Just because you can make profit on it doesn't mean its right. Money should represent contribution to society. By growing wheat I get paid because that wheat goes on to help society. So instead of saying I can make money by doing this so it MUST be right (wow nice justification for me to mug people) you should be saying since doing this is right, then it should be worth money.
By creating IP you are contributing to society... so the artist should be paid. By distributing information at a competitive price you're again contributing to society. By NOT distributing information and blocking others from distributing it, you're hindering society... because you're slowing progress and learning.
Don't confuse IP creation, IP distribution and IP protections. They're three different matters, the media companies want you to think its all one package. IP was reasonable at first, giving the creators a headstart to help innovation, but its no longer a headstart but a monopoly.
Here's a question for you, what advantage is this for 75 year copyrights over 7 year copyrights? Because the advantages are clear for a 7 year copyright.
1. It means companies can't rest on their laurels forever but must continue to improve. If MS hadn't released anything since Win98 they could still have exclusive rights to sell it for another year. Since in 2005, anyone could give away Win98 freely, MS would want to improve it, so people would rather pay the bucks for Win Xp rather then use 98 for free. Granted they improve even without this extra incentive but this would give the unspoken threat for new computers not to buy anything from MS to spur them on.
2. Less information loss. In 75 years most of the IP will be lost permanently because it won't be converted to new formats. What good is IP if its not being distributed. Think about it, 10 years ago things were on floppies. Do you have a floppy drive on your computer? 15 years ago things were on 5.25, do you have one of those?... In 10 years do you think you'll have a CD drive? How easy will it be to read a FAT32 partition?
3. Uses the forces of capitilism to make costs of printing/distribution cheap through competition after the 7 years.
But hey I'm a capitalist, that's why I oppose government sanctioned monopolies.
The problem is bias. If only others with submitted papers can moderate what happens when I prove a theory false that many people (have worked on/are working on).
Error correction and error detection. Basically there's redundancy in the data. Imagine if 1 was represented by 111 and 0 was represented by 000 and you encountered 010, you could be pretty sure the data was supposed to be 0. That's error correction. If 11 represented 1 and 00 represented 0 and you encountered 01 you wouldn't be able to correct it, but you'd be able to detect the error.
Granted thats huge waste when you're using 3 bits for each 1 bit, but they use a better ratio in audio encoding, I don't remember it off hand but I believe its like 12 bits per 8. The supposed effect is you can have a hole in your cd of a couple mm and it'd still work correctly, but I wouldn't suggest trying it.
Because our risk is almost zero, any implementation that requires some customer effort is unlikely to be used. It's likely the banks aren't adopting because of customer inconvenience rather then it not saving money if it was actually used.
You can buy 2 new TEXTBOOKs for what you get back for 3 used ones.
BS. More like you can get 1 USED textbook for 2 used ones if you go through the bookstore. You can do better by trading with other students but then you're bearing the transaction cost through your time.
The reason books is different is most textbooks are designed to have a long lifespan and to be kept. So there's relatively few sellers compared to buyers. They know they sell better if people are happy with the product and so they keep it. The volume is low, furthermore since the editions are well known, they rarely get stuck holding a worthless product (because they won't buy old editions).
Videogames have a much shorter lifespan, people go through them much quicker. Less people care about keeping them. Since there will be a lot more sellers then buyers (after a certain period of time), and the product will be worthless in a year anyways, there's a lot of risk. You neglect to consider what percentage of those used games EVER sell, because it's only profit if they actually sell it. Looking through their selection, I doubt they make that much profit from used sales.
I disagree completely. You fail in a couple points.
1. The money doesn't disappear in the retailer's hands. The retailer (at least the retailers that do used sales) has a vested interest in gaming. They aren't taking all the money and spending it on giving crack to children. They're investing much of it back in the company (more distribution, more stores, etc). With your reasoning you should try to bypass the publishers and reach right to the developers because there's no guarentee that the publishers cut will go back into gaming industry either.
