More seriously, *if* this deals succed, it could be a hard blow to mac gamers... I know the warcraft serie is pretty popular among mac users, and Blizzard is known for being pro-mac (the W3 cd is a hybrid (it runs on both mac & PC)). Having one of the last company to release a major game simultaneously on mac and PC bought by Microsoft would be bad indeed =/
The answer to the question "Have websites/internet-related companies from country X to obbey laws from country Y if people from Y visit them/use their service? is a pretty hard one...
Here is a summary of four possible solutions I can see, and why they all have very serious problems:
Solution #1: Laws from the visitor's country applies to whatever he visit. It gives the legal authority stop websites providing pedophilia, incitations to racial hatred or instructions on bomb-making, even if they are located on some remote pacific island or in remote African despotisms.
Problem: As the author of the parent post points out, China can use it to shut down Free Tibet websites, Saudi Arabia any non-islamic websites, ect. In fact, strict application would basicly dstroy the web.
Solution #2: Only the laws of the country providing the website/service applies. Fine, but then we basicly agree that a Roge State can provide infos on bomb-making and that if a country legalise pedophilia, we won't do a thing to stop the website being there. True, it's always possible for western govs to try and forbid access to the website in question, but its makes it all the harder. Obviously, this works better than solution #1, but it's far from perfect.
Solution #3: No general rules, but western countries use economic/diplomatic pressure to inforce their laws. The most likely solution, this basicly means that while most things are allowed, things that westerns countries -or even just the US- condemn are effictively forbidden, since any country hosting them will face strong pressures to comply. Pedophilia, criminal or blatantly terrorist activity is stopped, under pressure by the RIAA/MPAA piracy is curbed, but things that despotic/islamic/simply non-western countries do not approve of are not. In practice, probably the best/only solution. But since this basicly impose western countries' standards on what is supposed to be an International network, it's a dangerous idea.
Solution 4: Every country is free to set its own rules, but the Internet is seperated in "country zones". Each country then decide to authorize, forbid or regulate communications with other zones. While this makes the most sense legaly IMHO, in practice it's the end of the free web. No easy choice there...
...please, this sort of articles is ridiculous. Especialy when submitted with "sly" remarks like "Would the US really blow up their own people for the sake of global military supremacy? Naaaah...". Oh, and I did not read the article, sue me. I can think of a lot of things to read which sound a lot more interesting.
"Or is this just a problem with the new player (separate from it not being DRM capable)? ".. I'd recommend getting a broadband connection and an iPod. That'll solve all your problems with defective media(intentionally or otherwise).
lol, my father got one (the iPod). Sure beat DRM CDs;-)
BTW, it had a "Don't steal music" sticker to fight piracy. Take your pick between the different protection systems, I've made my choide:P
So how is QuickTime any less of a proprietary format than Windows Media?
Is it just because QT happens to play MPEG-4 video as well QT video?
QT does not "happen to play MPEG4", it uses MPEG4 as its "main" format. In fact, I believe the Quicktime file format (the wrappers, not the codec) was choosen by whatever consortium is in charge of MPEG4 as the official file format.
Don't get it wrong... the adoption of MPEG4 by mobile phones is a victory for Open Standards - and only secondarily for QT, which now relies on them as well.
If you are interested in Earth Pictures
on
Earth as Art
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Check out the Blue Marble pictures. A resolution of 1 pixel/per kilometers for the whole of the planet, which makes the full pictures 40000*20000 pixels big =) They are available in different views (cloudless, with or without the sea floor relief, at night...) and are truly amazing.
I'm probably going to get a -1 for promoting my own soft, but if your computer cannot handle a 2 gb file in RAM, check my website. I made a soft (approved by the guy who made the picts) for viewing them without much RAM. Only works on macs and PCs, though I'm thinking of a linux version.
Yes, there is... the French and European Robotic competitions.
