I'm not sure I agree with you that a law making the ISPs fully liable for whatever infringement their clients MIGHT make will "have no impact on them." Their biggest defense has always been ignorance.
Different agenda, sure, but a seemingly contradicting one. =Smidge=
Copyright infringement is a CIVIL action, and that rule doesn't apply...
Take the following with a huge dose of salt.
The way I understand it - and I didn't read through it very carefully, I admit - is that the chunks are not simply encrypted portions of the file but rather derivatives of the original chunk in such a way that they can occasionally be reused. For example, I have two files: X is copyrighted and Y is not.
X gets broken into chunks A and B. Y gets broken into chunks A and C.
Through some digital alchemy, they both contain crypto-chunk "A" - therefore, the existence of crypto-chunk "A" on your hard drive is not evidence that you are storing a portion of copyrighted file X.
Somewhere, though, there is data for reassembling the original file from the scattered crypto-chunks. It might be possible, for example, that an entirely different file "Z" could be recovered by combining crypto-chunk "B" and "A". Thus:
Chunk A + Chunk B = File X Chunk A + Chunk C = File Y Chunk B + Chunk A = File Z
So the existence of chunks A and B can't be used to (conclusively) prove you have file X, as there is an alternate legit meaning to those chunks.
Is this how it actually works? I have no clue! I'm not a crypto kind of guy. =Smidge=
Just outlaw automatic transmissions. It's hard to do other crap while driving when you need both hands and both feet most of the time. People just might start paying attention to heir driving.
Bear in mind that this is the same "Vital anti-terrorist" FISA bill that President Bush refused to sign last time when it came through without telecom immunity.
In other words, it's all about covering their ass and has little or nothing to do with actual terrorist monitoring. If it was so important for national security, why would Bush refuse to sign it without telecom immunity?
Unless I'm mistaken, all activities started before the most recent FISA bill expired on Feb 2007 are still valid for a whole year, so survielence will continue up to Feb 2008 even if this bill does not pass.
That makes this bill doubly-moot and perfectly "safe" to vote against. Unfortunately the public will never understand this. =Smidge=
The bigger problem is their definition of "obese." It appears they're using only weight and waist size as measurements, or at best BMI.
This is not a reliable way to measure obesity. It might be acceptable for general statistics but if you're going to start penalizing based on it I would expect a proper and body fat measurement to be used.
=Smidge=
This is why air conditioners are rated using "Coefficient of Performance" or CP, rather than efficiency. You are using work to move heat, not using heat to produce work - therefore you can have greater than 100% "efficiency" without violating any laws. Heat pumps often have a CP of 1.3 or better, which might be viewed as "130% efficient."
If you actually do the energy balance you'll see that the rejected heat is equal to the power input plus heat removed at the cold end. Everything balances:)
Regarding a water powered car, however... that's literally not possible. If you do the energy balance equation you'll see there is pretty much no latent energy in water unless you get into fusion or mixing with reactive chemicals - and with chemicals you need to "input" energy to refine them in the first place. =Smidge=
Never said you couldn't, but here's the thing: The repair costs are basically amortized. $300 for a new set of tires here, $1500 for a rebuilt transmission... if you don't keep careful records eventually you end up paying more than than you would have otherwise.
And even if you see ti early, you're still lost out. You can't get a refund on the repair costs on the free car and the other car still costs $5000.
The only way to avoid this situation is to carefully do your homework beforehand. That's where rational informed decisions come in, instead of knee-jerk "yay free stuff!" decisions. =Smidge=
Of course. That's why I put "reputable" dealer - presumably someone who isn't going to knowingly give you a lemon and will make some effort to make good on the deal if there are major problems. (Analogous to a commercial company that will support its product vs. free software without support)
I think his point was that if the free tool ends up costing more in the long run then it's not really worth it. If it takes him an extra week using a FOSS tool then it only pays to make him use it if his weekly wage is less than the cost of a commercial tool. Buying the tool is essentially a one-time cost (not including new versions or license renewal, which might not apply) but lost productivity is a constant drain on resources.
