Setting up a torrent for each and every DVD and CD one owns amounts to making those works available to those who do not own the physical copy on an epic scale.
OK, but that's presumably not what most of these people are doing.
What you've described is how Napster (the original) and Limewire and other similar things worked by default -- you shared a directory that often included all your music, including what you downloaded.
But torrents aren't used this way. Instead, somebody with the item they're sharing creates a torrent and others connect to this torrent and start downloading. But with the way a torrent works, while you're downloading, you're uploading, and therefore "making available" -- even if you haven't finished downloading the item yet, you're still making it available. You could even be "making it available" and yet never have it yourself (not in a form you can use, anyways -- you might have parts of it.)
I don't know if these people are going after the seeds (people who are making the entire item available) or those who have some of the item (and so are making part of it available) or just anybody who's part of the torrent (which would even include those who haven't downloaded or uploaded a single byte of the item.) Going after the seeds would seem to give them a stronger case, but would reduce the number of people they could extort money from.
In any event, when a user downloads a torrent, they don't make "every DVD and CD they own" available -- they only make available what's in the torrent, the parts they've already downloaded. As for the people who actually make the torrents and make them available -- I'm guessing that most of them are doing it in a way that makes it harder to sue them (i.e. being in a different country, using somebody else's IP address, etc.) since if they didn't, they'd likely get hit with lots of lawsuits.
I wasn't trying to be funny at all -- I was dead serious.
You seem to be approaching this from the angle of "people don't agree with me, therefore they must simply not understand, so I should give them a flawed analogy to help them see it my way".
Sorry, but I reject that angle. The situation is quite simple, and nobody needs you to confuse it just to help them see it your way. Instead, if you find that so many people don't agree with you, the thing to do is to re-evaluate your own case, and if you don't find flaws in your own position, try to change people's minds with facts rather than flawed analogies.
I don't really see any benefit to wikileaks releasing the information beyond "look what we have!" bragging -- but I don't see a whole lot of damage being done either (governments spy? who knew!). The true criminals are those who leaked the information -- if it's sensitive, secure it!
If you're relying on journalists to not publish things because it'll make you look bad, well, you've already lost. (And yes, wikileaks sees themselves as journalists of a sort -- and they are.)
Not really. For them pulling this kind of shit, I've put them on a shit list for all future projects they throw up. I'll do nothing to encourage litigation being used as a money model.
And yet few people had even heard of the game until this point. And now we have, and I've pointed out that the original was a pretty good game. So far, I'd say the net effect has been positive for them -- somebody might buy their game who wasn't going to buy it before (can't buy it if you haven't heard of it.)
And really, saying they'll go after those who distribute their game without authorization is "this kind of shit"? I take it you also don't like the people who put up signs that said "looters will be shot" on their buildings during Katrina? Would it be better if they didn't put up the signs, and just shot the looters without warning? (I mean, yes, looters should realize that they get might get shot, but a warning might be good, yes? Similarly, those who use BT to download copyrighted stuff might realize they could get nailed for that (there's little anonymous about BT) and a warning might be good, yes?)
If the sequel is as good as the first, it's well worth paying for. Having no DRM is a definite plus. Going after those who infringe on their copyrights... well, it sounds like they've decided that any publicity is good publicity. And they may be right.
And really, I don't have any problems with them going after the pirates, especially if they make this "fine" a reasonable figure -- more than the cost of the game, but less than thousands of dollars.
it also applys to private individuals too because if the cops or the government dose nothing to someone trying to limit or control your free speech then they are effectively making a law prohibiting free speech
Um, no, it doesn't apply to private individuals.
Quite often when people cry "censorship!" they're really rallying against the idea that "freedom of the press belongs to those who own the press".
You have the right to free speech (with some minor exceptions.)
Individuals can't physically stop you from talking -- that would be assault of some sort. (And the police are supposed to do something about that, though that's not mandated by the Constitution.) But they can ask you to leave if you're on their private property, and they're under no obligation to let you use their printing press/radio station/web site/whatever to get your word out.
