That gets me thinking... If I put an electronic motor on that bicycle, do I have to have a GPS on it too? What about other devices that use gasoline, like boats? Do they need GPS? How about planes? Or R/C devices like cars, boats, and subs?
The power of BD+ is that they can do this without breaking existing players, because they can actually change the encryption on the new disks, while still supporting the existing players.
Everybody laughs that DRM can never succeed - but BD+ has taken DRM to an entirely new level. It is a shame so much brain power was devoted to hustling people - I like to think that if this same amount of intelligence were applied to legitimate problems, we might have a man on Mars, or a fusion power.
I guess I wasn't using "transformer" in the technical sense. I meant it as "the thing that transforms voltages" regardless of the technology.
A single larger switching power supply is likely going to consume more power than a number of smaller ones unless the thing is operating at full load most of the time.
Then why do we constantly see articles about data centers trying to eliminate the power supplies, and run low voltage lines? I thought the idea was to save power.
Once they do this, I hope someone makes an efficient multi-charger.
I collect wall warts. Some are 15 years old, and I can confirm that they got smaller over time. But what strikes me most is the Apple's transformers are often half the size (or less) of other transformers at the same power. It seems silly to me to have dozens of these things clustered onto one power strip, all with varying size, efficiency, and quality. It would be better to have one highly efficient transformer with multiple plugs, that could charge multiple devices.
Perhaps this decision is the first step toward achieving this.
Your complaints with copyright give me pause to think: but the complaints are along impractical cases. Yes, every router makes a copy - but then, doesn't every molecule copy the vibrations from the neighboring molecule? Where do we draw the line?
Reasonable application of copyright is not impacted by technology. By "reasonable" I mean, copies along a wire, copies in memory, etc - are not true copies. No more than my brain cells hearing and processing the sound are copies. The difference between my stance, and yours, appears to be that I assume a reasonable justice system would conclude these things. But as you say, this has not been adequately tested (well, it has, with a few cases - but very narrowly). But this failure is not a problem with copyright, it is a problem with our system of justice.
I am also a programmer. For every application I write which is released to the public, I voluntarily release the source code and selected binaries into the public domain...I am not destitute as a result..
Just because everything you choose to release your personally created software into the public domain, does not mean that all copyrightable works should be released into the public domain. It seems unlikely that you work as a programmer professionally, since very few companies can succeed by releasing software into the public domain. If you are profiting from writing public domain software, I would be intrigued to learn the business model.
Please propose to me a way to eliminate copyright, and still allow companies that make for-profit software to exist.
The only reasonable solution is to abolish copyright.
That conclusion does not follow from your above statements. Copyright has nothing to do with technology. Someone should be able to create something and sell it. The only ones who disagree are "consumers" who want everything, and contribute nothing. Or who think their contributions somehow entitle them to everything everyone else created.
I am a programmer. My wife is an artist. Many of my friends are writers. Without copyright, we would all be destitute. If you need proof - just look at history prior to copyright - authors made nothing, and artists existed only at the whim of the wealthy.
I want to design a download protocol that does this: - A user uploads a file to the service - A user can download the file - as the file is transferred to them, the bits are deleted from the source - The client PC then copies the bits, and sends them back
This would waste bandwidth, but it means the service is not making a copy of the file - it is moving the file. It just happens to be that the user is making the copy, then sending it back to the source. This should eliminate the liability of the service, since they are not doing the copying.
This is usually the point where someone chimes in and points out that normal languages aren't type-safe because units are not part of the type. Is it FORTRAN that they are always spouting? Sounds like this would be a good application of that.
If I put a CD into a safe deposit box, and I share the key with people - and they go to the box, copy the CD, then put the CD back... is the bank liable?
after several years it becomes difficult if not impossible to find the original file...We also use a fairly vigorous quality control system
How do you keep quality on your products, but not even keep your original documentation files? What happens if there is a change?
our drawings are created in autocad... unit conversions are not a trivial operation
The engineering team where I work uses Solidworks, and there are macros to do the conversions. Of course, those macros only work on the original files, not the printed documents...:-) So that brings us back to having lost the files...
They'd only see the plane leaving, not arriving, which is quite an interesting compromise, as every other stealth programme goes with the notion that it has to be invisible at all times.
A lot of those are influence by the cold war, where the idea is that no one even knew who performed the attack.
