"Do I get to break [a law] just because I disagree with it?"
Let me clear this up for you. "Yes."
Just because a law exists does not mean it must be obeyed. For example, I don't know of anyone who obeys "blue laws", which are about the same level of draconian.
Read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", very specifically about Professor Bernardo De La Paz's description of "Rational Anarchy". There's a very good segment about laws and when they are obeyed.
Very specifically, I do, in fact, get to break laws that impinge on rights I've already been lawfully given.
"I just want you guys to recogonize that your actions will have a negative impact on what we (legally) get to do with products we own."
Ok. I recognize that my actions will result in media companies shooting themselves in the foot concerning matters of public opinion, will lose money on the increasingly poor products they put out, and eventually either die in a pool of their own vomit - or wise up and take advantage of the concept of free distribution. And I recognize that, in the process, these media companies will go so far as to place illegally subversive software into their products that will affect only their most inept - and most suggestable - customers.
"When P2P is outlawed, only outlaws will have P2P."
Common slashdot mistake. It's not P2P, it's filesharing. P2P is as opposed to Client-Server, is nothing "new" (as in generated within the last 20-or-so years), and can't exactly be outlawed.
Meanwhile, yeah. Only outlaws DO have filesharing. I mean, it's not like iTunes uses a P2P-based file transfer system. Or any of the others. Sorry, but we were outlaws the moment the Napster case was settled.
"You obviously have a sense of entitlement & superiority over the rest of us, that somehow you have a right to take (for yourself) & post (for others to take) non-redistributable copyrighted software/music/movies."
Nonredistributable? Seems pretty redistributable to me. Just copythe data and send it off. Easy peasy. Oh, and you're forgetting books.
Post, by the way, is a misnomer. Most FS clients don't bother with that step. If you're downloading it, the portions you have are available to others.
"I'm asking because I want to keep my toys and my (current/threatened) rights to (legitimately) do with them what I will"
Your rights are already broken. Happened when the DMCA passed. Meanwhile, your toys (I'm assuming you're referring to BitTorrent for the purpose of downloading large open source projects) will always exist in one form or another. Programmers are like that. See, they're THEIR toys, too, and a programmer, denied one toy, will simply write another, harder to deny toy.
Which, of course, is the crux of the matter. In order to deny the situation that filesharing has produced for copyright holders, they must veenture to control every programmer in every part of the world, lock down the internet, and destory open source. Nothing short of that will stop unrestricted filesharing. (Well, when Napster went down, everything was a bit limbo-y for a while, but soon enough, WinMX, Kazaa, and later eMule, Kademlia, and BitTorrent took the reins, so yeah, they can stop it, but nothing like permanently.)
And even if all piracy stopped today, who do you think that would stop? The threat would still be there, and the target of total control would still be attempted.
You're afraid for your rights as a consumer? I'm afraid for mine as a open source freelance programmer.
I didn't say it was accurate, but it seems in keeping with popular observations. Not like I'm doing a thesis on it or something, just the first thing that popped out of a google search.
Meanwhile, if I'm retarded, why are you the one referring to about a minute's worth of dead-easy math as "All that analysis"?
Or shows a complete disinterest in what people demand from their OS.
I really don't understand why this case was brought (or why the case against IE was brought).
Basically, it boils down to this: People demand that their OS does something. MS puts that something into their OS. Those who were providing that something before MS got off their ass and made a passable product sue (remember that Media Player has been in windows since 3.1; Real got interested in bitching when they gave it a facelift and a better featureset). Microsoft pays lots of lawyers to get the dogs off their back, and ends up navigating the path so that the suit's effect is ported to/dev/null (nul for your windows users). Rinse, repeat.
I don't care. In windows, I use Media Player Classic with (QT|Real) Alternative. For video conversion, I use FFMPEG. In Linux I use xine. Real's a virussy (as in it behaves like a virus, taking over anything to do with media without mentioning it), and WMP's just kinda useless.
