That's like complaining that General Motors has a monopoly because if you go down to Crazy Al's Pontiac/Buick/GMC, you can't buy a Toyota (well, not counting the Pontiac Vibe being a twin of the Toyota Matrix...
Considering that General Motors (including POntiac, Buick, Chevrolet, Geo, Saturn (yes, saturn), Cadillac, Oldsmobile, and a few others) has a partnership with Toyota, you picked the wrong two companies to compare. I get your point, but you really did pick an ass-wrong analogy there.
If any of you Opera users find the "Free-X Statement" link akin to a Spinal Tap album cover, the site hasn't been defaced or removed. Try another browser, Opera 7.0 appears not to render their page readably. Undoubtedly the site's fault, not Opera's, of course.
Well, if you were using a browser that anally complied with standards, you wouldn't have to post shit about how your browser sucks, would you?
I would have been interested in your opinion, but your spelling error made you sound like an out of control and destructive teenager. Okay, maybe one error means you could be in your twenties, posibly with some slight degree of control, but the destructive tendencies are undeniable. Could you submit a longer writing sample for analysis?
It's a complicated problem, and the solution is almost certainly going to piss some people off. But what's the alternative? Give pilots guns and a Kevlar door? I don't really think that's going to help. Do you?
The alternative is having someone every 40-50 years hijack a few planes and crash them into a major landmark.
Seriously, though, you're absolutely right that a pilot's judgement can be compromised in exceptional situations. The right way to approach this problem, in my opinion, is to determine the probabilities of various exceptional situations and then decide if it's worth it. While I'm all over the idea that every life is worth saving and so forth, the simple fact is that automation is dangerous without human intervention. When you introduce automation as a solution to a human problem, you create the possibility of the safeguard causing more death and drekk than the problem you've solved.
I don't think that giving a pilot a gun is going to solve the problem, either. I don't think that putting more air marshals on every plane is going to solve the problem. I don't think that separating the cockpit from the passenger area is going to solve the problem. And I sure in the fuck don't think that some automated back-seat driver is going to solve the problem either.
It's a human problem and it requires a human solution. Part of the problem is American politics (compare all the UN resolutions Israel has broken compared to Iraq, yaddayaddayadda). Part of the problem is the level of fanaticism in the "terrorist" countries. Part of the problem is the level of poverty in those same countries. The lack of freedom. Etc. The list of human problems that contribute to the acts of terrorism goes on and on. Ultimately, though, I think our energies, money, and compassion would be best spent solving the human problems, rather than using technology as a scapegoat for standing up and taking responsibility for being human.
Right, so what you want to do is not hack the avionics but hack the database. Extend the 'soft walls' to ridiculous sizes, and funnel airplanes into a tight spot, having them fight the computer-mandated collision.
The article says that as you approach a "soft wall", the plane would bank automatically in the opposite direction you're pointing. So why not just fly straight at the building? Then when you hit the soft wall, just turn the throttle in the opposite direction the soft wall system tries to go, and it'll keep the plane going straight. Even a 5-year old can do that.
There are such systems on trains in many countries, and have they prevented several serious accidents following signals passed at danger.
Aren't those things called "train tracks"? I mean, how much control can you have on a train? Go and Stop. Hmmm.
And what do you call pilots who let their planes be flown into crowded office buildings, killing all on board anyway plus a few thousand civilians, i.e., who are involved in exactly the sort of situation the proposed system is designed to prevent?
Think further back. All of this data will come from a single point (FAA?), and there will be no way to accurately verify it once it leaves that point.
Obviously you've never download a Linux kernel, or you'd know about digital signing, CRC checksums, and so forth. This problem has already been solved. Next, please.
While this is neat technology that could lead to big things for aircraft, imho, it's less an anti-terrorist device than the next step in automation. They're just marketing it as "anti-terrorist" because that's the big buzz-word right now for you yankees, and they'll get you talking about it...sounds more interesting that "advanced auto pilot"
That was a smart thing. However:
Of course, they could hijack the plane before it LEAVES the city of departure, before it gets to the soft wall limits...
