This kit uses a laser diode, not a NeNe laser. As far as I know the laser diodes just aren't as good. Yes, laser diodes have a much shorter coherence length than HeNe's, in the order of 10-20cm whereas a HeNe can easily reach coherence lengths in the tens of kilometers range. The coherence length of a light source determines the maximum path length difference between two beams for which you can still get interference.
It is important for holography since the whole process relies on interfering two beams in the plane of the holographic plate.
But if you carefully adjust the path lengths of both the object and the reference beam (by putting delay lines into your setup - you can simply build them out of two additional mirrors, for example...), you can surely make holograms out of small objects with a diode laser.
Hey, nice to see other people thinking about similar things! Only here on/.:)
My idea I am pondering about is that many people get a store-and-forwarder box (the size of a cellular phone maybe), which has a - a message entry pad - a small LC display
and contains
- an infrared sending diode and - a receiver for IR remotes (TSOP17xx - really cheap ~50ct). - And a standard, low cost 8 bit uC (ATMega or similar) plus - additional SRAM (for storing and forwarding messages)
The network links would be very slow (a few 100bps), but the advantage of using IR remote receivers over IRDA is that they are quite sensitive. Using a better IR diode, on can get tens of meters range with zero bit errors and with an error correcting code running on the nodes, on could certainly achieve even better ranges. The uC should be able to also handle strong encryption (because it has to be done only once for each message...)
The technical difficulties probably lie in implementing an efficient routing protocol.
Though, the biggest problems with such an approach probably are: 1. the geek density is far too low in the population 2. SMS and similar things are cheap enough for most people
Maybe some people should gather and invent such a thing as a combined open-source/open-hardware project on sourceforge? I'm all for it!:-)
BTW: I'm a bit disappointed about some of the other replies here discouraging the idea. Where is the enthusiasm?
No. Your parent is right. And it should be modded up!
If you check it carefully, you can run PC and maybe also monitor (depends) power supplies from DC. I would NOT do that, though. 250V DC from batteries with their big maximum current is REALLY dangerous.
[...] constant steady-state flux in the transformer (DC in the primary coil) [...] Transformers only work with AC. You have a time differential in the equations, with pure DC and a real-world transformer, you won't transform anything except electrical energy into lots of heat:)
ACK. People TOO OFTEN compare C++ to C. But C++ IS NOT C.
It's funny to see how C# and Java converge more and more to C++. Things like properties may be added to the language in C#, but you can do them with templates in C++. Without changing the language. A great thing for _portability_ and _stability_ of your designs. No Java 1.0,1.1,1.2.3.4.5.6xxx. (Sorry for being polemic, but I have yet to see how changing the language every couple years adds anything to portability or stability - too often I had to download some specific set of libraries or JRE)
For C++, I have either a commercial, statically linked binary (works out of the box) or OSS which I can compile with my choice of C++ compiler.
Granted, you have some nice additional features by using a VM (easier reflection comes to mind), but that is also doable in C++. And you have the whole platform with all the libraries at hand (not that they do not exist in the C++-World, not at all, there are many libraries to choose for a certain task). Therefore, Stroustrup et al. concentrate on the library part of C++.
The marketing department of Sun apparently did their job very well. By inventing a whole new platform and praising it as the best thing since the invention of the computer, they lured many developers into their platform and now they are spread all over/. and dominate the opinion:)
But the arguments they put forward for Java could be reduced to the VM part. A VM for C++, and this is no problem in principle, would have sufficed. But the JVM is specifically tailored to Java, i.e. it is hard to run C++ on the JVM.
And... I have yet so see someone who is proficient in C++ (not C!) but not Java or C#. If you master C++, you master them all.
True. But I think the point of at least some/.ers is that it would be better if the RIAA people get other jobs instead. I believe most of the anger here is against the RIAA's top execs (who are deemed responsible for their tactics), not the "usual employee".
As you could be pro-outsourcing (because you think it's better for society as a whole) but worried about the people who lose their jobs.