Corrections: Old HHI was done by market share percent as numbers (IE: 10%^2=100). As such, those "increase of 100 likely to, etc, etc) should read "increase of 1%"
The HHI calculation (US test) for internet explorer in the browser market no longer sits in the realm of monopolistic. Concentration = (SUMMA)(market shares)2
Guidelines:
HHI < 10 = unconcentrated
HHI 1000 > 25 = moderately concentrated
Increase of 100 raises significant concerns
HHI > 50 = highly concentrated
Increase of 100 likely to create market power
HHI > 75 = oligopolistic HHI > 90 = monopolistic
So, for example, for the browser market, IE: 73.5%, Firefox / Mozilla: 22.2%, Netscape Navigator: 0.4%, Opera: 1.4% (Statistics from http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp, october 2005. YMMV.
While that means the browser market is highly concentrated, it also means that it is not monopolistic or even oligopolistic (meanwhile, even an HHI > 75 is only a yellow flag offense in the US. However, in the EU, it's red flag. A break-up order from the EU can be applied to the major firms in the case of a market HHI greater than 75%)
Yeah. The existance and promulgation of firefox has, in effect, SAVED Microsoft from further investigation into a browser monopoly.
The question is: how hard would it be to remove the ads from "ad-supported" windows. I would suppose it would just take Sysinternals' Process Explorer to kill a few "Critical System" tasks.
Actually, having a buyer like Turner Broadcasting may just be what's needed to lower the costs of this technology. You know, if it works and works reliably.
Reliability isn't a problem. At 6 cents a gig, they can afford to build a hardware raid-1 onto the sucker.
I can't argue with most of this, mostly because most of it is untestable (in scientific terms, they refer to such things as either "bunk" or "theoretical physics").
I will point out, however, that my mom told me a story about once, when I was a baby of less than a year old, I was in a shopping cart while she was getting some items from the aisle. Another woman with large breasts came by to coo over my baby form, and I reached right up to these breasts, rubbing them and saying, "ooooh, pwetty".
I'm pretty sure I'd never seen porn that young. No, they weren't my first words (those started in full sentences at 6 months).
As for the bisexual/threesome idea. It's something that comes from logical thought without inserting the "human element". Example in C++:
If (I->LikesWomen() && She->LikesWomen()) { try (ShareWoman()) or catch(BackPedal(LIKE_A_MANIAC)); }
In other words, if sexual exclusion is not present in one person, the logical conclusion for the other person, being a sexually driven creature, would likely be to broach the topic of bringing in a third party. Or fourth.
What this sexually driven person sometimes doesn't realize is that there is the strong possibility that their partner wants monogamy, not more sex. Nor does this person realize that their competition has in fact doubled - but that's easily driven by internal denial.
"Assuming for the moment that men are NOT just naturally sex-crazed misogynists who only want to use women as a sex class"
Clue for you: Teenaged-thru-25-year-old boys and men ARE naturally sex-crazed. Chalk that up to millions of years of evolution. Sorry, but you're a member of a race that's survived on the extreme need for reproduction. While sex doesn't necessarily lead to reproduction these days, that doesn't stop the desire for it.
Meanwhile, why you be trolling with the offtopic shit, yo? This isn't gamegirl or women's weekly. It's Slashdot. We talk about technology and related issues, not prudish sexual philosophy.
Um. How is this thing different / better than my PDA?
And don't say "It runs linux". I don't care. My PDA is one of the few things I'm willing to say "It Works." and be happy with it. Not that I don't go and get new software for it, but running linux on an axim has an entry on wikipedia with an image of a rectal boil next to it (IE: It's a pain in the ass).
So, what? It's a ~200MHz ARM. Got that, only mine runs at 312 idle / 524 full. It's got a touch screen? Got that. 8 buttons? I've got 7, and they do just fine. Play movies? Surf the web? Done and done. Besides, mine's smaller. Something the size of half-a-CD sounds like a pain to tote around (meanwhile, the PDA's becoming annoying at times, too. I'd leave it at home if it weren't so useful). WiFi? Got it. Bluetooth? yup. USB?.. uhh... moving on... Audio out? Yup. SD/MMC? Yup. 128M of Flash for ram? Well, no, but mine's got 64M of REAL ram and 64M of Flash. 1500mAh battery? Just bought the 1800 for mine. Storage? None listed for this thing, but I just picked up a 1G Flash MMC for $40 with a USB key to plug the little sucker into my computer.