NOw, this from the article:
Surrounding city centres and likely terrorist targets with "soft walls" will make it impossible for hijacked planes to get anywhere near them.
City centres (note the gay british spelling) and likely terrorist targets. I think that what they're referring to is putting these so-called soft walls around, say, the Space Needle, or the Empire State Building, rather than entire cities. Then, if a plane flies in that particular no-fly zone it would just be shot down.
Also, I'd like to point out that as much as there's American bashing going on about the "terrorist" attachment to the article (and I'd usually be bashing too), and in spite of the fact that the researchers are American, they're suggesting putting it in European planes, and the article is obviously European.:) I don't know what that means, but I like it.
Yeah, maybe we are arrogant. But as long as you and your fellow Eurotroll friends get all haughty about getting the best of some unsuspecting tourist in conversation, instead of kicking ass and taking names like we do here in the "good old US of A," then you'll remain well below the US in any category you choose.
And it's not a bad record for the country that was the first domino in the fall of the English Empire. I don't know if it can be called arrogance, 'cause it's a fine line between arrogance and pride.
Simplllllogic. Perhaps you should re-read the post where he suggests any number of places the shit has already been cracked and concludes that it's possible and we haven't found out about it.
As I recall, Apple IIe used the 6502's, just like the Commodore 64, but the Apple IIgs was a 16-bit system and used 68000. I could be wrong. Also, I may be thinking about an Atari of the same time period. Atari's first (and last, so far as I know) 16-bit offering was also 68000-based (and Commodore inherited a lawsuit when they bought Amiga. The lawsuit was with Atari over patented technology that Atari supposedly owned that was put in the Amiga. Those patents were helpful for the Amiga kicking Atari out of the market). Hmm....
Firstly in most countries of the world, light beer == beer with reduced alcohol.
In the States, Bud lite and Budweiser have different alcohol content, iirc. But budweiser has the maximum allowed by law and still be classified "beer". That's the only exception I know of, otherwise coors lite, michelob lite, et al, all have the same alcohol content as their more fattening counterparts. Alcohol content is heavily regulated in teh US.
Secondly, calories aren't a measure of how full you will get from something. Check out the difference between eating the same number of calories via a chocolate bar and the same number of calories via lettuce.
All marketing lingo aside, the purpose of lite beer in the US is to provide beer with alcohol comparable to regular stuff that beer-haters can drink and get drunk with. So it doesn't have as strong a flavor as the so-called heavier stuff. It is marketed as "less fattening", but it's really there for people who can't stand the taste of beer but wanna get drunk cheap. Beer companies never do the cost breakdown that shows its cheaper to get drunk off an expense bottle of liquor than beer anyways.:) Wine coolers provide the same alternative, actually, and some of them approach the alcohol content of beer.
It's a sure thing that lite beer will have a different definition in other countries, since alcohol laws vary so widely from one jurisdiction to another.
It gets more complicated when you introduce the other stuff, like bocks and ice ales and so forth. Icehouse, the best of the cheap shit, actually has more alcohol than standard buttwiper, and usually clocks in at $1 or more cheaper (or did 3 years ago when I obught this stuff). But Icehouse is an "ale" and not a beer. And the bocks usually rank with the ice ales. Ziegenbock (any Texans out there?) packs quite a bit of alcohol for a non-liquor drink, and tastes really good as well.
I had another problem with the grandparent post, actually, which is that maturity doesn't require drinking lite beer and I felt that the poster was just trying to justify his preference. I can't stand lite beer, but I haven't had a drink in over a year at least. The next time I *do* have a drink, I'll do everything needed to avoid having it be some punk-ass lite beer.
Just so you know, light beer has the same amount of alcohol as any other beer. It's called "light" or "lite" beer because its less fattening and therefore doesn't fill you up as much, therefore allowing you to drink more.
Personally, I can't stand light beer. I prefer a good, strong, Amber beer, which still isn't the strongest available.
A five year old might think this "logically". Someone capable of applying thought in more than one direction might ask "how does it hurt the economy if the person downloading would never have bought the album in the first place ?"
