Just remember those immortal words spoken in the wake of 9/11 by none other than our fearless leader (and everybody else goose-stepping along)-- if we change the way our nation works, if we give into our fears and give up our freedoms, the Terrorists have won.
Welcome to the end of days, the new world order, Annuit Coeptis Novus Ordo Seclorum, the time when men must speak the name of the beast or wear his number in order to conduct business and to buy or sell.
The war in Afghanistan and Iraq have been going on for over five years now-- longer if you start counting from the first Gulf War. The weapons of mass destruction-- I mean, "the struggle between good and evil"-- er, ridding Iraq of Al Quaeda operatives-- uh, "confronting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to face them here at home"-- oops, I mean "liberating Iraq from the brutal dictactor Saddam Hussein"-- I mean (this is getting embarrassing) "for the oil", by which I really meant to say "bringing democracy to the middle east", uh-- how about "Remember the Maine???"
Somebody remind me, how long has it been since we "WON" the war? And if we "WON" it, why are we still there and taking casualities?
What is it about having all these NEFARIOUS ENEMIES that keep shifting to meet the administration's need du jur smells sickly like a cross between Orwell's "1984" and pre-nazi germany? All we need is a fire in the Reichtag-- er, Capitol building for the scene to be complete.
And I thought Osama, the guy who actually attacked us (supposedly) was in Pakistan anyway? What good is it to have all those fancy satellites and global hawks if they can't actually find the guy we're looking for??? Apparently they can spot everybody else (look up and wave for the camera!)
We've become increasingly adept at finding US CITIZENS IN THE USA and discovering what US CITIZENS are doing IN THE USA and listening to US PHONE CALLS IN THE USA and working to make sure that US CITIZENS aren't up to anything funny IN THE USA-- but what about all thos other countries that actually HATE US-- the ones who are PUBLICALLY ON-RECORD MAKING DEATH THREATS??? Why can't we find THOSE guys?
I thought the reason we were at war-- whichever reason that was-- spin the dial, pick one-- who cares-- was to PROTECT american freedoms and democracy IN THE USA by GOING AFTER THE BAD GUYS SOMEWHERE ELSE?
And if the FBI is concerned about some group giving out good ideas to Terrorists... why don't they turn on CNN where they sit there and blab about freely all day on every possible angle, attack vector and weak point there is IN THE USA along with full-color pictures and diagrams with circles and arrows explaining all the details and Wolf Blitzer and Miles O'Brian doing the play-by-play for any idiot that didn't get it the first time around???
And if the FBI is concerned about security, why not try securing their OWN computers IN THE USA along with those of the DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY IN THE USA that keep getting flunking grades for security-- not to mention getting hacked by every third-grader from Moscow to Beijing and everywhere in between...???
I think these are really good questions-- for a start-- and directly on-target with this discussion. What the fuck is the FBI doing on college campuses putting the lid on public discourse that's protected by the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION-- and if NOT in a SCHOOL/UNIVERSITY SETTING-- then WHERE for gosh sakes???
Its time people got together and told the Bush administration where to go and how many ways they can fold their scare dogma and stuff it up their righteous pompus assholes. And if anybody is wondering where to find Bush's asshole, just go to Google Maps and type in "White House" and then (take your pick): Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld (yes, I know he's retired) or any of a dozen or more NEOCONmen busy trying to hoodwink the American public and bushwhack us into giving up our rights and freedoms.
Renewable energy, unlike coal or nuclear, will likely come from thousands or tens of thousands of different locations. Analysts have long said that one of the big challenges will be managing that flow into and out of the nation's electric grid, and that companies that manage the flow of information are well placed to handle that task.'"
Due to all the hype and attempts by both sides to sway opinion through nearly deceptive means, I am not certain what the term "Net-Neutrality" actually means as defined by any of the factions. However, to state it clearly, I am FOR preserving the Internet as a SINGLE-TIERED level of service by anybody who is able to provide it, AND that there should be NO CONSIDERATIONS whether financial or otherwise, relating to how traffic is directed. All users of the Internet should have equal access to the various services and destinations of the Internet. The only limiting factor should be how much the user is willing to pay for the bandwidth they use irrespective to any particular service, port, origin or destination, content, or other manner of use.
