Photographs and piracy. What shall their fate be?
on
Photoblog Revolution
·
· Score: 1
Going digital is the great equalizer. Making content digital means you can make perfect reproductions with no loss of data. Just as music and movies have been stolen by digital pirates, so too will be the fate for digital photographs. In today's materialistic society where self worth is measured by the make and model of our cars, capability of our televisions, age of our clothing, expense of our home, and where our children see it is more important to receive rather than to give; there is no compulsion to not steal. People will see something they want and simply take it. It's easy to do in the increasingly digital society we live in, and it mostly it is free. Soon, that will change. In the future, as select minority that is increasing is size, ruin the accessiblity of content we all enjoy; we will long for a return to the days of digital freedom.
"But Ciphertext, piracy has been around for ages. It is nothing new!" you say. However, it has never been so easy to be a pirate, the potential for damage so great, and the concept has never been more acceptable by so many.
P.S. Since we are the federal government and the elections are managed by the state governments, we won't have any information beyond the certified tallies to provide you. Additionally, the FOIA as written does not compel state governments to divulge information they do not want to divulge. I suggest you seek resolution of your grievances with the states responsible for the voting systems in question.
USA never had that much registered voters who actually voted in overall.
True. However, the majority of voters who did vote werne't required to vote for Bush. It is telling that they did.
Because each year there is MORE people allowed to vote in USA (like normal population growth, immigrants becoming citizens, etc.), there are more voters.
While they aren't required to vote democrat (or any party for that matter), I would be interested to see why the "new voters" didn't vote democrat. Again, these numbers didn't turn out for Kerry.
and because what matters is the RATIO of voters (you know that bizarre % sign used all over the place)
The ratios of the popular vote can only be determined by counting the popular votes. The larger the ratio, the more popular votes you must have had relative to the total votes cast as a whole.
Number of actual voters many vary a lot depending on variables that has nothing to do with being electable or not: weather, current political context (like, people are generally enclined to not go vote when they are sure their candidate will win or there is not much at stake - check the last presidential election in France: a lot more people showed up when extreme right suddenly became a possibility - they blasted their number of voters for such an election.).
Obviously those that do not vote are excluded from the popular vote tallies, so they become irrelevant to the discussion of popular vote. They would become relevant to the popular vote only when they place a vote and can then be counted.
Actually, the current mobilisation of voters shows only one thing: there is more people who doubt of the future, hence go to vote to secure theirs. So basically, there are a lot more people who are in doubt and do not know where to stand, which doesn't sound good for a supposedly "united" country.
Pure speculation. What the "current mobilization" shows is that of the popular vote tallied, Bush has a larger portion than did Kerry or "others". To be certain, each individual who votes is allowed to choose their own vote. The fact that the number of registered voters has increased and continues to increase,is really not as important as how they voted.
Unless I'm mistaken, wasn't a recount performed more than once? I thought that is where all of the "hanging chads" and "pregnant chads" talk came from. If they didn't come from a recount effort...then where did they come from?
Get your bot a pre-paid card with the amount you are willing to pay to the casino (usual outcome of gambling). Then you can test all sorts of adaptive learning algorithms. The bot can be programmed to model all the great skills of the poker masters (potentially) and to recognize patterns in the other players. Might be kind of fun.
Re:now for something actually on topic...
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
Should Rowling's grandchildren still be raking in the royalities?
As long as the copyright is still in effect, why not? As heirs to their grandmother's estate, yes, their grandmother can will it to whomever she desires. I do not believe that copyrights should be extendable, however. You get it once, and that's it.
"Fair" does not have the same meaning as "equal". All people are not created equal and do no live in similar socio-economic conditions, as you so pointed out. Some persons are born into the wealth, such as Rockefellers, Hiltons, Heinzs, Hunts, Carnegies, to name a few. Others are born into extreme poverty.
You obviously have a beef with Conservatives who find the current support structures for poor and low-income families ineffective. Sorry, but just as you are entitled to your opinion, so are they. Perhaps they see the situation as, "Why am I contributing to a system that fails more times than it works?".
I know that Novell has a "DeveloperNet" program, and IBM also has an Alpha works program. Though, Alpha works isn't devoted to only Linux technologies. Red Hat, also has a developer program and SuSE does as well.
