Judging by the sound of his final post he is a little too scared to try something like that. Whatever the letter said, looks like it scared him good. Maybe they etched it in his car or something.
It's the being served with the order hand-delivered that does that. It's that hands-on touch you only get with hired goons.
It is similar to the sociological consequences of the Prohibition period in the U.S. (during the 1920s). Certain laws can have unexpected consequences on society.
Yeah, LAN parties are the new speakeasies, see? Arr, see? Yeah.
Well, at least one thing I think we can agree on is that terms can evolve over time, but that aspects of their core meaning should remain, and the most useful at that, in a direction that increases their utility.
We do have a need to define terms for transfer between equal (or even the same: ftp 127.0.0.1) machines. I strongly feel that it is more useful to have the usage of "to upload to" and "to download from" determined by where the actor is performing the action. Their definition relative to the stature of the machines involved is more archaic and less useful today, especially when modern usage refers to humans initiating the actions, not the machines performing them. (Especially when assigning responsibility for purposes of conviction.)
Sorry to continually fall back on FTP, but its command structure appears to me to be strongly influenced by the conventions of upload and download to describe the direction of the file transfer relative to the user's location.
I see. I was reading into it the common P2P-er misconception (reinforced by the software's own misuse of the terms) that every upload entails a download and vice versa.
(Though a server can also be a client to another server, or even itself, further pursuit of this will get needlessly nitpicky.)
False. The terminology originated in the early-to-mid 1960s with mainframes with remote stations. The remote stations were the smaller computers, and "uploaded to" or "downloaded from" the mainframe, regardless of which side initiated the transfer.
And what if it were between two mainframes of equal stature? How do you describe the transfer then? If you can still use the verbs upload and download, then the stature of the machines was never relevant to the definitions and their correlation was just a coincidence.
(Slightly) more seriously....how do you know that this future technology will not be initiated by a process in the brain rather than in the computer? It could require some special hypnotic or drug-induced "dump" which might then be captured by the machine.
You're still going to be interfaced to the machine, and if only for safety reasons, your mind will instruct the remote machine to pull your consciousness to it, similar to telnetting to another machine, opening an FTP connection to your laptop, and pulling your files to the remote machine (download).
What's more interesting is if you will even have a sense of transfer of consciousness or will it be a device upon which you become increasingly dependent until you no longer become dependent on your original system, with a continuity of consciousness throughout.
Because one thing you can't upload or download is code execution. Code is transferred in stasis from one system to other, but a running worm could exist as one entity on two systems until they break their connection.
Is a dividing cell uploading or downloading, or just replicating with continuity? And do we really have only one thread of consciousness or multiple threads which can separate and continue independently? Surgical evidence says the latter.
No, there is no one-to-one parity between uploading and downloading. A transfer in one direction does not imply the opposite transfer from the opposite point of view. You cannot substitute upload and download with transmit and receive. The verbs upload and download contain information about the initiator; transmit and receive ignores the initiator.
To claim otherwise is to claim responsibility for your computer's actions when it is operated by an outside force.
The Outer Limits did a good story once about the more likely form of teleportation. Some dinosaur-looking aliens made contact with earth and they had the technology.
You have no more (or less) facility in your own brain for initiating download than upload.
But you do, by manipulating a remote device to pull the data from your brain. Your brain does not need to push. Upload and download are just fancy terms for the pushing and pulling of data from one system to another.
The extropians have been using the term "upload" for many years, as has science fiction. It's based on standard use of computer industry terminology.
Actually more based on a misunderstanding of computer industry terminology. The lesser/greater system originated from people who didn't understand upload/download and were trying to explain -- poorly -- to laymen. At the time, it looked to be correct as they were the common types of systems which uploading and downloading were performed, but it was never the nature nor capacity of the machines involved that determined the terms.
FTP's GET is always a download and its PUT is always an upload, even if the FTP server was on your laptop and you're directing it from a mainframe, and even if that direction is through a Telnet connection from your laptop.
Thus also saying the RIAA and MPAA are only going after "uploaders" is incorrect. Everyone on P2P is downloading, pulling data towards themselves. They are going after servers just as the ATF would go after someone who puts free alcohol, tobacco, or firearms out for unregulated taking by any member of the public. They aren't pushing those products to people, only making them available to be taken in a manner contrary to law.
There's a real easy way to keep uploading and downloading straight. You uploading is you pushing data. You downloading is you pulling data. Larger/smaller, better/lesser, local/remote: none of that matters. It matters only where the force is exerted and the direction of that force, both relative to the location of the data being transferred.