And the gnome devs. managed to scare users away because their UI decisions got rather arrogant. They removed the "Undo" button (amongst others) because (not the original wording, but surely close enough) "it is easy enough to undo simple changes by hand". Removing features after a release should be done carefully and may (IMHO) only be done if
a) the feature is available as a separate package then or b) other parts of the application include the feature
Mod me flamebait for it, I was a gnome user but I'm now (since 3-4 months) using KDE. And everything works!
I still like writing GTKMM code more than writing QT GUI code(*). Hopefully, GTK doesn't disappear together with GNOME just because it is the underlying toolkit.
When evolving marketplace dynamics make the RIAA business model unprofitable, that's just fine with slashdotters.
When evolcing marketplace dynamics make it unprofitable to hire programmers in the U.S., slashdotters are up in arms, demanding government intervention.
I think you should differentiate between 'the RIAA' and 'the RIAA's employees' as well as 'the software companies' and 'IT worker'! A corporation is not a human being.
Maybe it went like this: The UK company just saw the faxed (or otherwise transmitted) FBI message, was scared, pulled the plugs of the servers and put all the things together into a transatlantic parcel?
IANAL and I'm not british or american, but I don't think the provider would have the right to do that in the UK. But maybe it simply happened that way.
Soooo.... you're the moral and legal arbiter of when copyright infringement is okay and when it's not, just because you say so? It stated my _opinion_ as everyone does on/. Do you state the absolute truth here?
Call me crazy, but I don't think the copyright laws make any such distinction. True, but OTOH, I don't take the law as moral advice. Do you? If you do, I can't imagine how you could discuss changes in law or that the law is unjust because it HAS to be right because it IS the law.
Are you suggesting that the company's business model being potentially underminded by illegal activity is less important than a greasy hippie's bragging rights? I value people more than corporations, true. Now, I hear you thinking "but the company consists of people owning it. Maybe even some really poor people whose only property are some music industry shares. They may exist, true.". But I'm still convinced that harsh copyright laws don't do anything good to overall economic growth or the society.
You fail it. You failt it miserably. If you continue to argue with me, your failure will only be compounded. Ahh, the fine art of rational argument. What is this? FUD?
The point I was trying to make (sorry if that is unclear because my english is too bad:) is that things have gone too far if the music industry has to right to reveal the IP like law enforcement does for _much heavier crimes_. If you agree with that, ok, it's your opinion (and a popular one). But IMHO, the right to have privacy is much more valuable than the right of the media industry to sell a few CDs more (if they would do at all!).
What do you say about WiFi p2p? Where does one cross the border of fair use copyright infringement in your opinion?
Mod me down for this, but: It is not okay for you to use a GPL'ed piece of code without GPL'ing it because this goes against the wishes of the creators and owners of the content in question. The difference is that GPL-infringing people want to make money out of GPL'ed software. File sharers don't want to make a buck out of the files they share. If they do, they should be punished.
It is okay to sue or threaten to sue people for the above mentioned infringement of the GPL license because it is important to protect the coder's rights and not set a precedent of ignoring violations. So you compare suing, as a single developer or a small group of 3-4 people, a company with employed lawyers because they make money out of your product to the crackdown on school/college students by a billon megacorp.? Because they shared a bunch of files?
Of course, many file sharers are hypocritical. But that doesn't make these two of your arguments valid.
IMHO, the solution are media fees. See also my other post in this thread.
I would like to have another solution. One that respects the privacy of us damned citizens. Fees on recordable media, computers and/or internet connections etc. With an exemption for those who can prove that they don't use their computer for such activities.
I know, some of you know scream "bloody hell. This is unjust because I do not copy music illegally!". But what is more invasive? The RIAAs right to listen in each and every of your private conversations or the right of the industry to collect "taxes", but your privacy remains intact?
The problem I have with this is that the music/movie industry acts like a police, equipped with rights like the real police. And more "rights" have to be granted to the industry if file sharing should be stopped. See:
Maybe it's ok to file a lawsuit if one publishes "stolen" music on a website, complete with his/her name and contact address. I personally would have no problem with that. You are willingly publishing your information.