They could do that just fine under my proposed system. They just use the auto-generated number they get back.
This is how secure logins, credit card authorizations, etc, work. Ex: The retailer can do a return without knowing your card number because they just use the authorization number they got back when the initial charge was made.
Why can't they run the credit check, then discard the SSN? IF they need some number to update the credit history, then let the credit reporting agency give them some auto-generated account number at that time. There's lots of security benefits to doing that anyway.
I propose an alternate system I call "open healthcare" which basically amounts to "make health care like every other industry" There are 4 parts:
1. Forbid employers from sponsoring health care.
2. Eliminate enrollment periods
3. Eliminate tax breaks, or make them consistent
4. Require accurate labeling
5. Reasonable scope of coverage
Let me explain:
1) Forbid employers from sponsoring health care.
Employers don't sponsor cell phones, cable bills, car insurance,... so why health insurance? It gives large companies a competitive advantage, and puts individuals at a disadvantage. People who switch jobs frequently, such as younger people, students, contractors, or low-skill/wage workers are penalized when the only affordable health care is via their employer. Employees are told that they will pay $100/month for health insurance -- but then when they switch jobs they find it was $500/month, with the employer paying $400 of it, and now they are stuck with really expensive health care that they didn't need. Part of that is caused by enrollment periods when they switch jobs.
It also makes it difficult to compare jobs. I just met a new hire who switched jobs for the benefits -- only to realize that in reality, he will be paying more.:-(
2) Eliminate enrollment periods
- Businesses often only offer health insurance benefits if the employee has been there for a month, 6 months, or a year. This means that if someone switches jobs, they are stuck with their old plan, but without the employer paying for part of it. So they either pay a fortune (under a system like COBRA), go uninsured, or get their own private insurance
- Individuals often can't get insurance without waiting for an enrollment period. Some people don't even realize that you CAN get individual insurance. But insurance companies are setup to work with groups, so they are often reluctant to offer it. Imagine for a moment if you went to a store and took a can of peas up to the register, and then were told that unless you were already signed-up, you would have to wait until the enrollment period (3 months from now) before you could sign-up to buy the peas. That's silly, and that supermarket would go out of business. But this is how health insurance works, and they get away with it because there are very few alternatives, and all the companies do it.
3) Eliminate tax breaks, or make them consistent
- Employers get tax breaks for providing employee health care. Yet individuals do not. That's not fair to individuals and small businesses.
4) Require labeling
- Imagine a grocery store with no prices anywhere. You must go to the counter, then give them $100 per item. Then, at the end of the month, they return the difference between what you paid, and the actual price.
- Capitalism only works if the consumer can compare products and services accurately. Labeling laws achieve this in other sectors, and those should be extended to health insurance companies. They must be required to provide accurate, detailed, pricing information in a form that can be comparatively shopped. They need to provide enough information that someone can put together a scenario and know the cost. "Suppose I join today, then get XXXX performed next week, then YYY performed the next month, then I come down with ZZZZ and need AAA medication -- what will that cost?"
- Scott Adams calls health insurance a confuse-opoly. Health insurance companies do not disclose their costs accurately -- even to doctors! For example, they say they will pay 75% of covered services - but not tell you what services are covered. And 75% of what? The insurance company has a fee schedule, and a doctor must adhere to that fee schedule, but even the doctors aren't given a copy of it! They have to bill a higher amount, then see how much the insurance company provides!
5) Reasonable scope of coverage
- Insurance companies should be required to provide
True. The next question is "Which a-hole should have answered?"
And the key to THAT is "the who was legally required to answer." Hint: It wasn't the staffer.
It is frightening when a police officer can't even tell if you what they are doing is legal or not. What the heck are they doing enforcing the law if they don't know it, won't educate people about it, and can't follow it?
Slashdot Mirror
That gets me thinking... If I put an electronic motor on that bicycle, do I have to have a GPS on it too? What about other devices that use gasoline, like boats? Do they need GPS? How about planes? Or R/C devices like cars, boats, and subs?
The power of BD+ is that they can do this without breaking existing players, because they can actually change the encryption on the new disks, while still supporting the existing players.
Everybody laughs that DRM can never succeed - but BD+ has taken DRM to an entirely new level. It is a shame so much brain power was devoted to hustling people - I like to think that if this same amount of intelligence were applied to legitimate problems, we might have a man on Mars, or a fusion power.
