He quite properly did NOT take into account what 50 million people thought
Last I looked, that is 50,000,000 phones, *not* 50M people. Big difference. Our phone here = 4 people.
Now, given that we live in a democratic republic, and forgive me for being blunt, but the people behind 50M phones ARE THE LAW. I'm sorry, but that's likely well over half, perhaps over 2/3 of the country. If we want the fucking do not call list, give us the fucking do not call list. To hell with the DMA.
Nothing that Sun does short of dropping Solaris and replacing it will Linux will satisfy you.
Wrong. I don't care what Sun does. They're a for-profit company, they *should* be pushing Solaris over Linux if that's what's going to maximize shareholder value (which is their fiduciary obligation). BUT, I take offense when their knuckle-headed apologists try to convince me that Sun is our best friend.
You'd think that their backing of SCO would have made this clear to you folks, but I guess mouth-breathers don't learn easily.
Michael
Re:RTFA... old technology
on
RFID Hell
·
· Score: 1
This has nothing to do with people that I do or don't like. This has to do with a group of mentally ill people. Where did I argue that they should be let back into society? It's not worth the risk.
Re:RTFA... old technology
on
RFID Hell
·
· Score: 0
It assumes that legislation that limits the liberty of [insert class of people who are nearly universally reviled] will not be applied incrementally to [insert class of people who are only slightly less universally reviled].
Wrong. Dead fucking wrong. The problem isn't that child molesters are "universally reviled". The problem is that they are mentally ill and cannot be cured. Take some time, before you post another knuckleheaded reply, and read some of the writings of child molesters. It's scary how similar they all are, and they will tell you that they simply cannot stop themselves.
Part of the problem is that the courts administer this after they've committed a crime, so people automatically yell about "punishment". It's not. It's simply a mechanism to help keep someone who has an uncontrollable urge from acting on that urge. Remember that "acting on that urge" translates into "ruining the life of another person".
This is a unique problem, it needs a unique solution. I'll start worrying when the ACLU wants to start tracking conservatives that they don't like. I just don't see it happening.
Oh so GCC, one of the best compilers out there isn't good enough? Hell kid, I'm a Sun lover and I still think GCC is the best.
gcc is best in cross-platform support. The code that it generates sucks ass on all platforms where I've used it. Intel's own compiler produces code that is at least 10% faster on x86, for instance. I'd imagine the difference on Sparc, where instruction sequence and timing has a far larger impact, would be dramatically different.
If gcc produced such great code, Sun would use it themselves.
Does IBM give away their compiler? How about HP, or Microsoft?
Sun was the first Unix vendor to announce that they were going to not ship a C compiler with Unix. At the time (early 90's), it was expected that if you bought a Unix system, it came with a C compiler, at the time a 20 year tradition.
It's not a matter of "giving it away". If I buy a system, there's an expectation of what the basic system will have. I don't know if IBM and HP put the compiler in their base OS package, nor do I care. It's not relevant to the topic.
Besides their Linux contributions what does IBM give away?
Besides beaches, what else does Florida have?
Holy shit, do you understand what a stupid question that is? IBM employs numerous kernel developers, they've given us JFS, RCU, hell, read the SCO complaint. In addition to the great code, they provide a world-wide marketing campaign, something that helps bring a level of credibility that Linux simply didn't have before.
The real question for you Sun apologists is this: What has Sun contributed to Linux? Let's see, they jumped on the initial SCO announcement to offer Solaris from people who would be running from Linux. They've continued the indemnification FUD. They are helping to fund SCO's ongoing legal assault. They've tried to hurt Linux every step of the way. What did they do to the Blackdown team? I doubt that they employ anybody who is actually writing code for Linux, but they do employ many marketing people whose job is to discredit Linux at every turn.
At what point are you Sun apologists going to pull your heads out of your asses? I suppose the answer is "never" if you haven't done so already. Sun is no less an enemy than Microsoft, quit letting the fox into the henhouse.
Sorry to burst your little bubble, but I do admin a solaris box. It comes with a crippled C compiler that doesn't compile anything.