Write code that nobody will be able to run/fix/maintain on their own, provide very little documentation (ever heard of development and program management specs?)
Give the code away for free
Profit from the support contracts your customers will inevitably need
Modified you get this:
Write code that nobody will be able to run/fix/maintain on their own, provide very little documentation (ever heard of development and program management specs?)
Charge for the code
Profit from the support contracts your customers will inevitably need.
Item 1 in the first case is really a moot point, as most Open Source Software that is used commercially is documented quite sufficiently or at least as well as the for-sale software. In the second case, it costs you more. Because you are paying for both the support package and the code (that you cannot modify)
I have seen many posts regarding the "fair use" of CD games, DVD's, etc... Wouldn't copy protection interfere with an owners right of fair use? If you cannot make an archival copy, and they don't provide you one at time of purchase, then wouldn't that be a violatio of fair use?
Expense Reimbursement: Individuals whom must submit expense reports to get reimbursed for business travel must submit documentation that matches their name to an itenerary, boarding pass, and passenger receipt.
Insure that person holding ticket/pass matches name on ticket/boarding pass: Functions as a deterent against someone outright stealing your ticket/pass from you. Also, validates that individuals who go through security check lines are ONLY those who are travelling (and in certain situations caring for dependents). This has the effect of reducing the number of people that must go through a security line.
Passenger Manifest: The airlines know who is supposed to be on their planes. If it crashes and you didn't survive, they at least know you are dead. Also, if you have people whom you coordinated with for ground transportation they can question airline representatives as to your where-abouts. It is possible that you got bumped to a different flight and weren't able to communicate this to people whom you are meeting at your destination. Additionally, this measure allows Law Enforcement to know who is on a flight.
The government (all U.S. Government bodies) by its nature is a non-profit organization. California's balance sheet must show that their expenses exactly match their revenue. Therefore....it cannot by design make a profit. If they "saved money" in one project and did not expense it to another, that would generate a revenue surplus. Profit. They cannot make a profit, ever. Even if they gave back the money they saved to the populace (which would be difficult to do), they still would have made a profit. If they make a profit, you are no longer a government but a corporation.
You don't allow vehicles that aren't street legal (such as this solar powered car) on the road. The vehicle isn't safe except on a test track. Someone has paid with their life for this mistake.
An organization obtains their piece of the market share by holding a competitive advantage over the rest of their industry. If a company uses nothing but open solutions, they lose a competitive advantage and they are put on an even level with everyone else using open solutions or on a lower level than the organization that does hold a competitive advantage with its IP. For a competitive business, it doesn't make sense to do this, and they won't do it. Open source decreases expenses. But open source also decreases competitive advantage and the most powerful organizations depend on their competitive advantages to stay at the top of their industries.
I don't think merely owning open source products instead of closed source software weakens (or even levels)your ability to maintain a "competive advantage". What gives you the competitive advantage is how "efficiently" you produce your product or provide your service compared to your competitors. This also "assumes" that your product/service is "perceived" to be relatively equal in value to your competitors. You obtain a "competive advantage" by being the most efficient producer/provider of a product or service. The way that you "implement" your IT solutions (closed or open source) plays a role in making you more efficient, however, merely the ownership of an IT solution doesn't make you more efficient. If the implementation augments (by making you more efficient) your capability to perform your business processes, then you will have a competitive advantage over someone who does not have that same capability. IT solutions do not drive a business. Your business practices and processes are what drive the business. The IT solutions merely make you more efficient (in theory) in executing those practices and processes.
Porn is big business as reported in a past Business 2.0. I wonder how big a business it would be if there wasn't an expectation of privacy involved with viewing porn? How many people that view porn and subscribe to porn would no longer continue in such actions if it was no longer, private?
What policy prohibits online gambling? I wasn't aware that the U.S. Government regulated that sort of gambling. I assumed it was handled at the state level. I would imagine that it could continue to be "handled" at the state level. There isn't a need to increase the already "too large" powers of the federal government.
I inadvertantly pressed "submit" instead of "preview". The post should read as "you get.51 watts per feces" instead of "you get.51 watts per 100,000 feces".