While it is true that there are some companies that have spent money and resources to build and supply infrastructure, it is EQUALLY true that there are vast numbers of people (and companies and other organizations) that have spent time, money and resources to supply CONTENT for the Internet. And without CONTENT, the physical infrastucture would indeed be far less valuable and renumerative.
My point is that it is VERY CLEAR that there is a MUTUAL ARRANGEMENT that benefits all stakeholders of the Internet. The users benefit from the infrastructure the telecommunications companies can provide, and they in turn benefit from the vast amount of content provided by the users. And that neither can easily function without the other.
The answer is simple. Users should start charging their ISP's a "SPAM DISPOSAL FEE". Say $1.00 per instance. And then while they're at it, a $100 per instance "putting up with your bullshit rules and regulations and outrageously stupid fees" fee....
And then maybe user's should band together and charge providers a "PREMIUM USER ACCESS RATE" for permitting blocks of users to connect to and move traffic across their networks. So they want to charge users for premium access?? It can work both ways-- no users, no revenue.
And the users don't have to be out either-- just start building free, community wifi points and connecting the wifi points together. It would be a struggle at first, assuredly, however, we've all been here before-- rememeber the beginning? When it was really difficult and challenging to get the bits through? We had to deal with stupid phone company policies and bureaucratic red-tape and we did it then, we can do it again-- the Internet CAN be free if we want it to be. Free in the sense of speech AND beer.
All those phone companies and cables companies are hoping we CANNOT get together and speak as one voice. However, I believe in the collective power of the Internet. It isn't easy, but its happened before-- and if enough people get together on an issue, our collective voice would be like a laser-beam that could vaporize damn near any opposition whether commercial or political.
When enough people want it-- the world bends to the will of the masses. That is the lesson from history that's been taught over and over. The trick is getting the masses to stop being selfish long enough to notice.
I thought Baseball went the way of the dinosaurs? Who the fuck cares what they have to say about Slingboxes. And furthermore, why would you want to use a Slingbox or any sort of device (including your eyeballs) to waste time viewing such an event anyway? Major League Baseball.... YAWN. Next topic please.
Put a bunch of right-wing war-mongering drum-beaters into office, have them rig the election so a moron can lead them, and stock the executive, judicial and legislative branches with the minions of wall street, the fat-cat oil companies and telcos, appoint cronies to sub-cabinet positions who will run roughshod over civil rights, the environment, get rid of insurance and other safety-net items for the middle class, lower taxes on the rich, raise taxes on the middle class, start some wars in foreign countries while telling the allies to go pound sand, and then sit back and let it all simmer. Your bidding will be complete in about 4-to-8 years. Salt liberally and serve raw. Feeds about 365 million.
I don't think this is too hard for humans-- humans manage parallel processing all the time-- albeit in other guises commonly referred to as "multitasking". Managers, for example, process in parallel frequently when they sit down and assign tasks to various staff members who then go away and get them done and come back for more assignments. Sometimes the assignments are standalone, and sometimes they involve interdependencies with tasks assigned to other staff members, and sometimes tasks are handed-out without truly understanding what sort of dependencies or interactions will be required and just assume that either the individual staff members can get together to figure it out, or else they can do as much as possible and then return for a full staff meeting/briefing to assess the status and determine what tasks are still left to perform.
In a similar fashion, people parallel process all the time. They have their email open in one window, an IM client in another, have Slashdot open in yet another window, and are busy typing in a word processor / spreadsheet / vi / whatever in yet another. While it is true that most folks must multi-task in the more traditional manner (ie. task switch, so perhaps not true parallel in the strictest form), some people have secretaries or assistants they can off-load task functions to (reading/responding to emails for example) which would fit the definition.
Yet other people perform parallel processing on the weekends. There are things to do at home-- chores for example, so the occupants get together and divy up the tasks and one person mows the lawn, another one vaccums the carpet, another goes to the store and gets groceries and another takes out the trash. Collectively, concurrently, all of the tasks get accomplished. Whenever interaction is required, either due to interdependencies-- ie. needing to go to the gas station to buy gas for the mower-- and hitching a ride with the person going to the grocery store.
Or when manufacturing a product. Thing A happens while thing B happens but thing C has to wait until A and B are ready.
