"Because consumer copying, now equals piracy...
even if you've bought the original music you're transferring."
No. The real problem is you can't protect against one without restricting the other. Record companies don't really care about backup copies. They're more concerned with downloading 100 songs from Kazaa and burning them, rather than buying the music.
Congress will love the pay for copyright solution, since they're always looking for new events that require a tax. It won't be long before the govt. taxes me to use the restroom. Either I own the copyright, or I don't. But I shouldn't have to pay the govt. to keep it. What next? Am I going to have to pay a fee for free speech? If a company can hold a copyright forever, however, by paying fees every so often, that is unconstitutional.
The short answer is nationalized airlines means regulated pilot salaries. This means worse pilots since it lessens the incentives for skilled people to become pilots. This same arguement can be used to show how nationalized health care will ruin US healthcare. We'll end up with worse doctors since the best people will choose other professions. Nationalization is not the answer. Normally unions work because if they get out of hand, someone will cross the picket line and work for a lower wage. The longshoreman example is a good couterexample since people who cross the line end up dead. Reducing organized crime is the only way to fix this problem.
Any donation that restricts what tools the school can offer students is a bad idea. If MS offered a bunch of money to a school (and they probably have) with the condition that no macs can be purchased and no linux boxes are allowed, people would be up in arms. This is no different, and should be avoided such that students who want to use MS products are afforded the opportunity.
If I recorded and rebroadcasted NBC's transmission available to the public, I think they'd be rightfully angry and sue me, and win. Not that I'm saying you're wrong. I'm just saying you need to make a better case for your arguement.
The only real case here is whether a web server is automatically equal access for everyone, or can a company can legally refuse to allow certain people to use the server. I doubt price data is copyrightable. The case involves the fairness of Fairchase using AA's equipment for their own profit, and whether AA can legally restrict this behavior. Certainly, if I walked into an AA office and started asking prices and writing them down, AA could refuse and boot me out. Is the same the case on a web server?
DRM doesn't violate anyone's freedom. You don't have to buy or use it if you don't want it. As for the relationship between proponents of DRM and DMCA, obviously theres some intersection between the two since some people use DRM for copyright control.
Broadcasting digital requires ~1 Hz/bit if the signal is binary. Unless you have an infinite number of quantization levels in your signal to send multiple bits simultaneously, finite bandwidth is required regardless of noise.
No. Noise has nothing to do with it. If I want to transmit a 100Khz BW signal, I need a 100 KHz of bandwidth within the RF spectrum. I cannot compress that information onto a carrier at a single frequency. If someone else broadcasts in that same band, my information is garbled.
When you tune into a radio station, you pick a particular frequency. However, the broadcaster can't broadcast anything without a band of frequencies around that carrier. That is, when you modulate the carrier, you use frequencies nearby the carrier, not just the carrier frequency. No one can use these frequencies without interfering with your broadcast. Thus, the radio spectrum is divided into bins that provide the necessary bandwidth to broadcast audio quality signals. If you're doing wireless digital, the bandwidth you need is roughly 1 bit/Hz.
DRM doesn't allow the govt. to control information unless the govt. created the information. DRM allows the creator of information to control who sees it. Protesting DRM is like protesting a kitchen knife. It's just a tool. Otherwise you might as well start protesting encryption in general. What's the point of encryption for the originator of the data, if people insist that it's insecure. If you want to protest the way the RIAA or the MPAA uses DRM, that's another story.
I'm not sure about cell-phone protocols, but it wouldn't be difficult to send a remote signal to a phone to tell it to wake up, if it's designed in. Off buttons rarely mean truely off these days.
Actually, the US tries to back regimes that oppose their enemies, their enemies being those with the most anti-democratic, anti-capitalist govts. Unfortunately, they often back govts. that aren't much better than their worst enemies, and it backfires sometimes, i.e. Bin Laden in Afghanistan aginst the Soviet Union (which looked reasonable at the time since they were fighting a foreign invader), or Iraq aginst Iran (which also looked reasonable for awhile since Iran's funcdamentalist govt. looked worse than Iraq's at the time)
Many people on/. like to suggest that they have a right to anything broadcast into their homes. If a cell-phone user broadcasts a message that I or any govt. is in a legal physical place to intercept, does that mean the same rule applies, i.e. he broadcast on open airwaves, so what's the problem, according to/. logic? Or is there a distinction when a company broadcasts vs. an individual. Or is there a disctinction between when an individual receives a transmission, as opposed to a govt. agency? What are others thoughts?
Going from 95 to xp means you'll run newer versions of the same software. That's nearly zero retraining when compared to switching to an entirely different suit of software to do everything from checking e-mail to word processing.
Theft can't happily coexist with "free as in freedom" either. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. Some actions infringe on others freedoms, and are therefore immoral. In this case SCO claims IBM partnered with them to develop unix code, scrapped the deal, and used the info they gained from sco to enhance linux. If you replace IBM with MS and Linux with Windows, everyone on/. would be supporting sco, but of course since linux is under attack sco must be wrong.
I'm not saying "don't use computers". I'm saying, be careful how you use them to supplement an education. A person who answers all his Caluculus homework by entering it into Mathematica may never learn problem solving skills needed to analyze real life problems that don't have a canned program to solve them.
Slashdot Mirror
"Because consumer copying, now equals piracy... even if you've bought the original music you're transferring."
No. The real problem is you can't protect against one without restricting the other. Record companies don't really care about backup copies. They're more concerned with downloading 100 songs from Kazaa and burning them, rather than buying the music.
