Basically what the technical elite want is to have free or nearly free access to all the media recorded products currently offered for sale by the big four.
That's not what I want at all. I want the music industry to keep operating, and I want it to be successful enough that the industry can take chances on indie artists and so there can be a wider variety of stuff available than there is now.
I want a return to the time when I could pay for a recording or for a movie and do whatever I want with it as long as I wasn't charging people to view it at my apartment or something like that. I want to be able to rip CDs and rip DVDs for personal use with no fear whatsoever of legal repercussions. I don't use file sharing programs; I object to the audacity of them trying to pervert the legal system to attempt to tell me what I can do with my own technology.
The black market would probably still use cash or something similar to it if there was enough of it still in circulation. It would become sort of like how it is in William Gibson books where the only transactions using cash are illegal ones, and nobody respectable accepts it as currency. A separate shadow economy would develop, but an economy nonetheless.
Most illegal transactions stay in cash form anyway so as to avoid tax problems (see also: Al Capone).
Then the lesson to be learned is that you can't always trust images anymore. In the end that will make prosecutor's jobs harder but in the end maybe it will lead to a system that is based on more substantial proof.
Fixed that for you. It wouldn't really be fair if the prosecutor in a criminal case had to pay for the defense of anyone who was found not guilty, seeing as that's a perfectly acceptable outcome to a criminal court case. In a civil case the plaintiff is the one who initiated the proceedings.
Exactly! It used to be, back in the day, that the people who used Napster to acquire music were getting an inferiour experience. They didn't get album artwork and didn't get decent quality (128kbps and lower mp3s abounded). But nowadays it's relatively easy to find nearly anything you're looking for in either absurdly high bitrates or even lossless, with album art and sometimes videos. Free. Yeah it's illegal, but looking at it from only the standpoint of what you get and what you pay, you pay for an internet connection that you were paying for anyway and you get something better than what you'd get if you actually bought the download. You get something better, sometimes, than a CD because it's unrestricted.
The difference is even more noticeable with movies. When you illegally download a DVD rip it's unrestricted. You can move it onto your iPod or watch it on whatever device you want. You can store it on a hard drive and take dozens of them with you on an airplane. When you buy a blu-ray or a DVD, the movie is obfuscated from you. You can't play it in unapproved devices. You can't even take a DVD you bought in a different country and play it in yours (unless you bought it in Australia).
Seriously. The media distribution companies need to realize that their old business model no longer makes sense. It's not even a question of not being sustainable: it's a question of not even really being relevant anymore, like if someone decided to run a telegraph business nowadays. The tighter they try to hold onto it, the more of us will stand up and realize we no longer need them.
I've always been of the opinion that if a terrorist wants to die for his cause on an airplane, the passengers should make his or her wish come true as quickly as they can then continue the flight as usual.
They should replace the no smoking light that's next to the "fasten seatbelts" light with a "form lynchmob now" light. Everybody's pretty clear on the fact that there's no smoking on american (and most other countries') flights nowadays I think.
I think you're nit-picking way too much. "Country" in this case refers to the actual current borders of the UK, and this may be the burial ground within those borders of earliest origin yet discovered. In this case "first" means "earliest discovered", which is after all the best gauge we have for these things. How could we ever determine for sure which was the first, as the first may have been lost forever? As for "royal dynasty", though it may not have been made for a king or queen as we think of them today, in describing the hypothesis that the burial ground may have been for especially important persons isn't unreasonable.
I just think that for the purposes of communication with modern people it's okay to use modern terms, even if you're talking about something ancient for which there may not be an exact analogue today.
In any case the things you're complaining about are not one of those cases where someone's blatantly distorted the facts to hype up a story for the general public (see also: any popular media article having anything whatsoever to do with any physics developments past elementary mechanics).
Look up the origination of the term "Cargo Cult". It's really really really fascinating. For those who won't FTFL, cargo cults are those who originated in uncontacted areas in the Pacific (and likewise anywhere else) when allied aircraft would drop supplies for troops or aid for islanders. When the war ended, the drops ceased, but many islands have their own religions having to do with airplanes as a result.
So... you're probably absolutely right. Merely observing them via helicopter will drastically alter their world-view if not their religion as well.
Wow way to make my hackneyed Futurama reference sound insightful! But seriously I don't know if that would really work since the cost to start up is so astronomically greater than the cost of, say, setting up a casino in an existing island nation that's already friendly to that sort of thing (see also: aruba).
Are there scientologist moderators on here or something? GP needs to read-the-fine-OTHER-article. SeaOrg is one of the lesser-known and creepier aspects of the church of scientology.
But that captcha on e-gold would be trivial to break. Over the course of the animation all parts of all numbers are visible with no variation or noise around them. If they rotated, though, and were slightly larger than the image, it might just work. That would be such a pain in the ass for humans to read I don't think it would be used at all.