2. You completely ignore nonmonetary cost. eBay may be cheaper until you realize your time costs money. Customers will always seek the best value, but customers value different things differently. If I have to spend an hour with all the stuff involved with eBay it's already not worth buying a used game to me (because the new is cheaper in cost). Add in the factors of scams (unlikely on video games I'd guess), time delays and shipping then eBay becomes a pretty pointless place to buy video games or any other small product (granted I never did care for eBay).
I've never sold my games but it's naive to say the retailer is somehow exploiting those people. It's merely an option. People only take it because they feel they're getting a better deal by it. I don't sell games but I do like to buy older used games. I don't look at it and see the profit and say "profit is evil", I look at the savings and say "savings are good". I don't have an obligation to buy retail, the way I see it as long as the game industry uses a product based system they should: A) Make the product worth keeping. They don't want this because they want throwaway games so you will buy the next release. B) Move to a service based model (subscriptions). This will eventually happen and it really is what should happen.
What he did was wrong and I agree the lawsuit is bad. But I assume the university won't be sending out transcripts for the classes he did finish.
When you argue that the money is not for the grades ask yourself this. Would you be upset if the university arbitrarily decided they won't be sending out any transcripts anymore because "You paid for the education, not the grades".
Don't fool yourself, you are paying for the grades. But if you fraudently obtain those grades (which plagiarism is) then they should be revoked. Better yet they should agree to continue sending out his transcripts stamped with big red letters "Expelled for fraudulent actions"
That's the point and controversy with the law. At the time the participant is willing, but because they're intoxicated they're considered not capable of giving consent. Rape means different things in the eyes of the public from the eyes of the law.
IANAL but as I understand it rape isn't just as simple as the person didn't want to. If legal consent can't be given it's rape no matter how willing the participants were. Consent can't be given by minors (statatory), or if you're not of sound mind (under the influence or mentally handicapped) or under duress (threat of force means it doesn't matter if you agree).
This means almost everyone will commit rape in their lifetime (simply because of alcohol) according to the eyes of the law. It's just nothing happens unless they complain. Even if a case was brought forward for willing sex, you can count on there being one person the jury thinking "This is insane, my wife and I drank on our honeymoon, both of us would be guilty of the same thing"
The law is so broad not to define what is bad but so it can make it easier to prosecute people doing bad things. In a similar way to some of tax codes, no one declares every little gift as income but no one cares until its big enough to cause a problem. Once again IANAL.
But he's completely right. If the taxes were introduced at local level this wouldn't have happened. It's not the fault of taxation in general, it's the fault of a badly thought out tax that doesn't give accountability to how the funds are spent.
If you spend 10million federal dollars for your school when only 10thousand was necessary, the local community won't care enough to vote you out of office (afterall federal money is free money). If you spend 1million of local money when only 10thousand was necessary, you better start looking for a job outside of that city.
I'm glad you feel also that people should be required to fund others expressions.
I plan on expressing myself by quitting my job and playing videogames. Please send money cash or check to fund my free speech. If you don't you're commiting censorship!
-You have exceeded the daily bandwidth limit for this (account/IP/Cookie). You are authorized to upload/download X MB per day.
Seriously, if they implemented this it'd cut warez down to useless levels and it wouldn't effect people doing their email in normal fashion.
The only time I can think of when someone would want to download their whole mailbox in one day is for archiving. But then of course they wouldn't be archiving everyday.. while the warez account will be.
Re:Second version in development
on
eyeBlog
·
· Score: 1
I swear I was just wondering why you're wearing glasses on your butt!
"Elementary chaos theory tells us that all robots will eventually turn against their masters and run amok in an orgy of blood and kicking and the biting with the metal teeth and the hurting and shoving" -Professor Frink
I disagree. A single double-size screen would not work well with the features they're trying to add. First off since its foldup (which is important to adults since they want something that can look professional) if the screen is on top half its hard to use the touchscreen with stylus. If the screen is on the bottom half the controls are ackward. The big deal isn't the second screen, the big deal is the TOUCHscreen.
The touchscreen may seem gimmicky but I really like it. I do some homebrew development, and imagine trying to implement a calculator interface on a GBA SP. With the second screen, a virtual keypad can be used. This makes the GBDS better then the SP for tools. But back to games. Games will use it as a gimmick, touchscreen can be used for inventory management, typing names, that kind of thing. Will it improve most games? No, but it makes new types of games possible.
