I've been waiting for these to finally get video before purchasing one. I hadn't heard about the Archos one (the one I was waiting for was the RCA Lyra), but all the articles said many similar products will be coming in the summer.
The big issue with this Archos will be whether its manufacturing feels as flimsy as their earlier models. Archos usually seems to be well ahead of the curve in features and price, but usually far behind in appearance, construction, and usability...
I would be mighty surprised if all the computers program did was put the goalie in front of where the ball is... I'm sure they coded in prediction of push and pull shots.
You yourself admit that defensing good shots comes from reading whats shots are possible from the identical starting positions, and then guessing which one the opponent is going to shoot. That really doesn't sound beyond a computer to me.
You also say that it would be easier to teach a robot offense, but can't imagine it setting up a shot? I would imagine that the computer could have better ball control than a person. Once the computer gets the ball on their 3-man, I'd think it could (eventually) get to the point where it scores every time. It could perfectly see every hole, and each time it hits the ball it would get the exact intended angle.
Sure, I imagine today's first edition is highly beatable, but that would be due to the slowish visual processing and incomplete AI implementation. If the computer side of this would get the budget that Chess has had, in 5 years the computer would destroy.
Sure, a search will help for pirating, but it also helps for legitimate uses. Two examples:
1) Right now I'm trying to download the perfectly legal release of Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, all 250 meg of it. Right now I'm 50 minutes away from my download starting. If BitTorrent would automatically look in people's shared directories, then I could start downloading immediately, and help others download quicker, and save the load on the originating servers. All of the benefits of BitTorrent.
2) Try downloading RedHat with the BitTorrent links that are on their site. Nobody is still sharing them, despite thousands of people having downloaded them.
Too bad I can't both mod up and comment at the same time... But to me, this is the most important question about BitTorrent.
BitTorrent seems to have better data-side handling than Kazaa or any of the other FastTrack programs, since BT will handle directories, verify file integrity, fragment less, and seed better (since it doesn't always just start at the front of a file).
But it seems that there is a giant disadvantage to BT that FastTrack/Kazaa have inherent, that makes Kazaa more usable.
1) Built in search. Requiring webpages to find downloadable files just seems to be a waste. It makes files harder to find, and since more downloaders gives faster speed, missing a search hurts downloaders.
2) No "share directory" leads to download degradation. Once a file is no longer new, and people have closed their BT client for that download, they no longer are listed as sources, even if they are using BT for another file. So even though tons of BT users have the RedHat ISOs, downloading them through BT today will be slow or impossible. (Although really, without a search, you couldn't share everything anyhow since nobody could find your stuff...)
So the big question is, why is there no built in search, and do you foresee a time when a Kazaa-like search feature gets added to BT (Which would obviously require an addition to the standard)?
I realize that TiVo does not come stock with the ability to copy your recorded programs to your PC's hard disk (and then onto DVD), but I find it far fetched to claim that it would be illegal to make permanent copies of things you recorded to your TiVo legally. There are even DVD recorders coming out that have built in hard drives to do exactly that, (although without the full TiVo software). This is not at all analogous to bittorrenting movies off the internet.
What part of my message made it sound like I think the Spammers are in any way correct? I am just saying that the Spamhaus rebuttal is useless. Its as good as saying "I couldn't have hit his car, since I've never met him!" Plus, carrying this further, you can even have intentional, directed harm without knowing the victim. If I walk down the street and smash in people's windshields with a baseball bat, then my efforts have been calculated to disrupt and destroy, (intentionally), the cars of people I don't know.
You are reading comments into the rebuttal that aren't there. If you can't see the difference between "directed his actions intentionally against the plaintiffs" (your words) and "could not be harming the Plaintiff in any way" (the rebuttal's words), then clearly you shouldn't be debating law...
All I'm saying is that the "could not be harming the Plaintiff in any way" phrase that is repeated over and over again in the document is just plain wrong, and if that is the text the are using in their official legal response to the lawsuit, it isn't going to go in their favor. Because, to repeat myself, you can harm people you don't know. Their rebuttal needs to take this into account if they want a judge to side with them.
25. Defendants, S. LINFORD, J. LINFORD, MURPHY, WILSON, GUNN, SOBOL, SHARP, TIETJENS, BROWER, JARED, SPAMHAUS and SPEWS'S efforts are calculated to disrupt and destroy the businesses, and the business and personal reputations of the Plaintiff.