Since you have no facility to push your mind out of your brain into a machine, it must be pulled, ergo downloaded.
I'm not sure why they feel they need to come up with a new name for this. They sound like canaries to me:
In the 19th Century, when miners went down a pit, they'd lower a canary down first in a little cage, and if the atmosphere was noxious, as it frequently was, guess what the canary did. It died!
The canary's job was to go into the most dangerous, unpleasant, and smeggy situations and see if it could stay alive. Then they'd know if it was safe to send in the important people.
Though whether the appellation applies more to the honeymonkeys or the customers is a matter for debate.
Expect something like the following to be added to your license agreements:
By clicking "Accept" you assert that you are not a resident of the state of Washington nor in any way physically or otherwise in the state and that the computer upon which you are installing this software is not and will never be within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington.
And words to the effect that make them immune to Washington law if the user misrepresents his locale or otherwise violates the terms of the agreement.
Haven't you heard? It doesn't matter anymore if anyone downloads it. Just having it available to be downloaded by the public is enough.
To change infringement to theft, it is like saying if your CD collection is stolen and you didn't keep it behind a locked door, you're liable for the theft.
And there is no uploading in P2P. It's all downloading and serving. They are going after the people who are serving.
It's like burning a copy a CD, destroying, the original, and saying, "This one isn't a copy, I don't have the original any more."
Making a backup is also making a copy. Are you meaning to say that I don't have the right to use my backup if my original gets destroyed? Next you'll be saying that I can't make a backup of that backup, even after the original is destroyed.
The symbol for copyright should be a burning candle with a cage of barbed wire around the flame, symbolizing that though you could light your candle at mine without diminishing mine's light, I'm still not going to let you copy my fire.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe it's not the coworkers that he wants to see in high-def, but some work/meeting materials, whatever those might be?
Unless those materials absolutely must be presented in full-motion video, send them through another channel suitable for high quality still images. Other than that, there's this feature they call "zoom" that helps.
I can see HD videoconferencing being useful if it is for HD news broadcasting, but for (SFW) office to office videoconferencing it seems an unnecessary expense.
Unless one of the people in the teleconference is a Jack Bauer.
Once most movies on DVD are in the public domain, something currently scheduled for the mid to late 21st century, perhaps it will find a more receptive audience.
What's to prevent forcing the issue now by encoding material which is in the public domain right now onto an encrypted DVD? There are materials that have lapsed into the public domain that do not enjoy copyright extention. There are commercial DVDs out there right now that contain video that was created by the government which, by their nature was funded by taxpayer dollars, was immediately public domain. And can't an author now relinquish his copyright and put his work in the public domain? Not GPL, total relinquishment to the public domain.
The volume of PD titles on CSS-encrypted DVDs should not matter. There should need be only one to have a standing case.
Not even in the sense that, if you use a technological measure to protect your work, no one can ever legally publish how to defeat it, thereby enjoying indefinite protection?
I can see the film grain when they show movies on TNTHD
I've been rather disappointed with TNTHD. Even for shows that were shot widescreen, they're distorting the 4:3 aspect to fill the 16:9 HD frame. Compare The X-Files on TNTHD to the syndication run on other channels and the DVDs.
At least that's my experience with an HD cablebox downconverting the signal to SD so I can watch it on my 32" 4:3 HDTV. Since the SAHD box from TWC won't tell my TV to letterbox 16:9 despite the box having settings to do so, TNTHD is the only HD channel I can actually watch in HD and see a non-distorted image. (The TV is from RCA and has no manually settable anamorphic mode.)
I haven't tried watching movies on TNTHD so maybe they handle them better.
I was testing some web script, and I often serve a page as text/plain for debugging purposes. IE, Firefox and Opera all displayed the debug page as plain text when required to do so, but Safari, even when the server explicetly sent a Content-Type: text/plain, just because the page had a.html extension, displayed it as html, as if the webserver didn't know what it was talking about.
You just described normal IE behavior of disregarding "text/plain" on Windows. I haven't run IE on Mac OS X to know whether it also disregards this part of the HTTP standard, nor have I run tests with Safari, but it could be Safari has in it now an IE compatibility mode so it can work as expected for users communicating with misconfigured servers (serving.iso files as text/plain for example).
Slashdot Mirror
Judging by the sound of his final post he is a little too scared to try something like that. Whatever the letter said, looks like it scared him good. Maybe they etched it in his car or something.
It's the being served with the order hand-delivered that does that. It's that hands-on touch you only get with hired goons.