Therefore, people move to filesharing tools. As you all know, filesharing tools do not publish your contact data in the traditional sense. Those tools which are in use now only publish your IP.
The outcome? The industry gets the right to reverse map your IP to your address by asking the ISP. For making available copyrighted work. Not because you hacked into their computer or similar things. Without the police in the middle. For me, a border has been crossed and it shouldn't. Maybe you feel it is ok.
But the next step follows... people go to half-anonymous filesharing tools like Ant or Mute-Net. The result? The right owners acquire access to the wiretap interface soon to be implemented in the name of cybercrime prevention. Such interfaces are being put in place now, at least here in the EU (germany).
Finally people go to very-hard-to-observe tools like freenet (it will surely get more usable as more people use it and work on it). Or use WiFi p2p. Or f2f p2p (CD exchange). The solution? Outlawing such tools? Demanding WiFi wiretaps and weak encryption by law? To prevent copying of movies, music or software? WTF??
The other path would be (intrusive) DRM. IMHO, not a good idea, either.
If you believe in fair use rights, i.e. the occasional copy of a music title for your friend by burning a compact disc, you probably also believe that this would be ok if the friend is your neighbour and you beam the file to him/her by WiFi. Now, if both of you use filesharing tools over WiFi, you'd probably say that this is not ok. But where to draw the line? More importantly, how? By whom? Without massive invasion of privacy?
I clearly favor fees and a happy media industry which doesn't enter my living room from all sides.
The sad thing, at least here in germany is, that one has to pay fees on recorders and media but may not (because of reworked copyright laws) copy copy-protected media.
RANT: IMHO, the media industry's propaganda finally reached the goal that people do not think about alternative solutions, even here on slashdot!
Even more effective and interesting would be to put up encrypted ZIP files of random data with "interesting filenames" and the right file length. Without revealing the password.
Is there any reason why this may not be allowed? [In both the EU (where I live) or the US?]
I would like to have a good lawyer as a friend before doing that, though.
As a german, I think I have to clear these things up a bit.
Your grandparent is talking about nuclear weapons and not WMD in general, I think. I'm not sure if there were agreements (forced or not) that germany may not build WMDs after WW1 (chemical/biological).
Germany indeed agreed to not build nuclear weapons after WW2. There were unsuccessfull tries to acquire some of them by the first bundeskanzler (chancellor) Konrad Adenauer, though.
Remember, nukes were invented and developed during WWII. During or short after WWI, nuclear weapons were at most far-away science fiction.
The fission of uranium atoms was discovered in 1938, just a few years before the detonation of the first bomb.
Before that, people only knew from the heat emitted by the decay of e.g. radium and the incredible amount of energy released in this process. It was known at this time that this amount was probably related to the giant forces to keep the charges in a nucleus together (if one made the assumption that the nucleus consisted of several positive charges). And it was speculated if this energy could be tapped and willingly released in future times. But not much more was known.
I want trusted computing chips in my PC. Really. But I want to have control and knowledge of each and every key and data which is contained in it. I do not want to buy a black box which I may not open. TCPA in the current implementation is like selling you a microwave oven but denying you access to the tools for opening it (because that could cause EMI, and you may not operate an illegal transmitter - compare this to illegally copying software). But I am a ham radio operator. I even have the right to use the magnetron of a microwave to use for experiments in the field. Not to speak of the oven's transformer as a paper weight if I please to do so.
Remember the time when Nintendo used TR "tamper resist" torx screws for the cases of their consoles? OMG, I was so pissed. This arrogance. I have every right to tamper with my own equipment.
Of course, making all keys accessible would defeat the usage of TCPA as a DRM enforcement tool, and that would be good!
We consumers have the right (at least in the EU) to know the ingredients of the food we buy. We should also have to right to know the key (pairs) contained in our TCPA chips we buy!
