This could all be interpreted in many ways, but at face value, this is hardly surprising.
The United States, at large, pushes ridiculous religious dogma that infiltrates and dillutes science and science education with theology.
This country spends untold billions on its military and and related conflicts, diverting money from education and research.
Certain government entities almost routinely intimidate scientists and alter research findings that don't support a money or dogma-driven agenda.
We have a society that demonizes the educated, and also frequently for religious reasons, blames education for a break-down of morals.
Corporations pander always to the lowest common denominator when it comes to offering products and services rather than depend on a thinking population.
We eat junkfood like there is no tomorrow, effectively eliminating the chance of a healthy lifestyle that is essential to a healthy brain and mind. (Yes, bad food makes you stupid.)
I could go on, but that would just get too boring. Also, none of this would be too hard to defend (I'm not providing refernces because I'm on a cell phone at the moment). Really, when you think about all the nonsense and silly behavor which saturates our society, what do you expect? A population of enlightened thinkers?
Look at that data and try to, for just a single moment, think about what it could be used for. Each of those statements has an associated truth value. Does the term "artificial intelligence" slip into your mind? How about "common sense"? I am not going to detail possible uses, but information like that, combined with correlation between statements, forms the foundation of primative intelligence. Look through those statements and see which cooborate others and consider how a machine might be able to answer an arbitrary question with it. I will tell you that this is the type of material that well established artificial intelligence projects use to mimick intelligent responses to humans.
Unauthorized use of software somebody has created with the idea of supporting himself through selling it most certainly is theft. It is not theft of the work, it is theft of the revenue that the author could expect. Granted, the author can't name any arbitrary price the way SPAA does in press releases; it's ecnomically naive. But pirates don't have a moral leg to stand on: they can't say this thing has no value so I shouldn't pay for it; if it had no value they would not pirate it.
Interesting points, but I'd like to comment on a few of them.
First, I'd like to reiterate that unauthorized use of software is not theft. It is unauthorized use, period. In order for a theft to have taken place, a thief must have deprived a vicitim of private property. This does not occur when people copy bits. This is probably mostly akin to trespass. When you walk onto land that someone has restricted access to, you're not stealing it. The reason it is important to contemplate this is because it directly influences what what we do to someone who uses unlicensed software, music, and so forth. Punishment for theft is often proportional to the material losses suffered by the victim. Where are those losses in the case of copying data? (Of course, that is intended to be rhetorical. There are none since unauthorized use of software and entertainment media is the direct result of an utter lack of incentive to buy.)
Second, I don't think anyone is trying to moralize or support unauthorized anything. Whether you want to call it theft, trespass, or what have you, you will be hard-pressed to find someone willing to justify it. The point of this debate, again, goes back to what do we do about it. Think: does it really make any sense, whatsoever, to fine someone $250,000 and sentence them to five years in federal prison for making a copy of a music CD? That is utter nonsense. You can kill someone and get a lesser sentence. We have to be rational about what copying bits without permission actually means in terms of punishment, rather than proceeding with the bizarre policies we have today.
Third, nobody is trying to say that software, music, and movies have no value. This goes back to the incentive issue. It's a matter of perceived value being significantly less than the stated value. Both, incidentally, are almost entirely arbitrary because in the case of reproducable bits, you can stamp out as many discs as you want and sell them all for the same price for a virtually unlimited amount of time.
That's because it's not. Merriam-Webster defines theft as "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it". When you copy media, you are not depriving the owner of it. They have a copy and you have a copy. Naturally, you could walk into a store and remove physical media. That would be theft. Considering further that someone who "pirates" something would not have purchased the it in the first place, you really have to wonder where the loss is. Now, I would agree that if someone buys copied software, the line has been crossed. Clearly the recipient was willing to pay money for the goods and now the producer is deprived.
All in all, I am encouraged to see that people in general are not willing to accept something that isn't true. The simple notion that copying bits is theft is really quite absurd. (Would we consider it "theft" if we could simply copy food products and distributed them to the hungry? Hardly. It would be a miracle.)
But Chesterfield County school officials held a low-key ceremony to honor him
Don't get me wrong, it's cool this student discovered this and should get some props, but it really is insignificant to accomplishments that have gotten other students kicked out of school. How is this much different than students who crack school computers to demonstrate security weakness? Look at it this way: some kid has discovered a flaw in technology or figures out how to make a system do what it wasn't originally intended to do, that ends up costing someone some amount of money to correct the problem. Sound similar to other events we've read here on/. where said students are drawn and quartered for their actions? Why aren't students who show the grading system is insecure given similar "honors"? The inconsistency and hypocrisy here is profound. Do something minor and accidental that shows a mistake, and you are a hero; do something important and intentional, and you are a terrorist.