Neither Spamhaus nor any of the Defendants named had ever heard of EMarketersAmerica prior to this SLAPP suit being filed. It follows therefore that they could not be harming the Plaintiff in any way.
Thats a rather illogical argument. If Spamhaus was blindly blocking every IP address in the 100.x.x.x range, then even though they have never heard of the people in that range, they could still be harming them. It's quite easy to harm people you have never heard of.
Hey genius, if you could read past my first sentence you'd see I also equated it with a town. But clearly you are too stupid to read that far, or to grasp the words, or to read history. The UN didn't move anyone in. I'd explain more, but its clear that facts are beyond you, and you'll just continue to ignore them.
Oh? I don't know where you're from, but lets say you're from Rhode Island. Say the United Nations decided to make a homeland for refugees from some conflict on Rhode Island. Without any reguard to the people who happened to be living there at the time, such as yourself.
Just how fast would you recognize the sovereignty of this new country?
There was no country Palestine prior to Israel being formed. The people living there were not forced to move. Prior to the formation, the territory was a British colony. Prior to THAT, it was the Ottoman Empire. Yes, many Arabs lived there before Israel. As did many Jews.
Yes, prior to the lines being drawn, there was a territory named "Palestine". But do a little research and you will also see that Jordan was part of Palestine as well; you aren't claiming that Jordan stole land from the Palestinians, are you? Or that the Palestinians are challenging the sovereignty of Jordan? Of course you aren't...
A country being formed does not displace the people there. Its like the birth of a town. If there is unincorporated land that people are living on, they can petition to have a town officially made. If it passes, the town gets formed. If Bob down the street in the new town voted against it, he doesn't get kicked out. Its just a line on a map. Should Bob not recognize the town? Should Bob blow up the town hall? Should Bob move away and then claim the town stole his land? Or should he recognize the town...
Seems most of the delusional people who are pr-war think that all it takes for peace is for one side to breach the law and fight just as dirtily. Sadly things don't work that way.
I can't even understand what you are saying here. Are you intending to accuse the US of breaking some law by invading Iraq? Or are you accusing Iraq of breaking the law by fighting from hospitals, in civilian clothes, after falsely surrendering, hiping amongst civilians, torturing/executing prisoners, etc?
Finally, Britain learned, started behaving within the law and took its beatings. It hurt, it hurt a hell of a lot for about a decade. But, you know what? Opinion on the streets is no so anti-IRA that they're barely a credible organisation anymore. No one joins, they blow the odd minor thing up and they get turned in by their own people. Most of them have left terrorism and entered in to regular crime.
Ah, so the US should just take its beatings until the terrorists get tired of attacking us. Good plan. Oh thats right, this is about Iraq. Well I guess since Iraq is only killing its own people, and hasn't tried to take over a neighbor in 10 years, we should just let them grow stronger and stronger, until they can directly hurt us. After all, ignoring the weapon restrictions placed on Germany after it lost WW1 sure didn't have any negative effects on the rest of the world.
Oh, and notice that the IRA didn't actually apologize for the bombings until after 9/11, when the world was focused on the deaths of many (predominantly Irish) police and firemen in NY. The IRA, rightly, realised that the world would no longer put up with terrorists, and that they better distance themselves right quick.
So, next time you try telling people that turning the other cheek doesn't work, just take a look at the simple facts. Yes, it's slow but it does absolutely work. Of course, don't let history get in the way of angry rehoric. If that's what floats your boat, you go right ahead.
Eh? The IRA realised that bombing was bad. What, exactly, worked? How many people should the PLO, or Al Qaeda, or whoever, be allowed to kill before we hope they come to their senses without war? Would 6 million be enough for them to learn the error of their ways? Or is that too much history getting in the way of angry rhetoric?
And what "angry rhetoric" anyhow? There was nothing angry in my post, and nothing that I would think was rhetoric anyhow. Only thing that could possibly come close is my "delusional people... one side stop fighting" comment. Which doesn't seem like rhetoric, since that is exactly the point you brought up in response to my post.
One last point: I do blame the PLO. I'm just realistic enough to realise that killing civilians by the thousand only adds to their support, not diminishes it.