Most of the people rejecting the idea of a second screen, don't seem to be recognizing that its a touchscreen.
Is there any research into bridging these wireless routers? I imagine this would be a nightmare for routing algorithms without being able to use subnets for routing... What kind of routing algorithms would be useful for this?
Yea it'd be a ton of hops between wireless routers just to travel across Estonia but still it'd be cool to do it without the need for ISP's at any portion of the trip.
Thank you I was looking for this comment, had to scroll a ways down.
Sex is biological, although it'd be acceptable to refer to a robot's sex only as it's physical characteristics (anatomically correct robots)
Gender is how the robot acts, dresses, talks, etc. A good word to use for gender is feminine/masculine if you don't want to confuse it with sex. Furthermore masculine/feminine's definitions varies from culture to culture. The modern American female has a completely different gender role to a feudal Japanese female.
Think of the robot of the Jetsons, clearly feminine. But that doesn't mean when you lift her apron she'll have... oh fine I'll keep it clean.
The difference with sex and gender has been confused because people think "sex" is a taboo word, so they just interchange the two. Occasionally see it say gender on forms still
3) Eve intercepts quantum stream from Alice of |/-|\/. She sets her random detector to 011010 (X++X+X) and gets out 00+00X and thus ??1??0. Having either blocked or observed all the photons passing through, she needs to create a new quantum stream to send to Bob (and she knows 2 of the digits), say 011100, which after Bob receives it, he interprets as 0?1?0?. He tells Alice to use bits 1, 3 and 5, and she encodes with 110. Neither Bob nor Eve can read the message, so no one but Alice has the data, and Alice and Bob know they've been compromised.
Close but not quite.. the problem with quantum cryptography is key exchange. If Bob and Alice have a key exchanged at start.. then yes Quantum Cryptography is secure from man in the middle. Lemme explain the flaw in your example here.
Alice Eve Alice sends the |/-|\/ and Eve gets it as X++X+X or ??1??0 as you say. Immediately Eve sends back and says I received bits 3 and 6, and the one time key is formed. So their key is 10.
Eve Bob At the same time Eve sends the 011100 to Bob to form their key. Bob interprets it as 0?1?0? and tells EVE (this is where you made the error, because he can't tell alice directly) the bits to use are 1,3,5. So their key is 010.
So whenever Eve receives data from Alice.. Eve decrypts it with the 10 key and re-encrypts it with the 010 key before sending to Bob. When Eve receives data from Bob, vice versa.
Any way to counter this requires outside tramission of info (whether it be a key, protocol, or something similar) that HASN'T been compromised by Eve.
Once a secure link is formed, it can't be compromised. But if it's compromised from the very start, it won't be detected.
Please stop making the mistake of thinking that NGSCB was ever a security project.
Curtained Memory (to prevent reading/writing other program's memory) Secure I/O (prevent keyloggers and screep captures) Sealed Storage (files can be set to be readable only by the program that saved them.. think password files) Remote Attestation (Evil DRM part that asks for permission off the internet)
The bulk of it was (or is) security. The bit that everyone hates is the remote attestation.
Sure they can. They have the lawyers, and you don't. Also bittorrent performs hashing on the files, so unless you specifically hacked your client to report bogus files to the tracker, it would actually start downloading the copyrighted file. The bittorrent protocol doesn't even care about the filename.
Now what is more likely? You were downloading a movie, or you hacked your bittorrent client so that it would connect to a tracker and SAY you were downloading that movie, without actually downloading it?
No kidding, and since your IP is on my tracker for downloading "Redneck Orgy V" you either must truly be downloading it, or you hacked your BT client. Which is more likely, I'll leave up to you, since you OBVIOUSLY did one or the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you can make profit on it doesn't mean its right. Money should represent contribution to society. By growing wheat I get paid because that wheat goes on to help society. So instead of saying I can make money by doing this so it MUST be right (wow nice justification for me to mug people) you should be saying since doing this is right, then it should be worth money.
By creating IP you are contributing to society... so the artist should be paid.