I'm old enough to remember the hubbub when Sun originally announced that they weren't going to ship with a C compiler as part of the base package anymore. It was a big deal, but just part of McFeely's ongoing "this is an appliance" routine.
I know all about the Sun "freeware" site, but giving me gcc is a really bad booby prize compared to their own compiler.
Say what you want, Sun does not like Free software any better than Microsoft.
"...dramatically less expensive in purchase price. How much is the nearest competitor's cheapest enterprise offering? And it doesn't come with a portal server, application server, Web server messaging, calendaring, clustering, high availability services and directory services provisioning."
Proper response: Yeah, but at least it comes with a C compiler so when I download that stuff I can actually build it...
Re:RTFA... old technology
on
RFID Hell
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
In the US, we have recognized that pedophilia (really, child molestation) is a different sort of crime. This is precisely because the crime itself is simply an outward expression of a really mentally screwed up brain. Think about it: one of the most powerful instincts- reproduction- is messed up, causing the pedophile to attempt it with a child who is incapable of such.
This isn't learned behavior, nor is it something that can be cured (that we know of). The recidivism rate for a convicted child molestor is astronomical, even compared to other criminals. And each crime that the molestor commits results in another ruined life. Look around on the internet for testimonials from former victims. They often have trouble throughout their lives.
In the US, we've responded by creating "Megan's Law", which really is a variety of state-level laws which force convicted child molestors to register with the government who keeps a public database so that people can find out if any molestors live in their neighborhood. Different versions sometimes force the police to even notify residents when a convicted molestor is going to move into their neighborhood.
This is good. There are countless stories where a child is molested, and the parents had no idea that a convicted molestor was living next door until it was too late.
This is not a slippery slope or anything like that. Child molestation is a particularly egregious crime, and the perpetrators are incurable. They're lucky to ever get out of prison, and it would be a crime to not track them and warn future potential victims of the molestor in their midst. Worry about the kids whose lives are destroyed.
These are short-term investors who don't care whether SCO ultimately wins or loses. All that matters is whether they think an even bigger sucker is going to pay them more for the stock tomorrow than they paid for it today.
Even SCO execs are selling theirs off, if they really thought they'd win against IBM they'd treat that stock like gold.
I have to admit, I blatantly stole Jamie's randomizer code. I believe his Perl code may have been a SysV derivative. Bottom line, get a $700 SCO license before running the above code. Thanks.
Great idea! However there's a bug in your example. The first two lines of the example are (btw, the courier-formatting is done with the construct):
This is the second time that I've repeated this. Read closely, we are not renaming variables consistently across the function. If we did, the addition of a variable would completely change the function.
Instead, we are naming variables with a consistent pattern per-statement. That pattern starts over on every statement. We're just looking at the general structure of the program, and this brings out the structure.
You didn't read closely enough. Variable renaming starts at the beginning again on each new line. You're right; otherwise simply adding a new variable to the program would throw the whole thing off. But you're also correct that it might not even matter to know the different variables, just getting the high-level structure may well be enough to differentiate it.
Okay, always preview and find that "pre" isn't one of your options. Let's try it again.
So, this method of identifying copied code would only work if the code had never been run through an obfuscator.
You've hit the nail on the head, possibly without knowing it. The source code needs to be run through an obfuscator *before* shredding. Actually, I'm thinking a special obfuscator, let me explain.
Let's take a piece of C source, not randomly chosen:
for (bp = mp; bp->m_size; bp++) {
if (bp->m_size >= size) {
a = bp->m_addr;
bp->m_addr =+ size;
if ((bp->m_size =- size) == 0)
do {
bp++;
(bp-1)->m_addr = bp->m_addr;
} while ((bp-1)->m_size = bp->m_size);
return(a);
}
}
return(0);
}
Now, the structure of the code is 99% of what matters. Variable names can change, but few people would change anything beyond that. Let's modify the code in a couple of important ways. First, all variable names are changed to new names, on a per-line basis. Blank lines and unneeded blanks are all removed. Each statement is on its own line, and formatting styles (such as curly bracket placement) are standardized.
malloc(a,b)
struct a *b;
{
register int a;
register struct map *b;
for (a=b;a->c;a++) {
if (a->b>= c) {
a=b->c;
a->b=+c;
if ((a->b=-c)==0)
do {
a++;
(a-1)->b=a->b;
} while ((a-1)->b=a->b);
return(a);
}
}
return(0);
}
This might not be perfect, but it should do the trick. A programmer can change variable names, spacing, or format, but as long as the code is the same, it'll match. Obviously, changing the code would have an impact, but nearly every line would have to be changed for it to not match, and in a substantial way. That's literally not always possible to even do in a way that would trick this function.