I thought that it took ten years for stupid ideas from the States to reach the UK. Not seven.
Clearly the formation/joining in a European Union has made the process of the import of the United States' stupid-idea exports more efficient.
It is akin to a warrantied replacement for a stereo system that has been discontinued netting you the latest version at no additional cost.
its a laggy assed unplayable mess.
I wondered how bullet-time would translate to a real-time MMORPG. Now I know.
It is similar to the sociological consequences of the Prohibition period in the U.S. (during the 1920s). Certain laws can have unexpected consequences on society.
Yeah, LAN parties are the new speakeasies, see? Arr, see? Yeah.
Well, at least one thing I think we can agree on is that terms can evolve over time, but that aspects of their core meaning should remain, and the most useful at that, in a direction that increases their utility.
We do have a need to define terms for transfer between equal (or even the same: ftp 127.0.0.1) machines. I strongly feel that it is more useful to have the usage of "to upload to" and "to download from" determined by where the actor is performing the action. Their definition relative to the stature of the machines involved is more archaic and less useful today, especially when modern usage refers to humans initiating the actions, not the machines performing them. (Especially when assigning responsibility for purposes of conviction.)
Sorry to continually fall back on FTP, but its command structure appears to me to be strongly influenced by the conventions of upload and download to describe the direction of the file transfer relative to the user's location.
I see. I was reading into it the common P2P-er misconception (reinforced by the software's own misuse of the terms) that every upload entails a download and vice versa.
(Though a server can also be a client to another server, or even itself, further pursuit of this will get needlessly nitpicky.)
False. The terminology originated in the early-to-mid 1960s with mainframes with remote stations. The remote stations were the smaller computers, and "uploaded to" or "downloaded from" the mainframe, regardless of which side initiated the transfer.
And what if it were between two mainframes of equal stature? How do you describe the transfer then? If you can still use the verbs upload and download, then the stature of the machines was never relevant to the definitions and their correlation was just a coincidence.
(Slightly) more seriously....how do you know that this future technology will not be initiated by a process in the brain rather than in the computer? It could require some special hypnotic or drug-induced "dump" which might then be captured by the machine.
You're still going to be interfaced to the machine, and if only for safety reasons, your mind will instruct the remote machine to pull your consciousness to it, similar to telnetting to another machine, opening an FTP connection to your laptop, and pulling your files to the remote machine (download).
What's more interesting is if you will even have a sense of transfer of consciousness or will it be a device upon which you become increasingly dependent until you no longer become dependent on your original system, with a continuity of consciousness throughout.
Because one thing you can't upload or download is code execution. Code is transferred in stasis from one system to other, but a running worm could exist as one entity on two systems until they break their connection.
Is a dividing cell uploading or downloading, or just replicating with continuity? And do we really have only one thread of consciousness or multiple threads which can separate and continue independently? Surgical evidence says the latter.
No, there is no one-to-one parity between uploading and downloading. A transfer in one direction does not imply the opposite transfer from the opposite point of view. You cannot substitute upload and download with transmit and receive. The verbs upload and download contain information about the initiator; transmit and receive ignores the initiator.
To claim otherwise is to claim responsibility for your computer's actions when it is operated by an outside force.
The Outer Limits did a good story once about the more likely form of teleportation. Some dinosaur-looking aliens made contact with earth and they had the technology.
Before Sci-Fi Channel adapted it into an episode of The Outer Limits, it was on their Seeing Ear Theater. I believe it is based on the book of the same name.
You have no more (or less) facility in your own brain for initiating download than upload.
But you do, by manipulating a remote device to pull the data from your brain. Your brain does not need to push. Upload and download are just fancy terms for the pushing and pulling of data from one system to another.
The extropians have been using the term "upload" for many years, as has science fiction. It's based on standard use of computer industry terminology.
Actually more based on a misunderstanding of computer industry terminology. The lesser/greater system originated from people who didn't understand upload/download and were trying to explain -- poorly -- to laymen. At the time, it looked to be correct as they were the common types of systems which uploading and downloading were performed, but it was never the nature nor capacity of the machines involved that determined the terms.
FTP's GET is always a download and its PUT is always an upload, even if the FTP server was on your laptop and you're directing it from a mainframe, and even if that direction is through a Telnet connection from your laptop.
Thus also saying the RIAA and MPAA are only going after "uploaders" is incorrect. Everyone on P2P is downloading, pulling data towards themselves. They are going after servers just as the ATF would go after someone who puts free alcohol, tobacco, or firearms out for unregulated taking by any member of the public. They aren't pushing those products to people, only making them available to be taken in a manner contrary to law.