It's even easier to get around that on Windows (oh the irony). Use the attrib command to unset the hidden attribute on all the same files I mentioned in my previous post. This is set to create a very tiny obstacle to people arbitrarily copying music around. It's meant to satisfy the RIAA, who otherwise was resisting Apple's entrance into the music business (they claimed it would usher in an "era of legitmized piracy"). Besides, if you are not a Mac user, why are you complaining about so-called DRM on Apple's platform? The funny thing is, being a Windows user, you are already subjected to all kinds of DRM, most notably with Windows Media Player. You have no business telling Mac users their platform is encumbered when you cannot even install your OS without a key and an invasive, privacy-squashing registration process.
Try this. (Assuming you have the Developer Tools installed.)
In Terminal, execute:/Developer/Tools/SetFile -a v/Volumes/iPod/iPod_Control/Volumes/iPod/iPod_Control/Music/Volumes/iPod/iPod_Control/Music/F* (Where "iPod" is the label you've given to the iPod volume.)
Relaunch Finder from the Force Quit window on the Apple menu.
"There's no step three! Oh God! No step... three... Oh!" Now, you will find that your music file names have been butchered and scattered over a bunch of directories. To fix this, simply tell iTunes to keep its folder organized and to copy music into the library when importing. After that, drag the Music folder to iTunes and it will sort and label all your music based on the in-file metadata.
Congratulations... no third party tools and no more so-called "DRM". The only sad part of this is that the system will restore the hidden attribute on the iPod Music folder and related directories when you reconnect your iPod. Luckily, all this can be scripted.
I would like to point out that if you think this system is an example of "Digital Restrictions Management", you've got another thing coming. DRM is a scheme which prevents you from accessing the media through cryptographic controls, locked and unlocked by certificates which are provided by the presumed owners of said media. On Trusted Hardware (which, in itself, is not a bad thing since it opens up a whole new world of security), you cannot circumvent this. So, be thankful that Apple is one of the few companies not going hog-wild to eliminate fair access to what you own.
And with an open source kernel, how, exactly, do they plan to stop people from hacking OS X onto commodity PC hardware?
The Macintosh uses Open Firmware, and most x86 PCs still use legacy BIOS. The processor is only one piece of the platform.
Given their track record with iPod DRM, i wouldn't put it past them, either.
Uhm, what iPod DRM? There is none. Steve Jobs is on the record, stating that it is not Apple's policy to treat its customers like criminals. I can freely copy music off my iPod onto any computer I can hook it up to (and vise-versa). Please get your facts straight.
Perhaps the Mac crowd will become the ultimate DRM apologists, claiming, with some credibility, that Mac couldn't survive if it didn't have TC/DRM involved.
The only DRM on Apple's platform is with the iTunes Music Store. And it's the least the music industry (RIAA) would allow.
I doubt they will be able to emulate a G5 on an Intel chip like they could old 68k on PowerPC. So, the Apple customer is now forced to figure out whether they buy the PPC or x86 version of a package. Same goes with hardware. Aside from OS X, Apple is just going to become another Dell. What really distinguishes them if they start using the same junky platform as everyone else?
Starting next year, Maryland will require manufacturers to offer free computer take-back programs or pay the state a fee.
This is easily the best option presented. This provides manufacturers a supply of cheap raw materials which they can remanufacture and sell back to the market. Why they all don't already do this voluntarily is beyond me. What makes this even better is the fact that the manufacturer has intimate knowledge of what a piece of hardware is composed of and how it is assembled. A general purpose electronics recycling facility can't match that. Then the consumers benefit from not having to guess about the where and how of recycling unneeded electronics. The recycler's branding will be printed all over the hardware. Again, I have to wonder why this isn't already a common practice.
This is basic Newtonian mechanics. I am not going to take the time--a basic physics primer should suffice. But according to Newton's Second Law, the faster you want to accelerate a mass, the more force is required to achieve the acceleration. As for slowing down, it doesn't matter with cars which do not use regenerative braking. That is, if your car stores energy output from slowing down, then it makes sense to brake slowly. This is due to limitations in technology. To be brief, faster braking means more energy gets turned into heat as more load is placed on the brakes rather than your electric motor (which doubles as a generator when being turned by external forces) or what have you.