Something back is better than nothing back
on
The Power of Sewage
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The average person defecates how many times per day? I didn't see it in the article, so I'm assuming that this was the projected measurement of 1 defecation per person. That means you get.51 watts from 100,000 feces. Assume that upon average, those 100,000 people defecate once per day. It is possible that some people defecate less than once per day and others defecate more than once per day. You basically get 2.04 Mw a day for a city of 4 million. That would be electricity bought and paid for by the sewer system that could be used to assist in the operation of the treatment facilities. Perhaps the savings would get passed on to the home as a reduced sewage handling fee.
Since this is a DoD project, its primary use will be for military networks. Perhaps there will be a trickle down to an "Internet 4" system through technology sharing. I don't see this changing the internet we currently use anytime soon. What it will change is how battlefield command systems and forward deployed units will communicate with each other. Establishing a network connection via traditional microwave, satellite, wired, and wireless (this is the key....wireless) will now exchange data using the DARPA protocol instead of IP.
How nice would it be to have a soldier (or any other unit you wish to deem a "node" on your network) be able to "uplink" to the required military network (battlefield or otherwise) simply by broadcasting to the network. No need to configure a DHCP Server (in the case of dynamic allocation) to dish out an IP address...there is no more IP. I think that is what DARPA is attempting to achieve. They want the military to have a secure, easily scalable, and always available network infrastructure. How they plan to accomplish this...who knows, although it would probably be something similar to IPv6 where everything (network accessible device) has its own hardware created identifier. Perhaps like "DNA" for the hardware. Anyone own stock in Motorola? No? Perhaps it's time to buy some.
Slashdot Mirror
Going digital is the great equalizer. Making content digital means you can make perfect reproductions with no loss of data. Just as music and movies have been stolen by digital pirates, so too will be the fate for digital photographs. In today's materialistic society where self worth is measured by the make and model of our cars, capability of our televisions, age of our clothing, expense of our home, and where our children see it is more important to receive rather than to give; there is no compulsion to not steal. People will see something they want and simply take it. It's easy to do in the increasingly digital society we live in, and it mostly it is free. Soon, that will change. In the future, as select minority that is increasing is size, ruin the accessiblity of content we all enjoy; we will long for a return to the days of digital freedom.
"But Ciphertext, piracy has been around for ages. It is nothing new!" you say. However, it has never been so easy to be a pirate, the potential for damage so great, and the concept has never been more acceptable by so many.
You forgot the P.S.
P.S. Since we are the federal government and the elections are managed by the state governments, we won't have any information beyond the certified tallies to provide you. Additionally, the FOIA as written does not compel state governments to divulge information they do not want to divulge. I suggest you seek resolution of your grievances with the states responsible for the voting systems in question.
Democrats would threaten a fillibuster.
http://mythtv.org/ Don't know if you could "run" this PVR software on a Tivo. But I think you could probably build your own PVR and use this.
Dang it....be me to the post.
Unless I'm mistaken, wasn't a recount performed more than once? I thought that is where all of the "hanging chads" and "pregnant chads" talk came from. If they didn't come from a recount effort...then where did they come from?
Get your bot a pre-paid card with the amount you are willing to pay to the casino (usual outcome of gambling). Then you can test all sorts of adaptive learning algorithms. The bot can be programmed to model all the great skills of the poker masters (potentially) and to recognize patterns in the other players. Might be kind of fun.
"Fair" does not have the same meaning as "equal". All people are not created equal and do no live in similar socio-economic conditions, as you so pointed out. Some persons are born into the wealth, such as Rockefellers, Hiltons, Heinzs, Hunts, Carnegies, to name a few. Others are born into extreme poverty.
You obviously have a beef with Conservatives who find the current support structures for poor and low-income families ineffective. Sorry, but just as you are entitled to your opinion, so are they. Perhaps they see the situation as, "Why am I contributing to a system that fails more times than it works?".
Here are two that I've used in the past.
