"Maxx Payne, I am The Maxx. Answer your subpoena."
"What's in a name, anyway? If I were called Bob or Jack or Vinnie, or 'a piece of fruit', would I be any less a hero? And if Barry were called Rupert or Max or Rainbow, would he be any less a jerk? I don't think so. Because a name is a rose, and it only smells as sweet as you are!" -- The Tick; The Tick: "The Tick vs. The Tick"
All hard buttons? Then I should be able to arrange them the way I need them and alter the labeling at will, because there are some essential functions that aren't on enough remotes for a UR manufacturer to include on a cost effective basis.
I wonder if it is possible to build a universal remote control out of Lego Mindstorms....
Well, the MPAA did reject a video cassette tape that required the user pay to have it rewound preventing multiple unauthorized viewings because it didn't prevent multiple people sitting in front of the same screen. (Or was it just Disney?)
So is that I2I (eye to eye) piracy?
Meanwhile the RIAA encourages artists to make recordings so complex that it isn't possible to perform them without electronic augmentation, thereby preventing E2M (ear to mouth) piracy.
Given [the] circumstances [of the original's ending], it seems a new series which remained true to the previous in more than name would be totally justified in only bringing back Avon.
Oh, I think they also need to get Jacqueline Pearce to reprise her role as President Servalan/Commissioner Sleer and Peter Tuddenham as the voice of Orac, or otherwise explain their absences.
Re:How to make a TV programme (dummies edition)...
on
Blakes Seven To Return
·
· Score: 1
But the/. headline is Blakes (sic) Seven to Return
You can hardly fault the editors for that "(sic)". The title cards for the series never did have an apostrophe.
After all, if you do leave the USA, the DMCA doesn't apply to you while you're on foreign soil, so you can then legally crack the DRM and make a proper backup copy.
Are you sure that foreign soil doesn't have its own laws against it? Stay off the soil; stick to the high seas for your "piracy".
"So, we're in international waters?"
"Indeed so." "Falcon, this is Blue Raven, the goose has nested. Repeat, the goose has nested."
The copy protection system used on DVDs seems to have been effective in discouraging many people from copying DVDs.
I think you meant, "The access protection system used on DVDs seems to have been effective in discouraging many people from copying DVDs," as you had distinguished in an earlier question. CSS is an access control, not strictly a copy control.
When a copy control is also an access control, the DMCA effectively prohibits circumventing copy controls, including when works enter the public domain. (That there has as yet been no case law about this does not invalidate the hypothetical.)
There should be a legal requirement that works protected by an access control be rereleased without an access control by the holder of the copyright at the time it enters the public domain and/or provide for the holding in escrow such works in unencumbered-by-an-access-control form for their release upon entering the public domain.
Further, all releases of public domain works must be free of access controls and there be no systems that require an access control be present on a work before accessing that work.
Yes, that means that (for example) there be a legal way to play public domain XBOX games that do not have an access control. It is outrageous that I should have to buy a license from Microsoft to get public domain games signed to play on an XBOX.
At first, I thought I'd be safe since I still haven't installed 9.0a from Windows Update. Then I read the article:
THE FLAW IS unusually widespread, affecting all versions of DirectX from version 5.2 to the current 9.0a running on all versions of Windows from Windows 98 through the new Windows Server 2003, according to the Microsoft bulletin.
Though I don't listen that much to MIDI files, malformed or otherwise, I guess I should update. I just hope it doesn't break my games.
Since Final Cut Pro 4 requires AGP, something my 550 MHz G4-equipped B&W G3 doesn't have, I'm looking to make my 450 MHz G4 Cube my video editing station. But with RT Extreme wanting at least 500 MHz, Shake 3 requiring at least 800 MHz, and who knows what DVD Studio Pro 2 will require, I've been looking at upgrading my Cube.