There are countless examples of concurrent and parallel processing in the real world, and even in IT on a regular basis. Most loosely (or unrelated) tasks even on a uni-processing, multi-tasking system are for most intents and purposes parallel. The real problems creep in when considering how to implement low-level details such as interlocking processes, interdependent processes, process notification, task granularity and dispatching, and other similar concepts. I think much of the problem comes about in the fact that people "naturally" parallel process things from a higher-level abstract point-of-view, but rarely have to deal with the detailed subtleties that arise when having to figure out the whys and hows. However, in the real world (TM) there are Project Managers and Planners who work out these details. They are the "programmers" of these processes. They determine how collisions or other interactions will be handled if/when they arise. Sometimes (in fact, probably most of the time) in the real world these details just sort of "happen" without much overt planning. Instead little "scripts" that people know take care of these details. Such as-- "Oops, I'm out of gas. Since you're going to the store, can you drive me by the gas station on the way?" or "I'm stuck on my project and can't continue until George gets his part done." And other such examples.
In my view the real way to win at parallel processing is to make processors plentiful and ubiquitous. Instead of having a system with just one or two processors, have a system with 10,000 or 100,000 or even a million processors. Just hanging around waiting to be tasked. Each a little tiny "computer system" unto itself, and yet attached to a larger system with common peripherals, communication pathways, and the like. Then to have one (or perhaps a group of) executive processors who interact with the user (or the user's executive "processor agent") to get its marching orders and t
There is a new software on the market of which the source code is not really available anywhere therefor can not be cracked, I state , can not be cracked..no matter how much proding you do inside, you will not find any holes or leaks....as well, the more you use this software
the better at it you get, it is called BRAIN, which is really something that most people
should be able to use, but few do.
I think you'll find that even this can be cracked with a little patience and a set of sufficiently-sharp bamboo sticks.
So what your saying is that your passwords are like "Monica" and then "Monica!", then "!!Monica", then "Monica123" and "M0nica", "M0N1CA", "M_O_N_I_C_A"... ???
For me its easy, I just think of all the bureaucracy and bullshit where I work puts me through and somehow, as if by magic, an appropriate password always presents itself...
No, the basic problem with DRM is the attempt to grab consumer's rights and grind them into a fine powder under the RIAA and MPAA's goose-stepping boot heels.
Fuck the DRM. Fuck the RIAA. Fuck the MPAA.
If they change their names, fuck that too.
If they want to stop lagging sales, why not try putting out stuff that DOESN'T SUCK.
And go back to the old-fashioned way of doing business....
Actually, when you stop to consider it, given that everything in digital form is ultimately a number-- if everyone gets busy and registers those numbers, sooner or later ANYTHING the RIAA or MPAA attempts to communicate will be in violation of the DMCA since it will ultimately be contained within some combination of integers owned by vigilant slashdotters... So hurry up, get those numbers registered! Put an END to the RIAA and MPAA. Finally the hour is at hand-- we have the power, and we're pissed off enough to weild it...
It occurs to me that under the current fair-use doctrine, you are allowed to share a CD with a friend. Not to give them a copy, but to share-- loan them the CD to use and listen to until they want to give it back or you want it back. When you buy the CD you have that right. If you buy TWO CD's that are the same, you could loan BOTH copies to two different friends in the same manner. And when friend #1 is finished listening to the CD, you could then loan it out to friend #3. And the second copy to friend #4 and so on. So as long as the number of friends borrowing and listening to the CD's does not exceed the number of legally purchased CD's, you'd be good to go. So if you had a way to make your own CD's available online so that your friends could borrow them pretty much whenever they were available-- we're assuming you're a good-natured sort of fellow who doesn't mind when friends drop by and borrow stuff. And then if your friend posts his CD's, and another friend posts her CD's, sooner or later a very large pool of CD's would be available to borrow. At some point the number of available copies of a CD would satisfy the level of demand for that particular CD. At any given moment there would always be a legally purchased copy that a friend could borrow. So you would probably need some software that was smart enough to keep track of all your friends, your CD catalog, who was borrowing what when, and making sure that never more than the proper number of CD's were loaned out.
