1. What special networking services are going to be in play to keep everything in check (if any). 2. Will there be special ports left open (incoming or outgoing) for over-the-Internet verification or security checking purposes?
3. Will there be any detrimental effects for a Palladium machine that has no Internet connection? 4. Is it possible for the hardware solutions to be emulated with a mod chip/chips?
5. If Palladium is disabled to get around a problem, what happens if it is later re-enabled?
6. If using a Palladium machine to develop software, is it possible that some code will not run because of a Palladium restriction?
7. Is Bill Gates really Borg?
"If they did not, the X-box could be a real money-loser."
So What? Is it the community's fault that Microsoft is taking a loss on the X-Box hardware? No. Microsoft chose to loose money on it.
The X-Box is a well featured, robustly constructed, and fairly powerful PC at an unbeatable price. I have to admit that I have been tempted to buy one for the sole purpose of having another cheap Linux machine. Can I be at fault for using a PC as a PC just because it is called an "X-Box"? It belongs to me doesn't it?
If I decided to put $100 bills in picture frames and sell them for $50 as artwork, whose fault is it if people destroy the "art" that I sold them to get to the $100? It's my fault for not selling the artwork for what it was worth.
And it is Microsoft's fault for not selling the X-Box for what it is worth.
"Oh, wait... someone already did that. Well, that's saved me a lot of time, then!"
And my, It has worked so well.
The problem with blacklisting: 1. It easily affects large numbers of innocent people 2. It requires active participation by everyone 3. It does not stop spam
I was hoping for some creative new ideas. Is everyone of the opinion that spam is not stoppable without legislation?
Why are we happy when something that should be handled by new technology gets taken care of by the legal system? To me all it this says is that nobody is serious enough about SPAM to come up with a smart solution.
If it was your job to come up with a technological solution to SPAM, what would it be? Come on people, we don't have to sit around and wait for government action to "fix" this.
Maybe part of the solution could be a service where mail servers could freely send timestamp, IP address, and maybe checksum on the last 10 lines of incoming emails. If there is a high percentage of matches that are milliseconds apart, it's probably spam, and the service could send out "probable spam" warnings to the servers that sent the checksums. The servers could then act on the info as they please. The mail servers could delay delivery for maybe 7 minutes to see if they get a "probable spam" warning (remember, email was not designed to be an 'immediate delivery' service).
This was off the top of my head, and yes, I see numerous holes in it (legitimate mailing lists not withstanding), but this could be part of a solution in conjunction with other ideas.
Until I started following this issue I had never considered the 'length of copyright' laws, but did always wonder who had the 'rights' to classical music and Shakespeare, etc.
I have lived my entire life in a period where termination of a copyright is a non-existent thing. This situation is 'normal' to us because we have never experienced life without it. We never think to check up on if a copyright has expired so that we can make a derivative work... we just assume that we can't use it because it hasn't expired. The very idea of making a derivative work has simply become unthinkable... in a very literal sense.
We all know that tomorrow's ideas build on yesterday's. Since the wording of the constitution is apparently open to interpretation in this case, I hope the court considers the potential benefits to the populous of freeing these works. I hope the court does not find the idea 'unthinkable' just because it is the familiar status quo.
Personal aircraft will never be mainstream until they can reliably fly themselves from point 'a' to point 'b' without direct control from the passengers. If you give people control, it would be a horrible problem.
Think of all the times people break out of the confines of traffic when the opportunity presents itself. How many times have you seen people drive up an embankment to get from a slow freeway to the feeder road? How could you possibly police all of the guaranteed violations of this type? This assumes that there is some form of infrastructure to create 'sky lanes' for people to stay in. What kind of mess would there be without some form of organized lanes?
What about parking lots? How would you like to navigate the chaos of a parking lot in 3D? Would you find people in some sort of holding pattern over Woolworths so that they could make a mad dash for the "good spot" when someone takes off? Imagine an early morning commute where people do not trickle into a parking area because traffic lights limit their access, and lanes do not keep them in single file. If everyone decides to leave home at 'the perfect time' because they know exactly how long it takes them to fly to the office, then everyone who needs to be at work at 8:am will get to the parking lot at essentially the same time.
What about the noise? When was the last time you heard a quiet aircraft? I can hear a single traffic helicopter approaching from a mile away when I am in my car. Think of the decibels generated by a freeway of such noisemakers.
What about the fuel efficiency? these things have to maintain flight even at standstill. Ground vehicles do not have to expend energy to counteract gravity unless they are moving uphill. By the time automated personal flying vehicles become practical (by not allowing the occupants to break traffic laws), how efficient will ground vehicles be?
I am rarely a naysayer of future ideas, but this idea has so many impracticalities that I find it to be a no-brainer. It will be nothing more then the folley of idiots for a very long time to come.
The general public is too stupid to manuver safely in 3D.
Why does every new device come with a built in camera now?
Is it because people actually want them? Or just because it is now a really cheap feature to throw in so that you don't appear to be technologically behind your competition?
The cheapo cameras that make their way into these gadgets are treated like "hot items" at Christmas... once you show your friends that you have it, you never bother to use it again.
Slashdot Mirror
1. What special networking services are going to be in play to keep everything in check (if any).
2. Will there be special ports left open (incoming or outgoing) for over-the-Internet verification or security checking purposes?