As a sidenote: I have read figures that building a nuclear plant produces more CO2 then it later saves during its energy production time (mining and enriching fuels, transportation of building materials, fuel and waste, storage of waste, security activities during transportation etc.) This is a non-argument since you can use the released electrical energy from a nuclear power plant to power the machines to build new ones or to (re)process the fuel!
I actually believe that music must and should be free. In fact, all information should be free. I hope (and I also think) that you do not include privately exchanged emails and similar things in your definition of information:-)
Instead of your model of completely abolishing copyright, I would rather like to see a somewhat smaller change: Abolishment of copyright law concerning private, IMHO "fair" use. Do whatever you wish with your software, your music etc., share it by p2p, WiFi-p2p, f2f, whatever. Reverse engineer it.
But don't sell it for profit in public. Of course noone can deny that there would be somewhat grey areas (e.g. flea markets).
Leave the copyright as it is in the B2B area. Companies have and should have no right to "privacy" about what is installed on their computers.
And, yes, I'm sure many people would still buy music and video games, just for the shiny package and the printed manual. At moderate prices.
After all, privacy is a _much more_ fundamental right than the ability to control copies by some media conglomerates (or even greedy individuals). Somehow, this argument got lost in the whole discussion about copyright. I think, Mute, Freenet etc. will inevitably drive the discussion into this direction. You'd have to outlaw such tools to control copyright violations. Or you need mandatory, wide-spread DRM.
If one is pessimistic (I'm somewhat), there may be no discussion in society at all (supressed by those who have the power).
Here in germany, it's actually a quite "funny" situation. Everyone has to pay substantial fees on PCs, DVD/CD recorders, media etc. to compensate the (registered) authors for losses by such fair use copies but since some recent changes in copyright law, it is not allowed to copy copy-protected media.
Maybe those poor helpless men, women and children should stop stealing then.
It's interesting and sad how the general opinion even on/. changed due to the media industry's worldwide propaganda.
I still think it is not the business of the government or some company if citizens **privately** exchange information with each other.
PS. Rant: Not paying taxes (Eek, government invasion, MY PRIVATE PROPERTY!) seems to be a more important issue for many people here. As if wiretapping into your privacy by the government isn't much more invasive.
OMG. +5 Insightful. I have to do something about it.
Increasing signal cannot and would not provide you with more bandwidth. It might help you overcome noise thus maximizing your current maximum capacity. But increasing signal also increases the possiblity of reflections which in turn increases noise.
No. And yes for the last part. But this is not the whole truth.
Did you know that Maxwell's equations were *linear*? I.e. if you increase the output power by a certain factor, you increase the received power by the same factor if all else parameters (location etc.) are constant. Interference patterns (your described noise) don't change their form. The signal increases and also the amount of noise *caused by scattering*. All else noise powers stay the same (noise in the receiver electronics, noise from electric switches/lightnings etc). So the overall SNR gets better -> the datarate gets better. Of course, there are limiting factors. I.e. too strong sources may overshine weaker ones in a WLAN setting our you may just see all the nodes of every WLAN in a city (thereby decreasing bandwidth). There's an optimum. Directional antennas help in this case.
Or do you want to say that you have to take non-linearity in vacuum or materials (i.e. air/concrete) into the equation? Hello?! We're not talking about 511keV photons creating electrons/positrons or polarising frequency multiplier crystals with lasers or similar stuff.
And there is this guy, who not only build his own computer but also build his own CPU (from TTL chips). The one you're mentioning in the article uses a 6502 (not that it dequalifies it as a "selfmade computer").
And he also ported the uIP IP stack to it, i.e. it can be run as a webserver.
Slashdot Mirror
This kit uses a laser diode, not a NeNe laser. As far as I know the laser diodes just aren't as good.
Yes, laser diodes have a much shorter coherence length than HeNe's, in the order of 10-20cm whereas a HeNe can easily reach coherence lengths in the tens of kilometers range.
The coherence length of a light source determines the maximum path length difference between two beams for which you can still get interference.
It is important for holography since the whole process relies on interfering two beams in the plane of the holographic plate.