These days there are social sites-- online watering holes where you go to meet people and hang out with your buddies. People keep up with each other using "friends" lists and similar tools. Also, there are already other organizations in existance all over the country that do something similar under the auspices of being a "lending library". Again they have to keep up with the number of copies they own and manage who is borrowing what, when. This concept is those concepts on a national level-- even a worldwide level. Imagine building a modern version of the Great Library at Alexandria using broadband and TCP/IP... It could be the largest library in history-- in every sense of the word-- scope, patronage, items in its , collection, reach, and usage. All legal, every item legitimately purchased to share with its library patrons.
So either way, using either model-- an enormous catalog of information, books, recordings, music, plays, movies, cultural works of all kinds could be made available to one and all.
There are many benefits besides the obvious:
-- People would not have to worry about being sued by the RIAA or MPAA since anytime they wanted to listen to music or watch a movie or other cultural materials, they could just turn to the great library and simply borrow legitimate copies from their friends, use them for a reasonable period of time, and then return them so someone else could use them. The RIAA and MPAA should also be satisfied with this arrangement as well since their stated goals are to simply eliminate pirated copies of copyrighted materials and thwart illicit copying which robs them of their rightful revenues. As each CD, DVD or other cultural item in the collection has been legally purchased, these organizations would be able to sleep much better at night knowing their intellectual properties are safe.
-- The people of the great state of Florida would be able to rest easier knowing that CD and DVD bandits would be off the streets for good and the great scourge of "used music fencing" would be wiped out permanently. Since there would be little reason for people to store the CD's and other cultural materials they own in their homes-- naturally they would want to graciously offer their items to the library so that their friends could enjoy them as well-- and also since so many people would be able to utilize these materials in their non-physical form, the great lengths the state is presently forced to enact to protect its citizens would be no longer necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Just remember those immortal words spoken in the wake of 9/11 by none other than our fearless leader (and everybody else goose-stepping along)-- if we change the way our nation works, if we give into our fears and give up our freedoms, the Terrorists have won.
Welcome to the end of days, the new world order, Annuit Coeptis Novus Ordo Seclorum, the time when men must speak the name of the beast or wear his number in order to conduct business and to buy or sell.
The war in Afghanistan and Iraq have been going on for over five years now-- longer if you start counting from the first Gulf War. The weapons of mass destruction-- I mean, "the struggle between good and evil"-- er, ridding Iraq of Al Quaeda operatives-- uh, "confronting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to face them here at home"-- oops, I mean "liberating Iraq from the brutal dictactor Saddam Hussein"-- I mean (this is getting embarrassing) "for the oil", by which I really meant to say "bringing democracy to the middle east", uh-- how about "Remember the Maine???"
Somebody remind me, how long has it been since we "WON" the war? And if we "WON" it, why are we still there and taking casualities?
What is it about having all these NEFARIOUS ENEMIES that keep shifting to meet the administration's need du jur smells sickly like a cross between Orwell's "1984" and pre-nazi germany? All we need is a fire in the Reichtag-- er, Capitol building for the scene to be complete.
And I thought Osama, the guy who actually attacked us (supposedly) was in Pakistan anyway? What good is it to have all those fancy satellites and global hawks if they can't actually find the guy we're looking for??? Apparently they can spot everybody else (look up and wave for the camera!)
We've become increasingly adept at finding US CITIZENS IN THE USA and discovering what US CITIZENS are doing IN THE USA and listening to US PHONE CALLS IN THE USA and working to make sure that US CITIZENS aren't up to anything funny IN THE USA-- but what about all thos other countries that actually HATE US-- the ones who are PUBLICALLY ON-RECORD MAKING DEATH THREATS??? Why can't we find THOSE guys?
I thought the reason we were at war-- whichever reason that was-- spin the dial, pick one-- who cares-- was to PROTECT american freedoms and democracy IN THE USA by GOING AFTER THE BAD GUYS SOMEWHERE ELSE?
And if the FBI is concerned about some group giving out good ideas to Terrorists... why don't they turn on CNN where they sit there and blab about freely all day on every possible angle, attack vector and weak point there is IN THE USA along with full-color pictures and diagrams with circles and arrows explaining all the details and Wolf Blitzer and Miles O'Brian doing the play-by-play for any idiot that didn't get it the first time around???
And if the FBI is concerned about security, why not try securing their OWN computers IN THE USA along with those of the DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY IN THE USA that keep getting flunking grades for security-- not to mention getting hacked by every third-grader from Moscow to Beijing and everywhere in between...???
