Just to be clear, under this New Zealand bill ISPs are not asked to monitor traffic. They are expected to record which one of their customers was using a public IP address at a particular time.
Agreed, from the amendment bill (bold is mine):
New sections 122C to 122H set out the system for sending notices to people who are alleged to have infringed copyright by file sharing. The system works as follows:
New section 122C
* copyright owners send ISPs information about infringements detected at Internet protocol addresses (IP address):
* ISPs are obliged to match each IP address with the relevant account holder's details and to issue an infringement notice to the account holder:...
Just so we are clear about this too, there is NO evidence required at this stage. It's not until RIANZ or NZFACT or similar have made 3 accusations that they have to prove anything. God help us if an IP address and a letter from Bay TSP or Peer Media Technologies is all it takes in court.
Note that under this amended amendment a user's ISP access can only be cut off by court order. This is a far better process than was previously proposed.
Would they cut of your telephone if your kid used it to harass someone? No. Buy drugs? No. Hire a hitman? No. But they want to cut off your internet connection if he downloads some MP3s.
And lets not forget the ISPs. They now have a huge task to monitor and store large volumes of data for no benefit to them or their customers. They might lose business because people won't need their all-you-can-eat plans any more, because they stopped downloading DVDs. More importantly for the public, this makes it easier to later implement filtering, do traffic analysis, etc. This seems to tie in nicely with the "optional" ISP-level filtering coming in a few months.
Incidentally, The Pirate Party is starting to happen in NZ now. Well timed.
FWIW, I'm embarrassed to be a New Zealander right today... They passed The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill, so 3 strikes and we're out of pocket $15,000 and kicked offline.
Its actually a reference to our PM's "Shitstorm" comment on national TV a while back - The Australian, or more via google
And also a reference to Australia's government censoring adult publications and films featuring women with "small breasts" on the grounds that such images encourage pedophilia.
I get that, but it seems arbitrary to me. I don't want to pay X$ for the sake of it, perhaps to ease the admin/banking hassle, or because the punters see it as a donation rather than a fee. Mostly though, I value some sites more than others, and I also don't want sites to get Y$ for 1 visit this month while getting the same for 200 visits next month.
If an actual media producer decided to distribute via BT, they could even get paid for it. Combine it with a market system where the punters decide what to (micro)pay for their torrent, and some extensions to BT software (perhaps similar to the rate selector, you have a $ selector), and you've got a brilliant means of distributed media distribution that can completely bypass big media.
For example, say I have a bunch of particles here on Earth and my colleagues on Mars have another bunch of particles entangled with mine. Mars is at the moment ten light-minutes away from each. On my end, I perform a measurement on (i.e. I interact with) my particles in a way which raises their energy from X joules to Y joules; I then send a radio transmission (with said transmission using less than Y-X joules) to my colleagues on Mars giving them instructions for what measurements to make on their end, i.e. I transmit information, in normal ways, at the speed of light or less.
Please excuse my stupidity, but why can you not agree in advance (eg, before lift-off of the Mars mission) which techniques/measurements to use for this, and negate the need for light-speed communication at all?
If the two entangled particles only appear in our holographic 3D space to be diverging, while on the actual 2D horizon they are still coherent, any form of 'spooky action at a distance' makes perfect sense. If you inject energy into one of the particles, it makes sense that this should be transferable to the other.
That's cool if the holographic universe theory works, but my gut says it's the other way around, and that it's coherent in a 4D or higher space while only appearing separate in our 3D space.
The article says that the prior research worked by transmitting the information separately, at the speed of light. So the idea here is apparently that the energy itself can be transmitted instantly, but you can't actually transmit information this way. Just energy.
I'm having trouble with the difference (energy level + time factor = digital information) and that's without getting into the idea that matter basically = energy + information, but I guess that it's the measurement that differentiates them. However, unless I'm horribly mistaken, and I probably am, you could have two sync'd clocks and make repeated measurements of the energy being teleported, and use that for instant information transfer.
There, I fixed those pesky space travel comms and control delays for you.