I took part in it last year... great stuff! And it's more difficult and interesting than bashing other robots; last year, the aim was to put balls of different colors in different baskets, while an other robot on the same field is trying to do the same.
It's fun and very challening... and yes, the robots must be totaly independant.
Oh, and the "sumo" competition you are refering to was the first competiton to take place. Since then, the difficulty of the tasks has increased steadily.
No idea how they implemented it, but I wouldnt be suprised if it was based on bayesian principles as well, since it learns from its mistake (it marks junk emails as such, but allows you to change a mail's status if it guessed wrongly).
Since it starts of in "learning mode", where it only color junk mail but does not delete them, you get to check its efficiency before putting it in "real mode". And even there, by default it only moves the mail in a "junk mail" box, so you can check once in a while if there was anything important there.
Since using it, my father found that it caught something like 95% of emails, and very very rarely had false positive. Even when it had, correcting the mistake meant it was not repeated.
I expect such anti-spam systems to get a lot more frequent... and they DO work. Not flawlessly, but well enough to stop spam being such a pain.
BTW, Apple's filter also have an elemnt of whitelisting, since emails from people in your address book go through without checking.
when it comes to "elitism". OK, a few lowly hobbits gets to save the world; but have you looked at the human society?
Humans are divided in different branchs of different purity, valiour ect. Not only is the inate superiority of Aragorn and his kind taken for granted all along, but I clearly remember at least one passage where Aragorn explicitly states that the humans groups can be divided in three... barbarians (the Southerners for exemple), more noble humans but still figthing for fighting's sake (such as the Rohans), and the true nobles races like his, who only fight to defend freedom ect.
Worse, take the whole royality thing... In Tolkien's world, the Intendants of Gondor do not become, ever. Only the "true heir" whose ancestors left the kingdom ages ago is fit to do that.
OTOH, in HP there is a very clear difference between having inate magical powers and being good, and it is perfectly possible to become a great wizard while coming from a muggle family. True, either you are gifted or you arent... but that's true of life as well in many domains. HP would only be "elitist" if it implied that being a muggle, or having muggle parents, is bad in itself. Not only is that never said, but the problem of racism is tackled head on, and is a central part of some of the books.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love the LoTR. But some aspects of it are clearly elitist. And no, HP is not elitist, rather the contrary.
Just my 0.02
If we're postulating mass space tourism, we can probably get away with postulating efficient solar or fusion power to go with it... they're both pipe-dreams hovering somewhere in the technological middle-distance. Then you can have your hydrogen by electrolysis without trouble.
To make space tourism economic, we need to either (a) make it possible to get into orbit using far less energy, or (b) make energy available much more cheaply. So nobody's going up there without some major breakthrough that would massively reduce the resources required.
That's only true of real mass-space tourism, something which is still some way off.
What's more likely,is the development of limited space tourism, for the very rich only... it has already started, and as the price drop a bit it will get more common.
Most likely, this will use traditional rocketry in a cheaper form, and it will polute a LOT. In particular, the upper atmosphere will suffer.
In short: if there is a way to make "cheap" space trips, space tourism will develop. Wherever it's polluting or not is sadly not the question.
Obviously it's a good start (though not as good as getting rid of the DMCA altogether)... And the right to circumvent anti-copy measures if you are not doing to steal the stuff is very welcome:
It gives a legal reason for the devlopment and existence of software helping you to do it.
If this pass, anyone managing to crack a new protection system will be allowed to explain how to do it and/or distribute a program doing just that...
The trial Microsoft is facing in Europe is far from over, and it could potentialy be far more serious than the one in the US; the EU has a tradition of harsher antitrust measures.
And in any case, Microsoft's legal victory does not necessarily mean much... Remember IBM, they won their trial, were declared unstoppable by most industry analists, and in the end lost out to Microsoft.
