Oh please, don't give me this kind of movie all over again. I saw swordfish when he was constructing the "worm" using those damn 3d cubes, it made me want to vomit.
I just don't like this... totally out of reality.. hollywood film.
I'll give it one thing, it had a neat opening. I enjoyed it. The computer was totally full of cpus though, weird.
Just a rant, ignore it as you will.
Once again, we reach one of the same questions that must be addressed almost each and every time. It's critical that we balance security issues with privacy issues, but this time around, security far outways privacy concerns. It's Imperative that we have a highly secure Postal Network, because things like the anthrax scare should really never happen.
Think of this like a normal e-mail network. Large portions of mail that is sent and recieved has recorded logs, and things of that nature. When you recieve spam from blah.blah.die.com you can still vaguely trace it back through the header information. Snail mail deserves that kind of security too.
My rights as a citizen will NOT be trampled by something like this. Privacy groups that cry about this kind of thing have made an eggregious error. I value my security as much as I value my privacy, and since my privacy is hardly going to be trampled by some IDs on snail mail, I'm not worried. Keep in mind 670 million pieces of mail are shipped to 138 million addresses around the nation every DAY, so I hardly think my 1 piece of mail will be torn apart by the evil government.
If you really want to worry about this, just think about the increase in postage required to handle the logging. That might go up.. a cent. So, I wouldn't worry... I'd be thrilled the homeland security departement is doing something that might actually work!
I do see the problem that might occur here, and you do bring up a very valid point, but this relative payment size is not a bad thing. In a world where the rich are filthy rich and the poor are dirt poor (and I truly believe the gap between the rich and poor is increasing), it doesn't neccessarily seem like a bad thing for targeted pricing to workout, so long as it's not an egregious attack on the value of their services.
It's sort of like a builtin tax system. Taxing is relative to the amount you make, and it seems to work pretty well. If you break down and need a tow truck service, they might come and give you coffee while they pick you up, and charge you a bit more. It's for a reason: you can afford to pay more.
But now, don't go crying, "well damn, the rich kids aren't going to be able to get things anymore!!" You're missing a fundamental point of capitalism if you do: COMPETITION. If, and only if, one company has monpolistic control over a market then they can control pricing. And if they do, they'll get in trouble. If they don't have monopolistic control, the safe guards of free economy will come in and ensure prices aren't inflated.
I'm just a diehard liberal, and I want the rich taxed off their thrones, and targeted pricing is something that doesn't seem infinitely evil to me. At the same time, I do realize that free economy will keep rich people from becoming less rich.
You've neglected to realize that money can't just be "created" by the "area chief." Money has to be brought up from somewhere, through increased production, or more likely something like increased taxes.
It will cost the average indian more money, and it'll cost them 0.75 USD per person. Multiply that by 1 billion, and you have a pretty expensive cost (750 million USD) for a nation that has the second largest AIDs problem on earth, the worst starvation problem on earth, and a good set of pretty dire problems amongst other things.
This may very well not be the time or place to test some new technologically advanced system for voting. The time will come when India will be able to afford to spend on things like this, but I think that she can wait on that this nationalistic pride boost.
Oddly enough, I'm Indian, so don't take my opinion as too slanted.
Anyhow, let me start by saying that this is a very thrilling next step in India's experiment with democracy. It'll be awesome to see the elections being conducted with minimal fraud (hopefully combated with the ID cards), but I see a very serious problem.
0.75 USD is the equivalent of about Rs. 30, and in a country where the Rs. 30 can buy a gourmet meal for 5 (well, I'm exagerating, but please try to see my point), it strikes me as quite a price for a vote. See, voting is no longer something that anyone can do, in fact, it's a form of discrimination. If the government can't teach the masses, and then they charge a ridiculous amount of money to get a ID card for an election, they're essentially telling the poorer (and likely less intelligent people) that they can't vote.
We're too quick to forget what happened when the United States decided that it was time for competency tests, and black people were discriminated against.. because comptency was directly in line with socioeconomic status. This is unfair to the poor people. It's a sad day in India when these 800,000 machines (which will hardly service 1,000,000,000 people) are spread through India.
Obviously it's nice to see voting become fast and easy.. more accuracy and probably less corruption, but the poor people need in. It's their country too.
I'm not crying about the 0.75 USD, I'm just saying that it's a form of discrimination. They shouldn't be required to have these ID cards, which they will be required to have. Even if it's not a requirement, it'll be a major turn off to voting.