However, I still have worries. PowerLogix upgrades don't work well in conjunction with sleep mode (won't wake up unless booted from CD) and Sonnet 1.2 GHz upgrades have been reported as blowing the VRM (DC-DC board) and no comments on where replacements are available. (Also usual fate of systems with unapproved dual processor upgrades.) Though at least one such report for the PowerLogix as well.
So, either risk my G4 Cube for around $500 (how much will the replacement True Cube 10" case cost?), or get either a dual 1.25 GHz G4 or a 1.6 GHz G5 with the rest of the optional features more-or-less equal for $1970 (no modems). Sure, the G4 only has 4X AGP and no S/PDIF I/O (tasty), and if I go faster on the G5 I get PCI-X, but the G4 does have twice as many drive bays (4 and 2 optical) compared to the G5 (2 and 1). That just may be my deciding factor, seeing as I've modded my B&W G3's interior with a PC's cage for more drive space (externalizing the power switch module) and want to bring over the video on its drives.
Have the G4s dropped in price since the G5 release?
There are too many addresses. There are 16.7 million addresses per square metre of the earth's surface, including the oceans. This is overkill. The world does not need more than the 4 billion addresses available with IPv4, and I challenge you to come up with an application that requires that many.
Reasonable limits aren't.
Two digits for the year wasn't enough. A fixed 256-byte buffer isn't big enough for a single line of user input. 200 area codes aren't enough. 640K is not enough memory for anybody. Consumers do need single-disk storage in excess of 128 GiB (137 GB). 4 billion IP addresses isn't enough.
We keep hitting up against "reasonable limits" that someone thought was "more than enough". Time passes and we find they aren't reasonable and we can no longer be limited by them.
Unreasonable limits are.
Limits are always unreasonable. If you can't be unlimited, then let your unreasonable limits be unreasonably huge. Capacity should exceed expected utilization by several orders of magnitude because you do not know what the future may need.
We don't design for what we can think of now; we design for what we will think of in the future.
In the meantime, I have an application that will require more than the 4 billion addresses available with IPv4. That application is the Internet. And if you think the whole of the Internet could live in a smaller address space, then let's limit ourselves to only 1,048,576 routable IP addresses for the whole world right now and use a whole lot more NATs and see if that's reasonable.
Excuse me, but how is keeping a visual record for 10 years a precaution?
A plane goes down and they go back into the records and find someone who sat in a particular seat 9.5 years prior and suddenly accuse him of causing the crash because he tapped his pen against the window 9.5 years ago?
"One of the strong capabilities of the system is for the corporate office to be able to monitor what is going on at all times," said Scott Bacon, Southeast's vice president of planning. "From a security standpoint, this provides a great advantage to assure that there is a safe environment at all times."
But keeping the data for 10 years? This isn't about present-day security; this is about covering your asses. This is to assure that there has been a safe environment at all times in the past.
Now if you could manage to record the actions of people in the cabin 10 minutes in advance, then you'd have something that could keep everyone safe. And even then, there's no benefit to keeping that video anywhere near that long unless you want to blackmail corporate members of the Mile High Club.
Albeit slowly under Apple's X11. Redraws are a dog in the spreadsheet and you really don't want to use the scrollwheel on your mouse to scroll the window. You scroll faster than it can and it buffers them, as well as your overcorrection. I'm hoping Aquafication will address these problems whether they're part of Apple's X11 or OOo.
I'm not about to buy Microsoft Office X, but I may go back to using an older version under Classic until OOo's performance improves. (I wish I had the time to help.)
The current law requires that the file be downloaded 10 times at a total value of at least $2500 before the distribution counts as a felony. what the new law seems to be clarifying is that if a file is uploaded to a P2P network, it can automatically be assumed to meet those requirements.
Note also that it omits the word "total". It effectively elevates the value of a worthless file to be worth at least $2500 for the purposes of prosecution, then multiplies that by 10.
