Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky probably. I was just quoting the line from memory... it was from the pilot episode where Quinn is explaining his invention to the Professor.
I dunno... all the services that Google keeps offering all play off their existing software and technological base. By NOT trying to jump on the "digital music revolution" it seems like they're trying to not overextend themselves.
Unfortunately, the social cost of their abolition is often quite high, which is why their creation needs to be opposed at every turn; they're nothing to be cavalier about when we see them being made.
Kind of like the USPTO ignorantly issuing thousands of bogus patents, expecting the legal system to pick up the slack later. Which it generally will but, as you say, the social costs are horrendous. Sometimes you really do need to get it right the first time. But yes, we're pretty much in agreement.
I assume you figured out that the quote was from The Great Time Machine Hoax by Keith Laumer.
Yes. The device then becomes a WORN drive... Write Once, Read Never. Unless, of course, an alternate you in another dimension is simultaneously inserting his backup disc into his drive, in which case you may find a glowing purple vortex appearing over your head dropping a shiny plastic disc in your lap.
Privacy is not a shield behind which to hide illegal activity
Of course it is, because the only way that privacy could not be so used is to eliminate privacy for all purposes, legal or otherwise. That is implicit in the way or legal system and law enforcement have traditionally dealt with personal privacy: it can be violated, if necessary, but only upon good and sufficient cause. Granted, that is changing and not for the better (as in "no cause whatsoever.") Furthermore, this focus on eliminating personal privacy in order to root out "pornography" or "terrorism" or any of a number of other irrelevancies has nothing to do with prosecuting criminals. It has to do with advancing the power of the State, no more and no less.
Look, criminals have just as much of a "right" to hide their activities from public view as I have to hide mine, or you to hide yours. That may offend your sensibilities, but it's true, because until they are apprehended and convicted of a crime, they have the same rights as everyone else. More importantly, in order to keep whatever rights we may have in that regard, we have to let the bad guys have the same, because the government will cheerfully take them away from all of us. Difficult concept, I know, but from the perspective of a free society it's the only one that works.
Yes, but other countries agreeing to adopt very bad ideas as law should not be justification for screwing our own citizens over in the same manner. Congress still has a LOT of explaining to do, so far as I'm concerned.
ultimately I think the consumer demand for these services is going to be so great, that if the law is not modified it's just going to be flouted by the public, leading to some Prohibition-like state where the law is so disconnected from reality that it's bordering on irrelevance.
Welcome to 2006. What do you think is already happening in the networked world? Untold millions of music downloads via peer-to-peer protocols (Gnutella, Bit Torrent and others) with usage continuously increasing. Yes, that activity is illegal in the United States and many other nations, but it's happening on a Biblical scale. What you're talking about has already come to pass and shows no signs of going away.
you think the Internet, as it is now, is a good thing or a bad thing. If your intent is to make the Internet simply too risky for ordinary people to use, then this is an excellent law.
The only format that will successfully supplant CDs is a non-physical format, and they still haven't figured out how to sustain an entire industry on that.
True, although it is perhaps more correct to say that they still haven't figured out how to sustain the same level of parasitism. As music passes from the artists to the consumers, there are a lot of hands out waiting for a piece of the purchase price. Most of those bloodsuckers don't get a penny from online distribution and they don't like that one bit. That's too bad for them, I guess. But for the RIAA to claim that the industry cannot survive in the Internet age is disingenuous at best. Online distribution works, it's extremely profitable and earns plenty of money to pay artists and take away a handsome profit. Granted, there are lot of folks that work in the traditional distribution channels that will have to look for a new job, but no gravy train lasts forever.
Actually, that quote is from a book by Keith Laumer. I thought it was funny, and it has provoked a lot of comments from other users. Probably about time for a new one, though.
The geek crowd here on Slashdot would probably be impressed with a laptop nocturnal tumescence monitor. I mean, what better place to put one?
Yes, such things exist. Back in 1982 I wrote a data acquisition and display program for one of those on an Apple ][. Fortunately, I was never treated to the sight of one in actual use, but I did see the recorded output. It was... interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky probably. I was just quoting the line from memory ... it was from the pilot episode where Quinn is explaining his invention to the Professor.
I dunno ... all the services that Google keeps offering all play off their existing software and technological base. By NOT trying to jump on the "digital music revolution" it seems like they're trying to not overextend themselves.
I believe that came from an episode of Penn & Teller's BULLSHIT. Hysterical.
In any event it was a joke. +5 Funny if I had any points.
Unfortunately, the social cost of their abolition is often quite high, which is why their creation needs to be opposed at every turn; they're nothing to be cavalier about when we see them being made.
Kind of like the USPTO ignorantly issuing thousands of bogus patents, expecting the legal system to pick up the slack later. Which it generally will but, as you say, the social costs are horrendous. Sometimes you really do need to get it right the first time. But yes, we're pretty much in agreement.
