a bug, just auction off the information to the highest bidder 3 days before you inform MS...
Pfft. That's already been done.
That would be the prinsoner's dilema. As a group, we're better off just pitching in, but only if we all (or most) of us do. Individually, we're better off just keeping our money rather than risk everyone else not paying up and having our small amount mean nothing.
Joke? what are you talking abo.. Holy shit, you're one of them. You're in on it too. (PS, please no insightful mods :) )
Unfortunetly, most people have no idea what fair use is. It would be an even worse name. Something about VCR's would be much more applicable than the current one, however...
On the other hand, there is a list of all kinds of things that this bill could effect. Maybe one of them could hint at a better name.
I don't think that McDonalds has a team of hunters out there going after cows and chickens....:) (I know you said by whatever means, but it still kinda sounded like that..) My point wasn't really in so much as how often does it get used but do you have it. In other words, you might almost never eat at home (using a knife in particular), but it's still quite likely that you have at least a set of steak knives on hand in case you ever do. On the other hand, I'd say most poeple that pretty much never go out shooting probably don't keep a gun around just in case they do. At any rate, I'm talking about a "typical case." I don't think your previous situation is one that most people are in. I could just as easily say that I can't afford to eat out every meal and frequently eat at home which is far more often than times I use a gun (not in years now I suppose).
It probably won't even compile. :)
That reminds me of an episode> of VH1's Totally Obessed that I saw a couple of weeks ago. The show features people who are (big surprise) totally obessed with certain things. This episode had a lady and her husband who had raised 4 geese and a duck as their children. They litterally dress them, bring them out to eat, and take them on trips. If I recall correctly, their they missed the birth of their (human) grandchild so they could drive across country to adopt one of their "children". I'll admit that they didn't talk about any watch-dog like properties of the kids, but one did attack the camera....
On the other hand, a knife has other uses in the home (food prep..), whereas a gun doesn't (unless you're Homer Simpson...). It's just not really a fair comparison when applied to a "to have a gun or to not have a gun" type argument. It's proof more along the lines of that you're more likely to have a violent dispute with someone close to you than a stranger. But then again, I already knew that it really doesn't matter because my wife had it coming anyways...er, n/m