"Uploaded to a P2P network" is also incorrect in multiple ways. Merely placing the work on a computer network through which the public can both access and copy the work (redundant) qualifies.
When exactly are you "uploading a file" in this process?
(In the traditional sense an upload usually signifies a push process.)
Yes, the synopsis and even the story got this wrong. P2P pulls content and thus is a downloading medium. The bill doesn't use "upload" even once. The relevant text is:
For purposes of section 2319(b) of title 18, the placing of a copyrighted work, without the authorization of the copyright owner, on a computer network accessible to members of the public who are able to copy the work through such access shall be considered to be the distribution, during a 180-day period, of at least 10 copies of that work with a retail value of more than $2,500.''.
Basically saying you can't leave your copyable works out in the open and expect someone not to copy them, and that you are liable if they do.
Effectively this makes the possessors of copyrighted works responsible for protecting the works from copying. Copy protection schemes would no longer be necessary as it suddenly becomes the duty of the possessor of every copy to prevent access to the work by the public, or be charged with a felony.
They might as well charge you with felony piracy if you forget to lock your car and someone steals your CDs (which I believe is still just a misdemeanor, IANAL, IANACrook).
Not only that, but it declares that you disregard whether anyone actually made copies of the file, how long the file was available, as well as disregard the actual value of the file!
Even if you were to share a copyrighted file which had zero value to anyone, including the copyright holder (for example, you found it while dumpster diving on public property or in deallocated space on a hard drive you bought as used), if you make it available for even a fraction of a second, that file is suddenly worth $2,500, it has been available for 180 days, and at least 10 copies are considered to have been made (i.e. you cost the copyright holder at least $25,000 for that one second of public exposure). Regardless of the facts!
This is an end run around the requirement of a show of damages and of any actual loss! One might as well make the "honor system" illegal and get rid of the concept of presumed innocence.
And it isn't limited to just P2P networks. Oh, no! Do you have a fan website dedicated to a television show? Do you include any artwork, imagery, sound samples, or anything else copied from that show on the site? Surprise, you're going to be a felon under this bill if it becomes law just by making such a website accessible to the public however briefly. And you will have caused from $25K to $250K worth of damages and will be subject to 5 years in jail!
This law is outrageous! And I don't mean in a good way!
another thing the article fails to consider is that, in a game with more than two players, what the attacker is doing is strengthening everyone in the game besides himself and the defender by removing armies from both sides from the board.
Even in a two-player game, you need to have at least three sets of armies on the playfield, with the extra sets being pacifist neutral armies. Technically, Risk is a three-player-minimum game, with the neutrals being controlled by a player that never attacks. (IIRC, they don't even get new armies based on territory count.)
Anyway, Risk is more a card game. Whoever waits the longest to trade in his cards (that is until forced to turn them in by having more than 4 in a turn), and consistently gets new cards, will eventually win. Especially if you play with the rule that anyone wiped out of the game forfeits his cards to the player who forced him out. Then you just target the players with the most cards. You can start a round with 4 cards, wipe out someone with 5, and could potentially turn in three sets (have to turn in at least two sets immediately).
Are you sure about that? We always played that the defender could decide based on the attacker's rolls. Of course, our Risk set lost the rules, along with a few colors of armies, sometime in the 1970's.
Was that the set with your armies represented as colored blocks of wood, plastic roman numerals (I, III, V, and X), or plastic figures of foot soldiers, horsemen, and cannons? (How many other varieties of game pieces were there?)
It may require a faster processor than Final Cut Pro 4 (350 MHz), but at least it doesn't also require an AGP graphics card. If you have a G4-upgraded PCI Macintosh, you don't want to be paying for the FCP4 bundle when FCP4 can't even be coerced into running on a non-AGP Mac.
DVD Studio Pro 1.x had a similar requirement, but its installer script could be modified to allow installation and would run, albeit with problems with crashing when tabbing through fields in floating windows. FCP4 will crash before you have a chance to use it on a PCI Mac (with a simple property list edit to allow the package to be launched).