Congress will love the pay for copyright solution, since they're always looking for new events that require a tax. It won't be long before the govt. taxes me to use the restroom. Either I own the copyright, or I don't. But I shouldn't have to pay the govt. to keep it. What next? Am I going to have to pay a fee for free speech? If a company can hold a copyright forever, however, by paying fees every so often, that is unconstitutional.
Yes, I remember when Yahoo was at akebono.stanford.edu
The short answer is nationalized airlines means regulated pilot salaries. This means worse pilots since it lessens the incentives for skilled people to become pilots. This same arguement can be used to show how nationalized health care will ruin US healthcare. We'll end up with worse doctors since the best people will choose other professions. Nationalization is not the answer. Normally unions work because if they get out of hand, someone will cross the picket line and work for a lower wage. The longshoreman example is a good couterexample since people who cross the line end up dead. Reducing organized crime is the only way to fix this problem.
Any donation that restricts what tools the school can offer students is a bad idea. If MS offered a bunch of money to a school (and they probably have) with the condition that no macs can be purchased and no linux boxes are allowed, people would be up in arms. This is no different, and should be avoided such that students who want to use MS products are afforded the opportunity.
If I recorded and rebroadcasted NBC's transmission available to the public, I think they'd be rightfully angry and sue me, and win. Not that I'm saying you're wrong. I'm just saying you need to make a better case for your arguement.
The only real case here is whether a web server is automatically equal access for everyone, or can a company can legally refuse to allow certain people to use the server. I doubt price data is copyrightable. The case involves the fairness of Fairchase using AA's equipment for their own profit, and whether AA can legally restrict this behavior. Certainly, if I walked into an AA office and started asking prices and writing them down, AA could refuse and boot me out. Is the same the case on a web server?
"Personally I think they ought to nationalize most of the airlines given the current economic situation"
Are you insane? That's the worst thing the govt. can do. They should instead let the free market decide who lives and dies, and stay out of it.
If red hat makes moeny from this stuff, SCO will probably claim the linux code was based on their IP and sue them too.
DRM doesn't violate anyone's freedom. You don't have to buy or use it if you don't want it. As for the relationship between proponents of DRM and DMCA, obviously theres some intersection between the two since some people use DRM for copyright control.
Your premise is wrong. The govt does not control the creators of information in civilized nations.
Broadcasting digital requires ~1 Hz/bit if the signal is binary. Unless you have an infinite number of quantization levels in your signal to send multiple bits simultaneously, finite bandwidth is required regardless of noise.
No. Noise has nothing to do with it. If I want to transmit a 100Khz BW signal, I need a 100 KHz of bandwidth within the RF spectrum. I cannot compress that information onto a carrier at a single frequency. If someone else broadcasts in that same band, my information is garbled.
No. Poor analogy. Finite bandwidth is required to broadcast real information. This bandwidth cannot be shared without corrupting the information.
When you tune into a radio station, you pick a particular frequency. However, the broadcaster can't broadcast anything without a band of frequencies around that carrier. That is, when you modulate the carrier, you use frequencies nearby the carrier, not just the carrier frequency. No one can use these frequencies without interfering with your broadcast. Thus, the radio spectrum is divided into bins that provide the necessary bandwidth to broadcast audio quality signals. If you're doing wireless digital, the bandwidth you need is roughly 1 bit/Hz.
DRM doesn't allow the govt. to control information unless the govt. created the information. DRM allows the creator of information to control who sees it. Protesting DRM is like protesting a kitchen knife. It's just a tool. Otherwise you might as well start protesting encryption in general. What's the point of encryption for the originator of the data, if people insist that it's insecure. If you want to protest the way the RIAA or the MPAA uses DRM, that's another story.
I'm not sure about cell-phone protocols, but it wouldn't be difficult to send a remote signal to a phone to tell it to wake up, if it's designed in. Off buttons rarely mean truely off these days.
Actually, the US tries to back regimes that oppose their enemies, their enemies being those with the most anti-democratic, anti-capitalist govts. Unfortunately, they often back govts. that aren't much better than their worst enemies, and it backfires sometimes, i.e. Bin Laden in Afghanistan aginst the Soviet Union (which looked reasonable at the time since they were fighting a foreign invader), or Iraq aginst Iran (which also looked reasonable for awhile since Iran's funcdamentalist govt. looked worse than Iraq's at the time)
Many people on /. like to suggest that they have a right to anything broadcast into their homes. If a cell-phone user broadcasts a message that I or any govt. is in a legal physical place to intercept, does that mean the same rule applies, i.e. he broadcast on open airwaves, so what's the problem, according to /. logic? Or is there a distinction when a company broadcasts vs. an individual. Or is there a disctinction between when an individual receives a transmission, as opposed to a govt. agency? What are others thoughts?
Going from 95 to xp means you'll run newer versions of the same software. That's nearly zero retraining when compared to switching to an entirely different suit of software to do everything from checking e-mail to word processing.
If everyone faces west and blows as hard as they can, maybe we can speed up the Earth's rotation a little and solve the problem.
The point is there is no additional gadgets if you have digital cable. They already have pausable pay-per-view which "talks back up the cable line".
Theft can't happily coexist with "free as in freedom" either. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. Some actions infringe on others freedoms, and are therefore immoral. In this case SCO claims IBM partnered with them to develop unix code, scrapped the deal, and used the info they gained from sco to enhance linux. If you replace IBM with MS and Linux with Windows, everyone on /. would be supporting sco, but of course since linux is under attack sco must be wrong.
I'm not saying "don't use computers". I'm saying, be careful how you use them to supplement an education. A person who answers all his Caluculus homework by entering it into Mathematica may never learn problem solving skills needed to analyze real life problems that don't have a canned program to solve them.
I have a million friends on Kazaa. At least one of them will have it.