Seems to me that (apart from the possible DMCA implications), this is the crux of the matter.
Either:
A) It is legal for a third party to commercially make a copy of copyrighted material where the customer can demonstrate that such copying would be legal if they did it (thus the third party is acting solely as the customers agent). I guess as long as the third party isn't keeping a copy of the copyright material.
or
B) The copying of copyrighted materials by a party where that specific party does not have a legal right to make such a copy, is always illegal, whether they are acting as an agent or not. (Thus Kinkos can make a copy of original work, because the customer is assumed to be the copyright holder, or they ask for demonstration of the copyright holders permission, and failing that they really shouldn't, but maybe will do on a discretionary basis but officially won't - I'm neither from nor in the USA and have no idea what actual Kinko policy is on this).
Seems to be further complicated by the fact that in B) the third party (the commercial side), may have a right the same as their customer does, if they can argue that they are just 'format shifting' in accordance with your fair use provisions.
How is this really different to those companies that you can send a stack of CD's to, they rip them to MP3 (or equivalent), and send the CD's and a harddrive full of ripped audio back? Do any of those still exist, and have they ever been legally challenged?
And, for extra points, has anyone ever used one, if so can you give recommendations for one of the CD ripping services, especially for someone in the UK - I want to rerip 1500 CD's, and am would like to get an idea of the cost of someone else doing it against the cost of me doing it. Of course in the UK it is illegal for us to rip CD's anyway... So I could be missing a lot here. IANAL (juvenile chuckle), nor particularly up interested in the finer points of law, so the above could all be just so much horseshit.
For gods sake man, the source is in the linked article!
Ae so many people getting this wrong because they don't understand the concept of adding DRM? I think this is in itself the most interesting part of the whole discussion (no offense to the parent poster), why are so many people having real problems understanding what is written / bring done here? is it just that they are seeing what they want to see?
The process described is to convert to non-compressed (wav / aif / whatever), but not to recompress. Or to recompress with a lossless codec. So, no loss of quality. The process described does not recompress to lossy format (mp3, wma, aac whatever).
I dislike Norton and McAffe and Microsoft. There, that's my bias, but...
The situation is more like instead of fixing the problem with the (parents) injectors, the manufacturer changes the injector fittings so only their add-ons work. You still have to pay for the add-ons to fix the problem.
Or at least that is how I understand it will work. MS are going to provide a subscription service. Now on the one hand (you have to have four hands for this, so pair up with that hot chick you are zuning music to), MS may be the best people to provide this service, on the other hand having an independent provider of this may be sensible, on the third hand maybe MS should be attempting to make their software more resilient in the first place. (The fourth hand - always keep a hand free in case you need an emergency beer).
The whole situation is just fucked up, you can go in circles through the argument, I think MS should be securing their systems against people like my mother (or any other non-technical user) though...
We don't actually "wrap all songs up in DRM:" Zune to Zune Sharing doesn't change the DRM on a song, and it doesn't impose DRM restrictions on any files that are unprotected. If you have a song - say that you got "free and clear" - Zune to Zune Sharing won't apply any DRM to that song. The 3-day/3-play limitation is built into the device, and it only applies on the Zune device: when you receive a song in your Inbox, the file remains unchanged. After 3 plays or 3 days, you can no longer play the song; however, you can still see a listing of the songs with the associated metadata.
So they don't DRM stuff, but there is a 'hard limit' built into the device itself. Apparently.
I think the pertinent point is that someone who is likely to spend $350 on a piece of kit for reading books on probably a big reader. I like the sound of this, I probably average 3 books a week, often I have 5 separate books I am reading, not including manuals. I like to read, I want lots of books available to me. I use a Palm for this reason, especially when I am spending more than a few days away from home.
I have a 40gig mp3 player, it has a large chunk of my music collection on it, do I want this much available to me because i can listen to that much music in a day (or week)? No, but I want it because if I am on my way home and suddenly fancy listening to some Bulgarian folk music I know I just have to remember what that damn bulgarian choir is called.. Pretty much the same with books, if I am on my way home I may decide I want to reread a Will Self short story, if I can have that available then I am a happy puppy (apart from Will Self doesn't make anyone a happy puppy, but that is another discussion entirely)
From reading the discussion it sounds like the Opera devs are actually right here and, to be honest, those disagreeing come across as a bunch of whiners.