Please take note that the first word of the amendment is Congress and is followed by the absolute term "...shall make no law..." This means just what it states.
Actually, thanks to the Supreme Court, it doesn't mean just what it says.
It now applies to the states and local governments as well, not just to Congress.
Drela's expertise in matters regarding aerodynamics is well known, and so if he supports the idea (and explains how it can work), that gives it far more credence than a video of a ruler being moved over a small model.
I haven't gone through the analysis step by step yet and I'm still pretty skeptical -- but if Drela says it's possible, it probably is. (Of course, there's no guarantee that this really is written by Drela, but even if it's not, the thing to do is still to verify the reasoning done in every step...)
If You use a propeller, to do the pushing, then Your airfoil is exactly at such an angle to the wind.
Yes, but when the entire device is moving at the same speed as the wind, then the relative wind speed is zero and you can't extract any further energy from that.
The only way I can see to make this work is to "cheat" somehow -- a string pulling the contraption, storing energy in a spring, a hidden motor, going downhill, a day of gusty wind where the wind was a lot stronger a few seconds ago than it is now, etc.
The video with the toy and the ruler is nice, but if that really explains it -- then we don't even need any wind, and we've got a perpetual motion machine.
Ultimately, if this thing is going downwind faster than the wind yet powered by the wind -- then it's drag is going to make the wind even faster -- energy for nothing!
In theory you could simply refuse to license to them, since infringement would be sorta implied by the act of a derivation which makes the original invention a part of itself
They don't need you to license to them. It's not like they have to use their patents themselves (they haven't built anything, just written up a bunch of "as vague as they can get away with" potential inventions) -- the patents are only there to make sure they get a part of whatever pie develops.
It is in their best interests for a pie to develop, but if one doesn't, well, they're not out an invention that cost them 15 years to develop (like you are) -- they're just out some money put into people writing up and filing some patents.
Though you could be right about the "in practice" part too.
By default rm asks for confirmation before deleting a file. You have to override this behavior with the -f flag.
You're wrong. rm only asks for confirmation if it's given the -i flag or if you're doing something unusual like removing a file you don't have write access to.
Perhaps you have an alias set up that maps "rm" to "rm -i" -- it's a pretty common default alias, but it's a function of your *nix setup, not the rm command itself.
Well, they don't have to patent graphene itself -- they can just patent every possible application of it that they can think of.
That's really the way things seem to work -- if you patent something really awesome, somebody with a lot more lawyers will surround your invention with patents so it can't be used, even by you, without infringing on one of their patents. In general, these patents tend to be "obvious to the layperson" and therefore should be thrown out, but that requires lots of money, and it's easier to just pay their extortion money.
The system is screwed up. It would be even more screwed up if you needed a Nobel prize to protect yourself against it, but at least in this case it's not needed -- and doesn't even help.
(I imagine the FBI's version would be fancier, might include some velcro, a 12v power input (or a much bigger battery) and maybe an external antenna, but the gist is the same.)
Usually the FBI hides things like this pretty well. I wonder if he had a reason to go looking for it?
It's not a compatibility layer. It's that programs compiled against 32 bit shared libraries need those 32 bit shared libraries to run, and this is going to be difficult to get past, short of making everything a static binary.
The additional speed and such makes the small amount of additional complexity well worth the trouble.
And really, under Linux in 2010, you don't need 32 bit programs for anything except some commercial software where they don't offer 64 bit versions. (To be fair, the situation is the same under Windows, except that since you don't get source to everything, you're stuck with what they provide -- and it's usually a 32 bit binary.)
I should also mention that the issue about getting "older programs to run" used to be a big deal -- but isn't any more. The old 32 bit binaries typically work after installing the 32 bit libraries needed (and they're usually part of the distribution) and most programs that have been maintained in the last five years or so compile and work on 64 bit distributions just fine.
I have 64 bit hardware but I run x86 based distros. 64 bit is only good for the extra ram maybe to the desktop user. And there still is a lot of issues getting older programs to run on a 64 bit distro.