So, this method of identifying copied code would only work if the code had never been run through an obfuscator.
You've hit the nail on the head, possibly without knowing it. The source code needs to be run through an obfuscator *before* shredding. Actually, I'm thinking a special obfuscator, let me explain.
Let's take a piece of C source, not randomly chosen:
malloc(mp, size)
struct map *mp;
{
register int a;
register struct map *bp;
for (bp = mp; bp->m_size; bp++) {
if (bp->m_size >= size) {
a = bp->m_addr;
bp->m_addr =+ size;
if ((bp->m_size =- size) == 0)
do {
bp++;
(bp-1)->m_addr = bp->m_addr;
} while ((bp-1)->m_size = bp->m_size);
return(a);
}
}
return(0);
}
Now, the structure of the code is 99% of what matters. Variable names can change, but few people would change anything beyond that. Let's modify the code in a couple of important ways. First, all variable names are changed to new names, on a per-line basis. Blank lines and unneeded blanks are all removed. Each statement is on its own line, and formatting styles (such as curly bracket placement) are standardized.
malloc(a, b)
struct a *b;
{
register int a;
register struct map *b;
for (a=b;a->c;a++) {
if (a->b>= c) {
a=b->c;
a->b=+c;
if ((a->b=-c)==0)
do {
a++;
(a-1)->b=a->b;
} while ((a-1)->b=a->b);
return(a);
}
}
return(0);
}
This might not be perfect, but it should do the trick. A programmer can change variable names, spacing, or format, but as long as the code is the same, it'll match. Obviously, changing the code would have an impact, but nearly every line would have to be changed for it to not match, and in a substantial way. That's literally not always possible to even do in a way that would trick this function.
Remember, you don't have to do anything wrong to find yourselves in a position to prove your inocense.[sic]
How in the hell am I going to end up having to prove my "inocense"? I'm serious, how is that going to happen? I don't run Kazaa or anything like it, and I don't download music. I buy it if I like it.
In every case that I've read about so far, the RIAA has went after someone who had a computer that was sharing a copyrighted song. Bottom line. The only "innocent" people are those who have let someone else use their computer. Unfortunately, that's not always a valid defense. And, frankly, they need to get XP (or Linux) and not let the grandkids have the admin password.
If you're not sharing music, and none is being shared from your machine, you have nothing to worry about. Nothing. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
I'm sorry if I sound like a jerk, and I know this isn't the majority opinion here, but this needs to be said. It is WRONG to "share" your music with others online unless the copyright holder allows you to. Quit doing it and you won't have to worry about the RIAA.
While you're at it, wipe that borrowed copy of Photoshop off your Windows partition so that you don't have to worry about the BSA, also.
"It's obvious that they couldn't have discovered the secret to making silk that quickly without access to SCO's intellectual property," said Darl McBride, SCO's president. He continued, "In 1999, they were making some silk, but it was low quality. Then, suddenly, over the course of a year or so, their silk became enterprise quality. Stuff that took other people 30 years took them months."
In a move considered to be brilliant in the business world, SCO bought the patents on silk production from God in 2000 for an undisclosed sum. "We've been looking to leverage those patents ever since" said McBride.
Right now, SCO isn't planning on suing individual spiders, although they won't rule out the possibility. "We've considering going after some of the nuisance species, such as brown recluses and black widows, first," said Chris Sontag. "We've been warned by our attorneys that doing such would expose us to the possibilities of bites and nasty wounds, so it's really something we don't want to do right now."
Eric Raymond, president of the Open Silk Initiative, says that God lost protection on His silk production techniques by creating so many different species that use the intellectual property and not entering into any official licensing agreement with them. "It's a little late to be worrying about that now", said Raymond. A 1993 lawsuit regarding silk production methods also cast doubt on the validity of the patents.