We might not want to live in a world where the patent office "pushes innovation by ownership," but it's the reality of Capitalism. You can't turn off cash flow, or you essentially turn off innovation and invention.
Of course Open Source Software is the best example of my previous statement put to the test, but I can still hold to it, because even the best OSS people still have to go out and get jobs to make their OSS Lives work. I've seen examples of OSS projects failing all over the place becasue it costs money to even do OSS. The best place to look is the old Linux Router Project.
All I'm saying is, OSS is a very idealistic set of projects. Idealism is an awesome thing, but when it faces reality, it sometimes less than perfect.
Microsoft, and everyone else that has patent claims, has to be respected. It's part of the REALITY of our world today. If OSS software is unfairly stealing the work of Microsoft, then it's liable; I'm liable.
But it's not just the code! That's where you're missing the most critical part of his claim. When you patent softare concepts, you're patenting every array of copying that can happen, and that's the sad part of the matter. Open Source, though only out there for non profit means (until you arrive at Redhat, and the such), has to be aware that it can't trample the rights of big companies, even if it's being sucked dry of all of it's code at the same time.
We live in a capitalistic world, and frankly, an attack like this should be expected. It's a great idea to have people working on open source software for the fun of it, but it has to be original ideas. OSS is like the product of a company. If it's created and it tramples the rights of others, then companies that have been trampled will have the right to come back and request damages from ANYONE that uses the software.
It's a frightening world out there for Open Source Software, but it's a real world. We need not just look past these claims as "Micro$oft hogwash" or anything of the sort. SCO and Microsoft might be making VERY valid points, and it's something the OSS community MUST watch out for.
I love Open Source Software, but I also respect the rights of others, however evil they might be.
I can't seem to see how AOL is ever planning on making money. Their business model is so violent flawed, it makes me want to gouge my eyes out.. but I'll explain..
See, Yahoo! has a good idea, they realized that they should provide services, but charge. It works, that's how capitalism functions.
AOL on the other hand believes that they can keep giving things away, CDs, Cases, Journals now, everything, but they fail to realize that in a world where business is dependent on profit not on sister company cash flow, it's a sad world when you're profit is negative.
I'm not an "AOHell" hater, or anything like that, I just dislike the fact that AOL wastes their money on all sorts of garbage instead of just improving their business model. Before you say, "well, it's not your money" do keep in mind that everytime they loose money, it hurts other people. That money isn't just randomly appearing out of no where, it's coming from other companies. They're inability to be intelligent in their business has costed other people money. Hell, their inability to conduct a good business is a reason for me loosing money on their stocks. Well, a little.
At any rate, seeing AOL Journals is pathetic. I'm waiting to see AOL make a profit, then they should start providing peripheral things.
It seems odd that the RIAA doesn't try and work with the consumers. But I'm sure this has already been said.. so with that..
Make Backup copies of your stuff like you've never done before! GET TO IT! Make it a 50% increase.
You've made a very good argument, but really, there are only a couple key points you missed.
When "pirating" copyrighted material, are you simply committing petty theft?
Obviously. You're not paying for things that are sold.
Is "piracy" truly driving innovation?
Obviously not. People are reluctant to innovate if they see no carrot. (I understand some people see that higher meaning, but I hardly believe most do)
At the very core of this argument, it comes down to a very simple concept: theft.
If copyrights are longer, if companies are gouging consumers, or if anything else is causing a problem, go fight that. Don't justify piracy because it's a form of protest. It's not, in fact, it reduces the legitimacy of our arguments! How can anyone complain copyrights are too long, when the copyrights are seemingly meaningless anyway?
At any rate, randomly bringing up select cases where the DMCA went wrong is good, I guess. But still, the larger picture is missed when tiny fractions of the picture are blown way out of proportion. When the fundamentals of the legislation are worked out correctly, cases, like you mentioned, wouldn't be replicated.
Interestingly enough, I do feel that innovation is what is truly being attacked when the DMCA "hammer" (or war drums) are beat upon all the time.
On another note, and one seldomly discussed... it's obvious that there is a problem here. We want more content, but when we steal it, the companies we love and hate so much won't be as willing to give it. Hence Palladium, DRM, etc.