In other words, the management sees "Free!" and think it saves them money but ultimately it might cost more in a non-obvious way.
Let's use the requisite car analogy: You can get a FREE used car from a friend-of-a-friend or pay $5000 for a similar used car from a reputable dealer. Which do you choose?
If you go for the free car, and it ends up needing $8000 worth of repairs over the next six months just to keep it road-worthy, maybe that $5000 car would have been a better deal. =Smidge=
The major problem is greed - obvious, perhaps. Media is viewed both as a quick-return investment (expect to get your costs recovered plus profit within a few months) AND as a long-term revenue stream. Things like music and movies have long-term sales capability, which is pure profit with a digital distribution model. All they need to do is be a little more patient on their profits and reduce the long-term costs to what people are willing to pay. iTunes is a pretty good example of this, but the industry as a whole can't manage to change its business model.
Re: 'sales tax' on copying
If they're breaking the laws as they are, what makes you think they're going to report tax incomes? The only thing that will happen is everyone even remotely involved will get taxed for what a few people do.
There is also the issue of actually identifying the owner of a copyright for the purposes of reimbursement, as it has to either compensate for perceived losses (think RIAA and $5000 a song) or some other arbitrary value. It just can't be done fairly and consistently, which means it's an idea ripe for exploitation and corruption.
Besides the fact that I don't like corporate welfare to begin with... as I said, if piracy is that big a problem you probably aren't serving your market properly and you deserve to take it in the wallet. =Smidge=
Here's the problem, though: What's the true cost of digital reproduction and distribution? Now, if we're talking physical goods you certainly have a case. It costs fractions of fractions of a penny's forth of electricity to make a copy of even large data files, and bandwidth cost aren't a huge burden either.
With software, there is really only a one-time cost of production and maybe long-term support. With music and video there is ONLY the one-time production costs. =Smidge=
This is certainly true. However, what most people (especially business execs) rarely understand is that piracy usually indicates an unfulfilled market.
Not everyone steals for the sake of stealing. Some steal because it's the only way to get it, or at least the only way to get it in the form they want. If you find a lot of people pirate your products, then you can probably make legit customers out of most of them by altering your distribution and control methods. Carefully consider your price points too, since the true value of something is what people are willing to pay and not always what you think they should pay. =Smidge=
Why? Let's say you had a true universal construction machine; a magic box that could make anything.
Set up your future factory and put one of these machines inside. Give it all the resources it needs and come back in a week to find two machines, then four, eight... however many you need. Once your factory has enough machines, set them to the task of building your actual product.
Self-replicating if it doesn't count unless it actually produces a copy of itself, not a pile of parts with some bits missing. =Smidge=
FTA (emphasis mine):
The materials, plus the minority of parts that the machine cannot print, cost about £300. It also does not actually assemble the parts it creates. So close and yet so far. =Smidge=
I'm sure most people would just want their old arm back.
But honestly? If I'm getting an artificial body part I want an upgrade. Artificial arms need "Inspector Gadget" type tools built into them. artificial legs need built-in roller blades or "kangaroo boot" springs. Artificial eyes need video-in jacks, zoom and swappable IR vision filters.
I'm not sure I'd have a perfectly good body part removed for one - especially at this stage in tech - but if anything happens and I'm getting it anyway... =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
That's why I buy only depleted uranium shot loads!
=Smidge=
Last summer for the most part, and there are some projections that it will melt completely by the end of this summer.
=Smidge=
I'm not sure I agree with you that a law making the ISPs fully liable for whatever infringement their clients MIGHT make will "have no impact on them." Their biggest defense has always been ignorance.
Different agenda, sure, but a seemingly contradicting one.
=Smidge=
I guess this will come down to who has the stronger lobbyists: The *AA or the telecoms.
That is really goddamn scary.
=Smidge=
At the time of posting I thought Slashdotters would be more familiar with the term "Tongue in Cheek"...
I suppose I should have known better.