Meanwhile, some spiders have openly questioned Raymonds repeated assertions that he represents them or their opinions in these matters.
Verbatim and Imation claim 30 years for their linear tape open media ("Ultrium"). 100GB for around $55. For CD-R, CD & DVD life, ANSI Committee IT-9 is developing guidelines for estimation. Manufacturers claim from 70 years to more than 200 years. Imation claims 100 years for CD & CD-R stored below 30C.
Yeah, find something to read that tape in 30 years. Find something to read those CD's in 200 years. It's not gonna happen.
One other point. Pressed CD's don't have a dye layer, which calls into suspect your entire post. They start off as a simple transparent plastic disc (I probably have one around here somewhere), they are pressed (literally) to get the indentations for the data, then they are covered with a reflective aluminum coating. It's literally aluminum metal; it's not going to degrade any time soon.
Having worked at a CD manufacturing plant for some time, let me reiterate what we already know here. The actual cost of the CD (physical media and pressing) is a negligible part of any CD-based product that you buy, whether it be a music CD or a piece of software. You could double that cost and the price of your end product might go up by a nickel. While it's true that in business we shave every cost that we can, it's not much worth bothering with that if it's going to have a big impact on the quality of the end product.
Another point is that cost is small compared to the cost of silk-screening, transport, the packaging, etc.
The manufacturers don't want built-in obselesance. The simple fact is that most of today's music has that feature aside from the media.
I've yet to have problems with CD's, even ones that the kids are abusing. Are you?
Slashdot Mirror
He quite properly did NOT take into account what 50 million people thought
Last I looked, that is 50,000,000 phones, *not* 50M people. Big difference. Our phone here = 4 people.
Now, given that we live in a democratic republic, and forgive me for being blunt, but the people behind 50M phones ARE THE LAW. I'm sorry, but that's likely well over half, perhaps over 2/3 of the country. If we want the fucking do not call list, give us the fucking do not call list. To hell with the DMA.
Nothing that Sun does short of dropping Solaris and replacing it will Linux will satisfy you.
Wrong. I don't care what Sun does. They're a for-profit company, they *should* be pushing Solaris over Linux if that's what's going to maximize shareholder value (which is their fiduciary obligation). BUT, I take offense when their knuckle-headed apologists try to convince me that Sun is our best friend.
You'd think that their backing of SCO would have made this clear to you folks, but I guess mouth-breathers don't learn easily.
Michael
This has nothing to do with people that I do or don't like. This has to do with a group of mentally ill people. Where did I argue that they should be let back into society? It's not worth the risk.
It assumes that legislation that limits the liberty of [insert class of people who are nearly universally reviled] will not be applied incrementally to [insert class of people who are only slightly less universally reviled].
Wrong. Dead fucking wrong. The problem isn't that child molesters are "universally reviled". The problem is that they are mentally ill and cannot be cured. Take some time, before you post another knuckleheaded reply, and read some of the writings of child molesters. It's scary how similar they all are, and they will tell you that they simply cannot stop themselves.
Part of the problem is that the courts administer this after they've committed a crime, so people automatically yell about "punishment". It's not. It's simply a mechanism to help keep someone who has an uncontrollable urge from acting on that urge. Remember that "acting on that urge" translates into "ruining the life of another person".
This is a unique problem, it needs a unique solution. I'll start worrying when the ACLU wants to start tracking conservatives that they don't like. I just don't see it happening.
Michael
Just pray that they don't get any of the Newton's marketers...
Oh so GCC, one of the best compilers out there isn't good enough? Hell kid, I'm a Sun lover and I still think GCC is the best.
gcc is best in cross-platform support. The code that it generates sucks ass on all platforms where I've used it. Intel's own compiler produces code that is at least 10% faster on x86, for instance. I'd imagine the difference on Sparc, where instruction sequence and timing has a far larger impact, would be dramatically different.
If gcc produced such great code, Sun would use it themselves.
Does IBM give away their compiler? How about HP, or Microsoft?