I think these are really good questions-- for a start-- and directly on-target with this discussion. What the fuck is the FBI doing on college campuses putting the lid on public discourse that's protected by the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION-- and if NOT in a SCHOOL/UNIVERSITY SETTING-- then WHERE for gosh sakes???
Its time people got together and told the Bush administration where to go and how many ways they can fold their scare dogma and stuff it up their righteous pompus assholes. And if anybody is wondering where to find Bush's asshole, just go to Google Maps and type in "White House" and then (take your pick): Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld (yes, I know he's retired) or any of a dozen or more NEOCONmen busy trying to hoodwink the American public and bushwhack us into giving up our rights and freedoms.
WHAT!?!?!?!? Oh NoooooooooooooooooOO!
Can you say GoogleRON ???
On the contrary my good fellow, they have it down to an exact science. Nobody can be that goofed-up by accident.
Just remember: To err is human, but to really fuck it up requires government intervention.
Of course it should have-- it was a blantant troll!
And I wasn't attempting to use an acronym-- the OTHER reason people sometimes capitalize words is for EMPHASIS.
But keep reading, you'll get there
Shoulda gone with no-name PC's and LINUX instead of IBM and Microsoft.
When will they ever learn...???
Yeah yeah mod me a troll. Bah
Sieg Heil, and Heil Hitler.
So what you're saying in a nutshell is that they could hand them a piece of paper with:
x yz1234567890!@#$%^&*()-_=+[]{}\|:;"',.?/~`
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvw
written on it with the explanation that its a "TERSE ENCODING of all of the relevant logs information."
Dear Sirs:
Due to all the hype and attempts by both sides to sway opinion through
nearly deceptive means, I am not certain what the term "Net-Neutrality"
actually means as defined by any of the factions. However, to state it
clearly, I am FOR preserving the Internet as a SINGLE-TIERED level of
service by anybody who is able to provide it, AND that there should
be NO CONSIDERATIONS whether financial or otherwise, relating to how
traffic is directed. All users of the Internet should have equal
access to the various services and destinations of the Internet. The
only limiting factor should be how much the user is willing to pay
for the bandwidth they use irrespective to any particular service,
port, origin or destination, content, or other manner of use.
While it is true that there are some companies that have spent money
and resources to build and supply infrastructure, it is EQUALLY
true that there are vast numbers of people (and companies and other
organizations) that have spent time, money and resources to supply
CONTENT for the Internet. And without CONTENT, the physical
infrastucture would indeed be far less valuable and renumerative.
My point is that it is VERY CLEAR that there is a MUTUAL ARRANGEMENT
that benefits all stakeholders of the Internet. The users benefit
from the infrastructure the telecommunications companies can provide,
and they in turn benefit from the vast amount of content provided by
the users. And that neither can easily function without the other.
The answer is simple. Users should start charging their ISP's a "SPAM DISPOSAL FEE". Say $1.00 per instance. And then while they're at it, a $100 per instance "putting up with your bullshit rules and regulations and outrageously stupid fees" fee....
And then maybe user's should band together and charge providers a "PREMIUM USER ACCESS RATE" for permitting blocks of users to connect to and move traffic across their networks. So they want to charge users for premium access?? It can work both ways-- no users, no revenue.
And the users don't have to be out either-- just start building free, community wifi points and connecting the wifi points together. It would be a struggle at first, assuredly, however, we've all been here before-- rememeber the beginning? When it was really difficult and challenging to get the bits through? We had to deal with stupid phone company policies and bureaucratic red-tape and we did it then, we can do it again-- the Internet CAN be free if we want it to be. Free in the sense of speech AND beer.
All those phone companies and cables companies are hoping we CANNOT get together and speak as one voice. However, I believe in the collective power of the Internet. It isn't easy, but its happened before-- and if enough people get together on an issue, our collective voice would be like a laser-beam that could vaporize damn near any opposition whether commercial or political.
When enough people want it-- the world bends to the will of the masses. That is the lesson from history that's been taught over and over. The trick is getting the masses to stop being selfish long enough to notice.
I thought Baseball went the way of the dinosaurs? Who the fuck cares what they have to say about Slingboxes. And furthermore, why would you want to use a Slingbox or any sort of device (including your eyeballs) to waste time viewing such an event anyway? Major League Baseball.... YAWN. Next topic please.
