And like always, since they've updated the version of Final Cut Pro, non-AGP Mac users will need to edit the application's Info.plist file again, changing "AGP" to "PCI". Instructions here.
This little hack has let me delay buying a new G5 until I have gathered sufficient funds.
Can I guy buy a cable box so I don't have to rent one from you.
I sure would like to own my cable box instead of renting it. Especially since next year the monthly fee for cable boxes is going up for the same service. What, firmware updates? You mean those things that turn my cable box off in the middle of the night so my TiVo records "Press 'CBL' to turn on your cable box" and a black screen for an hour instead of my show? And always seem to happen whenever I decide to go somewhere for the weekend?
In fact, the only thing that went down in price was the frelling remote, by one cent!
When are the universal digital cable boxes supposed to come out? The cable companies are supposed to be standardizing so that we can own our own boxes!
The purpose of the analogy is to illustrate that an action from one perspective does not imply the opposite action from the opposite perspective. The flipping of legality with the perspective is only there to illustrate clearly that reversing the action is not equivalent, and thus you can't use upload and download interchangably on the same transaction.
It's an analogy on grammatical usage of the verbs to upload and to download, not on the legality of uploading and downloading.
But if we were to apply it in the legal sense, you have an agent for the CRIA. He downloads something from your system--which is a legal action--then turns around and claims that you uploaded it to him, thereby making you responsible for his action (in absentia I might add). That is unreasonable, and so reversing uploading and downloading is also unreasonable.
If you put a pie on a windowsill to cool, that is not an invitation for someone to take it. For sake of argument, let us assume that the pie was purchased from a vendor who had you agree to a license that it was licensed to you for your personal consumption only. (Silly, I admit, but for the sake of argument, assume it, and that it is a legally binding agreement.) Still, you are not obligated to provide security for it from the unscrupulous.
It is reasonable for one to secure one's possessions, but it is not an obligation. Theft is theft regardless of security or lake thereof. Same goes for copyright infringement.
Putting your licensed pie on a windowsill with a sign that says, "Take this!" though is an encouragement to others to sample it in violation of the license. That's what one does with P2P file sharing: the purpose of the software is to share files, you're putting files on it to be shared, so you intend that others take copies of the files.
But you're offering them for download, not upload. You're not pushing them; you're allowing others to pull them. It appears then that it is still legal in Canada.
But I'm not arguing the legality of offering those files in Canada. The nuances of applying the concept of a loaned physical item being copied by someone else while it is in their possession and applying it to unfixed data that can be copied without it changing possession are hard to work out while avoiding, as Douglas Adams had Ford Prefect say, "trying to think of a way of looking at it which means we get to eat it."
I'm arguing that it is not "uploading", and more specifically that someone downloading from you is not the same thing as you uploading to him. You can't just swap the subject and verb for another pair and describe the same action because that changes the actor.
And assigning the actions to the machines instead of the people is just a means either to avoid responsibility for the actions (for the person doing something that would be illegal for him) or to assign responsibility for the actions to another (for the person looking to make something illegal that isn't).
Anyway, the point is no one is uploading copyrighted material on P2P. I've been told some P2P software reports that the user has x downloads and y uploads in progress, but that usage is wrong.
Until you've agreed that it is licensed software, you own it from first sale doctrine. The license agreement takes away rights you had. E.g. if the AOL CDs you get have a license restriction against using the CD for any other purpose than for installing AOL's software on your computer, it means nothing unless you agree to it.
However, even disagreeing with the license agreement may constitute acknowledgment of the existence of a license requirement. If that's true, then you're stripped (of your rights) if you do and stripped if you don't. Then your only protection then is ignorance.
IANAL, and am expecting an IAAL response to tell me how wrong I am.
Ah, so that's why I'm seeing it in DVDs for Children of the Stones and The Tomorrow People. Thank you, both of you.
Though I don't recall ever seeing it when those shows were shown on Nickelodeon in its early days here. I guess they could have been hidden in the overscan area. But my Red Dwarf DVDs don't have them--too new?
Shouldn't they have masters that don't have those markers? Should I expect them in the coming Blakes 7 box set as well?
More troublingly, studios make special "Blockbuster" editions of a film for home video -- the tape or DVD you rent at Blockbuster of a given film might be missing material that shows up in the theatrical version or in a home video version seen elsewhere, with no indication on the packaging that this is the case.
Are you saying they do this in more places than just Utah?
no, in europe, given the choice, always buy the multiregion player that can play anything. virtually all our machines are multiregion these days.