Sun was the first Unix vendor to announce that they were going to not ship a C compiler with Unix. At the time (early 90's), it was expected that if you bought a Unix system, it came with a C compiler, at the time a 20 year tradition.
It's not a matter of "giving it away". If I buy a system, there's an expectation of what the basic system will have. I don't know if IBM and HP put the compiler in their base OS package, nor do I care. It's not relevant to the topic.
Besides their Linux contributions what does IBM give away?
Besides beaches, what else does Florida have?
Holy shit, do you understand what a stupid question that is? IBM employs numerous kernel developers, they've given us JFS, RCU, hell, read the SCO complaint. In addition to the great code, they provide a world-wide marketing campaign, something that helps bring a level of credibility that Linux simply didn't have before.
The real question for you Sun apologists is this: What has Sun contributed to Linux? Let's see, they jumped on the initial SCO announcement to offer Solaris from people who would be running from Linux. They've continued the indemnification FUD. They are helping to fund SCO's ongoing legal assault. They've tried to hurt Linux every step of the way. What did they do to the Blackdown team? I doubt that they employ anybody who is actually writing code for Linux, but they do employ many marketing people whose job is to discredit Linux at every turn.
At what point are you Sun apologists going to pull your heads out of your asses? I suppose the answer is "never" if you haven't done so already. Sun is no less an enemy than Microsoft, quit letting the fox into the henhouse.
Michael
Sorry to burst your little bubble, but I do admin a solaris box. It comes with a crippled C compiler that doesn't compile anything.
I'm old enough to remember the hubbub when Sun originally announced that they weren't going to ship with a C compiler as part of the base package anymore. It was a big deal, but just part of McFeely's ongoing "this is an appliance" routine.
I know all about the Sun "freeware" site, but giving me gcc is a really bad booby prize compared to their own compiler.
Say what you want, Sun does not like Free software any better than Microsoft.
"...dramatically less expensive in purchase price. How much is the nearest competitor's cheapest enterprise offering? And it doesn't come with a portal server, application server, Web server messaging, calendaring, clustering, high availability services and directory services provisioning."
Proper response: Yeah, but at least it comes with a C compiler so when I download that stuff I can actually build it...
In the US, we have recognized that pedophilia (really, child molestation) is a different sort of crime. This is precisely because the crime itself is simply an outward expression of a really mentally screwed up brain. Think about it: one of the most powerful instincts- reproduction- is messed up, causing the pedophile to attempt it with a child who is incapable of such.
This isn't learned behavior, nor is it something that can be cured (that we know of). The recidivism rate for a convicted child molestor is astronomical, even compared to other criminals. And each crime that the molestor commits results in another ruined life. Look around on the internet for testimonials from former victims. They often have trouble throughout their lives.
In the US, we've responded by creating "Megan's Law", which really is a variety of state-level laws which force convicted child molestors to register with the government who keeps a public database so that people can find out if any molestors live in their neighborhood. Different versions sometimes force the police to even notify residents when a convicted molestor is going to move into their neighborhood.
This is good. There are countless stories where a child is molested, and the parents had no idea that a convicted molestor was living next door until it was too late.
This is not a slippery slope or anything like that. Child molestation is a particularly egregious crime, and the perpetrators are incurable. They're lucky to ever get out of prison, and it would be a crime to not track them and warn future potential victims of the molestor in their midst. Worry about the kids whose lives are destroyed.
These are short-term investors who don't care whether SCO ultimately wins or loses. All that matters is whether they think an even bigger sucker is going to pay them more for the stock tomorrow than they paid for it today.
Even SCO execs are selling theirs off, if they really thought they'd win against IBM they'd treat that stock like gold.
perl -n -e 's#([a-z])([a-z]+)([a-z])#my %tt; my @w=split(//,$2); foreach (@w)
{ $tt{$_} = rand; } @w = sort { $tt{$a} $tt{$b}; } @w; $1.join("",@w).$3;#ieg; print;'
(watch line wrap)
I have to admit, I blatantly stole Jamie's randomizer code. I believe his Perl code may have been a SysV derivative. Bottom line, get a $700 SCO license before running the above code. Thanks.