Not to mention things like whether or not he's more likely to go out and buy a new release, live album, convert dvd, video dvd, and/or attend one or more concerts from that band. It's been many years, but at one time you could tell what the first album I acquired from a band was because it was "pirated", even if you saw 3-6 CDs that were purchased from a store in my collection. I just didn't get around to buying the stuff I'd pirated because I was more interested in buying what I hadn't heard. These days you can't tell the difference, because everything's stored in mp3 on my computer, and the CDs are locked up to keep them from my kids' destructive influence. (Not to mention the fact that 90% of my music collection was actually pirated, and I don't give a shit about it because I have paid for 95% of that in the past, even if I don't have a current copy to show for it)
I work on a rule, actually. If I don't buy something I have pirated, I try to spread it to other people who are likely to buy it. Then I tag them with a guilt lecture about buying music endorsed by the fascists at the RIAA.
It's totally LEGAL for me, a 30-year-old man, to sleep with a consenting 16-year-old female in the state of Michigan. Does that make it right? No.
At the risk of going offtopic, why isn't it right for two consenting people to sleep together? I'll agree that typically it may not be the best thing for either of you, but there are exceptions to that, even. Why is it wrong? She's got boobs? She bleeds? It's not like you'd be sleeping with a girl that hadn't even achieved the onset of menses or anything. We're talking about a girl that could fuck your brains out with the best of 'em, and you're saying that this is wrong? Why?
While I will agree with you that legal != right and illegal != wrong, but it is the intent of lawmakers (or more specifically, the people who voted for them) to make law reflect morality, so I would strongly recommend putting some thought into your reply.
For example, by coding into an original file the intelligence to remember the identity of the machine onto which it was first copied. If an attempt is subsequently made to duplicate that original copy onto another networked machine, the file sends an alert to the copyright holder and then deletes itself. Code that performs these tasks code be embedded with the data that comprised the music in such a fashion that any attempt to disassemble or remove it would result in damage to the music.
You're overlooking fair use, though. Simply speaking, fair use says that I have a right to make as many copies for personal use as I want. I have no less than 3 computers that are MINE MINE MINE hooked up to the network most of the time, and they're not always on the same network (one's a laptop). Fair use says that I have a right to copy the music I legally purchased onto all three of those computers. Your scheme prevents that. That is the main weakness, and the main complaint. While I don't necessarily think that P2P is right or wrong, I do think that the wrong place to stop it is at the point where someone rips a CD onto their machine. I don't know that there is a right place to stop it, because I don't know that P2P is wrong, even if it's main purpose is to pirate music/movies/software/etc. Pandora's box has been opened, and it won't be closed. It's time to redefine morality and just deal with it.
DISCLAIMER: I don't think there's anything wrong with P2P being used for copyright infringement. Copyright is a two-way street, and one part of the deal isn't being upheld by the corporations responsible, therefore there is nothing wrong if we decide not to honor our part of the deal.
Why, exactly do you think that copyrights are *wrong*? I don't mean the specifics -- "xx years is too many, xx would be better", "xxx company abuses it" -- but why is the actual concept the use of an idea being controlled by the person who thought up the idea (and if anybody has a better def of copyright, feel free to tell me) not good?
As a member of the faction of/. that thinks that IP as a government-sponsored institution should be abolished, I feel obligated to respond.
Copyright isn't wrong, per se. It's flawed. It is based on the idea that any idea that can be had will only ever be had by one person, and then grants control of that idea to the one person that dreams it up for a limited period of time. While I don't think ideas should be controlled, let's take a look at whether or not the base idea is correct.
First, the chances that someone will think up an idea never change. (Base assumption, the chances might actually change, depending on whether or not new ideas inspire the thought to be had or suppress the thought)
More and more people in the world everyday means that there are more opportunities for someone to have a certain idea. Laws of statistics are built upon the foundation that coincidences can and do happen, every day in fact.
