Why was I modded troll? Is any comment that says anything about a subject in a political context always assumed to be a troll? I fail to see why that is deserved.
was a study for a such a thing, really necessary. It's pretty much common sense. The purpose of scientific studies is to confirm things based on actual evidence, so that we don't have to draw conclusions based on intuition. You would be surprised how many studies have resulted in findings that are contradictory to what the average person would assume based on common sense.
but if there, would you be allowed to know of them, without having a TS yourself?
I would say yes, because there are laws governing what will happen to you if you reveal certain levels of information, i.e. TS is defined as having the potential to cause "exceptionally grave" damage to national security if disclosed inappropriately. I imagine this would carry a more stiff penalty than say releasing some mundane info that was classified as "Confidential". Having a secret level above TS causes certain problems:
1. If you are not aware of any classified scheme above TS, then how will you know such information is actually classified if you come across it. Like if I were to stumble across a folder that had a classification stamp of "ULTRA SENSITIVE QUARANTINED" I would not have any qualms discussing the contents if I so chose because I would assume the documents to be fake or otherwise not associated with the gov since that is not an official gov classification scheme.
2. If I were indeed to disclose such information how would I be prosecuted? There are no laws against disclosing ULTRA SENSITIVE QUARANTINED information, so I don't see how a case could be made. Unless of course the laws themselves were secret and a court were to rule that you could be punished even though the law was unknowable to you. But lets not even go there.
Won't happen. Apple never uses the top graphics cards, they always pick from among the bottom or a few generations back.
Example, their current pro portable chip is the 8600M, not the current fastest one they could have gone with, and they even underclocked it below its standard speed.
Just wanted to respond to this, I agree with most of your post but you're off on this figure by about two orders of magnitude. Professional recording on the level done for a major label release along with professional mixing and mastering is easily $50k-100k if you want a top tier sound.
For smaller label or independent releases it can be done for much less of course, primarily because engineers and producers are paid less and production processes are more streamlined. But in the context you mentioned (a platinum RIAA artist) $1000 is not going to cut it.
Indeed, I find it fascinating when labels or musicians insist on trashing college (and high school) kids on their music purchasing preferences, suing them, or otherwise treating them like crap when most of their revenue comes from this same audience. That sort of policy will certainly encourage them to give you more of their money.:rollseyes:
The industry's only hope of recovering is to realize that their model needs to change to reflect current trends. I am in college and while I have downloaded music for free occasionally, I know a lot of people that do not. What I have also noticed is that regardless of whether people I know download or not, very few buy new music on CDs anymore. Some just listen to old (70s, 80s) music, and others I would assume can't afford to buy it. But whatever the reason, the younger generation seems to be saying to the industry "hey industry, we are no longer interested in the product you are offering and/or the way that you are offering it".
So, instead of attempting to find out why this has taken place and shift their focus to offering a product that the market does want and will pay for, they have instead attempted to force continuation of the antiquated distribution mechanisms through litigation. This is a strategy that will ultimately end in failure, for obvious reasons which are too numerous to list. The real question is whether the industry will realize this and adapt before they go totally bankrupt. I suspect they will not and it will thus take the dissolution of the current structure before any permanent future strategy can be designed. It may have already been realized to some extent with the current increase in non-DRM digital outlets, although I am not sure if any of the current ones represent the final form of what the market is demanding.
Of course, there is another more insidious element of the industry's "kicking and screaming" approach and that is the efforts they have taken to buy off the legislature. If they can succeed in getting their non-economically viable business models made mandatory by forcing them upon us as the law of the land, then it will take significantly longer for the questions of future distribution models to be worked out.
I would love to see an online archive of Babylon 5, Star Trek:TNG, Law & Order, 24, or any of the other TV shows that I watch. If I could go back and watch my favorite episode at the click of a button and the only downside was a few ads (that I'd see on TV anyway) how am I losing? www.tv-links.co.uk
From the sounds of it, Sony-BMG have no idea how much actual monetary damage she did them, and pulled a ridiculously large figure out of their ass.