If people could throttle themselves, the problems that we have with content distribution wouldn't be problems at all. Sadly, we can't, so legislation is absolutely neccessary in throttling all those people that can't throttle themselves.
That delicate balance between the rights of the societ and the rights of the owner of the content is dynamically changing, but it is definitely true that technology has given society the ability to very easily steal from the owner of copyrighted material.
Everyone is to blaim. The RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft (in some cases), etc. are hardly in the 21st century. Sometimes I wonder why they complain so much since it's obvious that they should try to start a better music distrubtion model than what they already have. Sometimes sacraficing profits for common sense is a smart thing. We're also to blaim. People using Grokster, Kazaa, Morpheus, Gnutella2, etc. are thieves (for the most part). The last time I found a nice piece of uncopyrighted material on kazaa and not on Google was.. never.
At any rate, it's a mess out there. The RIAA and MPAA are definitely stupid. They're planning on waging war with their entire customer base (or a large part of it). I'm not bussiness guru, but I definitely see a problem with that.
Anyway, I feel like I'm rambling now. People should buy their stuff, and big companies need to take their heads out of their rear ends, and realize that their is money to be made where the biggest battles are being waged.
Nonetheless, he (the guy who trepidity just replied to) makes a good point... nothing, in the near future at least, will likely solve something to infinity. It's especially not feasible in a timed chess game.
Still, chess cannot be the defining milestone for Artificial Intelligence... the computer is not deviating from it's predefined set of rules.
Kasparov was saying that having a chessplaying machine is a milestone for AI development. I don't really think it is.. the computer is still following a predefined set of rules.
When the computer picks the board up, and throws it.. I'll admit defeat. (But when the Computer beats the @#%# out of Kasparov, I'll laugh till I die.)
Kasparov seems to think that making a powerful chess machine would constitute creating a machine with the power to "think." I hardly believe that to be correct, and moreover.. with enough proccessing power, a computer could map out chess moves far further into the future than kasparov could ever hope to.
I guess the real question has more to do with.. where does one go after they realise that chess is only a little game?
It's hard to tell myself that our planet is 1 in trillions that has life. Think statistics... 1 planet out of ~9 (Quaor doesn't count, and pluto barely does), with a medium sized star like the sun has life. How many more suns are there? How many more earths are there?
I'm sure we can find some more primordial ooze on other planets, just give it some time.
I don't think the stigma attached to UFOs is at all intelligent; what's to be worried about? Star wars?
Now, the question has to be: from which UFO did those guys who cloned that human come from?;)
The computers will not have artificial intelligence, and scientists remain many years away from building one that matches even the abilities of a simple mouse brain.
You have to be careful.. Artificial Intelligence is just as real as Mad Cow Disease. That discliamer in the article is absolutely neccessary.
I've read a lot of the posts that the nerds have made available, and they're all semmingly well written.. and thoughtful, but they flow along a simple thread: denial. People that "backup" their CDs with the aid of Kazaa or "preview" movies, however crappy they might be, ARE STEALING.
I hate the MPAA & RIAA as much as any of you, but lets be frank, 99.9% of people that make these "backups" and enjoy these low quality "previews" are definitely stealing.
I think when you try to justify the release of pirated movies by saying all of htose people will want to see ht movies in theatres, or wont enjoy the crappy quality of the movie, etc., you only prove that you are willing to rob the local blockbuster.
If you really want to take the "moral highground" or any ethical stance, you will understand that stealing is not a good thing. You make your money, and then you go and purchase access to whatever you need. Don't try and justify stealing by magically assuming it's not going to cause a dent for somebodie's paycheck. Puuhhlleasee.
It's funny how these pirates also except hd's and stuff... lol, you'd think the MPAA would send them the poison gas i'm sure they're developing. (Heck, the MPAA is almost another Iraq.. seriously, P2P destruction is just the start)
I had faith in educational institutions up until now (and MIT of all places I'd have never believed anyhtign like this could happen), but I guess MIT is nothing more than a RIAA in another context.
Dolby and MIT: the next Microsoft and ANSI.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh please, don't give me this kind of movie all over again. I saw swordfish when he was constructing the "worm" using those damn 3d cubes, it made me want to vomit. I just don't like this ... totally out of reality .. hollywood film.
I'll give it one thing, it had a neat opening. I enjoyed it. The computer was totally full of cpus though, weird.
Just a rant, ignore it as you will.