Michael
Dali describes Walt Disney as one of America's greatest surrealists...
Watch the dream sequence in the Winnie the Pooh movie if you don't believe this.
Great idea! However there's a bug in your example. The first two lines of the example are (btw, the courier-formatting is done with the construct):
This is the second time that I've repeated this. Read closely, we are not renaming variables consistently across the function. If we did, the addition of a variable would completely change the function.
Instead, we are naming variables with a consistent pattern per-statement. That pattern starts over on every statement. We're just looking at the general structure of the program, and this brings out the structure.
You didn't read closely enough. Variable renaming starts at the beginning again on each new line. You're right; otherwise simply adding a new variable to the program would throw the whole thing off. But you're also correct that it might not even matter to know the different variables, just getting the high-level structure may well be enough to differentiate it.
All stuff to consider.
Okay, always preview and find that "pre" isn't one of your options. Let's try it again.
So, this method of identifying copied code would only work if the code had never been run through an obfuscator.
You've hit the nail on the head, possibly without knowing it. The source code needs to be run through an obfuscator *before* shredding. Actually, I'm thinking a special obfuscator, let me explain.
Let's take a piece of C source, not randomly chosen:
No idea how to format this in slashdot:
malloc(mp, size)
Now, the structure of the code is 99% of what matters. Variable names can change, but few people would change anything beyond that. Let's modify the code in a couple of important ways. First, all variable names are changed to new names, on a per-line basis. Blank lines and unneeded blanks are all removed. Each statement is on its own line, and formatting styles (such as curly bracket placement) are standardized.struct map *mp;
{
register int a;
register struct map *bp;
for (bp = mp; bp->m_size; bp++) {
if (bp->m_size >= size) {
a = bp->m_addr;
bp->m_addr =+ size;
if ((bp->m_size =-
size) == 0)
do {
bp++;
(bp-1)->m_addr = bp->m_addr;
} while ((bp-1)->m_size = bp->m_size);
return(a);
}
}
return(0);
}
malloc(a,b)
struct a *b;
{
register int a;
register struct map *b;
for (a=b;a->c;a++) {
if (a->b>= c) {
a=b->c;
a->b=+c;
if ((a->b=-c)==0)
do {
a++;
(a-1)->b=a->b;
} while ((a-1)->b=a->b);
return(a);
}
}
return(0);
}
This might not be perfect, but it should do the trick. A programmer can change variable names, spacing, or format, but as long as the code is the same, it'll match. Obviously, changing the code would have an impact, but nearly every line would have to be changed for it to not match, and in a substantial way. That's literally not always possible to even do in a way that would trick this function.
Anyone want to write it?
Michael
So, this method of identifying copied code would only work if the code had never been run through an obfuscator.
You've hit the nail on the head, possibly without knowing it. The source code needs to be run through an obfuscator *before* shredding. Actually, I'm thinking a special obfuscator, let me explain.
Let's take a piece of C source, not randomly chosen:
malloc(mp, size) struct map *mp; { register int a; register struct map *bp; for (bp = mp; bp->m_size; bp++) { if (bp->m_size >= size) { a = bp->m_addr; bp->m_addr =+ size; if ((bp->m_size =- size) == 0) do { bp++; (bp-1)->m_addr = bp->m_addr; } while ((bp-1)->m_size = bp->m_size); return(a); } } return(0); } Now, the structure of the code is 99% of what matters. Variable names can change, but few people would change anything beyond that. Let's modify the code in a couple of important ways. First, all variable names are changed to new names, on a per-line basis. Blank lines and unneeded blanks are all removed. Each statement is on its own line, and formatting styles (such as curly bracket placement) are standardized. malloc(a, b) struct a *b; { register int a; register struct map *b; for (a=b;a->c;a++) { if (a->b>= c) { a=b->c; a->b=+c; if ((a->b=-c)==0) do { a++; (a-1)->b=a->b; } while ((a-1)->b=a->b); return(a); } } return(0); }This might not be perfect, but it should do the trick. A programmer can change variable names, spacing, or format, but as long as the code is the same, it'll match. Obviously, changing the code would have an impact, but nearly every line would have to be changed for it to not match, and in a substantial way. That's literally not always possible to even do in a way that would trick this function.