Maybe they shouldn't have used open source lug nuts... next time get proprietary lug nuts and use an ndis wrapper.
The shark was outsourced from India.
Put a bunch of right-wing war-mongering drum-beaters into office, have them rig the election so a moron can lead them, and stock the executive, judicial and legislative branches with the minions of wall street, the fat-cat oil companies and telcos, appoint cronies to sub-cabinet positions who will run roughshod over civil rights, the environment, get rid of insurance and other safety-net items for the middle class, lower taxes on the rich, raise taxes on the middle class, start some wars in foreign countries while telling the allies to go pound sand, and then sit back and let it all simmer. Your bidding will be complete in about 4-to-8 years. Salt liberally and serve raw. Feeds about 365 million.
I don't think this is too hard for humans-- humans manage parallel processing all the time-- albeit in other guises commonly referred to as "multitasking". Managers, for example, process in parallel frequently when they sit down and assign tasks to various staff members who then go away and get them done and come back for more assignments. Sometimes the assignments are standalone, and sometimes they involve interdependencies with tasks assigned to other staff members, and sometimes tasks are handed-out without truly understanding what sort of dependencies or interactions will be required and just assume that either the individual staff members can get together to figure it out, or else they can do as much as possible and then return for a full staff meeting/briefing to assess the status and determine what tasks are still left to perform.
In a similar fashion, people parallel process all the time. They have their email open in one window, an IM client in another, have Slashdot open in yet another window, and are busy typing in a word processor / spreadsheet / vi / whatever in yet another. While it is true that most folks must multi-task in the more traditional manner (ie. task switch, so perhaps not true parallel in the strictest form), some people have secretaries or assistants they can off-load task functions to (reading/responding to emails for example) which would fit the definition.
Yet other people perform parallel processing on the weekends. There are things to do at home-- chores for example, so the occupants get together and divy up the tasks and one person mows the lawn, another one vaccums the carpet, another goes to the store and gets groceries and another takes out the trash. Collectively, concurrently, all of the tasks get accomplished. Whenever interaction is required, either due to interdependencies-- ie. needing to go to the gas station to buy gas for the mower-- and hitching a ride with the person going to the grocery store.
Or when manufacturing a product. Thing A happens while thing B happens but thing C has to wait until A and B are ready.
There are countless examples of concurrent and parallel processing in the real world, and even in IT on a regular basis. Most loosely (or unrelated) tasks even on a uni-processing, multi-tasking system are for most intents and purposes parallel. The real problems creep in when considering how to implement low-level details such as interlocking processes, interdependent processes, process notification, task granularity and dispatching, and other similar concepts. I think much of the problem comes about in the fact that people "naturally" parallel process things from a higher-level abstract point-of-view, but rarely have to deal with the detailed subtleties that arise when having to figure out the whys and hows. However, in the real world (TM) there are Project Managers and Planners who work out these details. They are the "programmers" of these processes. They determine how collisions or other interactions will be handled if/when they arise. Sometimes (in fact, probably most of the time) in the real world these details just sort of "happen" without much overt planning. Instead little "scripts" that people know take care of these details. Such as-- "Oops, I'm out of gas. Since you're going to the store, can you drive me by the gas station on the way?" or "I'm stuck on my project and can't continue until George gets his part done." And other such examples.
In my view the real way to win at parallel processing is to make processors plentiful and ubiquitous. Instead of having a system with just one or two processors, have a system with 10,000 or 100,000 or even a million processors. Just hanging around waiting to be tasked. Each a little tiny "computer system" unto itself, and yet attached to a larger system with common peripherals, communication pathways, and the like. Then to have one (or perhaps a group of) executive processors who interact with the user (or the user's executive "processor agent") to get its marching orders and t
> WINE runs Windows software on Linux.
> LINA runs Linux software on Windows.
Perhaps they should have called the project "Beer"
> So, what's next after O/S virtualization?
Fat users.
Oh, was that you??? So sorry, my bad!
I think you'll find that even this can be cracked with a little patience and a set of sufficiently-sharp bamboo sticks.
So what your saying is that your passwords are like "Monica" and then "Monica!", then "!!Monica", then "Monica123" and "M0nica", "M0N1CA", "M_O_N_I_C_A"... ???