But if you carefully adjust the path lengths of both the object and the reference beam (by putting delay lines into your setup - you can simply build them out of two additional mirrors, for example...), you can surely make holograms out of small objects with a diode laser.
Hey, nice to see other people thinking about similar things! Only here on /. :)
:-)
My idea I am pondering about is that many people get a store-and-forwarder box (the size of a cellular phone maybe), which has a
- a message entry pad
- a small LC display
and contains
- an infrared sending diode and
- a receiver for IR remotes (TSOP17xx - really cheap ~50ct).
- And a standard, low cost 8 bit uC (ATMega or similar) plus
- additional SRAM (for storing and forwarding messages)
The network links would be very slow (a few 100bps), but the advantage of using IR remote receivers over IRDA is that they are quite sensitive. Using a better IR diode, on can get tens of meters range with zero bit errors and with an error correcting code running on the nodes, on could certainly achieve even better ranges.
The uC should be able to also handle strong encryption (because it has to be done only once for each message...)
The technical difficulties probably lie in implementing an efficient routing protocol.
Though, the biggest problems with such an approach probably are:
1. the geek density is far too low in the population
2. SMS and similar things are cheap enough for most people
Maybe some people should gather and invent such a thing as a combined open-source/open-hardware project on sourceforge? I'm all for it!
BTW: I'm a bit disappointed about some of the other replies here discouraging the idea. Where is the enthusiasm?
No. Your parent is right. And it should be modded up!
:)
If you check it carefully, you can run PC and maybe also monitor (depends) power supplies from DC.
I would NOT do that, though. 250V DC from batteries with their big maximum current is REALLY dangerous.
[...] constant steady-state flux in the transformer (DC in the primary coil) [...]
Transformers only work with AC. You have a time differential in the equations, with pure DC and a real-world transformer, you won't transform anything except electrical energy into lots of heat
Hey, I was looking down the thread and thought about writing a similar post.
:)
But I could have never done that with my poor english as well as you did. Your post is reall great!
Studying physics myself, I have now bookmarked it in my folder of slashdot gems
Even as a german who has never been in/around seattle, I know that!
:-)
Why? It's the two-headed squirrel that lives in a cave in this rock!
ACK.
/. and dominate the opinion :)
People TOO OFTEN compare C++ to C. But C++ IS NOT C.
It's funny to see how C# and Java converge more and more to C++. Things like properties may be added to the language in C#, but you can do them with templates in C++. Without changing the language. A great thing for _portability_ and _stability_ of your designs. No Java 1.0,1.1,1.2.3.4.5.6xxx. (Sorry for being polemic, but I have yet to see how changing the language every couple years adds anything to portability or stability - too often I had to download some specific set of libraries or JRE)
For C++, I have either a commercial, statically linked binary (works out of the box) or OSS which I can compile with my choice of C++ compiler.
Granted, you have some nice additional features by using a VM (easier reflection comes to mind), but that is also doable in C++. And you have the whole platform with all the libraries at hand (not that they do not exist in the C++-World, not at all, there are many libraries to choose for a certain task). Therefore, Stroustrup et al. concentrate on the library part of C++.
The marketing department of Sun apparently did their job very well. By inventing a whole new platform and praising it as the best thing since the invention of the computer, they lured many developers into their platform and now they are
spread all over
But the arguments they put forward for Java could be reduced to the VM part. A VM for C++, and this is no problem in principle, would have sufficed. But the JVM is specifically tailored to Java, i.e. it is hard to run C++ on the JVM.
And... I have yet so see someone who is proficient in C++ (not C!) but not Java or C#. If you master C++, you master them all.
True. But I think the point of at least some /.ers is that it would be better if the RIAA people get other jobs instead.
I believe most of the anger here is against the RIAA's top execs (who are deemed responsible for their tactics), not the "usual employee".
As you could be pro-outsourcing (because you think it's better for society as a whole) but worried about the people who lose their jobs.
No, not that undo.
The undo in configuration dialogs.