Slashdot Mirror
It is the end of all file systems afterall, right?
That's great stuff man. Thanks for doing that write-up. I'll be sure to add that to my wiki so it doesn't get burried in /. archives. :)
Hey, would you mind giving us a quick write-up on how you did this?
Do you fall towards the earth or does earth move up to meet you? ;)
This could all be interpreted in many ways, but at face value, this is hardly surprising.
The United States, at large, pushes ridiculous religious dogma that infiltrates and dillutes science and science education with theology.
This country spends untold billions on its military and and related conflicts, diverting money from education and research.
Certain government entities almost routinely intimidate scientists and alter research findings that don't support a money or dogma-driven agenda.
We have a society that demonizes the educated, and also frequently for religious reasons, blames education for a break-down of morals.
Corporations pander always to the lowest common denominator when it comes to offering products and services rather than depend on a thinking population.
We eat junkfood like there is no tomorrow, effectively eliminating the chance of a healthy lifestyle that is essential to a healthy brain and mind. (Yes, bad food makes you stupid.)
I could go on, but that would just get too boring. Also, none of this would be too hard to defend (I'm not providing refernces because I'm on a cell phone at the moment). Really, when you think about all the nonsense and silly behavor which saturates our society, what do you expect? A population of enlightened thinkers?
...seriously, tell us how you really feel.
Look at that data and try to, for just a single moment, think about what it could be used for. Each of those statements has an associated truth value. Does the term "artificial intelligence" slip into your mind? How about "common sense"? I am not going to detail possible uses, but information like that, combined with correlation between statements, forms the foundation of primative intelligence. Look through those statements and see which cooborate others and consider how a machine might be able to answer an arbitrary question with it. I will tell you that this is the type of material that well established artificial intelligence projects use to mimick intelligent responses to humans.
Interesting points, but I'd like to comment on a few of them.
First, I'd like to reiterate that unauthorized use of software is not theft. It is unauthorized use, period. In order for a theft to have taken place, a thief must have deprived a vicitim of private property. This does not occur when people copy bits. This is probably mostly akin to trespass. When you walk onto land that someone has restricted access to, you're not stealing it. The reason it is important to contemplate this is because it directly influences what what we do to someone who uses unlicensed software, music, and so forth. Punishment for theft is often proportional to the material losses suffered by the victim. Where are those losses in the case of copying data? (Of course, that is intended to be rhetorical. There are none since unauthorized use of software and entertainment media is the direct result of an utter lack of incentive to buy.)
Second, I don't think anyone is trying to moralize or support unauthorized anything. Whether you want to call it theft, trespass, or what have you, you will be hard-pressed to find someone willing to justify it. The point of this debate, again, goes back to what do we do about it. Think: does it really make any sense, whatsoever, to fine someone $250,000 and sentence them to five years in federal prison for making a copy of a music CD? That is utter nonsense. You can kill someone and get a lesser sentence. We have to be rational about what copying bits without permission actually means in terms of punishment, rather than proceeding with the bizarre policies we have today.
Third, nobody is trying to say that software, music, and movies have no value. This goes back to the incentive issue. It's a matter of perceived value being significantly less than the stated value. Both, incidentally, are almost entirely arbitrary because in the case of reproducable bits, you can stamp out as many discs as you want and sell them all for the same price for a virtually unlimited amount of time.
That's because it's not. Merriam-Webster defines theft as "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it". When you copy media, you are not depriving the owner of it. They have a copy and you have a copy. Naturally, you could walk into a store and remove physical media. That would be theft. Considering further that someone who "pirates" something would not have purchased the it in the first place, you really have to wonder where the loss is. Now, I would agree that if someone buys copied software, the line has been crossed. Clearly the recipient was willing to pay money for the goods and now the producer is deprived.
All in all, I am encouraged to see that people in general are not willing to accept something that isn't true. The simple notion that copying bits is theft is really quite absurd. (Would we consider it "theft" if we could simply copy food products and distributed them to the hungry? Hardly. It would be a miracle.)
Wouldn't that be one hour, 58 minutes ago?
I was banned within hours of settiing up Tor on my host.