Personally, I think it should be interpreted thus: Download = 1 infringement, simply because you copied the media. Fair enough, and the judge seems to have done this. Upload = Assisting infringement (if there is such a thing) based on share ratio, if applicable depending on where the peers are located (eg, nation states that don't have treaty or other problem with copying don't count): so it's not 3000 copies based on the number of client connections, it's 0.27 or whatever the number works out to be. Note that this is only once you've shared above the fair use threshold, perhaps 10% depending on local law.
Moreover, it's also NOT BitTorrent that was the enabler, it's the user. I use BT for free software torrents all the time. It's just a procotol, and the sooner the Judges figure that out the better.
But given the staggering amounts of money the governments of the world think are being left on the table, can you really blame them for not trying to collect "their fair share"?
Taxing something that is created has been the defacto state of affairs for a long time. Taxation is deferred until sale to the consumer, so VAT and sales taxes kick in there, and the government gets their "fair" share from the public while business gets to buy materials VAT free. Online however, nothing is created, there's no value added, there's no value exchanged, therefore taxing each non-commercial BT download is double dipping after the initial sale of media. So... no, it's not the right way to handle it.
I am from Germany and don't really care about the US market. And anyway, the question was, why there aren't any Diesel hybrids so the battery pack and electric motor are there in both cases.
Because Japan, like the US, doesn't much like diesel passenger cars either. Hopefully the Euro hybrids won't be far away...
Slashdot Mirror
Just to be clear, under this New Zealand bill ISPs are not asked to monitor traffic. They are expected to record which one of their customers was using a public IP address at a particular time.
Agreed, from the amendment bill (bold is mine):
New sections 122C to 122H set out the system for sending notices to people who are alleged to have infringed copyright by file sharing. The system works as follows:
New section 122C ...
* copyright owners send ISPs information about infringements detected at Internet protocol addresses (IP address):
* ISPs are obliged to match each IP address with the relevant account holder's details and to issue an infringement notice to the account holder:
Just so we are clear about this too, there is NO evidence required at this stage. It's not until RIANZ or NZFACT or similar have made 3 accusations that they have to prove anything. God help us if an IP address and a letter from Bay TSP or Peer Media Technologies is all it takes in court.
Note that under this amended amendment a user's ISP access can only be cut off by court order. This is a far better process than was previously proposed.
Would they cut of your telephone if your kid used it to harass someone? No. Buy drugs? No. Hire a hitman? No. But they want to cut off your internet connection if he downloads some MP3s.
And lets not forget the ISPs. They now have a huge task to monitor and store large volumes of data for no benefit to them or their customers. They might lose business because people won't need their all-you-can-eat plans any more, because they stopped downloading DVDs. More importantly for the public, this makes it easier to later implement filtering, do traffic analysis, etc. This seems to tie in nicely with the "optional" ISP-level filtering coming in a few months.
Incidentally, The Pirate Party is starting to happen in NZ now. Well timed.
FWIW, I'm embarrassed to be a New Zealander right today... They passed The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill, so 3 strikes and we're out of pocket $15,000 and kicked offline.
Personally, I'd be using something like YAFFS (Yet Another Flash File System) rather than NILFS.
Its actually a reference to our PM's "Shitstorm" comment on national TV a while back - The Australian, or more via google
And also a reference to Australia's government censoring adult publications and films featuring women with "small breasts" on the grounds that such images encourage pedophilia.
It's actually quite a clever and catchy name.
I get that, but it seems arbitrary to me. I don't want to pay X$ for the sake of it, perhaps to ease the admin/banking hassle, or because the punters see it as a donation rather than a fee. Mostly though, I value some sites more than others, and I also don't want sites to get Y$ for 1 visit this month while getting the same for 200 visits next month.
This.
If an actual media producer decided to distribute via BT, they could even get paid for it. Combine it with a market system where the punters decide what to (micro)pay for their torrent, and some extensions to BT software (perhaps similar to the rate selector, you have a $ selector), and you've got a brilliant means of distributed media distribution that can completely bypass big media.
10,000 BC(E) and the 1997 Godzilla.
I disagree. I think the R33 is the most forgettable GT-R, and the Godzilla moniker is more suited to the R32 and perhaps the R34 models.
Agreed. Perhaps a set amount per Flattr would be more palatable.
5) how much does it cost to license the patents?
Don't forget the minor details! :)
Yeah, but if we just add enough IF statements...