Now, the longer a work is, the less likely someone else is to create that identical work. However, when we're talking about music, there's just not that many new ideas coming into play in music. There's your regular 4 chords in rock and roll, and there's hundreds of thousands of songs that all sound the same because they use the same progressions. There's a finite number of permutations of those chords, and a finite number of rhythms and phrases in which you can work those chords. It's no surprise, then, that people create songs that are infringing works. No, I can't substantiate this, other than with the George Harrison suit, and George Harrison wasn't particularly creative so it's likely he did rip off the song.:)
Novels are a different story, simply because of what is actually copyrighted in a novel. It's the entire text of the book. It doesn't take very long before it becomes highly unlikely that someone else will write a duplicate of the work.
In any case, there's more people on this planet every year, and more opportunities for a copyright to be infringed by a totally independent creative effort. How do you address this problem?
Now, patents are different than copyrights, and I'm more opposed to patents than to copyright, because a patent really is giving complete control of an idea to one person for a period of time.
In other words, if I, say, write a novel and publish it (which I hope to do some day), why shouldn't have some control of how it is sold, what is done with the story, and how profits are made off it?
Several things, here. First, is the story the part of the book that's copyrighted? Or is it the entire work? Do you want complete control over the story? What happens when you write a book with a story that matches someone else's real life experiences, and they also write a book about it? What part of the work are you seeking control over? Is it the characters? Or is it the work as a whole?
Nobody's trying to take away your right to try to make money any way you can, we're just trying to make it a more competitive market. That's all.:) Here's a question: if I go down to the bookstore and buy a copy of your book, what right do you have to tell me I can't make copies and pass them around to my friends and family? What right do you have to tell me what I can and can't do with the book I purchased? I say none at all, and if you want that right, don't sell it to me. What right do you have to tell me that I can't quote parts or all of the book in any fashion without your permission? I say that the only responsibility I have in that case is to cite the author and t
How can you say that the Beastie boys were less commercial than anyone?
If you re-read my post, you'll see that I said they were less commercial than the Aerosmith/RunDMC combination that recorded that rap version of Walk This Way. It doesn't take much to be less commercial than *that*, and the beastie boys were less commercial than that.
Commercial music is music that is produced for the sole purpose of making money. Non-commercial music is music that is produced for reasons other than making money, although making money is frequently a reason the music is made as well. It's the difference between someone cooking you a meal because they want your money for it and someone cooking you a meal because they want you to enjoy their food.
Run DMC being the first rappers to cross over to rap
Obviously, the second "rap" should be "rock".
Secondly, I left out the Beastie Boys (mental block is all that is) who grew up in the same neighborhood as Anthrax and they all went to each other's shows. The Beastie Boys are the less-commercial fathers of this branch of metal, less commercial than the Aerosmith/RunDMC bullshit that came out, but much more likely to be the father of the Limp Bizkit line than Aerosmith.
I know Linkin Park is derivative of Limp Bizkit and if you go farther back, Faith No More,
Let's complete the tree, shall we?
Anthrax is next up in the tree, with I'm the Man in 1986. Aerosmith is at the top of the rock branch, from there you head into the rappers of the '80s. Run DMC being the first rappers to cross over to rap.
Also on the tree is Body Count, with Ice T I believe, as the rapper.
Not saying I'm a big fan of this shit, but if you're trying to rub it in that neither Linkin Park nor Limp Bizkit started anything new then you really do need to follow the tree all the way up to the first-generation, which is actually an old-school rock band working with a (then) young rap group (note: they're called "rap groups", not "rap bands").
So what does that make Metallica if they're a copy of a copy of a copy?
Well, have you ever seen a picture of the ourobourous? That's what Metallica is now, and this has nothing to do with whether or not the original claim that they've turned into a ocpy of linkin park is true. Fact is, with that stupid album with the snake on it, they bit themselves on the ass and have just kept on chewing ever since then.
Slashdot Mirror
(3) How does $40 million toward reproductive health in 3rd world nations work to benefit Microsoft? No conspiracy theories please.
Well, since he's already forced everyone else to buy a copy of windows, where do you think the new market for windows is going to come from, exactly?
That's like complaining that General Motors has a monopoly because if you go down to Crazy Al's Pontiac/Buick/GMC, you can't buy a Toyota (well, not counting the Pontiac Vibe being a twin of the Toyota Matrix...
