I'm not shedding any tears for artists. They signed the contracts of their own free will. What Love fails to consider is how often a label advances a band $1 and presses cds for $500K, and doesn't get any of that money back because the band flopped.
What's to prevent this guy from buring his own mp3 of the song and then selling it? This same sort of thing has come up with selling software on eBay. How do you know the person didn't copy the sw before selling it? It will make policing that much more difficult, although I'd be the last to say that he doesn't have the right to sell it.
"Corporation have WAY too much control over the legal process and society. They're wielding their greed-drunk power without any thought for anything except their profit.
Remember "No Face" from Spirited Away? Think about it. Better to keep them out of the bath house."
If you follow the news you'd realize that with recent campaign finance reform, the Repubican party is doing much better at raising money than the Democratic party. Why? Because with a hard limit of $25K, Democrats can no longer get 6 and 7 figure donations from labor unions, trial lawyers, and Rich hollywood types. My point is that corporations aren't the only ones donating money to govt., and they don't have nearly the influence you claim.
"By that logic, everyone is open to whatever searches of other people's systems they want. Why is the US gov't going after people for "hacking", if the intent is just to look around then all is fine according to them."
Ahh, reality check. The RIAA downloaded songs she made freely available. That's not hacking, by any definition I know of. Or are you saying that anyone who downloads data using Kazaa, legal or illegal, is a hacker, and therefore Kazaa is illegal by its nature? I thought people were defending Kazaa, and saying to go After the filesharers. Apparently, you feel the opposite is true. Just another lame excuse by someone trying to find a loophole to hide her guilt.
The arguemnent is shallow because the RIAA did nothing wrong. nycfashiongirl shared the files with everyone. She has no expectation of privacy under those circumstances. Show me what's unconstitutional about what they did.
"I think copyright is evil. In its original form it might have been argued to at least be a practical good, and thus worth keeping around, but in its current form it is out and out evil, in that it attempts to squash the development and exchange of ideas in favor of the development and exchange of profit, and ideas are a fundamental part of the development of civilization."
So the GPL is evil? It uses copyright law to allow open source development with some rules to prevent the code from being public domain.
nycfashiongirl has claimed she was simply using kazaa as an mp3 player, and had ripped the songs herself. Of course the RIAA "CSI" team showed that the files had signatures identical to file that had been traded online going back to the napster days. So now she's trying to claim the RIAA had no right to look at the files on her computer, files that she was sharing with everyone else. Give me a break. What a lame defense. It's not like they broke into her computer. She offered the songs. They copied them. Nothing illegal there. What's your next excuse nycfashiongirl?
"The much harder, and more common, problem is with ex-employees or unfaithful employees sending documents and secrets to competitors. Any scheme intended to squelch this is entirely defeated if permissions are cached."
Just because an employee can view a document, doesn't mean he can send it to anyone. That's the difference between DRM and encryption. That's why I can't download a song from iTunes and give copies to my friends. So unless the guy photographs or retypes the document, he can't pass it on.
I agree with you for the most part. MS won't be able to use the DMCA to sue someone for cracking their encryption because the documents being cracked are not theirs. They are the copyrighted works of the authors who used the sw. The best MS can do is get a class-action suit started against companies or individuals offering sw to crack MS office docs. There may be some trade secret laws, however, that protect MS. I'm not sure how the law deals with trade secrets and reverse engineering.
to robot design. Hmmm, must remember to make sure to tell the sw writers to include a no-terminator/no-matrix function to supress desires to destroy or enslave the human race (and put me out of a job).
To be fair, the author does try to explain where the $25K comes from, rather than just printing money. However, I think his ideas aren't much better than simply printing the money.
Robot's won't be smart enough to make important decisions. The author suggests a socialist system is needed where wealth is generated through advertizing on money, natural resources, etc. The question is who will want to spend the time managing all the robots if they have the option to sit on their ass all day and surfd the web or whatever? Countries like the USSR, N. Korea, Cuba, etc. have shown the govt. is incapable of making these decisions. You still need a reward system to motivate people to want these jobs and weed out the incompetent, which capitalism does naturally. By taking away natural resources from private owners, you are already eroding on this principle. If you decide farm land, oil fields, forests, etc. are all now owned by the govt., you are inviting disaster by eliminating competition in these areas, and causing these industries to stagnate. The Star Trek ideal of a future world wthout money, for instance, is impractical for these reasons, and the author, although not encouraging the elimination of money, is headed in that direction. Using the Star Trek example, who really wants to be the red shirt that has a boring job and will likely be killed when he can sit at home in his personal holodeck all day.
Re:The beginning of a true Mesh network?
on
MIT Roofnet
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
" Could this be the start of a true nationwide mesh network? "
Such a network would have horrible latency (just multiply the range of divide the distance by the 802.11 range and multiply this muberof hops by the latency through a node) and possibly bandwidth (depending on the mesh density and usage). It's useful as a last mile solution, but fiber is hard to beat for latency and bandwidth.