Another nice thing about Europe is a lot of the DVDs are Region 0 anyway. I've been ordering Region 0 TV DVDs from amazon.co.uk that aren't offered here in the former colonies, and either my DVD player can convert PAL to component video or my HDTV is fine with PAL video coming in on the component video inputs.
Well, apart from the occasional spinning zebra box in a corner. Not sure why I'm getting those.
So for every case of shoplifting, there must be a shelf that pushed a product into the thief's hands and a store that shoved him out the door? Sorry, a store can give free gifts without the recipient being charged with shoplifting, and a shoplifter can't get off by claiming the item was a free gift.
There is no parity between an upload and a download. Anyone who tells you different is trying to convict you of something.
If you want to make it a crime to deliberately place works copyrighted by others without securing the copyright holder's permission on an unprotected filesystem with the intent that they would be copied by others, fine, but don't call it uploading.
What's next, making selling candy bars via the honor system illegal?
threatening to file lawsuits against individual file sharers (specifically uploaders)
So specifically against nobody then.
No one uploads (pushes) in P2P. Everyone downloads (pulls).
Uploading and downloading are not two sides of the same transaction in the same way that shoplifting is not the same as the store pushing the product into your arms and shoving you out the door before you could pay.
Someone uploads or downloads. Not the machine nor the software but the person who causes the transaction. Otherwise who are you going to charge with the crime? The computer? (We have enough cases of objects being charged with crimes in the enforcement of drug laws in the US.)
Shake 3 is also available for Linux for a suggested retail price of $9,900 (US) with an annual maintenance of $1485 (US). Render-only versions of Shake 3 are free on Mac OS X and are available for Linux for a suggested retail price of $3,900 (US) with an annual maintenance of $585 (US). Contact an Apple Authorized Professional Film Reseller to purchase.
Well, it's easy to get confused when a LAN exploit is given the "remote" label.
There are many layers to the security onion. "Local" and "remote" are often insufficient to describe which layer has the vulnerability. Not everyone knows what locus to which they are relative.
The OS is different from the processor. Sure, you want an OS interface that's closely tailored to your needs. But the OS is software, held within your data store, so you do get the same user interface wherever you go.
As long as that's true, do you really care what processor is running that OS?
It matters if the OS I want to run won't run on that processor. It matters if the proprietary apps I need to run have not been (and will not be) ported to a cross-platform OS. Maybe I want a portable platform capable of running NEXTSTEP. Maybe I need a faster processor than is provided by the kiosk, or I need multiple processors because I can't be standing by a kiosk for 12 hours while it encodes in multiple passes my DV footage into MPEG-2 video. (But if multiple users each provided their own processor, perhaps cycles could be shared and tasks performed much faster than a single service provider could do.)
There are many things of concern to the end user that would warrant the end user having control over what CPU is used. OS choice is only one of them. Not everyone wants to unify under one operating system. Not everyone wants to be one with the Borg, no matter who gates to be the queen.
Why a cube? Could the same hardware not be wedged into an iPod shaped container?
There may be cooling concerns that require some minimum space between components. Having at least one flat side is important if you ever want to take it out of your pack and put it on a desk. And that most ports want to be attached to flat surfaces.
And as for wearability, the lack of a battery rules that out.
It only needs 5V DC in. Just takes someone to come up with an external battery solution that is also portable. One that is complementary to the design of the cube would be good.
When you plug your personalized device into a general-purpose device, what do you want that's personalized? You want your data, of course... but you don't need, or even want, your personal CPU.
You do when when you want your own personal platform that isn't a Pentium-6-Embedded-Edition.
Maybe I'm in a place that has only PCs, maybe one that has only Macs. Maybe for accessibility reasons they lock all the machines to a 640x480 resolution, and restrict customization. But if it is my OS running on my processor, I should have full freedom to customize my experience.
And I don't need much infrastructure to take advantage of my platform. Unless the venue caters only to laptops, then displays, keyboards, mice, and Ethernet are already present and I just patch in my cube. (OK, there are some problems finding compatible devices as the cube has VGA and USB ports and there's DVI, ADC, PS/2, and ADB devices to deal with and no easy way to convert VGA and USB to them.)