Meanwhile, I love having the equivalent of a 5 hour videotape that's the size of a postage stamp. Hint: when encoding, choose your settings thusly:
Video: Codec=mpeg4 Width=320 px Height=OriginalHeight*320/OriginalWidth px FrameRate=OriginalFrameRate fps VideoBitrate=(Width x Height x FrameRate / 5000)kbps ABR
You end up with VCR LP quality at 4-5 hours per gig (YMMV). Not the best, but definately watchable for most things.
Problem is, with this thing, I have a different type of display than this item (320x240 -> 800x600 would take mucho processor to scale well), and it's got a slower processor (no mucho bieno for smooth video). So what? reencode to 400 width? Not a good idea for a slower processor. To 200? 320 is about the limit of useful video quality. But an iPod video? Nah. I like my Axim. I can play games on it and read books beside listeing to music of non DRM format, watching TV, and checking out the latest Foamy Fan Mail.
The success of In2TV is going to have nothing to do with the merits of the project.
It's going to hinge on whether or not In2TV is supported under Linux.
Shocking, huh? "Why?" I hear you ask.
Simple. Linux users are the most persistant type of computer user. If something doesn't work in Linux, it will be hacked at until it does. Conversely, if something already works, and works well, there's less incentive to hack at it. The "good" programmers will concentrate on other projects, and a couple of the newbs will beat impotently at the In2TV protocol until their hammers bleed.
"But what's that got to do with the success of In2TV?"
Once a Linux user or LUG has built a working In2TV player for Linux, its popularity will spread like wildfire. Within a week of release, it will be ported to Windows. Within the same week, someone will have determined how to remove the ads and save the stream to disk. A month after a Linux-unsupported In2TV release, there will be hundereds of Linux users archiving all 300 episodes per month. Two months after, there will be _thousands_ of Windows users doing the same.
And AOL, as they have been in the case of "free riders" using GAIM, will be impotent to stop it.
And example from the other direction. Ever notice how there's no production quality open source marcromedia flash display software? Yeah. It's because "good" programmers aren't going to waste their time on rebuilding something that already works and works well for their platform of choice - the Flash plugin for firefox. All in nice closed source proprietary form.
So, a message to AOL: Make In2TV support Linux, ensuring at least a few years of sustainability for your product, or have In2TV fail within months from the abuse of over zealous users.
P.S.: I actually hope you DON'T take my advice. The faster your company goes down, the faster the rest of the media industry will go with it.
Unfortunately, there are enough of us who don't see anything wrong with swapping coprighted materials that uncontrolled P2P filesharing is not going to wink out of existance any time soon.
And, regardless of what you think, you _can not_ ask or order a significant portion of a population to change their habits. It doesn't work, never has. So the recording industry tries to fight it, but it just reinforces these habits - incites them towards more and more anti-DMCA activities - until someone with a brain over there figures out what's going on.
*shrug* not my job to make an industry change direction, and they've enough inertia in the wrong direction to make this... unpleasant. But keep in mind that it's not the public's fault. What the public does in general is due to the nature of humanity. The fact that you may feel above that nature is irrelevant; not everyone has your 'superior' ethics. I put superior in quotes, as I question the ethicality comparison between copyright infringement on a personal level, and supporting a business that engages in questionable practices in a desperate effort to 'protect' their copyright - something this rootkit doesn't actually do.
Slashdot Mirror
"Do I get to break [a law] just because I disagree with it?"
Let me clear this up for you. "Yes."
Just because a law exists does not mean it must be obeyed. For example, I don't know of anyone who obeys "blue laws", which are about the same level of draconian.
Read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", very specifically about Professor Bernardo De La Paz's description of "Rational Anarchy". There's a very good segment about laws and when they are obeyed.
Very specifically, I do, in fact, get to break laws that impinge on rights I've already been lawfully given.
"I just want you guys to recogonize that your actions will have a negative impact on what we (legally) get to do with products we own."
Ok. I recognize that my actions will result in media companies shooting themselves in the foot concerning matters of public opinion, will lose money on the increasingly poor products they put out, and eventually either die in a pool of their own vomit - or wise up and take advantage of the concept of free distribution. And I recognize that, in the process, these media companies will go so far as to place illegally subversive software into their products that will affect only their most inept - and most suggestable - customers.
"When P2P is outlawed, only outlaws will have P2P."
Common slashdot mistake. It's not P2P, it's filesharing. P2P is as opposed to Client-Server, is nothing "new" (as in generated within the last 20-or-so years), and can't exactly be outlawed.