Ah, how nice. Yet busses blowing up doesn't diminish their support? The similarities to Iraq are high. If you hide your weapon making amongst your own civilians, you can't cry when the civilians get killed. They don't make weapons that only take out one apartment in a building, especially not if the apartment is full of bombs.
The Iraqi resolution was part of a surrender, after Iraq lost a war. Also the Iraqi resolution is unilateral; it does not depend on any other country to work with Iraq to disarm.
On the other hand, Resolution 242 is a resolution that gives tasks for the entire region. Such as:
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force
Strange how you don't blame the PLO, whose charter until recently included words to the effect of "No Israel ever", for not acknowledging the sovereignty of Israel. Or any of the other countries surrounding Israel who even after the resolution still went to war with Israel.
I guess its not strange that you think Israel could have done all this by itself. Seems most of the delusional people who are anti-war think that all it takes for peace is for one side to stop fighting. Sadly, things don't work that way.
There's something deeply, fundamentally wrong with a universe in which Bloom County, The Far Side, and Calvin and Hobbes are gone, while Beetle Bailey, B.C., and Blondie linger on and on and on.
Eh, not really. It actually makes more sense for the quality cartoonists to want to quit while there strips are still quality. If you were a crap cartoonist who was spewing out unfunny crap that was still being bought by 100s or 1000s of newspapers, why would you stop? At worst, you might actually get better and then you can start a new strip. But if you are a respected cartoonist (as Breathed, Larson, and Watterson were) then you don't want to ruin your reputation, or dillute your properties, by running them into the ground.
So when something does happen, everyone will be fucked beyond belief. And believe me, it will happen. It always does unless you trying to cooperate with your enemies and make them your friends instead.
Uh, it always does?? Any examples, or just throwing around doomsday scenarios?
"Now that the court has ordered Verizon to live up to its obligation under the law, we look forward to contacting the account holder whose identity we were seeking so we can let them know that what they are doing is illegal," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America.
They just want to tell the guy that its illegal! They aren't actually gonna sue him or anything... It's just a very personalized information campaign.
All three cases listed in the DMCA end in "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
But it doesn't seem that opening a garage can be considered "a work". Sure, the transmitter is circumventing technology, but there is no "protected work". The only "work" they could claim is their encoded signal, but this remote doesn't work by decoding the signal; it uses a back door. Since it is the signal thats protected and they aren't decrypting the signal, then this claim seems groundless.
Unless a show is a prime-time network program, the chance that you'll miss an episode and not be able to catch it another time is very slim.
Prime Time is the most watched time (Hence "PRIME")... And frequently there are two prime time shows that are on at the same time, yet not repeated at any time. Or live shows, such as football games, that play simultaneously.
Recording the Sopranos on your TiVo and sending it to a non-HBO subscribing friend would be just as legal or illegal as recording it onto a tape.
In order to make a digital cable-ready tivo, the cable industry would have to standardize their boxes. Thankfully they are finally trying to do this as this cnn article says. Unfortunately, it will still be years before it finally happens. Until it does, there is zero chance.
I guess the rumors of the Video iPod being announced were false then... Bummer, I was really looking forward to Apple putting that together. Just like the original iPod improved all following MP3 players, once Apple makes a good portable movie player there will be many improved models on the market.
Weird workaround for printing on a second machine.
on
TurboTax Activation Fiasco
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I typically buy and use TurboTax, but do not have a laser printer at home, so I do all my taxes at home and e-file from home and then print out the paper forms at work with a quality laser printer. That method would no longer work with the new licensing scheme, despite it definitely falling under "reasonable use" in my opinion.
However, I did figure out a method that would be basically as good. With a non-activated version you can still fill in your taxes entirely, you just cannot file or print them. So, install the software at home BUT DO NOT ACTIVATE IT. Fill out your taxes entirely. Then when you are done, install and activate on your work machine, and e-file and print from there.
Not quite as convenient as before, but basically the same.
(And as an added bonus, if you want to piss off Intuit and show them the flaw of their ways, then make copies of the CD and give them to all of your coworkers and have them all file their taxes from your computer! I don't even think that could be illegal, since unlike most software, having the CD is not a "right to use", so making a copy of the CD is in essence just a shareware version of the software that a user who wanted to file on their own would still need to pay for, and the software provides them the method internally. Good method of civil disobedience... Let's see who can file the most returns on one bought copy of TurboTax!)