There's a real easy way to keep uploading and downloading straight. You uploading is you pushing data. You downloading is you pulling data. Larger/smaller, better/lesser, local/remote: none of that matters. It matters only where the force is exerted and the direction of that force, both relative to the location of the data being transferred.
Since you have no facility to push your mind out of your brain into a machine, it must be pulled, ergo downloaded.
"Yes, it's... wonderful... isn't it?"
No, download would be the correct term. You have no facility in your own brain to initiate its upload to a computer.
Expect something like the following to be added to your license agreements:
By clicking "Accept" you assert that you are not a resident of the state of Washington nor in any way physically or otherwise in the state and that the computer upon which you are installing this software is not and will never be within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington.
And words to the effect that make them immune to Washington law if the user misrepresents his locale or otherwise violates the terms of the agreement.
Haven't you heard? It doesn't matter anymore if anyone downloads it. Just having it available to be downloaded by the public is enough.
To change infringement to theft, it is like saying if your CD collection is stolen and you didn't keep it behind a locked door, you're liable for the theft.
And there is no uploading in P2P. It's all downloading and serving. They are going after the people who are serving.
It's like burning a copy a CD, destroying, the original, and saying, "This one isn't a copy, I don't have the original any more."
Making a backup is also making a copy. Are you meaning to say that I don't have the right to use my backup if my original gets destroyed? Next you'll be saying that I can't make a backup of that backup, even after the original is destroyed.
The symbol for copyright should be a burning candle with a cage of barbed wire around the flame, symbolizing that though you could light your candle at mine without diminishing mine's light, I'm still not going to let you copy my fire.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe it's not the coworkers that he wants to see in high-def, but some work/meeting materials, whatever those might be?
Unless those materials absolutely must be presented in full-motion video, send them through another channel suitable for high quality still images. Other than that, there's this feature they call "zoom" that helps.
I can see HD videoconferencing being useful if it is for HD news broadcasting, but for (SFW) office to office videoconferencing it seems an unnecessary expense.
Unless one of the people in the teleconference is a Jack Bauer.
Once most movies on DVD are in the public domain, something currently scheduled for the mid to late 21st century, perhaps it will find a more receptive audience.
What's to prevent forcing the issue now by encoding material which is in the public domain right now onto an encrypted DVD? There are materials that have lapsed into the public domain that do not enjoy copyright extention. There are commercial DVDs out there right now that contain video that was created by the government which, by their nature was funded by taxpayer dollars, was immediately public domain. And can't an author now relinquish his copyright and put his work in the public domain? Not GPL, total relinquishment to the public domain.
The volume of PD titles on CSS-encrypted DVDs should not matter. There should need be only one to have a standing case.
First, the DMCA doesn't extend copyright terms.
Not even in the sense that, if you use a technological measure to protect your work, no one can ever legally publish how to defeat it, thereby enjoying indefinite protection?
I can see the film grain when they show movies on TNTHD
I've been rather disappointed with TNTHD. Even for shows that were shot widescreen, they're distorting the 4:3 aspect to fill the 16:9 HD frame. Compare The X-Files on TNTHD to the syndication run on other channels and the DVDs.
At least that's my experience with an HD cablebox downconverting the signal to SD so I can watch it on my 32" 4:3 HDTV. Since the SAHD box from TWC won't tell my TV to letterbox 16:9 despite the box having settings to do so, TNTHD is the only HD channel I can actually watch in HD and see a non-distorted image. (The TV is from RCA and has no manually settable anamorphic mode.)
I haven't tried watching movies on TNTHD so maybe they handle them better.
Kind of like how they bought a record studio prior to the introduction of the iTMS.
Oh wait... that didn't happen.
If they had, they should have bought out Apple Records.
That reminds me: what is the state of the latest Apple Records v. Apple Computer suit?
I was testing some web script, and I often serve a page as text/plain for debugging purposes. IE, Firefox and Opera all displayed the debug page as plain text when required to do so, but Safari, even when the server explicetly sent a Content-Type: text/plain, just because the page had a .html extension, displayed it as html, as if the webserver didn't know what it was talking about.
.iso files as text/plain for example).
You just described normal IE behavior of disregarding "text/plain" on Windows. I haven't run IE on Mac OS X to know whether it also disregards this part of the HTTP standard, nor have I run tests with Safari, but it could be Safari has in it now an IE compatibility mode so it can work as expected for users communicating with misconfigured servers (serving