=Smidge=
For CRIMINAL cases, yes.
Copyright infringement is a CIVIL action, and that rule doesn't apply...
Take the following with a huge dose of salt.
The way I understand it - and I didn't read through it very carefully, I admit - is that the chunks are not simply encrypted portions of the file but rather derivatives of the original chunk in such a way that they can occasionally be reused. For example, I have two files: X is copyrighted and Y is not.
X gets broken into chunks A and B.
Y gets broken into chunks A and C.
Through some digital alchemy, they both contain crypto-chunk "A" - therefore, the existence of crypto-chunk "A" on your hard drive is not evidence that you are storing a portion of copyrighted file X.
Somewhere, though, there is data for reassembling the original file from the scattered crypto-chunks. It might be possible, for example, that an entirely different file "Z" could be recovered by combining crypto-chunk "B" and "A". Thus:
Chunk A + Chunk B = File X
Chunk A + Chunk C = File Y
Chunk B + Chunk A = File Z
So the existence of chunks A and B can't be used to (conclusively) prove you have file X, as there is an alternate legit meaning to those chunks.
Is this how it actually works? I have no clue! I'm not a crypto kind of guy.
=Smidge=
Just outlaw automatic transmissions. It's hard to do other crap while driving when you need both hands and both feet most of the time. People just might start paying attention to heir driving.
=Smidge=
Bear in mind that this is the same "Vital anti-terrorist" FISA bill that President Bush refused to sign last time when it came through without telecom immunity.
In other words, it's all about covering their ass and has little or nothing to do with actual terrorist monitoring. If it was so important for national security, why would Bush refuse to sign it without telecom immunity?
Unless I'm mistaken, all activities started before the most recent FISA bill expired on Feb 2007 are still valid for a whole year, so survielence will continue up to Feb 2008 even if this bill does not pass.
That makes this bill doubly-moot and perfectly "safe" to vote against. Unfortunately the public will never understand this.
=Smidge=
While I would also tend to vote #2 here, those two options are not mutually exclusive.
=Smidge=
The bigger problem is their definition of "obese." It appears they're using only weight and waist size as measurements, or at best BMI.
This is not a reliable way to measure obesity. It might be acceptable for general statistics but if you're going to start penalizing based on it I would expect a proper and body fat measurement to be used.
=Smidge=
The worst part is the article says "21 C" - meaning the guy who submitted this had to do extra work to make it that way.
=Smidge=
This is why air conditioners are rated using "Coefficient of Performance" or CP, rather than efficiency. You are using work to move heat, not using heat to produce work - therefore you can have greater than 100% "efficiency" without violating any laws. Heat pumps often have a CP of 1.3 or better, which might be viewed as "130% efficient."
:)
If you actually do the energy balance you'll see that the rejected heat is equal to the power input plus heat removed at the cold end. Everything balances
Regarding a water powered car, however... that's literally not possible. If you do the energy balance equation you'll see there is pretty much no latent energy in water unless you get into fusion or mixing with reactive chemicals - and with chemicals you need to "input" energy to refine them in the first place.
=Smidge=
"Fools you are who say you like to learn from your mistakes. I prefer to learn from the mistakes of others, and avoid the cost of my own".
-Otto von Bismarck
=Smidge=
Never said you couldn't, but here's the thing: The repair costs are basically amortized. $300 for a new set of tires here, $1500 for a rebuilt transmission... if you don't keep careful records eventually you end up paying more than than you would have otherwise.
And even if you see ti early, you're still lost out. You can't get a refund on the repair costs on the free car and the other car still costs $5000.
The only way to avoid this situation is to carefully do your homework beforehand. That's where rational informed decisions come in, instead of knee-jerk "yay free stuff!" decisions.
=Smidge=
Of course. That's why I put "reputable" dealer - presumably someone who isn't going to knowingly give you a lemon and will make some effort to make good on the deal if there are major problems. (Analogous to a commercial company that will support its product vs. free software without support)
=Smidge=
I think his point was that if the free tool ends up costing more in the long run then it's not really worth it. If it takes him an extra week using a FOSS tool then it only pays to make him use it if his weekly wage is less than the cost of a commercial tool. Buying the tool is essentially a one-time cost (not including new versions or license renewal, which might not apply) but lost productivity is a constant drain on resources.