Re:So if you run kazaa through something like this
on
MIT Roofnet
·
· Score: 1
"How could the RIAA figure out who is who, and from what computer?"
Subponae MIT for their research data.
Re:Scalability?
on
MIT Roofnet
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I believe companies are looking at similar strategies to provide internet access to those not covered by cable or DSL. I think they want to use 802.16, however. See an Intel white paper for more info. The routing stregies developed at MIT may be very applicable to this technology.
Even if this wasn't a research project, there's really no reason why MIT would want to deny students access to their network and the internet from home. They probably already provide free dial-up access for students who can't afford broadband through local ISPs.
" The US is going to institute a national health care program for Iraq, a nationalized educational system for iraq, govt controlled water and power monopolies for Iraq, anonymous surfing for the Iranians."
The want Iraqi oil to pay for these luxuries. That said, US public schools are essentially nationalzed all the way through University. US utilities are already essentially nationalized since it's a govt. regulated monopoly. Nationalized health care would be a big mistake for either country. Aside from that, the US system and the plan for Iraq are not all that different. The only difference is where the money comes from to pay for it.
"Secondly, your is not the only negative post so far, and I don't understand it at all."
The explanation is simple. It's popular on/. to bash the US govt. so there will be those who bash what the US govt. does, regardless of whether it's good or bad. You see the same behavior in ultra-liberals whenever there is a conservative in power, and visa-versa.
"First of all, they want us here in the US to abide by their bullshit (DMCA and the two sons of Satan (Patriot I and II)) yet we are in another country blasting radio stations and FUNDING (at an undisclosed amount) a free proxy to *circumvent* another countries security. We should put the government in jail for violating the DMCA."
The US doesn't believe a government has the right to limit people's information if the information owner is willing to provide it. This is fundamentally different from allowing a company to protect its copyrighted material. Aththough the DMCA is not the right answer, the intent it correct.
"Second, we shouldn't be funding shit (not Iraq, not free proxies for Iran, nothing), we should be funding the fucking Americans without jobs (I don't know if/. has heard about the ever increasing length of the food lines in more rural areas of Ohio, etc)."
The US is not a socialist country (yet). It isn't the job of taxpayers to support those unable or unwilling to find jobs. Supporting freedom in Iran is in our national interest, however, and it's worth the miniscule amount this costs for this particular project, relative to supporting a significant percentage of our own population. By your arguement, we should cut funding for NASA too. Why should we be exploring space, when people are out of work."
"Third, I wasn't aware that we were back in the 1950s and 1960s where we feel the need to stop the possibility of the spread of communism, I mean the threat of terrorism. I get those ism's confused."
Communism is fundamentally flawed in the way it destroys individual freedom, and we have not stopped fighting it (N. Korea, Cuba, etc.), nor should we. It's no cooincidence the worst killers of the 20th century were Stalin and Mao, 2 communist leaders (Hitler is number 3).
The Pentium-pro was a 2 chip solution in an expensive package. That combined with state-of-he-art technology at the time made it very expensive. The article doesn't mention the device count or die size for this chip, so your yield analysis is pure speculation without any real data.
If a station can't afford to pay 7% to 10% of it's revenue to companies that give them something worth playing in the 1st place, they don't deserve to be in business. This is far less than the cut Apple give the RIAA for songs they sell. Why should the RIAA give webcasters a free ride?
The problem people have with the RIAA's tactic is that no judge ever sees the subpoenaes, and I agree. However, I also don't believe in protecting criminals through beuracracy, i.e. make the legal costs too high for the RIAA to effectively protect their property. No one likes it when DirectTV sues smartcard writer owners and makes them settle simply because it's more cost effective than hiring a lawyer. Therefore, we shouldn't support this sort of tactic just because we don't lik the RIAA. My solution is to submit a list of IP addresses to a judge, along with the method used to collect these IP addresses. If the judge feels the method is fair and legal, he can sign off on all IP addresses at once. This minimizes beuracracy while making the plaintiff show some evidence to show that he has a case. Note that the evidence doesn't need to be perfect, since they're not asking the judge for a conviction, just that enough evidence exists to warrent further investigation.
Patenting the idea of selling stuff over the internet seems like the modern version of patenting the idea of a mail order catalog. I wonder if anyone ever patented this idea, and if so, was able to make money off of the patent. It seems like an absurd thing to be able to patent, but who knows..
"The holding hostage of ideas is completely contrary to the basic natural rights that ideas have. The GPL is one way of fighting for the rights of software, but there really isn't a way to fight for the freedom of ideas."