What they are saying, in my interpretation, is that allowing a subdomain to redirect from a domain is actually an insecure thing to do, as it is not simple for the browser to determine whether a domain is actually a subdomain (i.e. example.co.uk example2.co.uk aren't both subdomains of co.uk for this purpose).
They then give a piece of javascript that appears to fix the problem, and offer to add relevant domains to an exception list. Okay, maybe they could add a user definable list of trusted subdomains, but if the javascript works then this seems a good enough fix.
I don't really see what the issue is.
I am really interested in seeing this problem happening, and checking if my browser of choice allows it. If it does then I would consider changing to Opera to tighten up security.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, in fact on your general principle I agree whole heartedly. But... It isn't that straightforward is it?
The wash your hands thing, for instance. If you attempt to keep overly clean, isolate yourself from ill people, sterilise everything you come into contact, use antibacterial this and that, then you actually become more susceptible to disease (you don't build up your immune resistance so much).
Obviously that is an extreme case, but the point is, how much of anything is good for you? Moderation in all things, even in moderation itself. And judging what is moderate is not always easy, imho anyway. (Insert slashdot moderation joke of your liking here, for bonus points)
I have been thinking about a remarkably similar (I think) system. Not really my area though, so no more than thinking about it, unfortunately.
Hows about browsers act a little like Bittorrent apps, and once you have downloaded a page you start serving it in a torrentish (hey, new word, yay. unless someone else has already used it) way. Presumably you would want some way of ensuring that my browser doesn't alter the bit of the page that I am going to serve, but I assume bittorrent already does this.
Yes, it does seem a hell of a change for something that maybe few people will ever see the benefit of, but... I want to put a couple of hundred pics up for viewing, I have some web space, but the photo's are highest quality jpegs I could export from my original RAW images (in turn from an 8 mega pixel camera). That takes a reasonable amount of space, but more importantly a lot of bandwidth. Say they generate some interest, then my bandwidth bill goes through the roof. But if someone views that content then they inherently have a copy of it, and some of their bandwidth could be used to serve the pics (and their bandwidth is lesser, but cheaper (assuming DSL providers don't start charging extra for upstream bandwidth).
I'm sure someone has probably thought this through, and somewhere there is probably either a) a rebuttal or b) at least an initial implentation. I wish I knew which, as I would consider the rebuttal, or help test.
Anyway, it seemed kinda close to your idea, or it did to me. And if it ever happened, no more slashdottings (maybe).
The one thing I do disagree with though (at least in part) is:
Of course not. If that were the case, Firefox would not be the #2 browser. But it is the reason why the vast majority of Windows users never go looking for an alternative browser or media player or whatever. This is what killed Netscape.
To be fair, Netscape 4 was a dogs dinner of a browser, and IE 4 was actually distinctly better. It stills pains me to say that though.
(not an MS fanboy, actually an Apple fanboy if anything)
Sorry for the delay, and reply to an offset thread...
The whole point is that
a) If you read the research analysts are more often than not wrong
and
b) it can be easily demonstrated that investors work better when they don't read analysts output
Now, why we continue to have analysts is crazy, and I suppose an analogy would using Windows - cheap./ shot:)
A good start would be 'The Wisdom Of Crowds' by James Surowiecki. The basic theory (testable by sociological experiment), is that a group of decisions is more accurate than any of the decisions that make up that group. This can quite easily be shown by market analysis. In fact, it is kinda my job to help with exactly this problem, so I admit a bias here, but also first hand experience of this in action.
If, as an economist, you don't see this everyday, then I strongly recommend you keep studying...
I have often used calendars where each meeting room had it's own calendar, and you just included the room on the invite, or variations around that. Has always seemed to work well. A nasty hack if you are used to something better, but it just works(tm), pretty much(tm)...