The most likely captcha technologies to win, I think, are the ones that require some amount of contextual knowledge about our world. Nobody's really created an anti-captcha bot that can distinguish a kitten from a tiger, for instance. Tests like these, even though they're also obnoxious to humans, are much more effective.
Chances are that they'll want to try to compromise foreign systems and not US systems to use in a botnet to avoid legal liability within the country.
That doesn't really make me feel any better. If they're able to pwn some Arab guy's box—no matter what OS it's running—then they can pwn mine, too, the same way, unless the exploit relies on user error. Not to say that I don't make errors but I think most people on/. make fewer mistakes with computer security than the average user.
I was waiting for the 3rd amendment to come up here, actually, and it's a very interesting point. Another thing to consider is who is responsible for damage caused by this? I'm a civilian and I am not allowed to attack foreign computers or infrastructure the way the military is allowed to. If my computer is used in an attack, even though the US military would've been the ones to pull the trigger, it still was my hardware that participated in the attack. That may not legally make me culpable but if I found out about it later I would feel like blood had been spilt on my hands while I wasn't looking.
I've already said this so many times during the past seven years I'm getting sick of it myself, but I really hope this doesn't go through. Knowing the state of the world right now it just might though. Just watch your back I guess.
This is an instant messaging program. When have you ever seen one of those used for anything where disaster recovery, high availability/reliability, and redundancy were a major concern? An email server sure but IM? Really?
Despite the point the sibling post makes, it's also important to point out that you really shouldn't be holding the developers of Pidgin to the same high standard to which you'd hold developers of, say, the linux kernel, because it's just simply not as important or even important in the same ways.
I use a variety of different codecs and bandwidths for my own musical collection, depending on whether it was ripped from CDs or recorded off vinyl, and also depending on the amount of quality I require. I'm not going to rip crappy pop music at the same resolution at which my 78rpm classical music records are ripped.
Legal documents, to me, read like programs for people to run written in English. We're all accustomed to that same explicit and very specific language (unless you write Perl).
Slashdot Mirror
That's not what I want at all. I want the music industry to keep operating, and I want it to be successful enough that the industry can take chances on indie artists and so there can be a wider variety of stuff available than there is now.
I want a return to the time when I could pay for a recording or for a movie and do whatever I want with it as long as I wasn't charging people to view it at my apartment or something like that. I want to be able to rip CDs and rip DVDs for personal use with no fear whatsoever of legal repercussions. I don't use file sharing programs; I object to the audacity of them trying to pervert the legal system to attempt to tell me what I can do with my own technology.
The black market would probably still use cash or something similar to it if there was enough of it still in circulation. It would become sort of like how it is in William Gibson books where the only transactions using cash are illegal ones, and nobody respectable accepts it as currency. A separate shadow economy would develop, but an economy nonetheless.
Most illegal transactions stay in cash form anyway so as to avoid tax problems (see also: Al Capone).
Absolutely agreed, but once in a rare while that's kind of a good thing.
Then the lesson to be learned is that you can't always trust images anymore. In the end that will make prosecutor's jobs harder but in the end maybe it will lead to a system that is based on more substantial proof.
if the plaintiff loses they should have to pay
Fixed that for you. It wouldn't really be fair if the prosecutor in a criminal case had to pay for the defense of anyone who was found not guilty, seeing as that's a perfectly acceptable outcome to a criminal court case. In a civil case the plaintiff is the one who initiated the proceedings.
Exactly! It used to be, back in the day, that the people who used Napster to acquire music were getting an inferiour experience. They didn't get album artwork and didn't get decent quality (128kbps and lower mp3s abounded). But nowadays it's relatively easy to find nearly anything you're looking for in either absurdly high bitrates or even lossless, with album art and sometimes videos. Free. Yeah it's illegal, but looking at it from only the standpoint of what you get and what you pay, you pay for an internet connection that you were paying for anyway and you get something better than what you'd get if you actually bought the download. You get something better, sometimes, than a CD because it's unrestricted.
The difference is even more noticeable with movies. When you illegally download a DVD rip it's unrestricted. You can move it onto your iPod or watch it on whatever device you want. You can store it on a hard drive and take dozens of them with you on an airplane. When you buy a blu-ray or a DVD, the movie is obfuscated from you. You can't play it in unapproved devices. You can't even take a DVD you bought in a different country and play it in yours (unless you bought it in Australia).
Seriously. The media distribution companies need to realize that their old business model no longer makes sense. It's not even a question of not being sustainable: it's a question of not even really being relevant anymore, like if someone decided to run a telegraph business nowadays. The tighter they try to hold onto it, the more of us will stand up and realize we no longer need them.