Meanwhile, yeah. Only outlaws DO have filesharing. I mean, it's not like iTunes uses a P2P-based file transfer system. Or any of the others. Sorry, but we were outlaws the moment the Napster case was settled.
"You obviously have a sense of entitlement & superiority over the rest of us, that somehow you have a right to take (for yourself) & post (for others to take) non-redistributable copyrighted software/music/movies."
Nonredistributable? Seems pretty redistributable to me. Just copythe data and send it off. Easy peasy. Oh, and you're forgetting books.
Post, by the way, is a misnomer. Most FS clients don't bother with that step. If you're downloading it, the portions you have are available to others.
"I'm asking because I want to keep my toys and my (current/threatened) rights to (legitimately) do with them what I will"
Your rights are already broken. Happened when the DMCA passed. Meanwhile, your toys (I'm assuming you're referring to BitTorrent for the purpose of downloading large open source projects) will always exist in one form or another. Programmers are like that. See, they're THEIR toys, too, and a programmer, denied one toy, will simply write another, harder to deny toy.
Which, of course, is the crux of the matter. In order to deny the situation that filesharing has produced for copyright holders, they must veenture to control every programmer in every part of the world, lock down the internet, and destory open source. Nothing short of that will stop unrestricted filesharing. (Well, when Napster went down, everything was a bit limbo-y for a while, but soon enough, WinMX, Kazaa, and later eMule, Kademlia, and BitTorrent took the reins, so yeah, they can stop it, but nothing like permanently.)
And even if all piracy stopped today, who do you think that would stop? The threat would still be there, and the target of total control would still be attempted.
You're afraid for your rights as a consumer? I'm afraid for mine as a open source freelance programmer.
I didn't say it was accurate, but it seems in keeping with popular observations. Not like I'm doing a thesis on it or something, just the first thing that popped out of a google search.
Meanwhile, if I'm retarded, why are you the one referring to about a minute's worth of dead-easy math as "All that analysis"?
A Chinese translation for the words "Jack" and "Thompson"
500 million euros? What is that, like $20?
Just kidding. It's about $424M. Just a joke regarding the fact that the euro's been falling lately.
And not a very funny one.
Oh, I'm so getting modded -1 offtopic for this.
Or shows a complete disinterest in what people demand from their OS.
/dev/null (nul for your windows users). Rinse, repeat.
I really don't understand why this case was brought (or why the case against IE was brought).
Basically, it boils down to this: People demand that their OS does something. MS puts that something into their OS. Those who were providing that something before MS got off their ass and made a passable product sue (remember that Media Player has been in windows since 3.1; Real got interested in bitching when they gave it a facelift and a better featureset). Microsoft pays lots of lawyers to get the dogs off their back, and ends up navigating the path so that the suit's effect is ported to
I don't care. In windows, I use Media Player Classic with (QT|Real) Alternative. For video conversion, I use FFMPEG. In Linux I use xine. Real's a virussy (as in it behaves like a virus, taking over anything to do with media without mentioning it), and WMP's just kinda useless.
Corrections: Old HHI was done by market share percent as numbers (IE: 10%^2=100). As such, those "increase of 100 likely to, etc, etc) should read "increase of 1%"
The HHI calculation (US test) for internet explorer in the browser market no longer sits in the realm of monopolistic.
a sp, october 2005. YMMV.
Concentration = (SUMMA)(market shares)2
Guidelines:
HHI < 10 = unconcentrated
HHI 1000 > 25 = moderately concentrated
Increase of 100 raises significant concerns
HHI > 50 = highly concentrated
Increase of 100 likely to create market power
HHI > 75 = oligopolistic
HHI > 90 = monopolistic
So, for example, for the browser market,
IE: 73.5%, Firefox / Mozilla: 22.2%, Netscape Navigator: 0.4%, Opera: 1.4%
(Statistics from http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.
(73.5%)^2+(22.2%)^2+(0.4%)^2+(1.4%)^2=
54.0225%+4.9284%+0.0016%+0.0196%=58.9721% concentration.