Anyone want to write it?
Michael
Any way to mod someone up to, like, 50?
Remember, you don't have to do anything wrong to find yourselves in a position to prove your inocense.[sic]
How in the hell am I going to end up having to prove my "inocense"? I'm serious, how is that going to happen? I don't run Kazaa or anything like it, and I don't download music. I buy it if I like it.
In every case that I've read about so far, the RIAA has went after someone who had a computer that was sharing a copyrighted song. Bottom line. The only "innocent" people are those who have let someone else use their computer. Unfortunately, that's not always a valid defense. And, frankly, they need to get XP (or Linux) and not let the grandkids have the admin password.
If you're not sharing music, and none is being shared from your machine, you have nothing to worry about. Nothing. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
I'm sorry if I sound like a jerk, and I know this isn't the majority opinion here, but this needs to be said. It is WRONG to "share" your music with others online unless the copyright holder allows you to. Quit doing it and you won't have to worry about the RIAA.
While you're at it, wipe that borrowed copy of Photoshop off your Windows partition so that you don't have to worry about the BSA, also.
Imagine you have $10 and someone wins a lawsuit against you, and the award is a penny. That's how badly this is going to hurt Microsoft.
You'd have to cripple the entire operating system while the document is open.
Now that would be a tough one for Microsoft to pull off...
"It's obvious that they couldn't have discovered the secret to making silk that quickly without access to SCO's intellectual property," said Darl McBride, SCO's president. He continued, "In 1999, they were making some silk, but it was low quality. Then, suddenly, over the course of a year or so, their silk became enterprise quality. Stuff that took other people 30 years took them months."
In a move considered to be brilliant in the business world, SCO bought the patents on silk production from God in 2000 for an undisclosed sum. "We've been looking to leverage those patents ever since" said McBride.
Right now, SCO isn't planning on suing individual spiders, although they won't rule out the possibility. "We've considering going after some of the nuisance species, such as brown recluses and black widows, first," said Chris Sontag. "We've been warned by our attorneys that doing such would expose us to the possibilities of bites and nasty wounds, so it's really something we don't want to do right now."
Eric Raymond, president of the Open Silk Initiative, says that God lost protection on His silk production techniques by creating so many different species that use the intellectual property and not entering into any official licensing agreement with them. "It's a little late to be worrying about that now", said Raymond. A 1993 lawsuit regarding silk production methods also cast doubt on the validity of the patents.
Meanwhile, some spiders have openly questioned Raymonds repeated assertions that he represents them or their opinions in these matters.
Linux kernel. 2.4.22 was released early this morning and includes a lengthy list of fixes.
all of which came from SCO's massive Pool of Intellectual Property.
Verbatim and Imation claim 30 years for their linear tape open media ("Ultrium"). 100GB for around $55. For CD-R, CD & DVD life, ANSI Committee IT-9 is developing guidelines for estimation. Manufacturers claim from 70 years to more than 200 years. Imation claims 100 years for CD & CD-R stored below 30C.
Yeah, find something to read that tape in 30 years. Find something to read those CD's in 200 years. It's not gonna happen.
One other point. Pressed CD's don't have a dye layer, which calls into suspect your entire post. They start off as a simple transparent plastic disc (I probably have one around here somewhere), they are pressed (literally) to get the indentations for the data, then they are covered with a reflective aluminum coating. It's literally aluminum metal; it's not going to degrade any time soon.
Michael
Having worked at a CD manufacturing plant for some time, let me reiterate what we already know here. The actual cost of the CD (physical media and pressing) is a negligible part of any CD-based product that you buy, whether it be a music CD or a piece of software. You could double that cost and the price of your end product might go up by a nickel. While it's true that in business we shave every cost that we can, it's not much worth bothering with that if it's going to have a big impact on the quality of the end product.
Another point is that cost is small compared to the cost of silk-screening, transport, the packaging, etc.
The manufacturers don't want built-in obselesance. The simple fact is that most of today's music has that feature aside from the media.
I've yet to have problems with CD's, even ones that the kids are abusing. Are you?