Maybe they added it back in 2.6, the last gnome I used was 2.4.something.
ACK.
:)
And the gnome devs. managed to scare users away because their UI decisions got rather arrogant.
They removed the "Undo" button (amongst others) because (not the original wording, but surely close enough) "it is easy enough to undo simple changes by hand". Removing features after a release should be done carefully and may (IMHO) only be done if
a) the feature is available as a separate package then
or b) other parts of the application include the feature
Mod me flamebait for it, I was a gnome user but I'm now (since 3-4 months) using KDE. And everything works!
I still like writing GTKMM code more than writing QT GUI code(*). Hopefully, GTK doesn't disappear together with GNOME just because it is the underlying toolkit.
(*) - not that I like writing GUI code at all
When evolving marketplace dynamics make the RIAA business model unprofitable, that's just fine with slashdotters.
When evolcing marketplace dynamics make it unprofitable to hire programmers in the U.S., slashdotters are up in arms, demanding government intervention.
I think you should differentiate between 'the RIAA' and 'the RIAA's employees' as well as 'the software companies' and 'IT worker'!
A corporation is not a human being.
Maybe it went like this:
The UK company just saw the faxed (or otherwise transmitted) FBI message, was scared, pulled the plugs of the servers and put all the things together into a transatlantic parcel?
IANAL and I'm not british or american, but I don't think the provider would have the right to do that in the UK. But maybe it simply happened that way.
Soooo.... you're the moral and legal arbiter of when copyright infringement is okay and when it's not, just because you say so? /. Do you state the absolute truth here?
It stated my _opinion_ as everyone does on
Call me crazy, but I don't think the copyright laws make any such distinction.
True, but OTOH, I don't take the law as moral advice. Do you? If you do, I can't imagine how you could discuss changes in law or that the law is unjust because it HAS to be right because it IS the law.
Are you suggesting that the company's business model being potentially underminded by illegal activity is less important than a greasy hippie's bragging rights?
I value people more than corporations, true. Now, I hear you thinking "but the company consists of people owning it. Maybe even some really poor people whose only property are some music industry shares. They may exist, true.". But I'm still convinced that harsh copyright laws don't do anything good to overall economic growth or the society.
You fail it. You failt it miserably. If you continue to argue with me, your failure will only be compounded.
Ahh, the fine art of rational argument. What is this? FUD?
The point I was trying to make (sorry if that is unclear because my english is too bad :) is that things have gone too far if the music industry has to right to reveal the IP like law enforcement does for _much heavier crimes_.
If you agree with that, ok, it's your opinion (and a popular one).
But IMHO, the right to have privacy is much more valuable than the right of the media industry to sell a few CDs more (if they would do at all!).
What do you say about WiFi p2p? Where does one cross the border of fair use copyright infringement in your opinion?
Mod me down for this, but:
It is not okay for you to use a GPL'ed piece of code without GPL'ing it because this goes against the wishes of the creators and owners of the content in question.
The difference is that GPL-infringing people want to make money out of GPL'ed software. File sharers don't want to make a buck out of the files they share. If they do, they should be punished.
It is okay to sue or threaten to sue people for the above mentioned infringement of the GPL license because it is important to protect the coder's rights and not set a precedent of ignoring violations.
So you compare suing, as a single developer or a small group of 3-4 people, a company with employed lawyers because they make money out of your product to the crackdown on school/college students by a billon megacorp.? Because they shared a bunch of files?
Of course, many file sharers are hypocritical. But that doesn't make these two of your arguments valid.
IMHO, the solution are media fees. See also my other post in this thread.
I would like to have another solution. One that respects the privacy of us damned citizens. Fees on recordable media, computers and/or internet connections etc.
With an exemption for those who can prove that they don't use their computer for such activities.
I know, some of you know scream "bloody hell. This is unjust because I do not copy music illegally!". But what is more invasive? The RIAAs right to listen in each and every of your private conversations or the right of the industry to collect "taxes", but your privacy remains intact?