There have been cases in my town of homeless people stealing recyclables from people's recycling bins and getting arrested for theft. In those cases, it was theft from the recycling company. I guess its considered like the mailbox: Just because you have an outgoing letter (or an incoming letter...) in your mailbox on the curb does not mean its legal for someone to take it, because it is in a container. I'm sure the lawyers will nitpick and come up with rules though...
P.S. There was a movie, "Star Chamber", in the 80s that used this exact thing as its plot point... Murderer got off because the gun was taken from his trash can and ruled inadmissable, so the judges go around and kill them themselves... Ok, lame movie, but...
I really don't understand how this DMCA gets used for lawsuits like this. There was an issue last week with some websites mirroring the public Raven Shield demo, and getting cease-and-desist letters from Gamespy who claimed that mirroring their "exclusive" demo somehow violated the DMCA. Does anybody understand how that could possibly be a DMCA violation, and is there any limit to how far reaching this law can go?
Keep this in mind: In the beginning of the 20th century only one person in 10 living in Palestine is a Jew. Now it is exactly reversed.
I always find it strange how everybody comments about the beginning of the 20th century as the best reference point to "who lived there first". How many Muslims were in Palestine before 500? (Hint: 0. Mohammed wasn't born until the mid-500s.) How many Christians were there before 1? (Hint: 0. That Jesus guy.)
But because the Romans ran the Jews out of the area, and mostly Muslims moved in in their absense, it suddenly becomes "Muslim land since mostly Muslims lived there in 1900."
The fact is, prior to Israel being founded, there was NO COUNTRY in Palestine. Palestine was just an area, formerly part of the Ottoman Empire (and that area also included Jordan. Strange how you don't here any complaints of how Jordan stole the Palestinean's land).
Put myself in the shoes of the Palestinians? Uh, no. Any group that wages war by sneaking into towns and slicing the throats of 5 year olds is simple enough to understand.
Slashdot Mirror
The big issue with this Archos will be whether its manufacturing feels as flimsy as their earlier models. Archos usually seems to be well ahead of the curve in features and price, but usually far behind in appearance, construction, and usability...
You yourself admit that defensing good shots comes from reading whats shots are possible from the identical starting positions, and then guessing which one the opponent is going to shoot. That really doesn't sound beyond a computer to me.
You also say that it would be easier to teach a robot offense, but can't imagine it setting up a shot? I would imagine that the computer could have better ball control than a person. Once the computer gets the ball on their 3-man, I'd think it could (eventually) get to the point where it scores every time. It could perfectly see every hole, and each time it hits the ball it would get the exact intended angle.
Sure, I imagine today's first edition is highly beatable, but that would be due to the slowish visual processing and incomplete AI implementation. If the computer side of this would get the budget that Chess has had, in 5 years the computer would destroy.
1) Right now I'm trying to download the perfectly legal release of Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, all 250 meg of it. Right now I'm 50 minutes away from my download starting. If BitTorrent would automatically look in people's shared directories, then I could start downloading immediately, and help others download quicker, and save the load on the originating servers. All of the benefits of BitTorrent.
2) Try downloading RedHat with the BitTorrent links that are on their site. Nobody is still sharing them, despite thousands of people having downloaded them.
Its a waste.
BitTorrent seems to have better data-side handling than Kazaa or any of the other FastTrack programs, since BT will handle directories, verify file integrity, fragment less, and seed better (since it doesn't always just start at the front of a file).
But it seems that there is a giant disadvantage to BT that FastTrack/Kazaa have inherent, that makes Kazaa more usable.
1) Built in search. Requiring webpages to find downloadable files just seems to be a waste. It makes files harder to find, and since more downloaders gives faster speed, missing a search hurts downloaders.
2) No "share directory" leads to download degradation. Once a file is no longer new, and people have closed their BT client for that download, they no longer are listed as sources, even if they are using BT for another file. So even though tons of BT users have the RedHat ISOs, downloading them through BT today will be slow or impossible. (Although really, without a search, you couldn't share everything anyhow since nobody could find your stuff...)