Considering that General Motors (including POntiac, Buick, Chevrolet, Geo, Saturn (yes, saturn), Cadillac, Oldsmobile, and a few others) has a partnership with Toyota, you picked the wrong two companies to compare. I get your point, but you really did pick an ass-wrong analogy there.
If any of you Opera users find the "Free-X Statement" link akin to a Spinal Tap album cover, the site hasn't been defaced or removed. Try another browser, Opera 7.0 appears not to render their page readably. Undoubtedly the site's fault, not Opera's, of course.
Well, if you were using a browser that anally complied with standards, you wouldn't have to post shit about how your browser sucks, would you?
Can't pass this one up. Emphasis mine.
I would have been interested in your opinion, but your spelling error made you sound like an out of control and destructive teenager. Okay, maybe one error means you could be in your twenties, posibly with some slight degree of control, but the destructive tendencies are undeniable. Could you submit a longer writing sample for analysis?
Enough said.
Who cares about the DMCA. Most of the six billion world population lives outside the USA.
They don't have computers. They're all pagan filth and terrorists.
It's a complicated problem, and the solution is almost certainly going to piss some people off. But what's the alternative? Give pilots guns and a Kevlar door? I don't really think that's going to help. Do you?
The alternative is having someone every 40-50 years hijack a few planes and crash them into a major landmark.
Seriously, though, you're absolutely right that a pilot's judgement can be compromised in exceptional situations. The right way to approach this problem, in my opinion, is to determine the probabilities of various exceptional situations and then decide if it's worth it. While I'm all over the idea that every life is worth saving and so forth, the simple fact is that automation is dangerous without human intervention. When you introduce automation as a solution to a human problem, you create the possibility of the safeguard causing more death and drekk than the problem you've solved.
I don't think that giving a pilot a gun is going to solve the problem, either. I don't think that putting more air marshals on every plane is going to solve the problem. I don't think that separating the cockpit from the passenger area is going to solve the problem. And I sure in the fuck don't think that some automated back-seat driver is going to solve the problem either.
It's a human problem and it requires a human solution. Part of the problem is American politics (compare all the UN resolutions Israel has broken compared to Iraq, yaddayaddayadda). Part of the problem is the level of fanaticism in the "terrorist" countries. Part of the problem is the level of poverty in those same countries. The lack of freedom. Etc. The list of human problems that contribute to the acts of terrorism goes on and on. Ultimately, though, I think our energies, money, and compassion would be best spent solving the human problems, rather than using technology as a scapegoat for standing up and taking responsibility for being human.
Right, so what you want to do is not hack the avionics but hack the database. Extend the 'soft walls' to ridiculous sizes, and funnel airplanes into a tight spot, having them fight the computer-mandated collision.
The article says that as you approach a "soft wall", the plane would bank automatically in the opposite direction you're pointing. So why not just fly straight at the building? Then when you hit the soft wall, just turn the throttle in the opposite direction the soft wall system tries to go, and it'll keep the plane going straight. Even a 5-year old can do that.
There are such systems on trains in many countries, and have they prevented several serious accidents following signals passed at danger.
Aren't those things called "train tracks"? I mean, how much control can you have on a train? Go and Stop. Hmmm.
And what do you call pilots who let their planes be flown into crowded office buildings, killing all on board anyway plus a few thousand civilians, i.e., who are involved in exactly the sort of situation the proposed system is designed to prevent?
Dead.
Silly Linux newbie...dll's are for Windows
That's right, we have so-hell instead.
And a missile can blow up a plane too. The terrorists on 9/11 were working with box cutters.
Alright, troll, what does your second sentence have to do with the first and the topic in this thread?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Think further back. All of this data will come from a single point (FAA?), and there will be no way to accurately verify it once it leaves that point.
Obviously you've never download a Linux kernel, or you'd know about digital signing, CRC checksums, and so forth. This problem has already been solved. Next, please.
While this is neat technology that could lead to big things for aircraft, imho, it's less an anti-terrorist device than the next step in automation. They're just marketing it as "anti-terrorist" because that's the big buzz-word right now for you yankees, and they'll get you talking about it...sounds more interesting that "advanced auto pilot"
That was a smart thing. However:
Of course, they could hijack the plane before it LEAVES the city of departure, before it gets to the soft wall limits...