By distributing information at a competitive price you're again contributing to society.
By NOT distributing information and blocking others from distributing it, you're hindering society... because you're slowing progress and learning.
Don't confuse IP creation, IP distribution and IP protections. They're three different matters, the media companies want you to think its all one package. IP was reasonable at first, giving the creators a headstart to help innovation, but its no longer a headstart but a monopoly.
Here's a question for you, what advantage is this for 75 year copyrights over 7 year copyrights? Because the advantages are clear for a 7 year copyright.
1. It means companies can't rest on their laurels forever but must continue to improve. If MS hadn't released anything since Win98 they could still have exclusive rights to sell it for another year. Since in 2005, anyone could give away Win98 freely, MS would want to improve it, so people would rather pay the bucks for Win Xp rather then use 98 for free. Granted they improve even without this extra incentive but this would give the unspoken threat for new computers not to buy anything from MS to spur them on.
2. Less information loss. In 75 years most of the IP will be lost permanently because it won't be converted to new formats. What good is IP if its not being distributed. Think about it, 10 years ago things were on floppies. Do you have a floppy drive on your computer? 15 years ago things were on 5.25, do you have one of those?... In 10 years do you think you'll have a CD drive? How easy will it be to read a FAT32 partition?
3. Uses the forces of capitilism to make costs of printing/distribution cheap through competition after the 7 years.
But hey I'm a capitalist, that's why I oppose government sanctioned monopolies.
The problem is bias. If only others with submitted papers can moderate what happens when I prove a theory false that many people (have worked on/are working on).
Ah but suppose there's only 3 unique digits for a 4 digit pin.. there'd be 36 combinations not 24.
That's assuming you know how long the pin is.
One even asked me if Firefox was legal to use, because it wasn't Microsoft!
Just tell him IE being bundled by Microsoft was illegal.
Error correction and error detection. Basically there's redundancy in the data. Imagine if 1 was represented by 111 and 0 was represented by 000 and you encountered 010, you could be pretty sure the data was supposed to be 0. That's error correction. If 11 represented 1 and 00 represented 0 and you encountered 01 you wouldn't be able to correct it, but you'd be able to detect the error.
Granted thats huge waste when you're using 3 bits for each 1 bit, but they use a better ratio in audio encoding, I don't remember it off hand but I believe its like 12 bits per 8. The supposed effect is you can have a hole in your cd of a couple mm and it'd still work correctly, but I wouldn't suggest trying it.
Because our risk is almost zero, any implementation that requires some customer effort is unlikely to be used. It's likely the banks aren't adopting because of customer inconvenience rather then it not saving money if it was actually used.
You can buy 2 new TEXTBOOKs for what you get back for 3 used ones.
BS. More like you can get 1 USED textbook for 2 used ones if you go through the bookstore. You can do better by trading with other students but then you're bearing the transaction cost through your time.
The reason books is different is most textbooks are designed to have a long lifespan and to be kept. So there's relatively few sellers compared to buyers. They know they sell better if people are happy with the product and so they keep it. The volume is low, furthermore since the editions are well known, they rarely get stuck holding a worthless product (because they won't buy old editions).
Videogames have a much shorter lifespan, people go through them much quicker. Less people care about keeping them. Since there will be a lot more sellers then buyers (after a certain period of time), and the product will be worthless in a year anyways, there's a lot of risk. You neglect to consider what percentage of those used games EVER sell, because it's only profit if they actually sell it. Looking through their selection, I doubt they make that much profit from used sales.
I disagree completely. You fail in a couple points.
1. The money doesn't disappear in the retailer's hands. The retailer (at least the retailers that do used sales) has a vested interest in gaming. They aren't taking all the money and spending it on giving crack to children. They're investing much of it back in the company (more distribution, more stores, etc). With your reasoning you should try to bypass the publishers and reach right to the developers because there's no guarentee that the publishers cut will go back into gaming industry either.
2. You completely ignore nonmonetary cost. eBay may be cheaper until you realize your time costs money. Customers will always seek the best value, but customers value different things differently. If I have to spend an hour with all the stuff involved with eBay it's already not worth buying a used game to me (because the new is cheaper in cost). Add in the factors of scams (unlikely on video games I'd guess), time delays and shipping then eBay becomes a pretty pointless place to buy video games or any other small product (granted I never did care for eBay).