So the big question is, why is there no built in search, and do you foresee a time when a Kazaa-like search feature gets added to BT (Which would obviously require an addition to the standard)?
I realize that TiVo does not come stock with the ability to copy your recorded programs to your PC's hard disk (and then onto DVD), but I find it far fetched to claim that it would be illegal to make permanent copies of things you recorded to your TiVo legally. There are even DVD recorders coming out that have built in hard drives to do exactly that, (although without the full TiVo software). This is not at all analogous to bittorrenting movies off the internet.
You are reading comments into the rebuttal that aren't there. If you can't see the difference between "directed his actions intentionally against the plaintiffs" (your words) and "could not be harming the Plaintiff in any way" (the rebuttal's words), then clearly you shouldn't be debating law...
All I'm saying is that the "could not be harming the Plaintiff in any way" phrase that is repeated over and over again in the document is just plain wrong, and if that is the text the are using in their official legal response to the lawsuit, it isn't going to go in their favor. Because, to repeat myself, you can harm people you don't know. Their rebuttal needs to take this into account if they want a judge to side with them.
Thats a rather illogical argument. If Spamhaus was blindly blocking every IP address in the 100.x.x.x range, then even though they have never heard of the people in that range, they could still be harming them. It's quite easy to harm people you have never heard of.
Ignore me. Somehow I read that as March, more than once. I'll go away now.
Hey genius, if you could read past my first sentence you'd see I also equated it with a town. But clearly you are too stupid to read that far, or to grasp the words, or to read history. The UN didn't move anyone in. I'd explain more, but its clear that facts are beyond you, and you'll just continue to ignore them.
Oh? I don't know where you're from, but lets say you're from Rhode Island. Say the United Nations decided to make a homeland for refugees from some conflict on Rhode Island. Without any reguard to the people who happened to be living there at the time, such as yourself.
Just how fast would you recognize the sovereignty of this new country?
There was no country Palestine prior to Israel being formed. The people living there were not forced to move. Prior to the formation, the territory was a British colony. Prior to THAT, it was the Ottoman Empire. Yes, many Arabs lived there before Israel. As did many Jews.
Yes, prior to the lines being drawn, there was a territory named "Palestine". But do a little research and you will also see that Jordan was part of Palestine as well; you aren't claiming that Jordan stole land from the Palestinians, are you? Or that the Palestinians are challenging the sovereignty of Jordan? Of course you aren't...
A country being formed does not displace the people there. Its like the birth of a town. If there is unincorporated land that people are living on, they can petition to have a town officially made. If it passes, the town gets formed. If Bob down the street in the new town voted against it, he doesn't get kicked out. Its just a line on a map. Should Bob not recognize the town? Should Bob blow up the town hall? Should Bob move away and then claim the town stole his land? Or should he recognize the town...
Seems most of the delusional people who are pr-war think that all it takes for peace is for one side to breach the law and fight just as dirtily. Sadly things don't work that way.
I can't even understand what you are saying here. Are you intending to accuse the US of breaking some law by invading Iraq? Or are you accusing Iraq of breaking the law by fighting from hospitals, in civilian clothes, after falsely surrendering, hiping amongst civilians, torturing/executing prisoners, etc?
Finally, Britain learned, started behaving within the law and took its beatings. It hurt, it hurt a hell of a lot for about a decade. But, you know what? Opinion on the streets is no so anti-IRA that they're barely a credible organisation anymore. No one joins, they blow the odd minor thing up and they get turned in by their own people. Most of them have left terrorism and entered in to regular crime.
Ah, so the US should just take its beatings until the terrorists get tired of attacking us. Good plan. Oh thats right, this is about Iraq. Well I guess since Iraq is only killing its own people, and hasn't tried to take over a neighbor in 10 years, we should just let them grow stronger and stronger, until they can directly hurt us. After all, ignoring the weapon restrictions placed on Germany after it lost WW1 sure didn't have any negative effects on the rest of the world.
Oh, and notice that the IRA didn't actually apologize for the bombings until after 9/11, when the world was focused on the deaths of many (predominantly Irish) police and firemen in NY. The IRA, rightly, realised that the world would no longer put up with terrorists, and that they better distance themselves right quick.
So, next time you try telling people that turning the other cheek doesn't work, just take a look at the simple facts. Yes, it's slow but it does absolutely work. Of course, don't let history get in the way of angry rehoric. If that's what floats your boat, you go right ahead.