Without IP, there's no GPL, only public domain. The GPL itself relies on copyright law to produce a contract that limits what you can do with the source code you've copied, limited in ways that the designers of the GPL thought would most greatly encourage sharing of source code.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not shedding any tears for artists. They signed the contracts of their own free will. What Love fails to consider is how often a label advances a band $1 and presses cds for $500K, and doesn't get any of that money back because the band flopped.
What's to prevent this guy from buring his own mp3 of the song and then selling it? This same sort of thing has come up with selling software on eBay. How do you know the person didn't copy the sw before selling it? It will make policing that much more difficult, although I'd be the last to say that he doesn't have the right to sell it.
"Corporation have WAY too much control over the legal process and society. They're wielding their greed-drunk power without any thought for anything except their profit. Remember "No Face" from Spirited Away? Think about it. Better to keep them out of the bath house."
If you follow the news you'd realize that with recent campaign finance reform, the Repubican party is doing much better at raising money than the Democratic party. Why? Because with a hard limit of $25K, Democrats can no longer get 6 and 7 figure donations from labor unions, trial lawyers, and Rich hollywood types. My point is that corporations aren't the only ones donating money to govt., and they don't have nearly the influence you claim.
"By that logic, everyone is open to whatever searches of other people's systems they want. Why is the US gov't going after people for "hacking", if the intent is just to look around then all is fine according to them."
Ahh, reality check. The RIAA downloaded songs she made freely available. That's not hacking, by any definition I know of. Or are you saying that anyone who downloads data using Kazaa, legal or illegal, is a hacker, and therefore Kazaa is illegal by its nature? I thought people were defending Kazaa, and saying to go After the filesharers. Apparently, you feel the opposite is true. Just another lame excuse by someone trying to find a loophole to hide her guilt.
The arguemnent is shallow because the RIAA did nothing wrong. nycfashiongirl shared the files with everyone. She has no expectation of privacy under those circumstances. Show me what's unconstitutional about what they did.
"I think copyright is evil. In its original form it might have been argued to at least be a practical good, and thus worth keeping around, but in its current form it is out and out evil, in that it attempts to squash the development and exchange of ideas in favor of the development and exchange of profit, and ideas are a fundamental part of the development of civilization."
So the GPL is evil? It uses copyright law to allow open source development with some rules to prevent the code from being public domain.
nycfashiongirl has claimed she was simply using kazaa as an mp3 player, and had ripped the songs herself. Of course the RIAA "CSI" team showed that the files had signatures identical to file that had been traded online going back to the napster days. So now she's trying to claim the RIAA had no right to look at the files on her computer, files that she was sharing with everyone else. Give me a break. What a lame defense. It's not like they broke into her computer. She offered the songs. They copied them. Nothing illegal there. What's your next excuse nycfashiongirl?
"The much harder, and more common, problem is with ex-employees or unfaithful employees sending documents and secrets to competitors. Any scheme intended to squelch this is entirely defeated if permissions are cached."
Just because an employee can view a document, doesn't mean he can send it to anyone. That's the difference between DRM and encryption. That's why I can't download a song from iTunes and give copies to my friends. So unless the guy photographs or retypes the document, he can't pass it on.
I agree with you for the most part. MS won't be able to use the DMCA to sue someone for cracking their encryption because the documents being cracked are not theirs. They are the copyrighted works of the authors who used the sw. The best MS can do is get a class-action suit started against companies or individuals offering sw to crack MS office docs. There may be some trade secret laws, however, that protect MS. I'm not sure how the law deals with trade secrets and reverse engineering.
1 in 909,000 is better than the odds of winning most multi-million dollar lotteries.
to robot design. Hmmm, must remember to make sure to tell the sw writers to include a no-terminator/no-matrix function to supress desires to destroy or enslave the human race (and put me out of a job).
To be fair, the author does try to explain where the $25K comes from, rather than just printing money. However, I think his ideas aren't much better than simply printing the money.
Robot's won't be smart enough to make important decisions. The author suggests a socialist system is needed where wealth is generated through advertizing on money, natural resources, etc. The question is who will want to spend the time managing all the robots if they have the option to sit on their ass all day and surfd the web or whatever? Countries like the USSR, N. Korea, Cuba, etc. have shown the govt. is incapable of making these decisions. You still need a reward system to motivate people to want these jobs and weed out the incompetent, which capitalism does naturally. By taking away natural resources from private owners, you are already eroding on this principle. If you decide farm land, oil fields, forests, etc. are all now owned by the govt., you are inviting disaster by eliminating competition in these areas, and causing these industries to stagnate. The Star Trek ideal of a future world wthout money, for instance, is impractical for these reasons, and the author, although not encouraging the elimination of money, is headed in that direction. Using the Star Trek example, who really wants to be the red shirt that has a boring job and will likely be killed when he can sit at home in his personal holodeck all day.