I assume you figured out that the quote was from The Great Time Machine Hoax by Keith Laumer.
Yes. The device then becomes a WORN drive ... Write Once, Read Never. Unless, of course, an alternate you in another dimension is simultaneously inserting his backup disc into his drive, in which case you may find a glowing purple vortex appearing over your head dropping a shiny plastic disc in your lap.
and also determine if she's up for some hot lovin'?
Better get used to pictures of pairs of spherical objects at approximately 475 nm.
Yeah ... too bad nobody has figured out how to serve Web pages via some kind of swarming technique ala Bit Torrent. Now that would be interesting.
I was referring to the Sliders series, where Quinn said "I've crossed the Einstein-Rosen bridge."
Privacy is not a shield behind which to hide illegal activity
Of course it is, because the only way that privacy could not be so used is to eliminate privacy for all purposes, legal or otherwise. That is implicit in the way or legal system and law enforcement have traditionally dealt with personal privacy: it can be violated, if necessary, but only upon good and sufficient cause. Granted, that is changing and not for the better (as in "no cause whatsoever.") Furthermore, this focus on eliminating personal privacy in order to root out "pornography" or "terrorism" or any of a number of other irrelevancies has nothing to do with prosecuting criminals. It has to do with advancing the power of the State, no more and no less.
Look, criminals have just as much of a "right" to hide their activities from public view as I have to hide mine, or you to hide yours. That may offend your sensibilities, but it's true, because until they are apprehended and convicted of a crime, they have the same rights as everyone else. More importantly, in order to keep whatever rights we may have in that regard, we have to let the bad guys have the same, because the government will cheerfully take them away from all of us. Difficult concept, I know, but from the perspective of a free society it's the only one that works.
That's what I thought ... hit refresh a couple of times.
I would guess it has a higher scanning frequency.
Or better insulation.
Well, if the artists are depending upon GPS as a theft/vandalism deterrent they may be disappointed.
Now, if they'd put a couple of cameras in the eye sockets and had them transmit images to a Web site somewhere, things might be more interesting.
Great. So when you slide your disc into the drive it spontaneously crosses the Einstein-Rosen bridge and ends up in an alternate reality.
F.O.R.D. = Factory Outlet Rolling DRM.
Then you must be one of the Illuminati. I saw "Apple Partners with". Didn't make any sense at the time ... thanks for clearing it up.
Yes, but other countries agreeing to adopt very bad ideas as law should not be justification for screwing our own citizens over in the same manner. Congress still has a LOT of explaining to do, so far as I'm concerned.
ultimately I think the consumer demand for these services is going to be so great, that if the law is not modified it's just going to be flouted by the public, leading to some Prohibition-like state where the law is so disconnected from reality that it's bordering on irrelevance.
Welcome to 2006. What do you think is already happening in the networked world? Untold millions of music downloads via peer-to-peer protocols (Gnutella, Bit Torrent and others) with usage continuously increasing. Yes, that activity is illegal in the United States and many other nations, but it's happening on a Biblical scale. What you're talking about has already come to pass and shows no signs of going away.
you think the Internet, as it is now, is a good thing or a bad thing. If your intent is to make the Internet simply too risky for ordinary people to use, then this is an excellent law.
More importantly, in which brand of chewing gum's TV ads will they appear?
... successfully blurring the line between planets and stars.
Yes, it's really easy to confuse a ball of rock with a star. I mean, the similarities are so obvious.
The only format that will successfully supplant CDs is a non-physical format, and they still haven't figured out how to sustain an entire industry on that.
True, although it is perhaps more correct to say that they still haven't figured out how to sustain the same level of parasitism. As music passes from the artists to the consumers, there are a lot of hands out waiting for a piece of the purchase price. Most of those bloodsuckers don't get a penny from online distribution and they don't like that one bit. That's too bad for them, I guess. But for the RIAA to claim that the industry cannot survive in the Internet age is disingenuous at best. Online distribution works, it's extremely profitable and earns plenty of money to pay artists and take away a handsome profit. Granted, there are lot of folks that work in the traditional distribution channels that will have to look for a new job, but no gravy train lasts forever.
Yes folks, it's (drum roll please) Religilution!
Or Evolugion, whichever you prefer.
Other than Windows itself, I agree.
Actually, that quote is from a book by Keith Laumer. I thought it was funny, and it has provoked a lot of comments from other users. Probably about time for a new one, though.
The geek crowd here on Slashdot would probably be impressed with a laptop nocturnal tumescence monitor. I mean, what better place to put one?
... interesting.
Yes, such things exist. Back in 1982 I wrote a data acquisition and display program for one of those on an Apple ][. Fortunately, I was never treated to the sight of one in actual use, but I did see the recorded output. It was