The problem I have with this is that the music/movie industry acts like a police, equipped with rights like the real police. And more "rights" have to be granted to the industry if file sharing should be stopped. See:
Maybe it's ok to file a lawsuit if one publishes "stolen" music on a website, complete with his/her name and contact address. I personally would have no problem with that. You are willingly publishing your information.
Therefore, people move to filesharing tools. As you all know, filesharing tools do not publish your contact data in the traditional sense. Those tools which are in use now only publish your IP.
The outcome? The industry gets the right to reverse map your IP to your address by asking the ISP. For making available copyrighted work. Not because you hacked into their computer or similar things. Without the police in the middle. For me, a border has been crossed and it shouldn't. Maybe you feel it is ok.
But the next step follows... people go to half-anonymous filesharing tools like Ant or Mute-Net. The result? The right owners acquire access to the wiretap interface soon to be implemented in the name of cybercrime prevention. Such interfaces are being put in place now, at least here in the EU (germany).
Finally people go to very-hard-to-observe tools like freenet (it will surely get more usable as more people use it and work on it). Or use WiFi p2p. Or f2f p2p (CD exchange). The solution? Outlawing such tools? Demanding WiFi wiretaps and weak encryption by law? To prevent copying of
movies, music or software? WTF??
The other path would be (intrusive) DRM. IMHO, not a good idea, either.
If you believe in fair use rights, i.e. the occasional copy of a music title for your friend by burning a compact disc, you probably also believe that this would be ok if the friend is your neighbour and you beam the file to him/her by WiFi. Now, if both of you use filesharing tools over WiFi, you'd probably say that this is not ok. But where to draw the line? More importantly, how? By whom? Without massive invasion of privacy?
I clearly favor fees and a happy media industry which doesn't enter my living room from all sides.
The sad thing, at least here in germany is, that one has to pay fees on recorders and media but may not (because of reworked copyright laws) copy copy-protected media.
RANT:
IMHO, the media industry's propaganda finally reached the goal that people do not think about alternative solutions, even here on slashdot!
Even more effective and interesting would be to put up encrypted ZIP files of random data with "interesting filenames" and the right file length. Without revealing the password.
Is there any reason why this may not be allowed? [In both the EU (where I live) or the US?]
I would like to have a good lawyer as a friend before doing that, though.
As a german, I think I have to clear these things up a bit.
Your grandparent is talking about nuclear weapons and not WMD in general, I think. I'm not sure if there were agreements (forced or not) that germany may not build WMDs after WW1 (chemical/biological).
Germany indeed agreed to not build nuclear weapons after WW2. There were unsuccessfull tries to acquire some of them by the first bundeskanzler (chancellor) Konrad Adenauer, though.
Remember, nukes were invented and developed during WWII. During or short after WWI, nuclear weapons were at most far-away science fiction.
The fission of uranium atoms was discovered in 1938, just a few years before the detonation of the first bomb.
Before that, people only knew from the heat emitted by the decay of e.g. radium and the incredible amount of energy released in this process. It was known at this time that this amount was probably related to the giant forces to keep the charges in a nucleus together (if one made the assumption that the nucleus consisted of several positive charges). And it was speculated if this energy could be tapped and willingly released in future times. But not much more was known.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
I want trusted computing chips in my PC. Really. But I want to have control and knowledge of each and every key and data which is contained in it. I do not want to buy a black box which I may not open. TCPA in the current implementation is like selling you a microwave oven but denying you access to the tools for opening it (because that could cause EMI, and you may not operate an illegal transmitter - compare this to illegally copying software). But I am a ham radio operator. I even have the right to use the magnetron of a microwave to use for experiments in the field. Not to speak of the oven's transformer as a paper weight if I please to do so.
Remember the time when Nintendo used TR "tamper resist" torx screws for the cases of their consoles?
OMG, I was so pissed. This arrogance. I have every right to tamper with my own equipment.
Of course, making all keys accessible would defeat the usage of TCPA as a DRM enforcement tool, and that would be good!