3. Will there be any detrimental effects for a Palladium machine that has no Internet connection?
4. Is it possible for the hardware solutions to be emulated with a mod chip/chips?
5. If Palladium is disabled to get around a problem, what happens if it is later re-enabled?
6. If using a Palladium machine to develop software, is it possible that some code will not run because of a Palladium restriction?
7. Is Bill Gates really Borg?
"If they did not, the X-box could be a real money-loser."
So What? Is it the community's fault that Microsoft is taking a loss on the X-Box hardware? No. Microsoft chose to loose money on it.
The X-Box is a well featured, robustly constructed, and fairly powerful PC at an unbeatable price. I have to admit that I have been tempted to buy one for the sole purpose of having another cheap Linux machine. Can I be at fault for using a PC as a PC just because it is called an "X-Box"? It belongs to me doesn't it?
If I decided to put $100 bills in picture frames and sell them for $50 as artwork, whose fault is it if people destroy the "art" that I sold them to get to the $100? It's my fault for not selling the artwork for what it was worth.
And it is Microsoft's fault for not selling the X-Box for what it is worth.
"Oh, wait... someone already did that. Well, that's saved me a lot of time, then!"
And my, It has worked so well.
The problem with blacklisting:
1. It easily affects large numbers of innocent people
2. It requires active participation by everyone
3. It does not stop spam
I was hoping for some creative new ideas. Is everyone of the opinion that spam is not stoppable without legislation?
Why are we happy when something that should be handled by new technology gets taken care of by the legal system? To me all it this says is that nobody is serious enough about SPAM to come up with a smart solution.
If it was your job to come up with a technological solution to SPAM, what would it be? Come on people, we don't have to sit around and wait for government action to "fix" this.
Maybe part of the solution could be a service where mail servers could freely send timestamp, IP address, and maybe checksum on the last 10 lines of incoming emails. If there is a high percentage of matches that are milliseconds apart, it's probably spam, and the service could send out "probable spam" warnings to the servers that sent the checksums. The servers could then act on the info as they please. The mail servers could delay delivery for maybe 7 minutes to see if they get a "probable spam" warning (remember, email was not designed to be an 'immediate delivery' service).
This was off the top of my head, and yes, I see numerous holes in it (legitimate mailing lists not withstanding), but this could be part of a solution in conjunction with other ideas.
So, what would you suggest?
Until I started following this issue I had never considered the 'length of copyright' laws, but did always wonder who had the 'rights' to classical music and Shakespeare, etc.
I have lived my entire life in a period where termination of a copyright is a non-existent thing. This situation is 'normal' to us because we have never experienced life without it. We never think to check up on if a copyright has expired so that we can make a derivative work... we just assume that we can't use it because it hasn't expired. The very idea of making a derivative work has simply become unthinkable... in a very literal sense.
We all know that tomorrow's ideas build on yesterday's. Since the wording of the constitution is apparently open to interpretation in this case, I hope the court considers the potential benefits to the populous of freeing these works. I hope the court does not find the idea 'unthinkable' just because it is the familiar status quo.
about the creative software that is being used to aid both sides of the Israeli/Palistenian conflict. =\
"Autonomy is the purpose of conflict" -Me
I couldn't help but notice that this thing has no internal source of power. Are they not showing us the cubic foot wall wort that goes with it?
Personal aircraft will never be mainstream until they can reliably fly themselves from point 'a' to point 'b' without direct control from the passengers. If you give people control, it would be a horrible problem.
Think of all the times people break out of the confines of traffic when the opportunity presents itself. How many times have you seen people drive up an embankment to get from a slow freeway to the feeder road? How could you possibly police all of the guaranteed violations of this type? This assumes that there is some form of infrastructure to create 'sky lanes' for people to stay in. What kind of mess would there be without some form of organized lanes?
What about parking lots? How would you like to navigate the chaos of a parking lot in 3D? Would you find people in some sort of holding pattern over Woolworths so that they could make a mad dash for the "good spot" when someone takes off? Imagine an early morning commute where people do not trickle into a parking area because traffic lights limit their access, and lanes do not keep them in single file. If everyone decides to leave home at 'the perfect time' because they know exactly how long it takes them to fly to the office, then everyone who needs to be at work at 8:am will get to the parking lot at essentially the same time.
What about the noise? When was the last time you heard a quiet aircraft? I can hear a single traffic helicopter approaching from a mile away when I am in my car. Think of the decibels generated by a freeway of such noisemakers.
What about the fuel efficiency? these things have to maintain flight even at standstill. Ground vehicles do not have to expend energy to counteract gravity unless they are moving uphill. By the time automated personal flying vehicles become practical (by not allowing the occupants to break traffic laws), how efficient will ground vehicles be?
I am rarely a naysayer of future ideas, but this idea has so many impracticalities that I find it to be a no-brainer. It will be nothing more then the folley of idiots for a very long time to come.
The general public is too stupid to manuver safely in 3D.
Why does every new device come with a built in camera now?
Is it because people actually want them? Or just because it is now a really cheap feature to throw in so that you don't appear to be technologically behind your competition?
The cheapo cameras that make their way into these gadgets are treated like "hot items" at Christmas... once you show your friends that you have it, you never bother to use it again.