The JURY pulled the figure out of their collective asses.
The plaintiffs do not set the damages that are awarded to themselves. The judge/jury does that.
Yes, I realize the difference between criminal and civil. Sometimes convicted/found guilty/found liable et al just run together. At the rate the current media lobby is progressing though, I suspect it might not be long before we will start seeing laws providing jail time for filesharing. Like I said in my comment above though, maybe this case will provide a court test of the current statutory damages which also absurd and get those thrown out. That would be a step in the right direction.
Well it still could be a cruel and unusual punishment, cruel because it could bankrupt her and/or ruin her life, and unusual because it is rather large for the crime that was committed, especially considering that we don't know whether any infringement actually took place, she was convicted just on the "making available" part.
This may be the first intelligent thing this women has done in this case. I mean she was obviously guilty, lied in an attempt to cover it up, and miserably failed to prove anything to the contrary at trial.
This position on the other hand is very well reasoned. $200k+ is completely outrageous damages even assuming a large number of people downloaded the material she made available. Hopefully there will be a judgement against this damage award that will call attention to how excessively high the statutory damages are, and might even overturn that part of the law.
haha ok but, you're forgetting the third and most likely option. They don't report it but they also are not identity thieves. I just shredded it and threw it away.
Seems like a lot of companies out there today do not give the proper effort required to make even rudimentary considerations to the security of client data.
This reminds me of an experience I had a few weeks ago. This is 100% true.
I was sitting in a subway station waiting for a train. I sat down on a bench and noticed a plain unmarked vanilla envelope sitting on the bench next to me. There was no one else around so it was obvious whoever it belonged to had left it. I opened it and discovered it was several pages of customer records for a hotel chain (don't remember which). It had their names, what nights they had stayed, some additional information, and their FULL credit card numbers they had used to pay printed next to the names. I was amazed that someone would just leave this kind of information lying around anywhere for anyone to find.
Slashdot Mirror
Why was I modded troll? Is any comment that says anything about a subject in a political context always assumed to be a troll? I fail to see why that is deserved.
Why would you want to use technology from 30 years ago?
All of that "electronic junk" has the potential to make newer rockets much safer than classic ones.
Besides the Ares V has a larger lift capacity than the Saturn V anyway.
The Saturn V was a great lifter for its time but almost every component it was made of has much better versions available today.
We could have been going in 5 years instead of 25 if we as a species/world community had better priorities.
(example: 500 billion in Iraq, more than enough to fund the complete development and production of everything that would be needed)
1. If you are not aware of any classified scheme above TS, then how will you know such information is actually classified if you come across it. Like if I were to stumble across a folder that had a classification stamp of "ULTRA SENSITIVE QUARANTINED" I would not have any qualms discussing the contents if I so chose because I would assume the documents to be fake or otherwise not associated with the gov since that is not an official gov classification scheme.
2. If I were indeed to disclose such information how would I be prosecuted? There are no laws against disclosing ULTRA SENSITIVE QUARANTINED information, so I don't see how a case could be made. Unless of course the laws themselves were secret and a court were to rule that you could be punished even though the law was unknowable to you. But lets not even go there.
Won't happen. Apple never uses the top graphics cards, they always pick from among the bottom or a few generations back.
Example, their current pro portable chip is the 8600M, not the current fastest one they could have gone with, and they even underclocked it below its standard speed.
For smaller label or independent releases it can be done for much less of course, primarily because engineers and producers are paid less and production processes are more streamlined. But in the context you mentioned (a platinum RIAA artist) $1000 is not going to cut it.
Only old robotic overlords have to show cause.
In Soviet Korea, robotic overlords drive over old people.....while fucking natalie portman.
Indeed, I find it fascinating when labels or musicians insist on trashing college (and high school) kids on their music purchasing preferences, suing them, or otherwise treating them like crap when most of their revenue comes from this same audience. That sort of policy will certainly encourage them to give you more of their money. :rollseyes:
The industry's only hope of recovering is to realize that their model needs to change to reflect current trends. I am in college and while I have downloaded music for free occasionally, I know a lot of people that do not. What I have also noticed is that regardless of whether people I know download or not, very few buy new music on CDs anymore. Some just listen to old (70s, 80s) music, and others I would assume can't afford to buy it. But whatever the reason, the younger generation seems to be saying to the industry "hey industry, we are no longer interested in the product you are offering and/or the way that you are offering it".