The Economist's paper makes a convincing case for the IBM/MS comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
He'll take care of that ;-)
More seriously, *if* this deals succed, it could be a hard blow to mac gamers... I know the warcraft serie is pretty popular among mac users, and Blizzard is known for being pro-mac (the W3 cd is a hybrid (it runs on both mac & PC)). Having one of the last company to release a major game simultaneously on mac and PC bought by Microsoft would be bad indeed =/
The answer to the question "Have websites/internet-related companies from country X to obbey laws from country Y if people from Y visit them/use their service? is a pretty hard one...
Here is a summary of four possible solutions I can see, and why they all have very serious problems:
Solution #1: Laws from the visitor's country applies to whatever he visit. It gives the legal authority stop websites providing pedophilia, incitations to racial hatred or instructions on bomb-making, even if they are located on some remote pacific island or in remote African despotisms.
Problem: As the author of the parent post points out, China can use it to shut down Free Tibet websites, Saudi Arabia any non-islamic websites, ect. In fact, strict application would basicly dstroy the web.
Solution #2: Only the laws of the country providing the website/service applies. Fine, but then we basicly agree that a Roge State can provide infos on bomb-making and that if a country legalise pedophilia, we won't do a thing to stop the website being there. True, it's always possible for western govs to try and forbid access to the website in question, but its makes it all the harder. Obviously, this works better than solution #1, but it's far from perfect.
Solution #3: No general rules, but western countries use economic/diplomatic pressure to inforce their laws. The most likely solution, this basicly means that while most things are allowed, things that westerns countries -or even just the US- condemn are effictively forbidden, since any country hosting them will face strong pressures to comply. Pedophilia, criminal or blatantly terrorist activity is stopped, under pressure by the RIAA/MPAA piracy is curbed, but things that despotic/islamic/simply non-western countries do not approve of are not. In practice, probably the best/only solution. But since this basicly impose western countries' standards on what is supposed to be an International network, it's a dangerous idea.
Solution 4: Every country is free to set its own rules, but the Internet is seperated in "country zones". Each country then decide to authorize, forbid or regulate communications with other zones. While this makes the most sense legaly IMHO, in practice it's the end of the free web. No easy choice there...
...please, this sort of articles is ridiculous. Especialy when submitted with "sly" remarks like "Would the US really blow up their own people for the sake of global military supremacy? Naaaah...". Oh, and I did not read the article, sue me. I can think of a lot of things to read which sound a lot more interesting.
In particular, and dead on topic, may I suggest The Economist's article on conspiracy theories?
"Or is this just a problem with the new player (separate from it not being DRM capable)? " .. I'd recommend getting a broadband connection and an iPod. That'll solve all your problems with defective media(intentionally or otherwise).
;-)
:P
lol, my father got one (the iPod). Sure beat DRM CDs
BTW, it had a "Don't steal music" sticker to fight piracy. Take your pick between the different protection systems, I've made my choide
So how is QuickTime any less of a proprietary format than Windows Media? Is it just because QT happens to play MPEG-4 video as well QT video? QT does not "happen to play MPEG4", it uses MPEG4 as its "main" format. In fact, I believe the Quicktime file format (the wrappers, not the codec) was choosen by whatever consortium is in charge of MPEG4 as the official file format. Don't get it wrong... the adoption of MPEG4 by mobile phones is a victory for Open Standards - and only secondarily for QT, which now relies on them as well.
Check out the Blue Marble pictures. A resolution of 1 pixel/per kilometers for the whole of the planet, which makes the full pictures 40000*20000 pixels big =) They are available in different views (cloudless, with or without the sea floor relief, at night...) and are truly amazing.
I'm probably going to get a -1 for promoting my own soft, but if your computer cannot handle a 2 gb file in RAM, check my website. I made a soft (approved by the guy who made the picts) for viewing them without much RAM. Only works on macs and PCs, though I'm thinking of a linux version.
Yes, there is... the French and European Robotic competitions.