" Could this be the start of a true nationwide mesh network? "
Such a network would have horrible latency (just multiply the range of divide the distance by the 802.11 range and multiply this muberof hops by the latency through a node) and possibly bandwidth (depending on the mesh density and usage). It's useful as a last mile solution, but fiber is hard to beat for latency and bandwidth.
"How could the RIAA figure out who is who, and from what computer?"
Subponae MIT for their research data.
I believe companies are looking at similar strategies to provide internet access to those not covered by cable or DSL. I think they want to use 802.16, however. See an Intel white paper for more info. The routing stregies developed at MIT may be very applicable to this technology.
Even if this wasn't a research project, there's really no reason why MIT would want to deny students access to their network and the internet from home. They probably already provide free dial-up access for students who can't afford broadband through local ISPs.
" The US is going to institute a national health care program for Iraq, a nationalized educational system for iraq, govt controlled water and power monopolies for Iraq, anonymous surfing for the Iranians."
The want Iraqi oil to pay for these luxuries. That said, US public schools are essentially nationalzed all the way through University. US utilities are already essentially nationalized since it's a govt. regulated monopoly. Nationalized health care would be a big mistake for either country. Aside from that, the US system and the plan for Iraq are not all that different. The only difference is where the money comes from to pay for it.
"Secondly, your is not the only negative post so far, and I don't understand it at all."
/. to bash the US govt. so there will be those who bash what the US govt. does, regardless of whether it's good or bad. You see the same behavior in ultra-liberals whenever there is a conservative in power, and visa-versa.
The explanation is simple. It's popular on
"First of all, they want us here in the US to abide by their bullshit (DMCA and the two sons of Satan (Patriot I and II)) yet we are in another country blasting radio stations and FUNDING (at an undisclosed amount) a free proxy to *circumvent* another countries security. We should put the government in jail for violating the DMCA."
/. has heard about the ever increasing length of the food lines in more rural areas of Ohio, etc)."
The US doesn't believe a government has the right to limit people's information if the information owner is willing to provide it. This is fundamentally different from allowing a company to protect its copyrighted material. Aththough the DMCA is not the right answer, the intent it correct.
"Second, we shouldn't be funding shit (not Iraq, not free proxies for Iran, nothing), we should be funding the fucking Americans without jobs (I don't know if
The US is not a socialist country (yet). It isn't the job of taxpayers to support those unable or unwilling to find jobs. Supporting freedom in Iran is in our national interest, however, and it's worth the miniscule amount this costs for this particular project, relative to supporting a significant percentage of our own population. By your arguement, we should cut funding for NASA too. Why should we be exploring space, when people are out of work."
"Third, I wasn't aware that we were back in the 1950s and 1960s where we feel the need to stop the possibility of the spread of communism, I mean the threat of terrorism. I get those ism's confused."
Communism is fundamentally flawed in the way it destroys individual freedom, and we have not stopped fighting it (N. Korea, Cuba, etc.), nor should we. It's no cooincidence the worst killers of the 20th century were Stalin and Mao, 2 communist leaders (Hitler is number 3).
The Pentium-pro was a 2 chip solution in an expensive package. That combined with state-of-he-art technology at the time made it very expensive. The article doesn't mention the device count or die size for this chip, so your yield analysis is pure speculation without any real data.
If a station can't afford to pay 7% to 10% of it's revenue to companies that give them something worth playing in the 1st place, they don't deserve to be in business. This is far less than the cut Apple give the RIAA for songs they sell. Why should the RIAA give webcasters a free ride?
The problem people have with the RIAA's tactic is that no judge ever sees the subpoenaes, and I agree. However, I also don't believe in protecting criminals through beuracracy, i.e. make the legal costs too high for the RIAA to effectively protect their property. No one likes it when DirectTV sues smartcard writer owners and makes them settle simply because it's more cost effective than hiring a lawyer. Therefore, we shouldn't support this sort of tactic just because we don't lik the RIAA. My solution is to submit a list of IP addresses to a judge, along with the method used to collect these IP addresses. If the judge feels the method is fair and legal, he can sign off on all IP addresses at once. This minimizes beuracracy while making the plaintiff show some evidence to show that he has a case. Note that the evidence doesn't need to be perfect, since they're not asking the judge for a conviction, just that enough evidence exists to warrent further investigation.
Patenting the idea of selling stuff over the internet seems like the modern version of patenting the idea of a mail order catalog. I wonder if anyone ever patented this idea, and if so, was able to make money off of the patent. It seems like an absurd thing to be able to patent, but who knows..
"The holding hostage of ideas is completely contrary to the basic natural rights that ideas have. The GPL is one way of fighting for the rights of software, but there really isn't a way to fight for the freedom of ideas."
Without IP, there's no GPL, only public domain. The GPL itself relies on copyright law to produce a contract that limits what you can do with the source code you've copied, limited in ways that the designers of the GPL thought would most greatly encourage sharing of source code.