I've never sold my games but it's naive to say the retailer is somehow exploiting those people. It's merely an option. People only take it because they feel they're getting a better deal by it. I don't sell games but I do like to buy older used games. I don't look at it and see the profit and say "profit is evil", I look at the savings and say "savings are good". I don't have an obligation to buy retail, the way I see it as long as the game industry uses a product based system they should:
A) Make the product worth keeping. They don't want this because they want throwaway games so you will buy the next release.
B) Move to a service based model (subscriptions). This will eventually happen and it really is what should happen.
Duh... that's where TCPA comes in
err no really..
What he did was wrong and I agree the lawsuit is bad. But I assume the university won't be sending out transcripts for the classes he did finish.
When you argue that the money is not for the grades ask yourself this. Would you be upset if the university arbitrarily decided they won't be sending out any transcripts anymore because "You paid for the education, not the grades".
Don't fool yourself, you are paying for the grades. But if you fraudently obtain those grades (which plagiarism is) then they should be revoked. Better yet they should agree to continue sending out his transcripts stamped with big red letters "Expelled for fraudulent actions"
That's the point and controversy with the law. At the time the participant is willing, but because they're intoxicated they're considered not capable of giving consent. Rape means different things in the eyes of the public from the eyes of the law.
IANAL but as I understand it rape isn't just as simple as the person didn't want to. If legal consent can't be given it's rape no matter how willing the participants were. Consent can't be given by minors (statatory), or if you're not of sound mind (under the influence or mentally handicapped) or under duress (threat of force means it doesn't matter if you agree).
This means almost everyone will commit rape in their lifetime (simply because of alcohol) according to the eyes of the law. It's just nothing happens unless they complain. Even if a case was brought forward for willing sex, you can count on there being one person the jury thinking "This is insane, my wife and I drank on our honeymoon, both of us would be guilty of the same thing"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent
The law is so broad not to define what is bad but so it can make it easier to prosecute people doing bad things. In a similar way to some of tax codes, no one declares every little gift as income but no one cares until its big enough to cause a problem. Once again IANAL.
... except I doubt thats what he really said because I doubt he was speaking in english. I doubt TV dinners tranlates word for word to most languages.
But he's completely right. If the taxes were introduced at local level this wouldn't have happened. It's not the fault of taxation in general, it's the fault of a badly thought out tax that doesn't give accountability to how the funds are spent.
If you spend 10million federal dollars for your school when only 10thousand was necessary, the local community won't care enough to vote you out of office (afterall federal money is free money). If you spend 1million of local money when only 10thousand was necessary, you better start looking for a job outside of that city.
I'm glad you feel also that people should be required to fund others expressions.
I plan on expressing myself by quitting my job and playing videogames. Please send money cash or check to fund my free speech. If you don't you're commiting censorship!
-You have exceeded the daily bandwidth limit for this (account/IP/Cookie). You are authorized to upload/download X MB per day.
Seriously, if they implemented this it'd cut warez down to useless levels and it wouldn't effect people doing their email in normal fashion.
The only time I can think of when someone would want to download their whole mailbox in one day is for archiving. But then of course they wouldn't be archiving everyday.. while the warez account will be.
I swear I was just wondering why you're wearing glasses on your butt!
"Elementary chaos theory tells us that all robots will eventually turn against their masters and run amok in an orgy of blood and kicking and the biting with the metal teeth and the hurting and shoving" -Professor Frink
I disagree. A single double-size screen would not work well with the features they're trying to add. First off since its foldup (which is important to adults since they want something that can look professional) if the screen is on top half its hard to use the touchscreen with stylus. If the screen is on the bottom half the controls are ackward. The big deal isn't the second screen, the big deal is the TOUCHscreen.
The touchscreen may seem gimmicky but I really like it. I do some homebrew development, and imagine trying to implement a calculator interface on a GBA SP. With the second screen, a virtual keypad can be used. This makes the GBDS better then the SP for tools. But back to games. Games will use it as a gimmick, touchscreen can be used for inventory management, typing names, that kind of thing. Will it improve most games? No, but it makes new types of games possible.