While that means the browser market is highly concentrated, it also means that it is not monopolistic or even oligopolistic (meanwhile, even an HHI > 75 is only a yellow flag offense in the US. However, in the EU, it's red flag. A break-up order from the EU can be applied to the major firms in the case of a market HHI greater than 75%)
Yeah. The existance and promulgation of firefox has, in effect, SAVED Microsoft from further investigation into a browser monopoly.
The question is: how hard would it be to remove the ads from "ad-supported" windows. I would suppose it would just take Sysinternals' Process Explorer to kill a few "Critical System" tasks.
obvious, pointless, perhaps, however, I dare you to solve for i.
Actually, having a buyer like Turner Broadcasting may just be what's needed to lower the costs of this technology. You know, if it works and works reliably.
Reliability isn't a problem. At 6 cents a gig, they can afford to build a hardware raid-1 onto the sucker.
Oh, and for a possible reason for the attractiveness of large breasts: Click here
I can't argue with most of this, mostly because most of it is untestable (in scientific terms, they refer to such things as either "bunk" or "theoretical physics").
I will point out, however, that my mom told me a story about once, when I was a baby of less than a year old, I was in a shopping cart while she was getting some items from the aisle. Another woman with large breasts came by to coo over my baby form, and I reached right up to these breasts, rubbing them and saying, "ooooh, pwetty".
I'm pretty sure I'd never seen porn that young. No, they weren't my first words (those started in full sentences at 6 months).
As for the bisexual/threesome idea. It's something that comes from logical thought without inserting the "human element". Example in C++:
If (I->LikesWomen() && She->LikesWomen())
{
try (ShareWoman()) or catch(BackPedal(LIKE_A_MANIAC));
}
In other words, if sexual exclusion is not present in one person, the logical conclusion for the other person, being a sexually driven creature, would likely be to broach the topic of bringing in a third party. Or fourth.
What this sexually driven person sometimes doesn't realize is that there is the strong possibility that their partner wants monogamy, not more sex. Nor does this person realize that their competition has in fact doubled - but that's easily driven by internal denial.
"Assuming for the moment that men are NOT just naturally sex-crazed misogynists who only want to use women as a sex class"
Clue for you: Teenaged-thru-25-year-old boys and men ARE naturally sex-crazed. Chalk that up to millions of years of evolution. Sorry, but you're a member of a race that's survived on the extreme need for reproduction. While sex doesn't necessarily lead to reproduction these days, that doesn't stop the desire for it.
Meanwhile, why you be trolling with the offtopic shit, yo? This isn't gamegirl or women's weekly. It's Slashdot. We talk about technology and related issues, not prudish sexual philosophy.
Correction:
6.8 hours for 320x180 (16:9) ~24 fps (FILM) video at 340 kbps total (276 video, 64 audio)
4.4 hours for 320x240 (4:3) ~30 fps (NTSC) video at 524 kbps (460 video, 64 audio)
Yeah... 4-7 hours of randomly accessible video on a chip you could swallow without noticing. Taste that yummy TV.
Um. How is this thing different / better than my PDA?
.. uhh... moving on... Audio out? Yup. SD/MMC? Yup. 128M of Flash for ram? Well, no, but mine's got 64M of REAL ram and 64M of Flash. 1500mAh battery? Just bought the 1800 for mine. Storage? None listed for this thing, but I just picked up a 1G Flash MMC for $40 with a USB key to plug the little sucker into my computer.
And don't say "It runs linux". I don't care. My PDA is one of the few things I'm willing to say "It Works." and be happy with it. Not that I don't go and get new software for it, but running linux on an axim has an entry on wikipedia with an image of a rectal boil next to it (IE: It's a pain in the ass).
So, what? It's a ~200MHz ARM. Got that, only mine runs at 312 idle / 524 full. It's got a touch screen? Got that. 8 buttons? I've got 7, and they do just fine. Play movies? Surf the web? Done and done. Besides, mine's smaller. Something the size of half-a-CD sounds like a pain to tote around (meanwhile, the PDA's becoming annoying at times, too. I'd leave it at home if it weren't so useful). WiFi? Got it. Bluetooth? yup. USB?
Meanwhile, I love having the equivalent of a 5 hour videotape that's the size of a postage stamp. Hint: when encoding, choose your settings thusly:
Video:
Codec=mpeg4
Width=320 px
Height=OriginalHeight*320/OriginalWidth px
FrameRate=OriginalFrameRate fps
VideoBitrate=(Width x Height x FrameRate / 5000)kbps ABR
Audio:
SampRate=44.1kHz
Channels=mono
BitRate=64 kbps CBR
You end up with VCR LP quality at 4-5 hours per gig (YMMV). Not the best, but definately watchable for most things.