The x86_64 architecture has more registers than i386 and can do some operations 64 bits at a time rather than 32 bits. This means that programs compiled to run on a 64 bit architecture are often significantly faster than those compiled to run on 32 bit architectures.
I think an average figure is 20% faster or so on the same hardware -- you get this simply by installing a 64 bit distribution and using 64 bit binaries. Your system can probably still run 32 bit binaries (if it has the right libraries) but they won't be faster.
this is an exploit to gain "root" (administrator) access not a rootkit which is a malicious program built to hide itself from the operating system.
But the exploit leaves a backdoor (hell, it's right there in the summary) which *is* what a rootkit does.
Rootkits do typically hide themselves -- but only so they aren't removed, so they can provide root access at a later date. Their primary function is to provide root access at a later date -- which this exploit does, according to the summary.
Jury nullification exists in the US too -- it's just that not many people know about it.
And since the jury does not have to tell why they ruled the way they did, there's not really much that can be done to prevent it, once people are aware of the concept.
I should make it clear that my experience is in the US and I have no experience with Canadian juries, though I have no reason to believe that Canada's juries are any different in regards to the issues I mentioned.
Slashdot Mirror
Setting up a torrent for each and every DVD and CD one owns amounts to making those works available to those who do not own the physical copy on an epic scale.
OK, but that's presumably not what most of these people are doing.
What you've described is how Napster (the original) and Limewire and other similar things worked by default -- you shared a directory that often included all your music, including what you downloaded.
But torrents aren't used this way. Instead, somebody with the item they're sharing creates a torrent and others connect to this torrent and start downloading. But with the way a torrent works, while you're downloading, you're uploading, and therefore "making available" -- even if you haven't finished downloading the item yet, you're still making it available. You could even be "making it available" and yet never have it yourself (not in a form you can use, anyways -- you might have parts of it.)
I don't know if these people are going after the seeds (people who are making the entire item available) or those who have some of the item (and so are making part of it available) or just anybody who's part of the torrent (which would even include those who haven't downloaded or uploaded a single byte of the item.) Going after the seeds would seem to give them a stronger case, but would reduce the number of people they could extort money from.
In any event, when a user downloads a torrent, they don't make "every DVD and CD they own" available -- they only make available what's in the torrent, the parts they've already downloaded. As for the people who actually make the torrents and make them available -- I'm guessing that most of them are doing it in a way that makes it harder to sue them (i.e. being in a different country, using somebody else's IP address, etc.) since if they didn't, they'd likely get hit with lots of lawsuits.
I wasn't trying to be funny at all -- I was dead serious.
You seem to be approaching this from the angle of "people don't agree with me, therefore they must simply not understand, so I should give them a flawed analogy to help them see it my way".
Sorry, but I reject that angle. The situation is quite simple, and nobody needs you to confuse it just to help them see it your way. Instead, if you find that so many people don't agree with you, the thing to do is to re-evaluate your own case, and if you don't find flaws in your own position, try to change people's minds with facts rather than flawed analogies.
I don't really see any benefit to wikileaks releasing the information beyond "look what we have!" bragging -- but I don't see a whole lot of damage being done either (governments spy? who knew!). The true criminals are those who leaked the information -- if it's sensitive, secure it!
If you're relying on journalists to not publish things because it'll make you look bad, well, you've already lost. (And yes, wikileaks sees themselves as journalists of a sort -- and they are.)
Lets put this into a differn't set of terms.
Let's not. Analogies may be useful in explaining complicated concepts -- but this is not such a situation.
This is quite simple, simple enough that anybody can understand the actual facts without you "putting it into a differn't set of terms".
Not really. For them pulling this kind of shit, I've put them on a shit list for all future projects they throw up. I'll do nothing to encourage litigation being used as a money model.
And yet few people had even heard of the game until this point. And now we have, and I've pointed out that the original was a pretty good game. So far, I'd say the net effect has been positive for them -- somebody might buy their game who wasn't going to buy it before (can't buy it if you haven't heard of it.)