Once again, we reach one of the same questions that must be addressed almost each and every time. It's critical that we balance security issues with privacy issues, but this time around, security far outways privacy concerns. It's Imperative that we have a highly secure Postal Network, because things like the anthrax scare should really never happen.
.. a cent. So, I wouldn't worry... I'd be thrilled the homeland security departement is doing something that might actually work!
Think of this like a normal e-mail network. Large portions of mail that is sent and recieved has recorded logs, and things of that nature. When you recieve spam from blah.blah.die.com you can still vaguely trace it back through the header information. Snail mail deserves that kind of security too.
My rights as a citizen will NOT be trampled by something like this. Privacy groups that cry about this kind of thing have made an eggregious error. I value my security as much as I value my privacy, and since my privacy is hardly going to be trampled by some IDs on snail mail, I'm not worried. Keep in mind 670 million pieces of mail are shipped to 138 million addresses around the nation every DAY, so I hardly think my 1 piece of mail will be torn apart by the evil government.
If you really want to worry about this, just think about the increase in postage required to handle the logging. That might go up
I do see the problem that might occur here, and you do bring up a very valid point, but this relative payment size is not a bad thing. In a world where the rich are filthy rich and the poor are dirt poor (and I truly believe the gap between the rich and poor is increasing), it doesn't neccessarily seem like a bad thing for targeted pricing to workout, so long as it's not an egregious attack on the value of their services.
It's sort of like a builtin tax system. Taxing is relative to the amount you make, and it seems to work pretty well. If you break down and need a tow truck service, they might come and give you coffee while they pick you up, and charge you a bit more. It's for a reason: you can afford to pay more.
But now, don't go crying, "well damn, the rich kids aren't going to be able to get things anymore!!" You're missing a fundamental point of capitalism if you do: COMPETITION. If, and only if, one company has monpolistic control over a market then they can control pricing. And if they do, they'll get in trouble. If they don't have monopolistic control, the safe guards of free economy will come in and ensure prices aren't inflated.
I'm just a diehard liberal, and I want the rich taxed off their thrones, and targeted pricing is something that doesn't seem infinitely evil to me. At the same time, I do realize that free economy will keep rich people from becoming less rich.
You've neglected to realize that money can't just be "created" by the "area chief." Money has to be brought up from somewhere, through increased production, or more likely something like increased taxes.
It will cost the average indian more money, and it'll cost them 0.75 USD per person. Multiply that by 1 billion, and you have a pretty expensive cost (750 million USD) for a nation that has the second largest AIDs problem on earth, the worst starvation problem on earth, and a good set of pretty dire problems amongst other things.
This may very well not be the time or place to test some new technologically advanced system for voting. The time will come when India will be able to afford to spend on things like this, but I think that she can wait on that this nationalistic pride boost.
Oddly enough, I'm Indian, so don't take my opinion as too slanted.
.. more accuracy and probably less corruption, but the poor people need in. It's their country too.
Anyhow, let me start by saying that this is a very thrilling next step in India's experiment with democracy. It'll be awesome to see the elections being conducted with minimal fraud (hopefully combated with the ID cards), but I see a very serious problem.
0.75 USD is the equivalent of about Rs. 30, and in a country where the Rs. 30 can buy a gourmet meal for 5 (well, I'm exagerating, but please try to see my point), it strikes me as quite a price for a vote. See, voting is no longer something that anyone can do, in fact, it's a form of discrimination. If the government can't teach the masses, and then they charge a ridiculous amount of money to get a ID card for an election, they're essentially telling the poorer (and likely less intelligent people) that they can't vote.
We're too quick to forget what happened when the United States decided that it was time for competency tests, and black people were discriminated against.. because comptency was directly in line with socioeconomic status. This is unfair to the poor people. It's a sad day in India when these 800,000 machines (which will hardly service 1,000,000,000 people) are spread through India.
Obviously it's nice to see voting become fast and easy
I'm not crying about the 0.75 USD, I'm just saying that it's a form of discrimination. They shouldn't be required to have these ID cards, which they will be required to have. Even if it's not a requirement, it'll be a major turn off to voting.
Well, there's my 0.75 USD.
We might not want to live in a world where the patent office "pushes innovation by ownership," but it's the reality of Capitalism. You can't turn off cash flow, or you essentially turn off innovation and invention.