(*) humor, for the humor impaired
For me its easy, I just think of all the bureaucracy and bullshit where I work puts me through and somehow, as if by magic, an appropriate password always presents itself...
No, the basic problem with DRM is the attempt to grab consumer's rights and grind them into a fine powder under the RIAA and MPAA's goose-stepping boot heels.
Fuck the DRM. Fuck the RIAA. Fuck the MPAA.
If they change their names, fuck that too.
If they want to stop lagging sales, why not try putting out stuff that DOESN'T SUCK.
And go back to the old-fashioned way of doing business....
EARN YOUR FUCKING MONEY!
If they want to stem the losses of lagging CD and DVD sales....
Why not start coming out with stuff that DOESN'T SUCK?
Here's an old fashioned idea:
EARN YOUR MONEY
Actually, when you stop to consider it, given that everything in digital form is ultimately a number-- if everyone gets busy and registers those numbers, sooner or later ANYTHING the RIAA or MPAA attempts to communicate will be in violation of the DMCA since it will ultimately be contained within some combination of integers owned by vigilant slashdotters... So hurry up, get those numbers registered! Put an END to the RIAA and MPAA. Finally the hour is at hand-- we have the power, and we're pissed off enough to weild it...
One integer to RULE THEM ALL!!!
(Oh yeah, obligatory: Fuck the RIAA)
It occurs to me that under the current fair-use doctrine, you are allowed to share a CD with a friend. Not to give them a copy, but to share-- loan them the CD to use and listen to until they want to give it back or you want it back. When you buy the CD you have that right. If you buy TWO CD's that are the same, you could loan BOTH copies to two different friends in the same manner. And when friend #1 is finished listening to the CD, you could then loan it out to friend #3. And the second copy to friend #4 and so on. So as long as the number of friends borrowing and listening to the CD's does not exceed the number of legally purchased CD's, you'd be good to go. So if you had a way to make your own CD's available online so that your friends could borrow them pretty much whenever they were available-- we're assuming you're a good-natured sort of fellow who doesn't mind when friends drop by and borrow stuff. And then if your friend posts his CD's, and another friend posts her CD's, sooner or later a very large pool of CD's would be available to borrow. At some point the number of available copies of a CD would satisfy the level of demand for that particular CD. At any given moment there would always be a legally purchased copy that a friend could borrow. So you would probably need some software that was smart enough to keep track of all your friends, your CD catalog, who was borrowing what when, and making sure that never more than the proper number of CD's were loaned out.
These days there are social sites-- online watering holes where you go to meet people and hang out with your buddies. People keep up with each other using "friends" lists and similar tools. Also, there are already other organizations in existance all over the country that do something similar under the auspices of being a "lending library". Again they have to keep up with the number of copies they own and manage who is borrowing what, when. This concept is those concepts on a national level-- even a worldwide level. Imagine building a modern version of the Great Library at Alexandria using broadband and TCP/IP... It could be the largest library in history-- in every sense of the word-- scope, patronage, items in its , collection, reach, and usage. All legal, every item legitimately purchased to share with its library patrons.
So either way, using either model-- an enormous catalog of information, books, recordings, music, plays, movies, cultural works of all kinds could be made available to one and all.
There are many benefits besides the obvious:
-- People would not have to worry about being sued by the RIAA or MPAA since anytime they wanted to listen to music or watch a movie or other cultural materials, they could just turn to the great library and simply borrow legitimate copies from their friends, use them for a reasonable period of time, and then return them so someone else could use them. The RIAA and MPAA should also be satisfied with this arrangement as well since their stated goals are to simply eliminate pirated copies of copyrighted materials and thwart illicit copying which robs them of their rightful revenues. As each CD, DVD or other cultural item in the collection has been legally purchased, these organizations would be able to sleep much better at night knowing their intellectual properties are safe.
-- The people of the great state of Florida would be able to rest easier knowing that CD and DVD bandits would be off the streets for good and the great scourge of "used music fencing" would be wiped out permanently. Since there would be little reason for people to store the CD's and other cultural materials they own in their homes-- naturally they would want to graciously offer their items to the library so that their friends could enjoy them as well-- and also since so many people would be able to utilize these materials in their non-physical form, the great lengths the state is presently forced to enact to protect its citizens would be no longer necessary.
-- The citizens of the world would be
Say, you seem to have this awfully well thought out...