Most of the people rejecting the idea of a second screen, don't seem to be recognizing that its a touchscreen.
Is there any research into bridging these wireless routers? I imagine this would be a nightmare for routing algorithms without being able to use subnets for routing... What kind of routing algorithms would be useful for this?
Yea it'd be a ton of hops between wireless routers just to travel across Estonia but still it'd be cool to do it without the need for ISP's at any portion of the trip.
Thank you I was looking for this comment, had to scroll a ways down.
Sex is biological, although it'd be acceptable to refer to a robot's sex only as it's physical characteristics (anatomically correct robots)
Gender is how the robot acts, dresses, talks, etc. A good word to use for gender is feminine/masculine if you don't want to confuse it with sex. Furthermore masculine/feminine's definitions varies from culture to culture. The modern American female has a completely different gender role to a feudal Japanese female.
Think of the robot of the Jetsons, clearly feminine. But that doesn't mean when you lift her apron she'll have... oh fine I'll keep it clean.
The difference with sex and gender has been confused because people think "sex" is a taboo word, so they just interchange the two. Occasionally see it say gender on forms still
3) Eve intercepts quantum stream from Alice of |/-|\/. She sets her random detector to 011010 (X++X+X) and gets out 00+00X and thus ??1??0. Having either blocked or observed all the photons passing through, she needs to create a new quantum stream to send to Bob (and she knows 2 of the digits), say 011100, which after Bob receives it, he interprets as 0?1?0?. He tells Alice to use bits 1, 3 and 5, and she encodes with 110. Neither Bob nor Eve can read the message, so no one but Alice has the data, and Alice and Bob know they've been compromised.
Close but not quite.. the problem with quantum cryptography is key exchange. If Bob and Alice have a key exchanged at start.. then yes Quantum Cryptography is secure from man in the middle. Lemme explain the flaw in your example here.
Alice Eve
Alice sends the |/-|\/ and Eve gets it as X++X+X or ??1??0 as you say. Immediately Eve sends back and says I received bits 3 and 6, and the one time key is formed. So their key is 10.
Eve Bob
At the same time Eve sends the 011100 to Bob to form their key. Bob interprets it as 0?1?0? and tells EVE (this is where you made the error, because he can't tell alice directly) the bits to use are 1,3,5. So their key is 010.
So whenever Eve receives data from Alice.. Eve decrypts it with the 10 key and re-encrypts it with the 010 key before sending to Bob.
When Eve receives data from Bob, vice versa.
Any way to counter this requires outside tramission of info (whether it be a key, protocol, or something similar) that HASN'T been compromised by Eve.
Once a secure link is formed, it can't be compromised. But if it's compromised from the very start, it won't be detected.
I made no such conclusion.. I just said it can't be ruled out. Because once you rule it out, that's when it becomes ripe for abuse.
Please stop making the mistake of thinking that NGSCB was ever a security project.
Curtained Memory (to prevent reading/writing other program's memory)
Secure I/O (prevent keyloggers and screep captures)
Sealed Storage (files can be set to be readable only by the program that saved them.. think password files)
Remote Attestation (Evil DRM part that asks for permission off the internet)
The bulk of it was (or is) security. The bit that everyone hates is the remote attestation.
Same thing? Try completely opposite, read it again... You're assuming everyone minds this interaction. I'm saying most people genuinely don't mind it.
That's where your assumptions fail.
Sure they can. They have the lawyers, and you don't. Also bittorrent performs hashing on the files, so unless you specifically hacked your client to report bogus files to the tracker, it would actually start downloading the copyrighted file. The bittorrent protocol doesn't even care about the filename.
Now what is more likely? You were downloading a movie, or you hacked your bittorrent client so that it would connect to a tracker and SAY you were downloading that movie, without actually downloading it?
No kidding, and since your IP is on my tracker for downloading "Redneck Orgy V" you either must truly be downloading it, or you hacked your BT client. Which is more likely, I'll leave up to you, since you OBVIOUSLY did one or the other.