But presumably we culd get that figure down by *vast* amounts of simulated road time. How's about we feed driving records from racing games to the simulator, see where the robot car fails. Here in the UK quite a few people do their first few driving lessons in a simulator, how about feeding that data to the robot car?
Millions of cars over millions of miles could be simulated, all kinds of freak accidents. As a tester I love the sound of that kind of simulation...
The linked article has two main thrusts, from my reading. First there is a 13 point list. This list goes to show that someone in the Iraqi army became a potential terrorist. Not that the Iraqi army sponsored this, nor even that they supplied him with weapons to do his evil terrorist deeds (one point was that he specifically was not supplied with a gun by the Iraqi army, but by others - seems unusual for an Iraqi army sponsored terrorist...). Yes, the periods of involvement overlap, this seems to be the only possible link. Obviously because he was in the army, and because he became a potential terrorist the two are linked...
The rest of the article seems to go on about the view that once American invasion of Iraq was inevitable (the second time), lots of militant Islamic types flooded to Iraq. This doesn't seem surprising. You want to cause pain to an enemy, you know where thay are going to be, you go there.
In general it is documented (no links, sorry), that Bin Laden and Hussein did meet, with hope of agreeing on great things, but pathologically hated each other. Their two brands of religion and leadership approach more incompatible than... well any other imaginable link (imagiine a fundamentalist Catholic wanting to co-operate with a ex-catholic, and you get a similar image).
Hell, it would be easier to imagine Bin Laden working for the US, say the CIA or something...
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me that (apart from the possible DMCA implications), this is the crux of the matter.
Either:
A) It is legal for a third party to commercially make a copy of copyrighted material where the customer can demonstrate that such copying would be legal if they did it (thus the third party is acting solely as the customers agent). I guess as long as the third party isn't keeping a copy of the copyright material.
or
B) The copying of copyrighted materials by a party where that specific party does not have a legal right to make such a copy, is always illegal, whether they are acting as an agent or not. (Thus Kinkos can make a copy of original work, because the customer is assumed to be the copyright holder, or they ask for demonstration of the copyright holders permission, and failing that they really shouldn't, but maybe will do on a discretionary basis but officially won't - I'm neither from nor in the USA and have no idea what actual Kinko policy is on this).
Seems to be further complicated by the fact that in B) the third party (the commercial side), may have a right the same as their customer does, if they can argue that they are just 'format shifting' in accordance with your fair use provisions.
How is this really different to those companies that you can send a stack of CD's to, they rip them to MP3 (or equivalent), and send the CD's and a harddrive full of ripped audio back? Do any of those still exist, and have they ever been legally challenged?
And, for extra points, has anyone ever used one, if so can you give recommendations for one of the CD ripping services, especially for someone in the UK - I want to rerip 1500 CD's, and am would like to get an idea of the cost of someone else doing it against the cost of me doing it. Of course in the UK it is illegal for us to rip CD's anyway... So I could be missing a lot here. IANAL (juvenile chuckle), nor particularly up interested in the finer points of law, so the above could all be just so much horseshit.
I think what you meant to say is "Game programmers are to normal programmers what surgeons are to doctors."
But then I don't agree with that anyway, so what do I know?
I didn't realise this, I thought if you took an mp3 (any compressed music file), and converted to uncompressed, then you would not lose quality.
I guess I did learn something today, thank you.
For gods sake man, the source is in the linked article!
Ae so many people getting this wrong because they don't understand the concept of adding DRM? I think this is in itself the most interesting part of the whole discussion (no offense to the parent poster), why are so many people having real problems understanding what is written / bring done here? is it just that they are seeing what they want to see?
Hopefully everyone realises by now, but the article is not about removing DRM.
The process described is to convert to non-compressed (wav / aif / whatever), but not to recompress. Or to recompress with a lossless codec. So, no loss of quality. The process described does not recompress to lossy format (mp3, wma, aac whatever).
I dislike Norton and McAffe and Microsoft. There, that's my bias, but...
The situation is more like instead of fixing the problem with the (parents) injectors, the manufacturer changes the injector fittings so only their add-ons work. You still have to pay for the add-ons to fix the problem.