I've always been of the opinion that if a terrorist wants to die for his cause on an airplane, the passengers should make his or her wish come true as quickly as they can then continue the flight as usual.
They should replace the no smoking light that's next to the "fasten seatbelts" light with a "form lynchmob now" light. Everybody's pretty clear on the fact that there's no smoking on american (and most other countries') flights nowadays I think.
I think you're nit-picking way too much. "Country" in this case refers to the actual current borders of the UK, and this may be the burial ground within those borders of earliest origin yet discovered. In this case "first" means "earliest discovered", which is after all the best gauge we have for these things. How could we ever determine for sure which was the first, as the first may have been lost forever? As for "royal dynasty", though it may not have been made for a king or queen as we think of them today, in describing the hypothesis that the burial ground may have been for especially important persons isn't unreasonable.
I just think that for the purposes of communication with modern people it's okay to use modern terms, even if you're talking about something ancient for which there may not be an exact analogue today.
In any case the things you're complaining about are not one of those cases where someone's blatantly distorted the facts to hype up a story for the general public (see also: any popular media article having anything whatsoever to do with any physics developments past elementary mechanics).
Thanks. Now I'll never get that song out of my head!
Look up the origination of the term "Cargo Cult". It's really really really fascinating. For those who won't FTFL, cargo cults are those who originated in uncontacted areas in the Pacific (and likewise anywhere else) when allied aircraft would drop supplies for troops or aid for islanders. When the war ended, the drops ceased, but many islands have their own religions having to do with airplanes as a result.
So... you're probably absolutely right. Merely observing them via helicopter will drastically alter their world-view if not their religion as well.
Wow way to make my hackneyed Futurama reference sound insightful! But seriously I don't know if that would really work since the cost to start up is so astronomically greater than the cost of, say, setting up a casino in an existing island nation that's already friendly to that sort of thing (see also: aruba).
Are there scientologist moderators on here or something? GP needs to read-the-fine-OTHER-article. SeaOrg is one of the lesser-known and creepier aspects of the church of scientology.
Exactly! Nuts to this. I'm gonna go make my own nation... with blackjack! And hookers! Come to think of it, forget the nation part.
So, your men's room computer has a mouse, I take it?
But that captcha on e-gold would be trivial to break. Over the course of the animation all parts of all numbers are visible with no variation or noise around them. If they rotated, though, and were slightly larger than the image, it might just work. That would be such a pain in the ass for humans to read I don't think it would be used at all.
The most likely captcha technologies to win, I think, are the ones that require some amount of contextual knowledge about our world. Nobody's really created an anti-captcha bot that can distinguish a kitten from a tiger, for instance. Tests like these, even though they're also obnoxious to humans, are much more effective.
. . . and if Yahoo and Google can match first/last names to SSNs then so can spammers.
That doesn't really make me feel any better. If they're able to pwn some Arab guy's box—no matter what OS it's running—then they can pwn mine, too, the same way, unless the exploit relies on user error. Not to say that I don't make errors but I think most people on /. make fewer mistakes with computer security than the average user.
I was waiting for the 3rd amendment to come up here, actually, and it's a very interesting point. Another thing to consider is who is responsible for damage caused by this? I'm a civilian and I am not allowed to attack foreign computers or infrastructure the way the military is allowed to. If my computer is used in an attack, even though the US military would've been the ones to pull the trigger, it still was my hardware that participated in the attack. That may not legally make me culpable but if I found out about it later I would feel like blood had been spilt on my hands while I wasn't looking.
I've already said this so many times during the past seven years I'm getting sick of it myself, but I really hope this doesn't go through. Knowing the state of the world right now it just might though. Just watch your back I guess.
Better block tinyurl links too then, as advised in this article.
This is an instant messaging program. When have you ever seen one of those used for anything where disaster recovery, high availability/reliability, and redundancy were a major concern? An email server sure but IM? Really?
Despite the point the sibling post makes, it's also important to point out that you really shouldn't be holding the developers of Pidgin to the same high standard to which you'd hold developers of, say, the linux kernel, because it's just simply not as important or even important in the same ways.
What if you find out something you didn't care to know?
Barry Manilow MP3s.
I use a variety of different codecs and bandwidths for my own musical collection, depending on whether it was ripped from CDs or recorded off vinyl, and also depending on the amount of quality I require. I'm not going to rip crappy pop music at the same resolution at which my 78rpm classical music records are ripped.
As for the comment files... I, uhhh, wrote those?
Ad-hoc and chaotic . . . like the Minutemen in the American Revolution? Seriously that's not a disadvantage at all; it's one way we can win.
Legal documents, to me, read like programs for people to run written in English. We're all accustomed to that same explicit and very specific language (unless you write Perl).