I'm still concerned about what DVD Studio Pro 2 is going to require. It better not be more than Shake 3's requirements (800 MHz G4).
Slashdot Mirror
"Maxx Payne, I am The Maxx. Answer your subpoena."
"What's in a name, anyway? If I were called Bob or Jack or Vinnie, or 'a piece of fruit', would I be any less a hero? And if Barry were called Rupert or Max or Rainbow, would he be any less a jerk? I don't think so. Because a name is a rose, and it only smells as sweet as you are!"
-- The Tick; The Tick: "The Tick vs. The Tick"
And you can use it to play games durring commercials.
Not me. I'm too busy stealing televi^W^W fast-forwarding commercials.
All hard buttons? Then I should be able to arrange them the way I need them and alter the labeling at will, because there are some essential functions that aren't on enough remotes for a UR manufacturer to include on a cost effective basis.
I wonder if it is possible to build a universal remote control out of Lego Mindstorms....
Well, the MPAA did reject a video cassette tape that required the user pay to have it rewound preventing multiple unauthorized viewings because it didn't prevent multiple people sitting in front of the same screen. (Or was it just Disney?)
So is that I2I (eye to eye) piracy?
Meanwhile the RIAA encourages artists to make recordings so complex that it isn't possible to perform them without electronic augmentation, thereby preventing E2M (ear to mouth) piracy.
he was still upset about that show!
How does he feel about Children of the Stones?
I wish Blakes 7 was available on DVD, but this isn't even on VHS. Ah, the old Nickelodeon memories....
Given [the] circumstances [of the original's ending], it seems a new series which remained true to the previous in more than name would be totally justified in only bringing back Avon.
Oh, I think they also need to get Jacqueline Pearce to reprise her role as President Servalan/Commissioner Sleer and Peter Tuddenham as the voice of Orac, or otherwise explain their absences.
But the /. headline is Blakes (sic) Seven to Return
You can hardly fault the editors for that "(sic)". The title cards for the series never did have an apostrophe.
Are you sure that foreign soil doesn't have its own laws against it? Stay off the soil; stick to the high seas for your "piracy".
Depends from where they disappeared: the filesystem or just the iTunes playlist.
Now I know where the best places would be to search for Upsidasium mines!
Betray Your Family And Friends!
Fabulous Prizes To Be Won!
The copy protection system used on DVDs seems to have been effective in discouraging many people from copying DVDs.
I think you meant, "The access protection system used on DVDs seems to have been effective in discouraging many people from copying DVDs," as you had distinguished in an earlier question. CSS is an access control, not strictly a copy control.
When a copy control is also an access control, the DMCA effectively prohibits circumventing copy controls, including when works enter the public domain. (That there has as yet been no case law about this does not invalidate the hypothetical.)
There should be a legal requirement that works protected by an access control be rereleased without an access control by the holder of the copyright at the time it enters the public domain and/or provide for the holding in escrow such works in unencumbered-by-an-access-control form for their release upon entering the public domain.
Further, all releases of public domain works must be free of access controls and there be no systems that require an access control be present on a work before accessing that work.
Yes, that means that (for example) there be a legal way to play public domain XBOX games that do not have an access control. It is outrageous that I should have to buy a license from Microsoft to get public domain games signed to play on an XBOX.
At first, I thought I'd be safe since I still haven't installed 9.0a from Windows Update. Then I read the article:
THE FLAW IS unusually widespread, affecting all versions of DirectX from version 5.2 to the current 9.0a running on all versions of Windows from Windows 98 through the new Windows Server 2003, according to the Microsoft bulletin.
Though I don't listen that much to MIDI files, malformed or otherwise, I guess I should update. I just hope it doesn't break my games.