NOw, this from the article:
Surrounding city centres and likely terrorist targets with "soft walls" will make it impossible for hijacked planes to get anywhere near them.
City centres (note the gay british spelling) and likely terrorist targets. I think that what they're referring to is putting these so-called soft walls around, say, the Space Needle, or the Empire State Building, rather than entire cities. Then, if a plane flies in that particular no-fly zone it would just be shot down.
Also, I'd like to point out that as much as there's American bashing going on about the "terrorist" attachment to the article (and I'd usually be bashing too), and in spite of the fact that the researchers are American, they're suggesting putting it in European planes, and the article is obviously European. :) I don't know what that means, but I like it.
Yeah, maybe we are arrogant. But as long as you and your fellow Eurotroll friends get all haughty about getting the best of some unsuspecting tourist in conversation, instead of kicking ass and taking names like we do here in the "good old US of A," then you'll remain well below the US in any category you choose.
And it's not a bad record for the country that was the first domino in the fall of the English Empire. I don't know if it can be called arrogance, 'cause it's a fine line between arrogance and pride.
Yet you seem to know about them. How?
Simplllllogic. Perhaps you should re-read the post where he suggests any number of places the shit has already been cracked and concludes that it's possible and we haven't found out about it.
As I recall, Apple IIe used the 6502's, just like the Commodore 64, but the Apple IIgs was a 16-bit system and used 68000. I could be wrong. Also, I may be thinking about an Atari of the same time period. Atari's first (and last, so far as I know) 16-bit offering was also 68000-based (and Commodore inherited a lawsuit when they bought Amiga. The lawsuit was with Atari over patented technology that Atari supposedly owned that was put in the Amiga. Those patents were helpful for the Amiga kicking Atari out of the market). Hmm....
(BTW Mac's 68000 was 32-bit internally)
BTW, the 68000 series was actually made by Motorola, used in teh Apple IIgs and teh Commodore Amiga, among other machines.
Firstly in most countries of the world, light beer == beer with reduced alcohol.
In the States, Bud lite and Budweiser have different alcohol content, iirc. But budweiser has the maximum allowed by law and still be classified "beer". That's the only exception I know of, otherwise coors lite, michelob lite, et al, all have the same alcohol content as their more fattening counterparts. Alcohol content is heavily regulated in teh US.
Secondly, calories aren't a measure of how full you will get from something. Check out the difference between eating the same number of calories via a chocolate bar and the same number of calories via lettuce.
All marketing lingo aside, the purpose of lite beer in the US is to provide beer with alcohol comparable to regular stuff that beer-haters can drink and get drunk with. So it doesn't have as strong a flavor as the so-called heavier stuff. It is marketed as "less fattening", but it's really there for people who can't stand the taste of beer but wanna get drunk cheap. Beer companies never do the cost breakdown that shows its cheaper to get drunk off an expense bottle of liquor than beer anyways. :) Wine coolers provide the same alternative, actually, and some of them approach the alcohol content of beer.
It's a sure thing that lite beer will have a different definition in other countries, since alcohol laws vary so widely from one jurisdiction to another.
It gets more complicated when you introduce the other stuff, like bocks and ice ales and so forth. Icehouse, the best of the cheap shit, actually has more alcohol than standard buttwiper, and usually clocks in at $1 or more cheaper (or did 3 years ago when I obught this stuff). But Icehouse is an "ale" and not a beer. And the bocks usually rank with the ice ales. Ziegenbock (any Texans out there?) packs quite a bit of alcohol for a non-liquor drink, and tastes really good as well.
I had another problem with the grandparent post, actually, which is that maturity doesn't require drinking lite beer and I felt that the poster was just trying to justify his preference. I can't stand lite beer, but I haven't had a drink in over a year at least. The next time I *do* have a drink, I'll do everything needed to avoid having it be some punk-ass lite beer.
