The Internet (physical as opposed to technical) was really not designed for applications that want to use maximum bandwidth all of the time What a silly statement. Providers didn't anticipate demand, but that says nothing about "the internet." Indeed. One could just as easily say the Mars Rovers were really not designed for use beyond their six-month mission. Similarly, the Internet has succeeded beyond its design specifications.
Caller: Hey, ya ever ate possum? That's some good eating. Lazlow: Naah, I really can't say I have. Caller: Hell, ya ought to try it sometime. I tell ya man, it's good eating. Possum, raccoons, even zebra meat. Cooks up pretty good. Lazlow: Err, do you have anything else to say, or... Caller: Pigeons. Pigeons are good too. Sometimes, they come with notes attached. It's like a fortune cookie with wings. Squirrels! Squirrels is not so good, they taste like goldfish, meat's real stringy, ya know what I mean?
So the ability to purchase a new 'clean' identity inexpensively becomes attractive since it allows you to get on with your daily life with the least amount of extortion from the authorities. This passport is a cheap forgery! A cheap $2,000 forgery! -- Apu Nahassapeemapetilan, "Much Apu About Nothing"
Let's complain about developers who use beta software for their primary mobile phone! Do these developer phones still need to have a service contract with AT&T?
I'd hate to have to opt for the $175 early termination fee to avoid paying $61.24/mo.(*) for each month of inaccessible service. That fee is nearly three months of service. How do you weigh the cost effectiveness of waiting it out? If you're lucky, you're within the last three months of your contract anyway.
(*) $59.99/mo. + $1.25/mo. Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge. A contract of 24 months == $1,541.76 + $39 activation fee refundable only in the first three days, early termination fee waiveable only within 30 days. "Final month's charges are not prorated. Prices are subject to change. Prices do not include taxes."
I can see it now: "Damn, stuck out in nowhere with a flat tire.....Darn...looks like my EULA is gone, so I will have to die out here in the heat. Darn, but I guess I deserve it." I think Jubal Early said it best: "Well, here I am."
What the heck are they going to be rendering? Ender's game, of course.
Once you can make simulations look like reality, you can then pass off reality as a simulation and get fast grade-schooler reflexes behind your remotely operated guns. And not only do you not have to pay them for their service, they'll pay you instead for access to your "game".
"I infect the entire net. I have spread through systems, peoples and cities, from this place: Mainframe. My format: Virus. The Queen of Chaos! Ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-ha-haaaaa! Ha-ha-ha-ha." -- Hexadecimal, ReBoot "Daemon Rising"
Besides, it's been tried. There was one which exploited a hole in order to download the necessary patches for the vulnerability from Microsoft effectively became itself a DDoS on Windows Update servers.
I think the judge would require the plaintiffs to prove that defendant did something affirmatively to "offer" the files. I'd need to know more about the P2P software in question to know how reasonable it would be to use it in a manner (ripper or player) unaware of and incompatible with its function of sharing its fruits as opposed to what other applications were present that do not share, or that what was downloaded with it was or was not clearly unauthorized by rights holders. I.e. an argument seeking to transfer the liability to the software maker rather than its operator. I'd also be expecting the defendants to already be suing the software's maker by now for recklessly exposing them to legal liability.
The plaintiffs may also use this theory to go after the software makers for creating a network designed to offer, distribute, re-offer, and redistribute.
If they have the images of the defendant's hard drive acquired from discovery--which they surely do--they can prove that the modus operandi of the standard software package both on the defendant's system and typical default installations is to create a chain of offers and on-demand distributions.
A functioning network is of course implied. If the defendant is to suggest they had additional devices similar to Comcast's "bandwidth shaping" technology to prevent actual transfer, they'd better be able to produce said devices to the court and their reasoning for deploying them.
She gave the RIAA thirty days to make a new argument against this lady but to do so they have to show that she communicated with a 3rd party to 'offer to distribute' and that the intent in doing so was for "the purpose of further distribution". I don't have the ruling in front of me, but I'm not sure that a third party would be necessary (though the P2P search function may qualify). The files in the shared folder could be seen as an offer to distribute (much like a list of dishes on a menu are an offer to serve same) and the P2P network itself upon which it was offered may be enough to convince that the one offering to serve "should have known" that further distribution would have taken place (something that wouldn't be true of a web- or FTP server for counterexamples, and posting to Usenet would be actual distribution).
The only thing remaining is proving that the shared folder "offer to serve" was in fact genuine, i.e. if the files were actually available for download. Access via discovery to the software to determine if files would be served on demand would cinch that.
The judge has given the RIAA a workable argument which appears to this layman to stand up.
but on the face of what few facts I have on the subject right now my knee wants to jerk right into the Government's jaw a few times. Interesting, but I suggest leaving off mentioning the jaw. It's better when you leave it up to their imagination:
"Mr. Government, don't make me jerk my knee. You may not like where my knee ends up."
As often happens, the slash headline doesn't represent the slash article. Neither appears to represent what's said in the real article. The code wasn't subponaed, the author was. Or maybe someone just left off the last letter: NYC Lawyers Subpoena Coder.
Before I read the article, I was about to say that the summary seems to point at making ISPs pay to avoid their liability--a liability that doesn't exist due to safe harbor provisions in the DMCA. Not users mind you, but ISPs. Users would still get sued.
As the summary was written and with the selected quotation from the article.
The article however makes it clear that it is intended to allow end users to download freely, and that is clear in direct quotations of those interviewed for the article.