Of course Open Source Software is the best example of my previous statement put to the test, but I can still hold to it, because even the best OSS people still have to go out and get jobs to make their OSS Lives work. I've seen examples of OSS projects failing all over the place becasue it costs money to even do OSS. The best place to look is the old Linux Router Project.
All I'm saying is, OSS is a very idealistic set of projects. Idealism is an awesome thing, but when it faces reality, it sometimes less than perfect.
Microsoft, and everyone else that has patent claims, has to be respected. It's part of the REALITY of our world today. If OSS software is unfairly stealing the work of Microsoft, then it's liable; I'm liable.
But it's not just the code! That's where you're missing the most critical part of his claim. When you patent softare concepts, you're patenting every array of copying that can happen, and that's the sad part of the matter. Open Source, though only out there for non profit means (until you arrive at Redhat, and the such), has to be aware that it can't trample the rights of big companies, even if it's being sucked dry of all of it's code at the same time.
We live in a capitalistic world, and frankly, an attack like this should be expected. It's a great idea to have people working on open source software for the fun of it, but it has to be original ideas. OSS is like the product of a company. If it's created and it tramples the rights of others, then companies that have been trampled will have the right to come back and request damages from ANYONE that uses the software.
It's a frightening world out there for Open Source Software, but it's a real world. We need not just look past these claims as "Micro$oft hogwash" or anything of the sort. SCO and Microsoft might be making VERY valid points, and it's something the OSS community MUST watch out for.
I love Open Source Software, but I also respect the rights of others, however evil they might be.
I can't seem to see how AOL is ever planning on making money. Their business model is so violent flawed, it makes me want to gouge my eyes out .. but I'll explain..
See, Yahoo! has a good idea, they realized that they should provide services, but charge. It works, that's how capitalism functions.
AOL on the other hand believes that they can keep giving things away, CDs, Cases, Journals now, everything, but they fail to realize that in a world where business is dependent on profit not on sister company cash flow, it's a sad world when you're profit is negative.
I'm not an "AOHell" hater, or anything like that, I just dislike the fact that AOL wastes their money on all sorts of garbage instead of just improving their business model. Before you say, "well, it's not your money" do keep in mind that everytime they loose money, it hurts other people. That money isn't just randomly appearing out of no where, it's coming from other companies. They're inability to be intelligent in their business has costed other people money. Hell, their inability to conduct a good business is a reason for me loosing money on their stocks. Well, a little.
At any rate, seeing AOL Journals is pathetic. I'm waiting to see AOL make a profit, then they should start providing peripheral things.
Anyway,
It seems odd that the RIAA doesn't try and work with the consumers. But I'm sure this has already been said .. so with that..
Make Backup copies of your stuff like you've never done before! GET TO IT! Make it a 50% increase.
You've made a very good argument, but really, there are only a couple key points you missed.
When "pirating" copyrighted material, are you simply committing petty theft?
Obviously. You're not paying for things that are sold.
Is "piracy" truly driving innovation?
Obviously not. People are reluctant to innovate if they see no carrot. (I understand some people see that higher meaning, but I hardly believe most do)
At the very core of this argument, it comes down to a very simple concept: theft.
If copyrights are longer, if companies are gouging consumers, or if anything else is causing a problem, go fight that. Don't justify piracy because it's a form of protest. It's not, in fact, it reduces the legitimacy of our arguments! How can anyone complain copyrights are too long, when the copyrights are seemingly meaningless anyway?
At any rate, randomly bringing up select cases where the DMCA went wrong is good, I guess. But still, the larger picture is missed when tiny fractions of the picture are blown way out of proportion. When the fundamentals of the legislation are worked out correctly, cases, like you mentioned, wouldn't be replicated.
Interestingly enough, I do feel that innovation is what is truly being attacked when the DMCA "hammer" (or war drums) are beat upon all the time.
... it's obvious that there is a problem here. We want more content, but when we steal it, the companies we love and hate so much won't be as willing to give it. Hence Palladium, DRM, etc.
.. never.
On another note, and one seldomly discussed
If people could throttle themselves, the problems that we have with content distribution wouldn't be problems at all. Sadly, we can't, so legislation is absolutely neccessary in throttling all those people that can't throttle themselves.
That delicate balance between the rights of the societ and the rights of the owner of the content is dynamically changing, but it is definitely true that technology has given society the ability to very easily steal from the owner of copyrighted material.