Just equate light beer == pot+tobacco. /soapbox
Just so you know, light beer has the same amount of alcohol as any other beer. It's called "light" or "lite" beer because its less fattening and therefore doesn't fill you up as much, therefore allowing you to drink more.
Personally, I can't stand light beer. I prefer a good, strong, Amber beer, which still isn't the strongest available.
A five year old might think this "logically". Someone capable of applying thought in more than one direction might ask "how does it hurt the economy if the person downloading would never have bought the album in the first place ?"
Not to mention things like whether or not he's more likely to go out and buy a new release, live album, convert dvd, video dvd, and/or attend one or more concerts from that band. It's been many years, but at one time you could tell what the first album I acquired from a band was because it was "pirated", even if you saw 3-6 CDs that were purchased from a store in my collection. I just didn't get around to buying the stuff I'd pirated because I was more interested in buying what I hadn't heard. These days you can't tell the difference, because everything's stored in mp3 on my computer, and the CDs are locked up to keep them from my kids' destructive influence. (Not to mention the fact that 90% of my music collection was actually pirated, and I don't give a shit about it because I have paid for 95% of that in the past, even if I don't have a current copy to show for it)
I work on a rule, actually. If I don't buy something I have pirated, I try to spread it to other people who are likely to buy it. Then I tag them with a guilt lecture about buying music endorsed by the fascists at the RIAA.
It's totally LEGAL for me, a 30-year-old man, to sleep with a consenting 16-year-old female in the state of Michigan. Does that make it right? No.
At the risk of going offtopic, why isn't it right for two consenting people to sleep together? I'll agree that typically it may not be the best thing for either of you, but there are exceptions to that, even. Why is it wrong? She's got boobs? She bleeds? It's not like you'd be sleeping with a girl that hadn't even achieved the onset of menses or anything. We're talking about a girl that could fuck your brains out with the best of 'em, and you're saying that this is wrong? Why?
While I will agree with you that legal != right and illegal != wrong, but it is the intent of lawmakers (or more specifically, the people who voted for them) to make law reflect morality, so I would strongly recommend putting some thought into your reply.
For example, by coding into an original file the intelligence to remember the identity of the machine onto which it was first copied. If an attempt is subsequently made to duplicate that original copy onto another networked machine, the file sends an alert to the copyright holder and then deletes itself. Code that performs these tasks code be embedded with the data that comprised the music in such a fashion that any attempt to disassemble or remove it would result in damage to the music.
You're overlooking fair use, though. Simply speaking, fair use says that I have a right to make as many copies for personal use as I want. I have no less than 3 computers that are MINE MINE MINE hooked up to the network most of the time, and they're not always on the same network (one's a laptop). Fair use says that I have a right to copy the music I legally purchased onto all three of those computers. Your scheme prevents that. That is the main weakness, and the main complaint. While I don't necessarily think that P2P is right or wrong, I do think that the wrong place to stop it is at the point where someone rips a CD onto their machine. I don't know that there is a right place to stop it, because I don't know that P2P is wrong, even if it's main purpose is to pirate music/movies/software/etc. Pandora's box has been opened, and it won't be closed. It's time to redefine morality and just deal with it.
DISCLAIMER: I don't think there's anything wrong with P2P being used for copyright infringement. Copyright is a two-way street, and one part of the deal isn't being upheld by the corporations responsible, therefore there is nothing wrong if we decide not to honor our part of the deal.
Why, exactly do you think that copyrights are *wrong*? I don't mean the specifics -- "xx years is too many, xx would be better", "xxx company abuses it" -- but why is the actual concept the use of an idea being controlled by the person who thought up the idea (and if anybody has a better def of copyright, feel free to tell me) not good?
As a member of the faction of /. that thinks that IP as a government-sponsored institution should be abolished, I feel obligated to respond.
Copyright isn't wrong, per se. It's flawed. It is based on the idea that any idea that can be had will only ever be had by one person, and then grants control of that idea to the one person that dreams it up for a limited period of time. While I don't think ideas should be controlled, let's take a look at whether or not the base idea is correct.