Do you teach? I may have some of your old students working for me...
Maybe there's something faster than light - that we don't know yet?
Is time faster than light? Probably, yes.
This question might make more sense in a 5D universe.
For example, say I have a bunch of particles here on Earth and my colleagues on Mars have another bunch of particles entangled with mine. Mars is at the moment ten light-minutes away from each. On my end, I perform a measurement on (i.e. I interact with) my particles in a way which raises their energy from X joules to Y joules; I then send a radio transmission (with said transmission using less than Y-X joules) to my colleagues on Mars giving them instructions for what measurements to make on their end, i.e. I transmit information, in normal ways, at the speed of light or less.
Please excuse my stupidity, but why can you not agree in advance (eg, before lift-off of the Mars mission) which techniques/measurements to use for this, and negate the need for light-speed communication at all?
If the two entangled particles only appear in our holographic 3D space to be diverging, while on the actual 2D horizon they are still coherent, any form of 'spooky action at a distance' makes perfect sense. If you inject energy into one of the particles, it makes sense that this should be transferable to the other.
That's cool if the holographic universe theory works, but my gut says it's the other way around, and that it's coherent in a 4D or higher space while only appearing separate in our 3D space.
The article says that the prior research worked by transmitting the information separately, at the speed of light. So the idea here is apparently that the energy itself can be transmitted instantly, but you can't actually transmit information this way. Just energy.
I'm having trouble with the difference (energy level + time factor = digital information) and that's without getting into the idea that matter basically = energy + information, but I guess that it's the measurement that differentiates them. However, unless I'm horribly mistaken, and I probably am, you could have two sync'd clocks and make repeated measurements of the energy being teleported, and use that for instant information transfer.
There, I fixed those pesky space travel comms and control delays for you.
Personally, I think it should be interpreted thus:
Download = 1 infringement, simply because you copied the media. Fair enough, and the judge seems to have done this.
Upload = Assisting infringement (if there is such a thing) based on share ratio, if applicable depending on where the peers are located (eg, nation states that don't have treaty or other problem with copying don't count): so it's not 3000 copies based on the number of client connections, it's 0.27 or whatever the number works out to be. Note that this is only once you've shared above the fair use threshold, perhaps 10% depending on local law.
Moreover, it's also NOT BitTorrent that was the enabler, it's the user. I use BT for free software torrents all the time. It's just a procotol, and the sooner the Judges figure that out the better.
Common things are not made easy and intuitive. I had to type text paths to set up folder shortcuts on the desktops, for example...
Right-click the item/folder of interest, "Make Link", drag new "shortcut" to Desktop, rename as desired.
Nah. Clearly photoshopped.
Indeed. I can tell from some the of pixels and having shooped quite a few whoops in my time.
Hmmm. Turning the engine off is one thing, but let's imagine a high speed chase, with instant loss of electrical power which disables the:
This could end very badly with modern automobiles, and I don't think they've thought their cunning plan all the way through.
I'm also very curious how the necessary energy would be created to fire this container.
It need hydrogen, right, so why not Solar, Wave Motion, or Nuclear powered electrolysis of sea water?
I've heard this suggested somewhere before that ISS would make an awesome vehicle for getting to mars.
+1 Interesting. That sir, is the coolest idea I've heard this week
I'd guess there's lots of money to be made designing and maybe building its replacement.
But given the staggering amounts of money the governments of the world think are being left on the table, can you really blame them for not trying to collect "their fair share"?
Taxing something that is created has been the defacto state of affairs for a long time. Taxation is deferred until sale to the consumer, so VAT and sales taxes kick in there, and the government gets their "fair" share from the public while business gets to buy materials VAT free. Online however, nothing is created, there's no value added, there's no value exchanged, therefore taxing each non-commercial BT download is double dipping after the initial sale of media. So... no, it's not the right way to handle it.
Sure their skin would be green, but that beats starving to death.
Maybe they could make an arrangement with Captain Kirk for the rest of their needs?
I am from Germany and don't really care about the US market. And anyway, the question was, why there aren't any Diesel hybrids so the battery pack and electric motor are there in both cases.
Because Japan, like the US, doesn't much like diesel passenger cars either. Hopefully the Euro hybrids won't be far away...