I know that Novell has a "DeveloperNet" program, and IBM also has an Alpha works program. Though, Alpha works isn't devoted to only Linux technologies. Red Hat, also has a developer program and SuSE does as well.
you wrote:
Modified you get this:
Item 1 in the first case is really a moot point, as most Open Source Software that is used commercially is documented quite sufficiently or at least as well as the for-sale software. In the second case, it costs you more. Because you are paying for both the support package and the code (that you cannot modify)
Isn't that what "interpreting" the laws falls under?
I have seen many posts regarding the "fair use" of CD games, DVD's, etc... Wouldn't copy protection interfere with an owners right of fair use? If you cannot make an archival copy, and they don't provide you one at time of purchase, then wouldn't that be a violatio of fair use?
The government (all U.S. Government bodies) by its nature is a non-profit organization. California's balance sheet must show that their expenses exactly match their revenue. Therefore....it cannot by design make a profit. If they "saved money" in one project and did not expense it to another, that would generate a revenue surplus. Profit. They cannot make a profit, ever. Even if they gave back the money they saved to the populace (which would be difficult to do), they still would have made a profit. If they make a profit, you are no longer a government but a corporation.
You don't allow vehicles that aren't street legal (such as this solar powered car) on the road. The vehicle isn't safe except on a test track. Someone has paid with their life for this mistake.
You know.....after reading it again.....there are WAY too many quotation marks.
I don't think merely owning open source products instead of closed source software weakens (or even levels)your ability to maintain a "competive advantage". What gives you the competitive advantage is how "efficiently" you produce your product or provide your service compared to your competitors. This also "assumes" that your product/service is "perceived" to be relatively equal in value to your competitors. You obtain a "competive advantage" by being the most efficient producer/provider of a product or service. The way that you "implement" your IT solutions (closed or open source) plays a role in making you more efficient, however, merely the ownership of an IT solution doesn't make you more efficient. If the implementation augments (by making you more efficient) your capability to perform your business processes, then you will have a competitive advantage over someone who does not have that same capability. IT solutions do not drive a business. Your business practices and processes are what drive the business. The IT solutions merely make you more efficient (in theory) in executing those practices and processes.
Porn is big business as reported in a past Business 2.0. I wonder how big a business it would be if there wasn't an expectation of privacy involved with viewing porn? How many people that view porn and subscribe to porn would no longer continue in such actions if it was no longer, private?
Is that the City of Houston proper, or is that the metropolitan area?
What policy prohibits online gambling? I wasn't aware that the U.S. Government regulated that sort of gambling. I assumed it was handled at the state level. I would imagine that it could continue to be "handled" at the state level. There isn't a need to increase the already "too large" powers of the federal government.
I inadvertantly pressed "submit" instead of "preview". The post should read as "you get .51 watts per feces" instead of "you get .51 watts per 100,000 feces".
The average person defecates how many times per day? I didn't see it in the article, so I'm assuming that this was the projected measurement of 1 defecation per person. That means you get .51 watts from 100,000 feces. Assume that upon average, those 100,000 people defecate once per day. It is possible that some people defecate less than once per day and others defecate more than once per day. You basically get 2.04 Mw a day for a city of 4 million. That would be electricity bought and paid for by the sewer system that could be used to assist in the operation of the treatment facilities. Perhaps the savings would get passed on to the home as a reduced sewage handling fee.
Since this is a DoD project, its primary use will be for military networks. Perhaps there will be a trickle down to an "Internet 4" system through technology sharing. I don't see this changing the internet we currently use anytime soon. What it will change is how battlefield command systems and forward deployed units will communicate with each other. Establishing a network connection via traditional microwave, satellite, wired, and wireless (this is the key....wireless) will now exchange data using the DARPA protocol instead of IP.
How nice would it be to have a soldier (or any other unit you wish to deem a "node" on your network) be able to "uplink" to the required military network (battlefield or otherwise) simply by broadcasting to the network. No need to configure a DHCP Server (in the case of dynamic allocation) to dish out an IP address...there is no more IP. I think that is what DARPA is attempting to achieve. They want the military to have a secure, easily scalable, and always available network infrastructure. How they plan to accomplish this...who knows, although it would probably be something similar to IPv6 where everything (network accessible device) has its own hardware created identifier. Perhaps like "DNA" for the hardware. Anyone own stock in Motorola? No? Perhaps it's time to buy some.