First, the chances that someone will think up an idea never change. (Base assumption, the chances might actually change, depending on whether or not new ideas inspire the thought to be had or suppress the thought)
More and more people in the world everyday means that there are more opportunities for someone to have a certain idea. Laws of statistics are built upon the foundation that coincidences can and do happen, every day in fact.
Now, the longer a work is, the less likely someone else is to create that identical work. However, when we're talking about music, there's just not that many new ideas coming into play in music. There's your regular 4 chords in rock and roll, and there's hundreds of thousands of songs that all sound the same because they use the same progressions. There's a finite number of permutations of those chords, and a finite number of rhythms and phrases in which you can work those chords. It's no surprise, then, that people create songs that are infringing works. No, I can't substantiate this, other than with the George Harrison suit, and George Harrison wasn't particularly creative so it's likely he did rip off the song. :)
Novels are a different story, simply because of what is actually copyrighted in a novel. It's the entire text of the book. It doesn't take very long before it becomes highly unlikely that someone else will write a duplicate of the work.
In any case, there's more people on this planet every year, and more opportunities for a copyright to be infringed by a totally independent creative effort. How do you address this problem?
Now, patents are different than copyrights, and I'm more opposed to patents than to copyright, because a patent really is giving complete control of an idea to one person for a period of time.
In other words, if I, say, write a novel and publish it (which I hope to do some day), why shouldn't have some control of how it is sold, what is done with the story, and how profits are made off it?
Several things, here. First, is the story the part of the book that's copyrighted? Or is it the entire work? Do you want complete control over the story? What happens when you write a book with a story that matches someone else's real life experiences, and they also write a book about it? What part of the work are you seeking control over? Is it the characters? Or is it the work as a whole?
Nobody's trying to take away your right to try to make money any way you can, we're just trying to make it a more competitive market. That's all. :) Here's a question: if I go down to the bookstore and buy a copy of your book, what right do you have to tell me I can't make copies and pass them around to my friends and family? What right do you have to tell me what I can and can't do with the book I purchased? I say none at all, and if you want that right, don't sell it to me. What right do you have to tell me that I can't quote parts or all of the book in any fashion without your permission? I say that the only responsibility I have in that case is to cite the author and t
How can you say that the Beastie boys were less commercial than anyone?
If you re-read my post, you'll see that I said they were less commercial than the Aerosmith/RunDMC combination that recorded that rap version of Walk This Way. It doesn't take much to be less commercial than *that*, and the beastie boys were less commercial than that.
Commercial music is music that is produced for the sole purpose of making money. Non-commercial music is music that is produced for reasons other than making money, although making money is frequently a reason the music is made as well. It's the difference between someone cooking you a meal because they want your money for it and someone cooking you a meal because they want you to enjoy their food.
Sorry, first off I screwed this up:
Run DMC being the first rappers to cross over to rap
Obviously, the second "rap" should be "rock".
Secondly, I left out the Beastie Boys (mental block is all that is) who grew up in the same neighborhood as Anthrax and they all went to each other's shows. The Beastie Boys are the less-commercial fathers of this branch of metal, less commercial than the Aerosmith/RunDMC bullshit that came out, but much more likely to be the father of the Limp Bizkit line than Aerosmith.
I know Linkin Park is derivative of Limp Bizkit and if you go farther back, Faith No More,
Let's complete the tree, shall we?
Anthrax is next up in the tree, with I'm the Man in 1986. Aerosmith is at the top of the rock branch, from there you head into the rappers of the '80s. Run DMC being the first rappers to cross over to rap.
Also on the tree is Body Count, with Ice T I believe, as the rapper.
Not saying I'm a big fan of this shit, but if you're trying to rub it in that neither Linkin Park nor Limp Bizkit started anything new then you really do need to follow the tree all the way up to the first-generation, which is actually an old-school rock band working with a (then) young rap group (note: they're called "rap groups", not "rap bands").
So what does that make Metallica if they're a copy of a copy of a copy?
Well, have you ever seen a picture of the ourobourous? That's what Metallica is now, and this has nothing to do with whether or not the original claim that they've turned into a ocpy of linkin park is true. Fact is, with that stupid album with the snake on it, they bit themselves on the ass and have just kept on chewing ever since then.