Don't get me wrong, it's cool this student discovered this and should get some props, but it really is insignificant to accomplishments that have gotten other students kicked out of school. How is this much different than students who crack school computers to demonstrate security weakness? Look at it this way: some kid has discovered a flaw in technology or figures out how to make a system do what it wasn't originally intended to do, that ends up costing someone some amount of money to correct the problem. Sound similar to other events we've read here on /. where said students are drawn and quartered for their actions? Why aren't students who show the grading system is insecure given similar "honors"? The inconsistency and hypocrisy here is profound. Do something minor and accidental that shows a mistake, and you are a hero; do something important and intentional, and you are a terrorist.
It's even easier to get around that on Windows (oh the irony). Use the attrib command to unset the hidden attribute on all the same files I mentioned in my previous post. This is set to create a very tiny obstacle to people arbitrarily copying music around. It's meant to satisfy the RIAA, who otherwise was resisting Apple's entrance into the music business (they claimed it would usher in an "era of legitmized piracy"). Besides, if you are not a Mac user, why are you complaining about so-called DRM on Apple's platform? The funny thing is, being a Windows user, you are already subjected to all kinds of DRM, most notably with Windows Media Player. You have no business telling Mac users their platform is encumbered when you cannot even install your OS without a key and an invasive, privacy-squashing registration process.
Try this. (Assuming you have the Developer Tools installed.)
"There's no step three! Oh God! No step... three... Oh!" Now, you will find that your music file names have been butchered and scattered over a bunch of directories. To fix this, simply tell iTunes to keep its folder organized and to copy music into the library when importing. After that, drag the Music folder to iTunes and it will sort and label all your music based on the in-file metadata.
Congratulations... no third party tools and no more so-called "DRM". The only sad part of this is that the system will restore the hidden attribute on the iPod Music folder and related directories when you reconnect your iPod. Luckily, all this can be scripted.
I would like to point out that if you think this system is an example of "Digital Restrictions Management", you've got another thing coming. DRM is a scheme which prevents you from accessing the media through cryptographic controls, locked and unlocked by certificates which are provided by the presumed owners of said media. On Trusted Hardware (which, in itself, is not a bad thing since it opens up a whole new world of security), you cannot circumvent this. So, be thankful that Apple is one of the few companies not going hog-wild to eliminate fair access to what you own.
The Macintosh uses Open Firmware, and most x86 PCs still use legacy BIOS. The processor is only one piece of the platform.
Uhm, what iPod DRM? There is none. Steve Jobs is on the record, stating that it is not Apple's policy to treat its customers like criminals. I can freely copy music off my iPod onto any computer I can hook it up to (and vise-versa). Please get your facts straight.
The only DRM on Apple's platform is with the iTunes Music Store. And it's the least the music industry (RIAA) would allow.
I doubt they will be able to emulate a G5 on an Intel chip like they could old 68k on PowerPC. So, the Apple customer is now forced to figure out whether they buy the PPC or x86 version of a package. Same goes with hardware. Aside from OS X, Apple is just going to become another Dell. What really distinguishes them if they start using the same junky platform as everyone else?
I have a Macintosh. Will my slow thread-spawning hinder this simulation?
This hormone is produced when female nipples are stimulated. Maybe you guys can get her to trust you.
This is easily the best option presented. This provides manufacturers a supply of cheap raw materials which they can remanufacture and sell back to the market. Why they all don't already do this voluntarily is beyond me. What makes this even better is the fact that the manufacturer has intimate knowledge of what a piece of hardware is composed of and how it is assembled. A general purpose electronics recycling facility can't match that. Then the consumers benefit from not having to guess about the where and how of recycling unneeded electronics. The recycler's branding will be printed all over the hardware. Again, I have to wonder why this isn't already a common practice.
I hear it will sport kernel 2.4.3, XFree86 4.1, KDE 2, and GNOME 1.8. Any one else have any details on the updated software list?
Surely there's a picture of her naked in here somewhere. Possibly in... SOVIET RUSSIA.
This is basic Newtonian mechanics. I am not going to take the time--a basic physics primer should suffice. But according to Newton's Second Law, the faster you want to accelerate a mass, the more force is required to achieve the acceleration. As for slowing down, it doesn't matter with cars which do not use regenerative braking. That is, if your car stores energy output from slowing down, then it makes sense to brake slowly. This is due to limitations in technology. To be brief, faster braking means more energy gets turned into heat as more load is placed on the brakes rather than your electric motor (which doubles as a generator when being turned by external forces) or what have you.
Ah-hah! This explains Neo's bouncy impact after his failed building-jump attempt.
...Red Alert-style Tesla towers get thwarted by YOU!
Did you adjust for inflation?