So I'm left wondering why Soulskill has such a spin in his summary.
You are not required to answer any other question [other than head count] on the census, either. Unfortunately not true, look at 13 USC 221, which is the current controlling law for the census. Okay, answer the head count truthfully, nothing else, and staple a $100 bill to the form for the maximum fine. (Assuming of course a blank answer cannot be interpreted as a false answer.)
Seriously, take your laptop right now, turn it 90 degrees so that the break between the two "halves" is vertical, and tell me that's a comfortable way to handle reading material. You mean like... a book? I think he means literally like the image on the site, free-standing, not held in your hands like a book, newspaper, or double-wide tablet. What that laptop needs is a built-in fold-out easel.
I mean, there's a reason there's a bump on the 'F' and 'J' keys on the keyboard I'm using at the moment. A good reason. You could overlay a transparent film over the touch display with little clear bumps where those keys would be displayed underneath, much like the little clear dot of dried grapefruit juice in one corner of my LCD HDTV that I need to clean off. (I shouldn't eat breakfast so close to the TV.)
Me, I'd want the entire border of every key raised in that film, and the display smart enough to know that I only want the display to behave like a keyboard when that film is in place and to align the virtual keys with the film's placement.
Barring that, a display that can raise edges up electrically without having to use a film. Basically, merge the touch display-keyboard with the tactile display for the blind.
XBox "720", if it uses an optical drive at all... I think it safe they won't call it that. They'd look behind the times if it wasn't instead the XBOX 1080.
Slashdot Mirror
Caller: Hey, ya ever ate possum? That's some good eating.
Lazlow: Naah, I really can't say I have.
Caller: Hell, ya ought to try it sometime. I tell ya man, it's good eating. Possum, raccoons, even zebra meat. Cooks up pretty good.
Lazlow: Err, do you have anything else to say, or...
Caller: Pigeons. Pigeons are good too. Sometimes, they come with notes attached. It's like a fortune cookie with wings. Squirrels! Squirrels is not so good, they taste like goldfish, meat's real stringy, ya know what I mean?
-- Apu Nahassapeemapetilan, "Much Apu About Nothing"
I'd hate to have to opt for the $175 early termination fee to avoid paying $61.24/mo.(*) for each month of inaccessible service. That fee is nearly three months of service. How do you weigh the cost effectiveness of waiting it out? If you're lucky, you're within the last three months of your contract anyway.
(*) $59.99/mo. + $1.25/mo. Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge. A contract of 24 months == $1,541.76 + $39 activation fee refundable only in the first three days, early termination fee waiveable only within 30 days. "Final month's charges are not prorated. Prices are subject to change. Prices do not include taxes."
If you are dissatisfied with your life, return unused portion for partial refund.
Once you can make simulations look like reality, you can then pass off reality as a simulation and get fast grade-schooler reflexes behind your remotely operated guns. And not only do you not have to pay them for their service, they'll pay you instead for access to your "game".
(Feigning paranoia is fun!)
This so much reminds me of the miniseries V where the Visitors fomented suspicion of doctors and scientists.
"I infect the entire net. I have spread through systems, peoples and cities, from this place: Mainframe. My format: Virus. The Queen of Chaos! Ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-ha-haaaaa! Ha-ha-ha-ha."
-- Hexadecimal, ReBoot "Daemon Rising"
Besides, it's been tried. There was one which exploited a hole in order to download the necessary patches for the vulnerability from Microsoft effectively became itself a DDoS on Windows Update servers.
But the world did then learn not to put all its books in just one library.
I hope we also know not to put all our seeds in one arctic seed bank, etc.
The plaintiffs may also use this theory to go after the software makers for creating a network designed to offer, distribute, re-offer, and redistribute.
If they have the images of the defendant's hard drive acquired from discovery--which they surely do--they can prove that the modus operandi of the standard software package both on the defendant's system and typical default installations is to create a chain of offers and on-demand distributions.
A functioning network is of course implied. If the defendant is to suggest they had additional devices similar to Comcast's "bandwidth shaping" technology to prevent actual transfer, they'd better be able to produce said devices to the court and their reasoning for deploying them.
The only thing remaining is proving that the shared folder "offer to serve" was in fact genuine, i.e. if the files were actually available for download. Access via discovery to the software to determine if files would be served on demand would cinch that.
The judge has given the RIAA a workable argument which appears to this layman to stand up.
Idle is sating the desire for April 1 year round.
"Mr. Government, don't make me jerk my knee. You may not like where my knee ends up."
Before I read the article, I was about to say that the summary seems to point at making ISPs pay to avoid their liability--a liability that doesn't exist due to safe harbor provisions in the DMCA. Not users mind you, but ISPs. Users would still get sued.
As the summary was written and with the selected quotation from the article.
The article however makes it clear that it is intended to allow end users to download freely, and that is clear in direct quotations of those interviewed for the article.
So I'm left wondering why Soulskill has such a spin in his summary.
Me, I'd want the entire border of every key raised in that film, and the display smart enough to know that I only want the display to behave like a keyboard when that film is in place and to align the virtual keys with the film's placement.
Barring that, a display that can raise edges up electrically without having to use a film. Basically, merge the touch display-keyboard with the tactile display for the blind.
Slashdot was just slow to post the story. But on the Firehose 59 minutes before it went up, that link was in this link: Wired: Sony Drops $50 Fee to Remove Useless Bloatware.