But then if you know you're going to be dealing with Mac workstations, you could just install Mac OS X into your iPod and boot any modern Mac off the iPod as a Firewire drive. But then, that's not using the almighty Pentium processor. (Even if you could also install Microsoft Windows XP to the same drive, you can't boot just any machine off of it due to their licensing method being tied to the system configuration. Microsoft has effectively locked themselves out of the portable OS market.)
All you carry around is your data, because that's the only component that is useful to personalize.
Not so. People also wan't to personalize their displays to a comfortable resolution, change mouse sensitivity, double-click rate, maybe even keyboard layouts. There are many other things one might want to customize, including using applications that aren't ubiquitous. It is reasonable to want a customized OS.
And it isn't much to extend that to want your own processor that is capable of running your OS of choice. Even if it is T-Engine.
The computer room is also the media room. Computers on one wall, 32" HDTV and video equipment on opposite wall, and a Firewire connection between them (and 3 powered Firewire hubs to go the distance between them).
I'm in that room most of the time, and I don't think it wise to leave a new kitten on its own all the time. He needs attention if only so he can learn proper behavior. He isn't in the computer/media room without observation.
The cables are also a trip hazard for myself and my guests, and one can only spray so much bitter apple to discourage feline biting.
I'm wanting to better conceal the tangle of cords around my many computers, as well as keep them out of the teeth of household pets. (I haven't yet looked at fire/safety codes for Nebraska.)
I've been considering installing pullable tiled office flooring in my basement that brings the floor up three inches and stringing my cables underneath it.
Or consider that you might not need four-side access to the rack. Front and back seem to be enough for me, so I hid my CDC Network Processor Unit cabinet behind the television's armoire.
Slashdot Mirror
And like always, since they've updated the version of Final Cut Pro, non-AGP Mac users will need to edit the application's Info.plist file again, changing "AGP" to "PCI". Instructions here.
This little hack has let me delay buying a new G5 until I have gathered sufficient funds.
Can I guy buy a cable box so I don't have to rent one from you.
I sure would like to own my cable box instead of renting it. Especially since next year the monthly fee for cable boxes is going up for the same service. What, firmware updates? You mean those things that turn my cable box off in the middle of the night so my TiVo records "Press 'CBL' to turn on your cable box" and a black screen for an hour instead of my show? And always seem to happen whenever I decide to go somewhere for the weekend?
In fact, the only thing that went down in price was the frelling remote, by one cent!
When are the universal digital cable boxes supposed to come out? The cable companies are supposed to be standardizing so that we can own our own boxes!
I own my own DSL modem.
The purpose of the analogy is to illustrate that an action from one perspective does not imply the opposite action from the opposite perspective. The flipping of legality with the perspective is only there to illustrate clearly that reversing the action is not equivalent, and thus you can't use upload and download interchangably on the same transaction.
It's an analogy on grammatical usage of the verbs to upload and to download, not on the legality of uploading and downloading.
But if we were to apply it in the legal sense, you have an agent for the CRIA. He downloads something from your system--which is a legal action--then turns around and claims that you uploaded it to him, thereby making you responsible for his action (in absentia I might add). That is unreasonable, and so reversing uploading and downloading is also unreasonable.
If you put a pie on a windowsill to cool, that is not an invitation for someone to take it. For sake of argument, let us assume that the pie was purchased from a vendor who had you agree to a license that it was licensed to you for your personal consumption only. (Silly, I admit, but for the sake of argument, assume it, and that it is a legally binding agreement.) Still, you are not obligated to provide security for it from the unscrupulous.
It is reasonable for one to secure one's possessions, but it is not an obligation. Theft is theft regardless of security or lake thereof. Same goes for copyright infringement.
Putting your licensed pie on a windowsill with a sign that says, "Take this!" though is an encouragement to others to sample it in violation of the license. That's what one does with P2P file sharing: the purpose of the software is to share files, you're putting files on it to be shared, so you intend that others take copies of the files.
But you're offering them for download, not upload. You're not pushing them; you're allowing others to pull them. It appears then that it is still legal in Canada.
But I'm not arguing the legality of offering those files in Canada. The nuances of applying the concept of a loaned physical item being copied by someone else while it is in their possession and applying it to unfixed data that can be copied without it changing possession are hard to work out while avoiding, as Douglas Adams had Ford Prefect say, "trying to think of a way of looking at it which means we get to eat it."
I'm arguing that it is not "uploading", and more specifically that someone downloading from you is not the same thing as you uploading to him. You can't just swap the subject and verb for another pair and describe the same action because that changes the actor.