Or at least that is how I understand it will work. MS are going to provide a subscription service. Now on the one hand (you have to have four hands for this, so pair up with that hot chick you are zuning music to), MS may be the best people to provide this service, on the other hand having an independent provider of this may be sensible, on the third hand maybe MS should be attempting to make their software more resilient in the first place. (The fourth hand - always keep a hand free in case you need an emergency beer).
The whole situation is just fucked up, you can go in circles through the argument, I think MS should be securing their systems against people like my mother (or any other non-technical user) though...
Looks like MS have thought of that whole can of worms... They don't apply DRM
We don't actually "wrap all songs up in DRM:" Zune to Zune Sharing doesn't change the DRM on a song, and it doesn't impose DRM restrictions on any files that are unprotected. If you have a song - say that you got "free and clear" - Zune to Zune Sharing won't apply any DRM to that song. The 3-day/3-play limitation is built into the device, and it only applies on the Zune device: when you receive a song in your Inbox, the file remains unchanged. After 3 plays or 3 days, you can no longer play the song; however, you can still see a listing of the songs with the associated metadata.
So they don't DRM stuff, but there is a 'hard limit' built into the device itself. Apparently.
I think the pertinent point is that someone who is likely to spend $350 on a piece of kit for reading books on probably a big reader. I like the sound of this, I probably average 3 books a week, often I have 5 separate books I am reading, not including manuals. I like to read, I want lots of books available to me. I use a Palm for this reason, especially when I am spending more than a few days away from home.
I have a 40gig mp3 player, it has a large chunk of my music collection on it, do I want this much available to me because i can listen to that much music in a day (or week)? No, but I want it because if I am on my way home and suddenly fancy listening to some Bulgarian folk music I know I just have to remember what that damn bulgarian choir is called.. Pretty much the same with books, if I am on my way home I may decide I want to reread a Will Self short story, if I can have that available then I am a happy puppy (apart from Will Self doesn't make anyone a happy puppy, but that is another discussion entirely)
From reading the discussion it sounds like the Opera devs are actually right here and, to be honest, those disagreeing come across as a bunch of whiners.
What they are saying, in my interpretation, is that allowing a subdomain to redirect from a domain is actually an insecure thing to do, as it is not simple for the browser to determine whether a domain is actually a subdomain (i.e. example.co.uk example2.co.uk aren't both subdomains of co.uk for this purpose).
They then give a piece of javascript that appears to fix the problem, and offer to add relevant domains to an exception list. Okay, maybe they could add a user definable list of trusted subdomains, but if the javascript works then this seems a good enough fix.
I don't really see what the issue is.
I am really interested in seeing this problem happening, and checking if my browser of choice allows it. If it does then I would consider changing to Opera to tighten up security.
Hmm, just fired up Opera, and it deals with the example menus admirably. Safari however doesn't (the drop downs don't stay dropped down).
Looks like they may need to change their compatibility list...
I think you mean petshopboys.co.uk
I don't necessarily disagree with you, in fact on your general principle I agree whole heartedly. But... It isn't that straightforward is it?
The wash your hands thing, for instance. If you attempt to keep overly clean, isolate yourself from ill people, sterilise everything you come into contact, use antibacterial this and that, then you actually become more susceptible to disease (you don't build up your immune resistance so much).
Obviously that is an extreme case, but the point is, how much of anything is good for you? Moderation in all things, even in moderation itself. And judging what is moderate is not always easy, imho anyway. (Insert slashdot moderation joke of your liking here, for bonus points)
I have been thinking about a remarkably similar (I think) system. Not really my area though, so no more than thinking about it, unfortunately.
Hows about browsers act a little like Bittorrent apps, and once you have downloaded a page you start serving it in a torrentish (hey, new word, yay. unless someone else has already used it) way. Presumably you would want some way of ensuring that my browser doesn't alter the bit of the page that I am going to serve, but I assume bittorrent already does this.