I took part in it last year... great stuff! And it's more difficult and interesting than bashing other robots; last year, the aim was to put balls of different colors in different baskets, while an other robot on the same field is trying to do the same.
It's fun and very challening... and yes, the robots must be totaly independant.
Oh, and the "sumo" competition you are refering to was the first competiton to take place. Since then, the difficulty of the tasks has increased steadily.
If you are interested, check the organisation's website
No idea how they implemented it, but I wouldnt be suprised if it was based on bayesian principles as well, since it learns from its mistake (it marks junk emails as such, but allows you to change a mail's status if it guessed wrongly).
Since it starts of in "learning mode", where it only color junk mail but does not delete them, you get to check its efficiency before putting it in "real mode". And even there, by default it only moves the mail in a "junk mail" box, so you can check once in a while if there was anything important there.
Since using it, my father found that it caught something like 95% of emails, and very very rarely had false positive. Even when it had, correcting the mistake meant it was not repeated.
I expect such anti-spam systems to get a lot more frequent... and they DO work. Not flawlessly, but well enough to stop spam being such a pain.
BTW, Apple's filter also have an elemnt of whitelisting, since emails from people in your address book go through without checking.
Just my 0.02 E
when it comes to "elitism". OK, a few lowly hobbits gets to save the world; but have you looked at the human society? Humans are divided in different branchs of different purity, valiour ect. Not only is the inate superiority of Aragorn and his kind taken for granted all along, but I clearly remember at least one passage where Aragorn explicitly states that the humans groups can be divided in three... barbarians (the Southerners for exemple), more noble humans but still figthing for fighting's sake (such as the Rohans), and the true nobles races like his, who only fight to defend freedom ect. Worse, take the whole royality thing... In Tolkien's world, the Intendants of Gondor do not become, ever. Only the "true heir" whose ancestors left the kingdom ages ago is fit to do that. OTOH, in HP there is a very clear difference between having inate magical powers and being good, and it is perfectly possible to become a great wizard while coming from a muggle family. True, either you are gifted or you arent... but that's true of life as well in many domains. HP would only be "elitist" if it implied that being a muggle, or having muggle parents, is bad in itself. Not only is that never said, but the problem of racism is tackled head on, and is a central part of some of the books. Now, don't get me wrong, I love the LoTR. But some aspects of it are clearly elitist. And no, HP is not elitist, rather the contrary. Just my 0.02
If we're postulating mass space tourism, we can probably get away with postulating efficient solar or fusion power to go with it...
they're both pipe-dreams hovering somewhere in the technological middle-distance. Then you can have your hydrogen by
electrolysis without trouble.
To make space tourism economic, we need to either (a) make it possible to get into orbit using far less energy, or (b) make energy available much more cheaply. So nobody's going up there without some major breakthrough that would massively reduce the resources required.
That's only true of real mass-space tourism, something which is still some way off.
What's more likely,is the development of limited space tourism, for the very rich only... it has already started, and as the price drop a bit it will get more common.
Most likely, this will use traditional rocketry in a cheaper form, and it will polute a LOT. In particular, the upper atmosphere will suffer.
In short: if there is a way to make "cheap" space trips, space tourism will develop. Wherever it's polluting or not is sadly not the question.
Obviously it's a good start (though not as good as getting rid of the DMCA altogether)... And the right to circumvent anti-copy measures if you are not doing to steal the stuff is very welcome: It gives a legal reason for the devlopment and existence of software helping you to do it. If this pass, anyone managing to crack a new protection system will be allowed to explain how to do it and/or distribute a program doing just that...
The trial Microsoft is facing in Europe is far from over, and it could potentialy be far more serious than the one in the US; the EU has a tradition of harsher antitrust measures. And in any case, Microsoft's legal victory does not necessarily mean much... Remember IBM, they won their trial, were declared unstoppable by most industry analists, and in the end lost out to Microsoft. The Economist's paper makes a convincing case for the IBM/MS comparison.