Since Final Cut Pro 4 requires AGP, something my 550 MHz G4-equipped B&W G3 doesn't have, I'm looking to make my 450 MHz G4 Cube my video editing station. But with RT Extreme wanting at least 500 MHz, Shake 3 requiring at least 800 MHz, and who knows what DVD Studio Pro 2 will require, I've been looking at upgrading my Cube.
However, I still have worries. PowerLogix upgrades don't work well in conjunction with sleep mode (won't wake up unless booted from CD) and Sonnet 1.2 GHz upgrades have been reported as blowing the VRM (DC-DC board) and no comments on where replacements are available. (Also usual fate of systems with unapproved dual processor upgrades.) Though at least one such report for the PowerLogix as well.
So, either risk my G4 Cube for around $500 (how much will the replacement True Cube 10" case cost?), or get either a dual 1.25 GHz G4 or a 1.6 GHz G5 with the rest of the optional features more-or-less equal for $1970 (no modems). Sure, the G4 only has 4X AGP and no S/PDIF I/O (tasty), and if I go faster on the G5 I get PCI-X, but the G4 does have twice as many drive bays (4 and 2 optical) compared to the G5 (2 and 1). That just may be my deciding factor, seeing as I've modded my B&W G3's interior with a PC's cage for more drive space (externalizing the power switch module) and want to bring over the video on its drives.
Have the G4s dropped in price since the G5 release?
There are too many addresses. There are 16.7 million addresses per square metre of the earth's surface, including the oceans. This is overkill. The world does not need more than the 4 billion addresses available with IPv4, and I challenge you to come up with an application that requires that many.
Reasonable limits aren't.
Two digits for the year wasn't enough. A fixed 256-byte buffer isn't big enough for a single line of user input. 200 area codes aren't enough. 640K is not enough memory for anybody. Consumers do need single-disk storage in excess of 128 GiB (137 GB). 4 billion IP addresses isn't enough.
We keep hitting up against "reasonable limits" that someone thought was "more than enough". Time passes and we find they aren't reasonable and we can no longer be limited by them.
Unreasonable limits are.
Limits are always unreasonable. If you can't be unlimited, then let your unreasonable limits be unreasonably huge. Capacity should exceed expected utilization by several orders of magnitude because you do not know what the future may need.
We don't design for what we can think of now; we design for what we will think of in the future.
In the meantime, I have an application that will require more than the 4 billion addresses available with IPv4. That application is the Internet. And if you think the whole of the Internet could live in a smaller address space, then let's limit ourselves to only 1,048,576 routable IP addresses for the whole world right now and use a whole lot more NATs and see if that's reasonable.
Don't forget to tell them not to handle it.
A plane goes down and they go back into the records and find someone who sat in a particular seat 9.5 years prior and suddenly accuse him of causing the crash because he tapped his pen against the window 9.5 years ago? But keeping the data for 10 years? This isn't about present-day security; this is about covering your asses. This is to assure that there has been a safe environment at all times in the past.
Now if you could manage to record the actions of people in the cabin 10 minutes in advance, then you'd have something that could keep everyone safe. And even then, there's no benefit to keeping that video anywhere near that long unless you want to blackmail corporate members of the Mile High Club.
Overpopulation problem also solved... eventually.
Albeit slowly under Apple's X11. Redraws are a dog in the spreadsheet and you really don't want to use the scrollwheel on your mouse to scroll the window. You scroll faster than it can and it buffers them, as well as your overcorrection. I'm hoping Aquafication will address these problems whether they're part of Apple's X11 or OOo.
I'm not about to buy Microsoft Office X, but I may go back to using an older version under Classic until OOo's performance improves. (I wish I had the time to help.)
The current law requires that the file be downloaded 10 times at a total value of at least $2500 before the distribution counts as a felony. what the new law seems to be clarifying is that if a file is uploaded to a P2P network, it can automatically be assumed to meet those requirements.
Note also that it omits the word "total". It effectively elevates the value of a worthless file to be worth at least $2500 for the purposes of prosecution, then multiplies that by 10.
