If they do the prequel, I'm hoping they'll show a lot more about the creation and revolt of the Cylons. It may be a show about the characters more than the technology, however, the Cylons have proven themselves to be independent beings as well, so let us find out why they hate their creators so much that they'd rather go back to war with them again then just go off in the galaxy and do whatever Cylons do to have fun!
It will be great to see the Galactica back in the days when it was shiny and new. The only lack of suspense here is that it will never be under true threat of destruction, since we know it survives 50 years into the future. Bit of a problem there in making a tight, edge of your seat, drama.
You're put on notice that higher prices than what I already wouldn't pay aren't going to get me to adopt the technology any time soon. Sorry, but regular DVD still looks good enough on the 55" flatscreen. All I know now is that when I do buy BluRay that it won't be a total mistake.
Comcast has argued that it doesn't block P2P traffic. Instead, it says it simply slows down packets so that it can better manage its network.
That's like the phone company saying that you talk too much, and in order to slow down your talking they will suddenly and without warning hang up both telephones on the two ends of the conversation for you. Since you have a Redial button, this should only be a minor inconvenience for you at most.
The remedy against Comcast for this is to say that because you're not getting the service you paid for, that the price you've paid needs to be reduced to the level of the service you're actually receiving.
I'd say that a 70% reduction in broadband rates -- retroactive -- is very much within the ballpark for this.
If MediaSentry is illegal in your state, maybe they won't show up to be deposed, or testify at trial. Could be a bit of an RIAA problem if you can't cross-examine the "witnesses" against you.
Others disagree on the ground that heterogeneous processors would be too hard to program.
Been there, done that, already. The 8087 and its 80x87 follow-on co-processors were exactly that. Specialized processors for specific tasks. Guess what? We managed to use them just fine a mere 27 years ago. DSP's have come along since and been used as well. Graphic card GPU's are specialized co-processors for graphic intensive functions, and we talk to them just fine. They're already on the chipsets, and soon to be on the processor dies. I don't think this is anything new, or anything that programming can't handle.
If you don't want to be bullied online, stay offline.
And if you think any country's laws - including the USA's - can regulate the world-wide Internet, you're dreaming. All this law would accomplish is to cause the creation of anonymous blogging centers in countries with stricter privacy laws.
And by the way, hasn't the Supreme Court already said that you have a right to be anonymous online?
The only people who would benefit from this are the individuals, corporations, and politicians seeking to quash dissent by outing, and then suing, those who post unflattering comments, no matter how truthful. And those aren't the people I want to be helping out.
With all the crap that eBay has added over the years (higher prices, lack of other Internet payment options, Scientology takedowns, items they simply won't list, feedback restrictions) I'd think there should be an opening for someone not wedded to these restrictions to come in and eat eBay's lunch.
On the Internet, it's mostly mindshare, and mindshare can be changed. Web Crawler gave way to Yahoo gave way to AltaVista gave way to Google. Building a virtual national company is much easier than building a physical one across the country, and eBay does have something to fear here.
The RIAA's real problem is that, unless merely "Making Available" (i.e. someone else can grab the file across the Internet somehow) is a crime, they have no ability to prove "Distribution", which is necessary to prevail under the Copyright Act. KaZaA and other P2P programs don't keep logs of what they've uploaded to others. Downloading that file to MediaSentry isn't a crime because MediaSentry works for the RIAA and the RIAA can't infringe it's own copyrights. (If it could, they would have to be hauled into court for it.) You can't observe anyone actually downloading without tapping their cable/dsl connection and logging every packet, as well as knowing where every packet was delivered to. Not going to happen.
Comes down to: Even if the RIAA were to find a computer owned by someone at the address identified by the ISP as the one using that IP address, and even if the computer has KaZaA on it and all the files MediaSentry detected, you still cannot prove that Distribution in violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights ever occurred from that computer.
That's the RIAA's true problem, and why they're not winning these cases en masse at actual trial.
And this is all before we even get into the illegality of Media Sentry's investigation without proper licenses, and the fact that their "evidence", and all "evidence" derived from is is Fruit from the Poisoned Tree.
As a part of discovery, you *have* to give the other side your raw data and details of your methodology. Otherwise, the judge is almost certain to throw out your testimony, as the other side has no way of discovering the weak spots in your case.
Excuse me, but you are operating in a Sane World where these things all come out in the wash at trial, and the wrong party gets punished. The RIAA isn't operating under those rules. Their punishment is inflicted by their ability to drag this out forever, with tens of thousands of dollars of legal fees inflicted on the Defendant, who never gets his/her day in court, or (usually) legal fees reimbursed after the RIAA then cuts and runs by a dismissal WITHOUT prejudice once it's clear they're about to lose. They've just screwed you royally because you're guilty in their eyes -- even if never under the law itself -- and gotten away with it!
But neither does the judge/jury have to consider the RIAA's claims that they have evidence but won't show it.
Except that we've seen in the one case to actually to to trial that juries are stupid, and judges are willing to be led by the nose by the RIAA in their jury instructions.
The judge can't keep anything like that to himself, he would have to allow access to the defendant's lawyers and expert witnesses (but not to the defendant and the public). Lawyers and expert witnesses would obviously be in big trouble if anything leaked out.
And how does it not leak out when the Defense's Expert Witness proceeds to quote what he's refuting in open court? I really don't see how you can actually keep this secret if it goes to trial by jury.
Intoxication Tester DUI cases were and are being thrown out when the manufacturer refuses to provide the source code to show how their device works. While recently the code has finally been provided in some cases with protective orders in place, it's not universal. Radar Guns face some of the same problems when calibration procedures aren't properly followed.