In other words, the management sees "Free!" and think it saves them money but ultimately it might cost more in a non-obvious way.
Let's use the requisite car analogy: You can get a FREE used car from a friend-of-a-friend or pay $5000 for a similar used car from a reputable dealer. Which do you choose?
If you go for the free car, and it ends up needing $8000 worth of repairs over the next six months just to keep it road-worthy, maybe that $5000 car would have been a better deal.
=Smidge=
Re: recoup production costs
The major problem is greed - obvious, perhaps. Media is viewed both as a quick-return investment (expect to get your costs recovered plus profit within a few months) AND as a long-term revenue stream. Things like music and movies have long-term sales capability, which is pure profit with a digital distribution model. All they need to do is be a little more patient on their profits and reduce the long-term costs to what people are willing to pay. iTunes is a pretty good example of this, but the industry as a whole can't manage to change its business model.
Re: 'sales tax' on copying
If they're breaking the laws as they are, what makes you think they're going to report tax incomes? The only thing that will happen is everyone even remotely involved will get taxed for what a few people do.
There is also the issue of actually identifying the owner of a copyright for the purposes of reimbursement, as it has to either compensate for perceived losses (think RIAA and $5000 a song) or some other arbitrary value. It just can't be done fairly and consistently, which means it's an idea ripe for exploitation and corruption.
Besides the fact that I don't like corporate welfare to begin with... as I said, if piracy is that big a problem you probably aren't serving your market properly and you deserve to take it in the wallet.
=Smidge=
Here's the problem, though: What's the true cost of digital reproduction and distribution? Now, if we're talking physical goods you certainly have a case. It costs fractions of fractions of a penny's forth of electricity to make a copy of even large data files, and bandwidth cost aren't a huge burden either.
With software, there is really only a one-time cost of production and maybe long-term support. With music and video there is ONLY the one-time production costs.
=Smidge=
This is certainly true. However, what most people (especially business execs) rarely understand is that piracy usually indicates an unfulfilled market.
Not everyone steals for the sake of stealing. Some steal because it's the only way to get it, or at least the only way to get it in the form they want. If you find a lot of people pirate your products, then you can probably make legit customers out of most of them by altering your distribution and control methods. Carefully consider your price points too, since the true value of something is what people are willing to pay and not always what you think they should pay.
=Smidge=
Why? Let's say you had a true universal construction machine; a magic box that could make anything.
Set up your future factory and put one of these machines inside. Give it all the resources it needs and come back in a week to find two machines, then four, eight... however many you need. Once your factory has enough machines, set them to the task of building your actual product.
Self-replicating if it doesn't count unless it actually produces a copy of itself, not a pile of parts with some bits missing.
=Smidge=
FTA (emphasis mine): The materials, plus the minority of parts that the machine cannot print, cost about £300. It also does not actually assemble the parts it creates. So close and yet so far.
=Smidge=
I'm sure most people would just want their old arm back.
But honestly? If I'm getting an artificial body part I want an upgrade. Artificial arms need "Inspector Gadget" type tools built into them. artificial legs need built-in roller blades or "kangaroo boot" springs. Artificial eyes need video-in jacks, zoom and swappable IR vision filters.
I'm not sure I'd have a perfectly good body part removed for one - especially at this stage in tech - but if anything happens and I'm getting it anyway...
=Smidge=
If that's the case, they should add "paperclips" to the tech tree!
=Smidge=
Skilled Warrior is no match for my Veteran Engineer and his trusty clipboard!
(I never understood how a bomber could attack an engineer unit and lose...)
=Smidge=
Happiness is mandatory, Citizen!
Failure to be happy is treason. Treason is punishable by summary execution.
The Computer says so, and the Computer is your friend.
=Smidge=