"Uploaded to a P2P network" is also incorrect in multiple ways. Merely placing the work on a computer network through which the public can both access and copy the work (redundant) qualifies.
(In the traditional sense an upload usually signifies a push process.)
Yes, the synopsis and even the story got this wrong. P2P pulls content and thus is a downloading medium. The bill doesn't use "upload" even once. The relevant text is: Basically saying you can't leave your copyable works out in the open and expect someone not to copy them, and that you are liable if they do.
Effectively this makes the possessors of copyrighted works responsible for protecting the works from copying. Copy protection schemes would no longer be necessary as it suddenly becomes the duty of the possessor of every copy to prevent access to the work by the public, or be charged with a felony.
They might as well charge you with felony piracy if you forget to lock your car and someone steals your CDs (which I believe is still just a misdemeanor, IANAL, IANACrook).
Not only that, but it declares that you disregard whether anyone actually made copies of the file, how long the file was available, as well as disregard the actual value of the file!
Even if you were to share a copyrighted file which had zero value to anyone, including the copyright holder (for example, you found it while dumpster diving on public property or in deallocated space on a hard drive you bought as used), if you make it available for even a fraction of a second, that file is suddenly worth $2,500, it has been available for 180 days, and at least 10 copies are considered to have been made (i.e. you cost the copyright holder at least $25,000 for that one second of public exposure). Regardless of the facts!
This is an end run around the requirement of a show of damages and of any actual loss! One might as well make the "honor system" illegal and get rid of the concept of presumed innocence.
And it isn't limited to just P2P networks. Oh, no! Do you have a fan website dedicated to a television show? Do you include any artwork, imagery, sound samples, or anything else copied from that show on the site? Surprise, you're going to be a felon under this bill if it becomes law just by making such a website accessible to the public however briefly. And you will have caused from $25K to $250K worth of damages and will be subject to 5 years in jail!
This law is outrageous! And I don't mean in a good way!
another thing the article fails to consider is that, in a game with more than two players, what the attacker is doing is strengthening everyone in the game besides himself and the defender by removing armies from both sides from the board.
Even in a two-player game, you need to have at least three sets of armies on the playfield, with the extra sets being pacifist neutral armies. Technically, Risk is a three-player-minimum game, with the neutrals being controlled by a player that never attacks. (IIRC, they don't even get new armies based on territory count.)
Anyway, Risk is more a card game. Whoever waits the longest to trade in his cards (that is until forced to turn them in by having more than 4 in a turn), and consistently gets new cards, will eventually win. Especially if you play with the rule that anyone wiped out of the game forfeits his cards to the player who forced him out. Then you just target the players with the most cards. You can start a round with 4 cards, wipe out someone with 5, and could potentially turn in three sets (have to turn in at least two sets immediately).
Are you sure about that? We always played that the defender could decide based on the attacker's rolls. Of course, our Risk set lost the rules, along with a few colors of armies, sometime in the 1970's.
Was that the set with your armies represented as colored blocks of wood, plastic roman numerals (I, III, V, and X), or plastic figures of foot soldiers, horsemen, and cannons? (How many other varieties of game pieces were there?)
It may require a faster processor than Final Cut Pro 4 (350 MHz), but at least it doesn't also require an AGP graphics card. If you have a G4-upgraded PCI Macintosh, you don't want to be paying for the FCP4 bundle when FCP4 can't even be coerced into running on a non-AGP Mac.
DVD Studio Pro 1.x had a similar requirement, but its installer script could be modified to allow installation and would run, albeit with problems with crashing when tabbing through fields in floating windows. FCP4 will crash before you have a chance to use it on a PCI Mac (with a simple property list edit to allow the package to be launched).
I'm still concerned about what DVD Studio Pro 2 is going to require. It better not be more than Shake 3's requirements (800 MHz G4).
And what does the Ethical AI have to say about software patents?