Eh? The IRA realised that bombing was bad. What, exactly, worked? How many people should the PLO, or Al Qaeda, or whoever, be allowed to kill before we hope they come to their senses without war? Would 6 million be enough for them to learn the error of their ways? Or is that too much history getting in the way of angry rhetoric?
And what "angry rhetoric" anyhow? There was nothing angry in my post, and nothing that I would think was rhetoric anyhow. Only thing that could possibly come close is my "delusional people ... one side stop fighting" comment. Which doesn't seem like rhetoric, since that is exactly the point you brought up in response to my post.
One last point: I do blame the PLO. I'm just realistic enough to realise that killing civilians by the thousand only adds to their support, not diminishes it.
Ah, how nice. Yet busses blowing up doesn't diminish their support? The similarities to Iraq are high. If you hide your weapon making amongst your own civilians, you can't cry when the civilians get killed. They don't make weapons that only take out one apartment in a building, especially not if the apartment is full of bombs.
But of course, you knew that. "History" and all.
The Iraqi resolution was part of a surrender, after Iraq lost a war. Also the Iraqi resolution is unilateral; it does not depend on any other country to work with Iraq to disarm.
On the other hand, Resolution 242 is a resolution that gives tasks for the entire region. Such as:
Strange how you don't blame the PLO, whose charter until recently included words to the effect of "No Israel ever", for not acknowledging the sovereignty of Israel. Or any of the other countries surrounding Israel who even after the resolution still went to war with Israel.
I guess its not strange that you think Israel could have done all this by itself. Seems most of the delusional people who are anti-war think that all it takes for peace is for one side to stop fighting. Sadly, things don't work that way.
Eh, not really. It actually makes more sense for the quality cartoonists to want to quit while there strips are still quality. If you were a crap cartoonist who was spewing out unfunny crap that was still being bought by 100s or 1000s of newspapers, why would you stop? At worst, you might actually get better and then you can start a new strip. But if you are a respected cartoonist (as Breathed, Larson, and Watterson were) then you don't want to ruin your reputation, or dillute your properties, by running them into the ground.
But it doesn't seem that opening a garage can be considered "a work". Sure, the transmitter is circumventing technology, but there is no "protected work". The only "work" they could claim is their encoded signal, but this remote doesn't work by decoding the signal; it uses a back door. Since it is the signal thats protected and they aren't decrypting the signal, then this claim seems groundless.
Recording the Sopranos on your TiVo and sending it to a non-HBO subscribing friend would be just as legal or illegal as recording it onto a tape.
Slashdot had discussion about the proposal last week.
I guess the rumors of the Video iPod being announced were false then... Bummer, I was really looking forward to Apple putting that together. Just like the original iPod improved all following MP3 players, once Apple makes a good portable movie player there will be many improved models on the market.
However, I did figure out a method that would be basically as good. With a non-activated version you can still fill in your taxes entirely, you just cannot file or print them. So, install the software at home BUT DO NOT ACTIVATE IT. Fill out your taxes entirely. Then when you are done, install and activate on your work machine, and e-file and print from there.
Not quite as convenient as before, but basically the same.
(And as an added bonus, if you want to piss off Intuit and show them the flaw of their ways, then make copies of the CD and give them to all of your coworkers and have them all file their taxes from your computer! I don't even think that could be illegal, since unlike most software, having the CD is not a "right to use", so making a copy of the CD is in essence just a shareware version of the software that a user who wanted to file on their own would still need to pay for, and the software provides them the method internally. Good method of civil disobedience... Let's see who can file the most returns on one bought copy of TurboTax!)
P.S. There was a movie, "Star Chamber", in the 80s that used this exact thing as its plot point... Murderer got off because the gun was taken from his trash can and ruled inadmissable, so the judges go around and kill them themselves... Ok, lame movie, but...
I really don't understand how this DMCA gets used for lawsuits like this. There was an issue last week with some websites mirroring the public Raven Shield demo, and getting cease-and-desist letters from Gamespy who claimed that mirroring their "exclusive" demo somehow violated the DMCA. Does anybody understand how that could possibly be a DMCA violation, and is there any limit to how far reaching this law can go?