And really, saying they'll go after those who distribute their game without authorization is "this kind of shit"? I take it you also don't like the people who put up signs that said "looters will be shot" on their buildings during Katrina? Would it be better if they didn't put up the signs, and just shot the looters without warning? (I mean, yes, looters should realize that they get might get shot, but a warning might be good, yes? Similarly, those who use BT to download copyrighted stuff might realize they could get nailed for that (there's little anonymous about BT) and a warning might be good, yes?)
I haven't heard of the Witcher 2 (until now), but The Witcher (1) was a pretty good RPG game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher_(video_game)
If the sequel is as good as the first, it's well worth paying for. Having no DRM is a definite plus. Going after those who infringe on their copyrights ... well, it sounds like they've decided that any publicity is good publicity. And they may be right.
And really, I don't have any problems with them going after the pirates, especially if they make this "fine" a reasonable figure -- more than the cost of the game, but less than thousands of dollars.
it also applys to private individuals too
because if the cops or the government dose nothing to someone trying to limit or control your free speech
then they are effectively making a law prohibiting free speech
Um, no, it doesn't apply to private individuals.
Quite often when people cry "censorship!" they're really rallying against the idea that "freedom of the press belongs to those who own the press".
You have the right to free speech (with some minor exceptions.)
Individuals can't physically stop you from talking -- that would be assault of some sort. (And the police are supposed to do something about that, though that's not mandated by the Constitution.) But they can ask you to leave if you're on their private property, and they're under no obligation to let you use their printing press/radio station/web site/whatever to get your word out.
Please take note that the first word of the amendment is Congress and is followed by the absolute term "...shall make no law..." This means just what it states.
Actually, thanks to the Supreme Court, it doesn't mean just what it says.
It now applies to the states and local governments as well, not just to Congress.
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
Bob should just say this again, but replace VCR with Internet.
I'm sure glad the MPAA is here to tell me what the Founding Fathers intended!
For the more scientific people --
http://kimballlivingston.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Drela-DDWFTTW-Analysis.pdf
Drela's expertise in matters regarding aerodynamics is well known, and so if he supports the idea (and explains how it can work), that gives it far more credence than a video of a ruler being moved over a small model.
I haven't gone through the analysis step by step yet and I'm still pretty skeptical -- but if Drela says it's possible, it probably is. (Of course, there's no guarantee that this really is written by Drela, but even if it's not, the thing to do is still to verify the reasoning done in every step ...)
If You use a propeller, to do the pushing, then Your airfoil is exactly at such an angle to the wind.
Yes, but when the entire device is moving at the same speed as the wind, then the relative wind speed is zero and you can't extract any further energy from that.
The only way I can see to make this work is to "cheat" somehow -- a string pulling the contraption, storing energy in a spring, a hidden motor, going downhill, a day of gusty wind where the wind was a lot stronger a few seconds ago than it is now, etc.
The video with the toy and the ruler is nice, but if that really explains it -- then we don't even need any wind, and we've got a perpetual motion machine.
Ultimately, if this thing is going downwind faster than the wind yet powered by the wind -- then it's drag is going to make the wind even faster -- energy for nothing!
They don't do it directly downwind, however -- they do it at an angle to the wind. This guy says he's doing it directly downwind.
I'm skeptical of this claim -- though I'd like to see their analysis of why they say it works.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/nz/arguing_by_definition/
That's not what "by definition" means, and you know it.
Logic fail.
And Steam is a tool for depriving you of your rights, by definition.
Um, you know better than to make this sort of stupid claim. "By definition"? Really?
You certainly can claim that DRM removes your rights, and Steam include DRM, therefore it's purpose is to remove rights, but ... by definition?
In theory you could simply refuse to license to them, since infringement would be sorta implied by the act of a derivation which makes the original invention a part of itself
They don't need you to license to them. It's not like they have to use their patents themselves (they haven't built anything, just written up a bunch of "as vague as they can get away with" potential inventions) -- the patents are only there to make sure they get a part of whatever pie develops.