Yes, it does seem a hell of a change for something that maybe few people will ever see the benefit of, but... I want to put a couple of hundred pics up for viewing, I have some web space, but the photo's are highest quality jpegs I could export from my original RAW images (in turn from an 8 mega pixel camera). That takes a reasonable amount of space, but more importantly a lot of bandwidth. Say they generate some interest, then my bandwidth bill goes through the roof. But if someone views that content then they inherently have a copy of it, and some of their bandwidth could be used to serve the pics (and their bandwidth is lesser, but cheaper (assuming DSL providers don't start charging extra for upstream bandwidth).
I'm sure someone has probably thought this through, and somewhere there is probably either a) a rebuttal or b) at least an initial implentation. I wish I knew which, as I would consider the rebuttal, or help test.
Anyway, it seemed kinda close to your idea, or it did to me. And if it ever happened, no more slashdottings (maybe).
I agree completely - well, mostly :)
The one thing I do disagree with though (at least in part) is:
Of course not. If that were the case, Firefox would not be the #2 browser. But it is the reason why the vast majority of Windows users never go looking for an alternative browser or media player or whatever. This is what killed Netscape.
To be fair, Netscape 4 was a dogs dinner of a browser, and IE 4 was actually distinctly better. It stills pains me to say that though.
(not an MS fanboy, actually an Apple fanboy if anything)
Sorry for the delay, and reply to an offset thread...
./ shot :)
The whole point is that a) If you read the research analysts are more often than not wrong
and
b) it can be easily demonstrated that investors work better when they don't read analysts output
Now, why we continue to have analysts is crazy, and I suppose an analogy would using Windows - cheap
A good start would be 'The Wisdom Of Crowds' by James Surowiecki. The basic theory (testable by sociological experiment), is that a group of decisions is more accurate than any of the decisions that make up that group. This can quite easily be shown by market analysis. In fact, it is kinda my job to help with exactly this problem, so I admit a bias here, but also first hand experience of this in action.
If, as an economist, you don't see this everyday, then I strongly recommend you keep studying...
Actually, if you read a good book about economists, analysts and market systems you would know that most often an analyst (singular) is wrong.
The magic of the market, most analysts are wrong, but the market is right
This is a fairly old skool way of doing it but...
I have often used calendars where each meeting room had it's own calendar, and you just included the room on the invite, or variations around that. Has always seemed to work well. A nasty hack if you are used to something better, but it just works(tm), pretty much(tm)...
But presumably we culd get that figure down by *vast* amounts of simulated road time. How's about we feed driving records from racing games to the simulator, see where the robot car fails. Here in the UK quite a few people do their first few driving lessons in a simulator, how about feeding that data to the robot car?
Millions of cars over millions of miles could be simulated, all kinds of freak accidents. As a tester I love the sound of that kind of simulation...
The linked article has two main thrusts, from my reading. First there is a 13 point list. This list goes to show that someone in the Iraqi army became a potential terrorist. Not that the Iraqi army sponsored this, nor even that they supplied him with weapons to do his evil terrorist deeds (one point was that he specifically was not supplied with a gun by the Iraqi army, but by others - seems unusual for an Iraqi army sponsored terrorist...). Yes, the periods of involvement overlap, this seems to be the only possible link. Obviously because he was in the army, and because he became a potential terrorist the two are linked...
The rest of the article seems to go on about the view that once American invasion of Iraq was inevitable (the second time), lots of militant Islamic types flooded to Iraq. This doesn't seem surprising. You want to cause pain to an enemy, you know where thay are going to be, you go there.
In general it is documented (no links, sorry), that Bin Laden and Hussein did meet, with hope of agreeing on great things, but pathologically hated each other. Their two brands of religion and leadership approach more incompatible than... well any other imaginable link (imagiine a fundamentalist Catholic wanting to co-operate with a ex-catholic, and you get a similar image).
Hell, it would be easier to imagine Bin Laden working for the US, say the CIA or something...
That is possibly the funniest thing I have ever read. Thank you.
But i can't get hold of Killer 1 to 6, so how will I know if i like it?
That link tries to make you print the article. The idiocy was on my part, not the web sites. Here is a proper link LINK
Sorry if that annoyed anybody.
Apparently lysine is prevalent in legumes according to here
That 10% always gets you...