We consumers have the right (at least in the EU) to know the ingredients of the food we buy. We should also have to right to know the key (pairs) contained in our TCPA chips we buy!
As a sidenote: I have read figures that building a nuclear plant produces more CO2 then it later saves during its energy production time (mining and enriching fuels, transportation of building materials, fuel and waste, storage of waste, security activities during transportation etc.)
This is a non-argument since you can use the released electrical energy from a nuclear power plant to power the machines to build new ones or to (re)process the fuel!
I actually believe that music must and should be free. In fact, all information should be free. :-)
I hope (and I also think) that you do not include privately exchanged emails and similar things in your definition of information
Instead of your model of completely abolishing copyright, I would rather like to see a somewhat smaller change: Abolishment of copyright law concerning private, IMHO "fair" use. Do whatever you wish with your software, your music etc., share it by p2p, WiFi-p2p, f2f, whatever. Reverse engineer it.
But don't sell it for profit in public. Of course noone can deny that there would be somewhat grey areas (e.g. flea markets).
Leave the copyright as it is in the B2B area. Companies have and should have no right to "privacy" about what is installed on their computers.
And, yes, I'm sure many people would still buy music and video games, just for the shiny package and the printed manual. At moderate prices.
After all, privacy is a _much more_ fundamental right than the ability to control copies by some media conglomerates (or even greedy individuals). Somehow, this argument got lost in the whole discussion about copyright.
I think, Mute, Freenet etc. will inevitably drive the discussion into this direction. You'd have to outlaw such tools to control copyright violations. Or you need mandatory, wide-spread DRM.
If one is pessimistic (I'm somewhat), there may be no discussion in society at all (supressed by those who have the power).
Here in germany, it's actually a quite "funny" situation. Everyone has to pay substantial fees on PCs, DVD/CD recorders, media etc. to compensate the (registered) authors for losses by such fair use copies but since some recent changes in copyright law, it is not allowed
to copy copy-protected media.
Maybe those poor helpless men, women and children should stop stealing then.
/. changed due to the media industry's worldwide propaganda.
It's interesting and sad how the general opinion even on
I still think it is not the business of the government or some company if citizens **privately** exchange information with each other.
PS. Rant:
Not paying taxes (Eek, government invasion, MY PRIVATE PROPERTY!) seems to be a more important issue for many people here.
As if wiretapping into your privacy by the government isn't much more invasive.
Heh.
No one right in his/her mind compares Java with C. Compare it with C++.
Come back after you learned about the difference between C and C++.
I live very close to Kiel, Germany.
At the moment, there are large protests because HDW is planning to end their commercial ship construction in Kiel.
OMG. +5 Insightful. I have to do something about it.
Increasing signal cannot and would not provide you with more bandwidth. It might help you overcome noise thus maximizing your current maximum capacity. But increasing signal also increases the possiblity of reflections which in turn increases noise.
No. And yes for the last part. But this is not the whole truth.
Did you know that Maxwell's equations were *linear*? I.e. if you increase the output power by a certain factor, you increase the received power by the same factor if all else parameters (location etc.) are constant. Interference patterns (your described noise) don't change their form. The signal increases and also the amount of noise *caused by scattering*. All else noise powers stay the same (noise in the receiver electronics, noise from electric switches/lightnings etc). So the overall SNR gets better -> the datarate gets better.
Of course, there are limiting factors. I.e. too strong sources may overshine weaker ones in a WLAN setting our you may just see all the nodes of every WLAN in a city (thereby decreasing bandwidth). There's an optimum. Directional antennas help in this case.
Or do you want to say that you have to take non-linearity in vacuum or materials (i.e. air/concrete) into the equation? Hello?! We're not talking about 511keV photons creating electrons/positrons or polarising frequency multiplier crystals with lasers or similar stuff.
And there is this guy, who not only build his own computer but also build his own CPU (from TTL chips). The one you're mentioning in the article uses a 6502 (not that it dequalifies it as a "selfmade computer").
And he also ported the uIP IP stack to it, i.e. it can be run as a webserver.