And assigning the actions to the machines instead of the people is just a means either to avoid responsibility for the actions (for the person doing something that would be illegal for him) or to assign responsibility for the actions to another (for the person looking to make something illegal that isn't).
Anyway, the point is no one is uploading copyrighted material on P2P. I've been told some P2P software reports that the user has x downloads and y uploads in progress, but that usage is wrong.
Until you've agreed that it is licensed software, you own it from first sale doctrine. The license agreement takes away rights you had. E.g. if the AOL CDs you get have a license restriction against using the CD for any other purpose than for installing AOL's software on your computer, it means nothing unless you agree to it.
However, even disagreeing with the license agreement may constitute acknowledgment of the existence of a license requirement. If that's true, then you're stripped (of your rights) if you do and stripped if you don't. Then your only protection then is ignorance.
IANAL, and am expecting an IAAL response to tell me how wrong I am.
So, any unusual gotchas in these EULAs?
What?! Just because I put my observation into my own signature, suddenly I'm a troll?
BTW, it is in reference to this subthread in "The Most Incorrect Assumptions In Computing?" where the same information got +3 Informative (and only one -1 Overrated).
Maybe I should change it back to, "If your use of lose and loose is loose you lose."
You can't put DRM on the Universe!
That's where I download all my stuff from!
Comparing [Cleanflicks] to Blockbuster's special edits is apples to oranges.
"Apples to oranges," huh? Darn. I was going for "the Funny," instead.
I guess I need to put my wit in the electric sharpening tool for awhile longer before I post next time. [Lame wit/whit pun deleted.]
Ah, so that's why I'm seeing it in DVDs for Children of the Stones and The Tomorrow People. Thank you, both of you.
Though I don't recall ever seeing it when those shows were shown on Nickelodeon in its early days here. I guess they could have been hidden in the overscan area. But my Red Dwarf DVDs don't have them--too new?
Shouldn't they have masters that don't have those markers? Should I expect them in the coming Blakes 7 box set as well?
Of course, all that is resolved with the realization that there is no uploading at all with P2P. Everything is hosted and downloaded.
If it was FTP instead, then you could upload by using the put command.
Don't play fast and loose with the subject performing the action or the next free gift a store gives you will get you arrested for shoplifting.
When your output is progressive component video, does NTSC/PAL/SECAM really matter?
It's a serious question.
Hollywood have always previously had some technical excuse, but this time it was pure and simple profiteeering.
Particularly when they put region coding on movies like Casablanca.
More troublingly, studios make special "Blockbuster" editions of a film for home video -- the tape or DVD you rent at Blockbuster of a given film might be missing material that shows up in the theatrical version or in a home video version seen elsewhere, with no indication on the packaging that this is the case.
Are you saying they do this in more places than just Utah?
no, in europe, given the choice, always buy the multiregion player that can play anything. virtually all our machines are multiregion these days.
Another nice thing about Europe is a lot of the DVDs are Region 0 anyway. I've been ordering Region 0 TV DVDs from amazon.co.uk that aren't offered here in the former colonies, and either my DVD player can convert PAL to component video or my HDTV is fine with PAL video coming in on the component video inputs.
Well, apart from the occasional spinning zebra box in a corner. Not sure why I'm getting those.
What?!?! Have you SEEN the guy from Radiohead?!
I have.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go burn and verify some, uh... some "dragons".
For every downloader, there must be an uploader.
So for every case of shoplifting, there must be a shelf that pushed a product into the thief's hands and a store that shoved him out the door? Sorry, a store can give free gifts without the recipient being charged with shoplifting, and a shoplifter can't get off by claiming the item was a free gift.
There is no parity between an upload and a download. Anyone who tells you different is trying to convict you of something.
If you want to make it a crime to deliberately place works copyrighted by others without securing the copyright holder's permission on an unprotected filesystem with the intent that they would be copied by others, fine, but don't call it uploading.
What's next, making selling candy bars via the honor system illegal?
Does this make it legal to download music if you burn it to a Canadian CD-R?
If so then the same should hold true for burning to Audio CD-R in the US.
threatening to file lawsuits against individual file sharers (specifically uploaders)
So specifically against nobody then.
No one uploads (pushes) in P2P. Everyone downloads (pulls).
Uploading and downloading are not two sides of the same transaction in the same way that shoplifting is not the same as the store pushing the product into your arms and shoving you out the door before you could pay.