Everyone is to blaim. The RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft (in some cases), etc. are hardly in the 21st century. Sometimes I wonder why they complain so much since it's obvious that they should try to start a better music distrubtion model than what they already have. Sometimes sacraficing profits for common sense is a smart thing. We're also to blaim. People using Grokster, Kazaa, Morpheus, Gnutella2, etc. are thieves (for the most part). The last time I found a nice piece of uncopyrighted material on kazaa and not on Google was
At any rate, it's a mess out there. The RIAA and MPAA are definitely stupid. They're planning on waging war with their entire customer base (or a large part of it). I'm not bussiness guru, but I definitely see a problem with that.
Anyway, I feel like I'm rambling now. People should buy their stuff, and big companies need to take their heads out of their rear ends, and realize that their is money to be made where the biggest battles are being waged.
Nonetheless, he (the guy who trepidity just replied to) makes a good point ... nothing, in the near future at least, will likely solve something to infinity. It's especially not feasible in a timed chess game.
Still, chess cannot be the defining milestone for Artificial Intelligence... the computer is not deviating from it's predefined set of rules.
It's not thinking.
Kasparov was saying that having a chessplaying machine is a milestone for AI development. I don't really think it is .. the computer is still following a predefined set of rules.
.. I'll admit defeat. (But when the Computer beats the @#%# out of Kasparov, I'll laugh till I die.)
When the computer picks the board up, and throws it
Nah, you said that wrong!
...
It's
Only 1 Microsoft Way: We Reign Supreme.
They don't have any contact info. You just send money to the dumpster.
Kasparov seems to think that making a powerful chess machine would constitute creating a machine with the power to "think." I hardly believe that to be correct, and moreover .. with enough proccessing power, a computer could map out chess moves far further into the future than kasparov could ever hope to.
.. where does one go after they realise that chess is only a little game?
I guess the real question has more to do with
Use this link instead ...
k shv.shtml
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/radar/latest/DS.p19r0/si.
(you just had a random space in your URL)
He needs to specefically explain wether or not conjugal visits were allowed in prison!
That could be a decisive factor in determining his past moves as good or bad. Really! Think office space.
It's hard to tell myself that our planet is 1 in trillions that has life. Think statistics... 1 planet out of ~9 (Quaor doesn't count, and pluto barely does), with a medium sized star like the sun has life. How many more suns are there? How many more earths are there? I'm sure we can find some more primordial ooze on other planets, just give it some time. I don't think the stigma attached to UFOs is at all intelligent; what's to be worried about? Star wars? Now, the question has to be: from which UFO did those guys who cloned that human come from? ;)
The computers will not have artificial intelligence, and scientists remain many years away from building one that matches even the abilities of a simple mouse brain.
.. Artificial Intelligence is just as real as Mad Cow Disease. That discliamer in the article is absolutely neccessary.
You have to be careful
Let's think about that for a second.
Warner Brothers spent millions of dollars making the movie.
Now, Warner Brothers has a PRODUCT they are selling.
When you steal this product and give it away for free.. they are loosing money, and you are stealing.
Now ask, is that piracy?
I've read a lot of the posts that the nerds have made available, and they're all semmingly well written .. and thoughtful, but they flow along a simple thread: denial. People that "backup" their CDs with the aid of Kazaa or "preview" movies, however crappy they might be, ARE STEALING.
I hate the MPAA & RIAA as much as any of you, but lets be frank, 99.9% of people that make these "backups" and enjoy these low quality "previews" are definitely stealing.
I think when you try to justify the release of pirated movies by saying all of htose people will want to see ht movies in theatres, or wont enjoy the crappy quality of the movie, etc., you only prove that you are willing to rob the local blockbuster.
If you really want to take the "moral highground" or any ethical stance, you will understand that stealing is not a good thing. You make your money, and then you go and purchase access to whatever you need. Don't try and justify stealing by magically assuming it's not going to cause a dent for somebodie's paycheck. Puuhhlleasee.
It's funny how these pirates also except hd's and stuff... lol, you'd think the MPAA would send them the poison gas i'm sure they're developing. (Heck, the MPAA is almost another Iraq.. seriously, P2P destruction is just the start)
I had faith in educational institutions up until now (and MIT of all places I'd have never believed anyhtign like this could happen), but I guess MIT is nothing more than a RIAA in another context. Dolby and MIT: the next Microsoft and ANSI.