Problem is, with this thing, I have a different type of display than this item (320x240 -> 800x600 would take mucho processor to scale well), and it's got a slower processor (no mucho bieno for smooth video). So what? reencode to 400 width? Not a good idea for a slower processor. To 200? 320 is about the limit of useful video quality. But an iPod video? Nah. I like my Axim. I can play games on it and read books beside listeing to music of non DRM format, watching TV, and checking out the latest Foamy Fan Mail.
Heh. Tell that to my 500MHz Linux-running Dell.
Well, it's not POSIX compliance, nor is it performance or stability. And considering the BSDs, it's not price, so long as you're an individual.
It ain't ease of use, as they can run the same software. It used to be binary format, but Linux likes ELF now.
Portability? You can run linux on most anything with a processor, but BSD has certain... requirements.
Given the track record of all governments and the shit they pull, I don't want any of them near the internet.
So, how about this. P2P-based DNS. Anybody?
Who hates the UN now?
I was under the impression that the UN is where the US sends foreign policy problems to die under its bureaucratic weight.
Seriously, past its inception, when was the last time the UN did anything useful in a controversial field?
You know, that's the same thing I was thinking when I read the headline.
Great. So the governments of the world are going to be in "control" of the inter net.
Like that's gonna be enforcable.
Still, I'd like to walk in there and ask them what the hell they think they're doing.
This isn't a coffee house?!
*looks down at his cup* Damn. I must've come to the wrong place.
Dude, you DO realize they teach this to first year CS students at Drexel, right?
The success of In2TV is going to have nothing to do with the merits of the project.
It's going to hinge on whether or not In2TV is supported under Linux.
Shocking, huh? "Why?" I hear you ask.
Simple. Linux users are the most persistant type of computer user. If something doesn't work in Linux, it will be hacked at until it does. Conversely, if something already works, and works well, there's less incentive to hack at it. The "good" programmers will concentrate on other projects, and a couple of the newbs will beat impotently at the In2TV protocol until their hammers bleed.
"But what's that got to do with the success of In2TV?"
Once a Linux user or LUG has built a working In2TV player for Linux, its popularity will spread like wildfire. Within a week of release, it will be ported to Windows. Within the same week, someone will have determined how to remove the ads and save the stream to disk. A month after a Linux-unsupported In2TV release, there will be hundereds of Linux users archiving all 300 episodes per month. Two months after, there will be _thousands_ of Windows users doing the same.
And AOL, as they have been in the case of "free riders" using GAIM, will be impotent to stop it.
And example from the other direction. Ever notice how there's no production quality open source marcromedia flash display software? Yeah. It's because "good" programmers aren't going to waste their time on rebuilding something that already works and works well for their platform of choice - the Flash plugin for firefox. All in nice closed source proprietary form.
So, a message to AOL: Make In2TV support Linux, ensuring at least a few years of sustainability for your product, or have In2TV fail within months from the abuse of over zealous users.
P.S.: I actually hope you DON'T take my advice. The faster your company goes down, the faster the rest of the media industry will go with it.
Unfortunately, there are enough of us who don't see anything wrong with swapping coprighted materials that uncontrolled P2P filesharing is not going to wink out of existance any time soon.
... unpleasant. But keep in mind that it's not the public's fault. What the public does in general is due to the nature of humanity. The fact that you may feel above that nature is irrelevant; not everyone has your 'superior' ethics. I put superior in quotes, as I question the ethicality comparison between copyright infringement on a personal level, and supporting a business that engages in questionable practices in a desperate effort to 'protect' their copyright - something this rootkit doesn't actually do.
And, regardless of what you think, you _can not_ ask or order a significant portion of a population to change their habits. It doesn't work, never has. So the recording industry tries to fight it, but it just reinforces these habits - incites them towards more and more anti-DMCA activities - until someone with a brain over there figures out what's going on.
*shrug* not my job to make an industry change direction, and they've enough inertia in the wrong direction to make this
Why? Doesn't that really depend on where the center of mass of the universe is in relation to you and the earth?