For MediaSentry to claim that their methods are beyond inspection has a simple solution. Throw out every case where this information is not made available in its entirety.
MediaSentry is known to have had False Positives. IP addresses and Timestamps they've submitted to ISP's for subscriber information where the ISP says there is no such matching entry in their logs. Those are the easy errors to spot. But how about the errors where instead of getting a completely invalid IP/Timestamp, they merely get a wrong one that hits an innocent person?
Bottom line: Media Sentry's methods are known to have errors. How many? How often? Why? That's what needs to be determined!
And remember that there are no quality standards in place for ISP record keeping either. Even if MediaSentry was perfect, the ISP may well not be.
Slashdot Mirror
It will be great to see the Galactica back in the days when it was shiny and new. The only lack of suspense here is that it will never be under true threat of destruction, since we know it survives 50 years into the future. Bit of a problem there in making a tight, edge of your seat, drama.
Newly discovered 9 years ago. I guess "newly" doesn't mean what it once did.
Angelina Jolie, of course! She can scare me into intimate relations with that body any time.
Which is the high part? The 85% spam number, or that it takes 6 entire bot-nets to generate it?
Took them long enough to figure out Apple's business model. This is more like a submarine torpedo than an aboveboard action.
You're put on notice that higher prices than what I already wouldn't pay aren't going to get me to adopt the technology any time soon. Sorry, but regular DVD still looks good enough on the 55" flatscreen. All I know now is that when I do buy BluRay that it won't be a total mistake.
That's like the phone company saying that you talk too much, and in order to slow down your talking they will suddenly and without warning hang up both telephones on the two ends of the conversation for you. Since you have a Redial button, this should only be a minor inconvenience for you at most.
I'd say that a 70% reduction in broadband rates -- retroactive -- is very much within the ballpark for this.
If MediaSentry is illegal in your state, maybe they won't show up to be deposed, or testify at trial. Could be a bit of an RIAA problem if you can't cross-examine the "witnesses" against you.
Been there, done that, already. The 8087 and its 80x87 follow-on co-processors were exactly that. Specialized processors for specific tasks. Guess what? We managed to use them just fine a mere 27 years ago. DSP's have come along since and been used as well. Graphic card GPU's are specialized co-processors for graphic intensive functions, and we talk to them just fine. They're already on the chipsets, and soon to be on the processor dies. I don't think this is anything new, or anything that programming can't handle.
It's time for another Democratic administration-just so that we can remember why we voted them out the last time.
to
It's time for another Democratic administration./i>
Is it a lack of controls -- or ethics -- at Slashdot these days?
Everyone here ought to check their own sigs to determine of what you meant to say is what you ended up saying.
And once they implement that, I want to buy stock in them.
All I can say is: neat!
And if you think any country's laws - including the USA's - can regulate the world-wide Internet, you're dreaming. All this law would accomplish is to cause the creation of anonymous blogging centers in countries with stricter privacy laws.
And by the way, hasn't the Supreme Court already said that you have a right to be anonymous online?
The only people who would benefit from this are the individuals, corporations, and politicians seeking to quash dissent by outing, and then suing, those who post unflattering comments, no matter how truthful. And those aren't the people I want to be helping out.
When your only tool is a hammer, you must make the whole rest of the world look like a nail.
Definitely the Hack of the Day, if not the week!
On the Internet, it's mostly mindshare, and mindshare can be changed. Web Crawler gave way to Yahoo gave way to AltaVista gave way to Google. Building a virtual national company is much easier than building a physical one across the country, and eBay does have something to fear here.
It's not that the RIAA hasn't proven their case. It's that THEY CAN'T prove their case!
Comes down to: Even if the RIAA were to find a computer owned by someone at the address identified by the ISP as the one using that IP address, and even if the computer has KaZaA on it and all the files MediaSentry detected, you still cannot prove that Distribution in violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights ever occurred from that computer.
That's the RIAA's true problem, and why they're not winning these cases en masse at actual trial.
And this is all before we even get into the illegality of Media Sentry's investigation without proper licenses, and the fact that their "evidence", and all "evidence" derived from is is Fruit from the Poisoned Tree.
Excuse me, but you are operating in a Sane World where these things all come out in the wash at trial, and the wrong party gets punished. The RIAA isn't operating under those rules. Their punishment is inflicted by their ability to drag this out forever, with tens of thousands of dollars of legal fees inflicted on the Defendant, who never gets his/her day in court, or (usually) legal fees reimbursed after the RIAA then cuts and runs by a dismissal WITHOUT prejudice once it's clear they're about to lose. They've just screwed you royally because you're guilty in their eyes -- even if never under the law itself -- and gotten away with it!
Oops! Sorry.
Except that we've seen in the one case to actually to to trial that juries are stupid, and judges are willing to be led by the nose by the RIAA in their jury instructions.
And how does it not leak out when the Defense's Expert Witness proceeds to quote what he's refuting in open court? I really don't see how you can actually keep this secret if it goes to trial by jury.
RIAA Lawyer: Nah! You wouldn't understand it anyway!
For MediaSentry to claim that their methods are beyond inspection has a simple solution. Throw out every case where this information is not made available in its entirety.
MediaSentry is known to have had False Positives. IP addresses and Timestamps they've submitted to ISP's for subscriber information where the ISP says there is no such matching entry in their logs. Those are the easy errors to spot. But how about the errors where instead of getting a completely invalid IP/Timestamp, they merely get a wrong one that hits an innocent person?
Bottom line: Media Sentry's methods are known to have errors. How many? How often? Why? That's what needs to be determined!
And remember that there are no quality standards in place for ISP record keeping either. Even if MediaSentry was perfect, the ISP may well not be.