I guess I wasn't using "transformer" in the technical sense. I meant it as "the thing that transforms voltages" regardless of the technology.
A single larger switching power supply is likely going to consume more power than a number of smaller ones unless the thing is operating at full load most of the time.
Then why do we constantly see articles about data centers trying to eliminate the power supplies, and run low voltage lines? I thought the idea was to save power.
Once they do this, I hope someone makes an efficient multi-charger.
I collect wall warts. Some are 15 years old, and I can confirm that they got smaller over time. But what strikes me most is the Apple's transformers are often half the size (or less) of other transformers at the same power. It seems silly to me to have dozens of these things clustered onto one power strip, all with varying size, efficiency, and quality. It would be better to have one highly efficient transformer with multiple plugs, that could charge multiple devices.
Perhaps this decision is the first step toward achieving this.
Your complaints with copyright give me pause to think: but the complaints are along impractical cases. Yes, every router makes a copy - but then, doesn't every molecule copy the vibrations from the neighboring molecule? Where do we draw the line?
Reasonable application of copyright is not impacted by technology. By "reasonable" I mean, copies along a wire, copies in memory, etc - are not true copies. No more than my brain cells hearing and processing the sound are copies. The difference between my stance, and yours, appears to be that I assume a reasonable justice system would conclude these things. But as you say, this has not been adequately tested (well, it has, with a few cases - but very narrowly). But this failure is not a problem with copyright, it is a problem with our system of justice.
I am also a programmer. For every application I write which is released to the public, I voluntarily release the source code and selected binaries into the public domain...I am not destitute as a result..
Just because everything you choose to release your personally created software into the public domain, does not mean that all copyrightable works should be released into the public domain. It seems unlikely that you work as a programmer professionally, since very few companies can succeed by releasing software into the public domain. If you are profiting from writing public domain software, I would be intrigued to learn the business model.
Please propose to me a way to eliminate copyright, and still allow companies that make for-profit software to exist.
The only reasonable solution is to abolish copyright.
That conclusion does not follow from your above statements. Copyright has nothing to do with technology. Someone should be able to create something and sell it. The only ones who disagree are "consumers" who want everything, and contribute nothing. Or who think their contributions somehow entitle them to everything everyone else created.
I am a programmer. My wife is an artist. Many of my friends are writers. Without copyright, we would all be destitute. If you need proof - just look at history prior to copyright - authors made nothing, and artists existed only at the whim of the wealthy.
I want to design a download protocol that does this:
- A user uploads a file to the service
- A user can download the file - as the file is transferred to them, the bits are deleted from the source
- The client PC then copies the bits, and sends them back
This would waste bandwidth, but it means the service is not making a copy of the file - it is moving the file. It just happens to be that the user is making the copy, then sending it back to the source. This should eliminate the liability of the service, since they are not doing the copying.
Interesting.
This is usually the point where someone chimes in and points out that normal languages aren't type-safe because units are not part of the type. Is it FORTRAN that they are always spouting? Sounds like this would be a good application of that.
If I put a CD into a safe deposit box, and I share the key with people - and they go to the box, copy the CD, then put the CD back... is the bank liable?
Wouldn't the code just do everything the same internally, then do the conversion on the output?
after several years it becomes difficult if not impossible to find the original file...We also use a fairly vigorous quality control system
How do you keep quality on your products, but not even keep your original documentation files? What happens if there is a change?
our drawings are created in autocad... unit conversions are not a trivial operation
The engineering team where I work uses Solidworks, and there are macros to do the conversions. Of course, those macros only work on the original files, not the printed documents... :-) So that brings us back to having lost the files...
They'd only see the plane leaving, not arriving, which is quite an interesting compromise, as every other stealth programme goes with the notion that it has to be invisible at all times.
A lot of those are influence by the cold war, where the idea is that no one even knew who performed the attack.
There is a theory that geothermal energy is not from the sun, but from the earth's core, which is radioactive.
On the other hand, support from *individual Americans*, that's completely different.
Interesting. So what the country does as a whole is something different from what the sum of the individuals do.
I'm not sure if you just defined democracy, or showed that we are not one.
Doesn't affect me either. I live in Kazakhstan, I don't even HAVE internet.
* Sent from my Blackberry wireless device
They could do that just fine under my proposed system. They just use the auto-generated number they get back.