So, instead of attempting to find out why this has taken place and shift their focus to offering a product that the market does want and will pay for, they have instead attempted to force continuation of the antiquated distribution mechanisms through litigation. This is a strategy that will ultimately end in failure, for obvious reasons which are too numerous to list. The real question is whether the industry will realize this and adapt before they go totally bankrupt. I suspect they will not and it will thus take the dissolution of the current structure before any permanent future strategy can be designed. It may have already been realized to some extent with the current increase in non-DRM digital outlets, although I am not sure if any of the current ones represent the final form of what the market is demanding.
Of course, there is another more insidious element of the industry's "kicking and screaming" approach and that is the efforts they have taken to buy off the legislature. If they can succeed in getting their non-economically viable business models made mandatory by forcing them upon us as the law of the land, then it will take significantly longer for the questions of future distribution models to be worked out.
Detective: I just found the key on her hard drive!
Sherrif: Excellent work Smith, send it over to me so I can unlock this file.
opening...mysecretkey.pem
Contents:
------BEGIN PRIVATE KEY------
HAHA! Tricked you, you fat donut stuffing pig.
You actually think you're getting my data if I don't fucking want you to?!
------END PRIVATE KEY------
Detective: Um...sir, I think I may have accidentally deleted the key.
You must be new here.
By classifying this data, the FBI helped to ensure that it was posted prominently on Slashdot for thousands of people to read.
I bet if they had just left the original version posted, not many people would have even noticed it.
Most of the actual content was hosted on foreign servers in asia/europe, so a DMCA takedown notice would have done diddly squat to remove it.
Alluc.org
I just meant because we already have laws that say you can go to jail for bringing a video camera into a movie theater, which seems equally absurd.
That is a good link. It certainly seems that these damages are indeed "grossly excessive" as defined in that decision.
The JURY pulled the figure out of their collective asses.
The plaintiffs do not set the damages that are awarded to themselves. The judge/jury does that.
Yes, I realize the difference between criminal and civil. Sometimes convicted/found guilty/found liable et al just run together. At the rate the current media lobby is progressing though, I suspect it might not be long before we will start seeing laws providing jail time for filesharing. Like I said in my comment above though, maybe this case will provide a court test of the current statutory damages which also absurd and get those thrown out. That would be a step in the right direction.
Well it still could be a cruel and unusual punishment, cruel because it could bankrupt her and/or ruin her life, and unusual because it is rather large for the crime that was committed, especially considering that we don't know whether any infringement actually took place, she was convicted just on the "making available" part.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
This may be the first intelligent thing this women has done in this case. I mean she was obviously guilty, lied in an attempt to cover it up, and miserably failed to prove anything to the contrary at trial.
This position on the other hand is very well reasoned. $200k+ is completely outrageous damages even assuming a large number of people downloaded the material she made available. Hopefully there will be a judgement against this damage award that will call attention to how excessively high the statutory damages are, and might even overturn that part of the law.
haha ok but, you're forgetting the third and most likely option. They don't report it but they also are not identity thieves. I just shredded it and threw it away.
Seems like a lot of companies out there today do not give the proper effort required to make even rudimentary considerations to the security of client data. This reminds me of an experience I had a few weeks ago. This is 100% true. I was sitting in a subway station waiting for a train. I sat down on a bench and noticed a plain unmarked vanilla envelope sitting on the bench next to me. There was no one else around so it was obvious whoever it belonged to had left it. I opened it and discovered it was several pages of customer records for a hotel chain (don't remember which). It had their names, what nights they had stayed, some additional information, and their FULL credit card numbers they had used to pay printed next to the names. I was amazed that someone would just leave this kind of information lying around anywhere for anyone to find.