Someone uploads or downloads. Not the machine nor the software but the person who causes the transaction. Otherwise who are you going to charge with the crime? The computer? (We have enough cases of objects being charged with crimes in the enforcement of drug laws in the US.)
Shake was on your list of programs, but is available on Linux. It just isn't free: Just a minor correction.
Well, it's easy to get confused when a LAN exploit is given the "remote" label.
There are many layers to the security onion. "Local" and "remote" are often insufficient to describe which layer has the vulnerability. Not everyone knows what locus to which they are relative.
Not a correction; an observation.
The OS is different from the processor. Sure, you want an OS interface that's closely tailored to your needs. But the OS is software, held within your data store, so you do get the same user interface wherever you go.
As long as that's true, do you really care what processor is running that OS?
It matters if the OS I want to run won't run on that processor. It matters if the proprietary apps I need to run have not been (and will not be) ported to a cross-platform OS. Maybe I want a portable platform capable of running NEXTSTEP. Maybe I need a faster processor than is provided by the kiosk, or I need multiple processors because I can't be standing by a kiosk for 12 hours while it encodes in multiple passes my DV footage into MPEG-2 video. (But if multiple users each provided their own processor, perhaps cycles could be shared and tasks performed much faster than a single service provider could do.)
There are many things of concern to the end user that would warrant the end user having control over what CPU is used. OS choice is only one of them. Not everyone wants to unify under one operating system. Not everyone wants to be one with the Borg, no matter who gates to be the queen.
Why a cube? Could the same hardware not be wedged into an iPod shaped container?
There may be cooling concerns that require some minimum space between components. Having at least one flat side is important if you ever want to take it out of your pack and put it on a desk. And that most ports want to be attached to flat surfaces.
And as for wearability, the lack of a battery rules that out.
It only needs 5V DC in. Just takes someone to come up with an external battery solution that is also portable. One that is complementary to the design of the cube would be good.
When you plug your personalized device into a general-purpose device, what do you want that's personalized? You want your data, of course... but you don't need, or even want, your personal CPU.
You do when when you want your own personal platform that isn't a Pentium-6-Embedded-Edition.
Maybe I'm in a place that has only PCs, maybe one that has only Macs. Maybe for accessibility reasons they lock all the machines to a 640x480 resolution, and restrict customization. But if it is my OS running on my processor, I should have full freedom to customize my experience.
And I don't need much infrastructure to take advantage of my platform. Unless the venue caters only to laptops, then displays, keyboards, mice, and Ethernet are already present and I just patch in my cube. (OK, there are some problems finding compatible devices as the cube has VGA and USB ports and there's DVI, ADC, PS/2, and ADB devices to deal with and no easy way to convert VGA and USB to them.)
But then if you know you're going to be dealing with Mac workstations, you could just install Mac OS X into your iPod and boot any modern Mac off the iPod as a Firewire drive. But then, that's not using the almighty Pentium processor. (Even if you could also install Microsoft Windows XP to the same drive, you can't boot just any machine off of it due to their licensing method being tied to the system configuration. Microsoft has effectively locked themselves out of the portable OS market.)
All you carry around is your data, because that's the only component that is useful to personalize.
Not so. People also wan't to personalize their displays to a comfortable resolution, change mouse sensitivity, double-click rate, maybe even keyboard layouts. There are many other things one might want to customize, including using applications that aren't ubiquitous. It is reasonable to want a customized OS.
And it isn't much to extend that to want your own processor that is capable of running your OS of choice. Even if it is T-Engine.
Is there a version of Linux ported to Java?
In this case it is a kitten.
The computer room is also the media room. Computers on one wall, 32" HDTV and video equipment on opposite wall, and a Firewire connection between them (and 3 powered Firewire hubs to go the distance between them).
I'm in that room most of the time, and I don't think it wise to leave a new kitten on its own all the time. He needs attention if only so he can learn proper behavior. He isn't in the computer/media room without observation.
The cables are also a trip hazard for myself and my guests, and one can only spray so much bitter apple to discourage feline biting.
I'm wanting to better conceal the tangle of cords around my many computers, as well as keep them out of the teeth of household pets. (I haven't yet looked at fire/safety codes for Nebraska.)
I've been considering installing pullable tiled office flooring in my basement that brings the floor up three inches and stringing my cables underneath it.
Or consider that you might not need four-side access to the rack. Front and back seem to be enough for me, so I hid my CDC Network Processor Unit cabinet behind the television's armoire.
it comes in many colors!
And if you put one of each color all together, they form a tiny giant robot!