This is how secure logins, credit card authorizations, etc, work. Ex: The retailer can do a return without knowing your card number because they just use the authorization number they got back when the initial charge was made.
went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.
I dislike the RIAA ties as much as any slashdotter, and I voted for RP in the primary, but really... this part really wasn't difficult.
Why can't they run the credit check, then discard the SSN? IF they need some number to update the credit history, then let the credit reporting agency give them some auto-generated account number at that time. There's lots of security benefits to doing that anyway.
I propose an alternate system I call "open healthcare" which basically amounts to "make health care like every other industry" There are 4 parts:
1. Forbid employers from sponsoring health care.
2. Eliminate enrollment periods
3. Eliminate tax breaks, or make them consistent
4. Require accurate labeling
5. Reasonable scope of coverage
Let me explain:
1) Forbid employers from sponsoring health care.
Employers don't sponsor cell phones, cable bills, car insurance, ... so why health insurance? It gives large companies a competitive advantage, and puts individuals at a disadvantage. People who switch jobs frequently, such as younger people, students, contractors, or low-skill/wage workers are penalized when the only affordable health care is via their employer. Employees are told that they will pay $100/month for health insurance -- but then when they switch jobs they find it was $500/month, with the employer paying $400 of it, and now they are stuck with really expensive health care that they didn't need. Part of that is caused by enrollment periods when they switch jobs.
It also makes it difficult to compare jobs. I just met a new hire who switched jobs for the benefits -- only to realize that in reality, he will be paying more. :-(
2) Eliminate enrollment periods
- Businesses often only offer health insurance benefits if the employee has been there for a month, 6 months, or a year. This means that if someone switches jobs, they are stuck with their old plan, but without the employer paying for part of it. So they either pay a fortune (under a system like COBRA), go uninsured, or get their own private insurance
- Individuals often can't get insurance without waiting for an enrollment period. Some people don't even realize that you CAN get individual insurance. But insurance companies are setup to work with groups, so they are often reluctant to offer it. Imagine for a moment if you went to a store and took a can of peas up to the register, and then were told that unless you were already signed-up, you would have to wait until the enrollment period (3 months from now) before you could sign-up to buy the peas. That's silly, and that supermarket would go out of business. But this is how health insurance works, and they get away with it because there are very few alternatives, and all the companies do it.
3) Eliminate tax breaks, or make them consistent
- Employers get tax breaks for providing employee health care. Yet individuals do not. That's not fair to individuals and small businesses.
4) Require labeling
- Imagine a grocery store with no prices anywhere. You must go to the counter, then give them $100 per item. Then, at the end of the month, they return the difference between what you paid, and the actual price.
- Capitalism only works if the consumer can compare products and services accurately. Labeling laws achieve this in other sectors, and those should be extended to health insurance companies. They must be required to provide accurate, detailed, pricing information in a form that can be comparatively shopped. They need to provide enough information that someone can put together a scenario and know the cost. "Suppose I join today, then get XXXX performed next week, then YYY performed the next month, then I come down with ZZZZ and need AAA medication -- what will that cost?"
- Scott Adams calls health insurance a confuse-opoly. Health insurance companies do not disclose their costs accurately -- even to doctors! For example, they say they will pay 75% of covered services - but not tell you what services are covered. And 75% of what? The insurance company has a fee schedule, and a doctor must adhere to that fee schedule, but even the doctors aren't given a copy of it! They have to bill a higher amount, then see how much the insurance company provides!
5) Reasonable scope of coverage
- Insurance companies should be required to provide
Except, under Linux, it isn't really that much easier to run as root. Actually - running as root is a hassle because many apps complain if you do so.
This has nothing to do with spectrum, and is not the FCC's jurisdiction. The FTC should be investigating this - and in 2006.
(Unrelated - why does my Karma bonus not work any longer? My Karma is Excellent)
No she didn't, and they can't, and THAT is yet another aspect of the real criminals in this case.
Of course they should not. I'm not saying the justification is valid.
What an interesting world, where misconfiguring a proxy in America gets someone in Iran killed.
True. The next question is "Which a-hole should have answered?"
And the key to THAT is "the who was legally required to answer." Hint: It wasn't the staffer.
It is frightening when a police officer can't even tell if you what they are doing is legal or not. What the heck are they doing enforcing the law if they don't know it, won't educate people about it, and can't follow it?