It is in their best interests for a pie to develop, but if one doesn't, well, they're not out an invention that cost them 15 years to develop (like you are) -- they're just out some money put into people writing up and filing some patents.
Though you could be right about the "in practice" part too.
the bar for patent-ability IS 'not obvious to an expert in the field'. not sure where this obvious to the layperson thing came from.
Not sure, but it would seem that I was wrong to repeat it.
Either way, when somebody surrounds a new invention/discovery with patents like this, most of them should be thrown out on a basis of that rule.
By default rm asks for confirmation before deleting a file. You have to override this behavior with the -f flag.
You're wrong. rm only asks for confirmation if it's given the -i flag or if you're doing something unusual like removing a file you don't have write access to.
Perhaps you have an alias set up that maps "rm" to "rm -i" -- it's a pretty common default alias, but it's a function of your *nix setup, not the rm command itself.
Well, they don't have to patent graphene itself -- they can just patent every possible application of it that they can think of.
That's really the way things seem to work -- if you patent something really awesome, somebody with a lot more lawyers will surround your invention with patents so it can't be used, even by you, without infringing on one of their patents. In general, these patents tend to be "obvious to the layperson" and therefore should be thrown out, but that requires lots of money, and it's easier to just pay their extortion money.
The system is screwed up. It would be even more screwed up if you needed a Nobel prize to protect yourself against it, but at least in this case it's not needed -- and doesn't even help.
The technology is pretty mundane. Here, you can buy one for $100 --
http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.25332
(I imagine the FBI's version would be fancier, might include some velcro, a 12v power input (or a much bigger battery) and maybe an external antenna, but the gist is the same.)
Usually the FBI hides things like this pretty well. I wonder if he had a reason to go looking for it?
It's not a compatibility layer. It's that programs compiled against 32 bit shared libraries need those 32 bit shared libraries to run, and this is going to be difficult to get past, short of making everything a static binary.
The additional speed and such makes the small amount of additional complexity well worth the trouble.
And really, under Linux in 2010, you don't need 32 bit programs for anything except some commercial software where they don't offer 64 bit versions. (To be fair, the situation is the same under Windows, except that since you don't get source to everything, you're stuck with what they provide -- and it's usually a 32 bit binary.)
I should also mention that the issue about getting "older programs to run" used to be a big deal -- but isn't any more. The old 32 bit binaries typically work after installing the 32 bit libraries needed (and they're usually part of the distribution) and most programs that have been maintained in the last five years or so compile and work on 64 bit distributions just fine.
I have 64 bit hardware but I run x86 based distros. 64 bit is only good for the extra ram maybe to the desktop user. And there still is a lot of issues getting older programs to run on a 64 bit distro.
The x86_64 architecture has more registers than i386 and can do some operations 64 bits at a time rather than 32 bits. This means that programs compiled to run on a 64 bit architecture are often significantly faster than those compiled to run on 32 bit architectures.
I think an average figure is 20% faster or so on the same hardware -- you get this simply by installing a 64 bit distribution and using 64 bit binaries. Your system can probably still run 32 bit binaries (if it has the right libraries) but they won't be faster.
The advantages go beyond a larger address space.
this is an exploit to gain "root" (administrator) access not a rootkit which is a malicious program built to hide itself from the operating system.
But the exploit leaves a backdoor (hell, it's right there in the summary) which *is* what a rootkit does.
Rootkits do typically hide themselves -- but only so they aren't removed, so they can provide root access at a later date. Their primary function is to provide root access at a later date -- which this exploit does, according to the summary.
Jury nullification exists in the US too -- it's just that not many people know about it.
And since the jury does not have to tell why they ruled the way they did, there's not really much that can be done to prevent it, once people are aware of the concept.
I should make it clear that my experience is in the US and I have no experience with Canadian juries, though I have no reason to believe that Canada's juries are any different in regards to the issues I mentioned.