We do. I would also argue that anybody who is a serious enough computer geek to want to download the CD image would also have DSL, or cable internet which would decrease the DL time.
Well what you really need is basically a huge music server where you can pay 50 cents or a dollar for a song. They could have two copies of each song, one with dimished quality which would be free to allow you to sample without buying. The other would be in impeccible quality which would be the pay song.
Would people use something like this? I probably would. One thing I don't like about Napster is that the selection changes constantly, sometimes a file is mislabled or sounds like it was recorded through somebodys ass. I would certinly pay to get quality, but I hate paying $16 for two songs that I like and 10 songs I never want to hear again.
I don't have the time, resources or energy to try and set something like this up but I do think it wouldn't be that hard as long as you could get a bunch of artists together.
I am surprised the community here has such a static view of the law. Many people have expressed the opinion that "It's against the law, so don't even consider doing it". That is a valid viewpoint at times. However the law is (or at least should be) fluid, if society or technology changes the law should as well. It used to be legal to own slaves it now is not. It used to be illegal for blacks to crap in a "white" bathroom it is now legal. If everybody had the attitude that the law is the law these would never have been changed.
The original concept of stealing is that you take from somebody leaving you with said object and them without. IP rights had to be put in place because ideas or words can't be stolen in the original sense. Copyrights worked because it used to either take signifigant resources to copy a work properly, or the resultant quality was worsened. With a digital format I can make a perfect copy leaving the original intact in seconds with almost no resources used, it is clear we need to redress the law.
In the meantime I would suggest not buying CD's. If you really have time and energy write to groups that you like and say that if their music was in a digital format that you could pay them for you would buy it, but that you are unhappy with the current format options available. I am sure if enough artists realized that they could cut out the record companies and make $1 or 50 cents per song with almost all of that going straight to them they would jump on that.
So is there really an incentive to give your encryption key? You would give up your key to a locked cabinet or something like that because it's easy to brute force open something like that. If they do, then they wreck your cabinet. But there is no way to wreck your virtual cabinet that your data is in.
I agree that it is legal to make my own CD's and MP3's from originals that I own. But do you consider it legal if I made a mix CD for a friend for their birthday, just as people have made mix tapes in the past? If you believe that is legal what is the difference in giving out that same music free to anybody? Isn't the real illegality in profiting from redistributing copyrighted material?
Another point is that not everybody likes to, or can get their information from a computer. My Dad has no interest in ever using a computer, and my Mom hates reading off a screen. She doesn't think of internet news as "real" news.
I am young enough to get some kinds of news from the net, but classifieds and local news for smaller cities aren't real convinent to get from the net. Also as many have mentioned I read the paper in the morning while I have breakfast, and at that time of the morning I really don't feel like going downstairs to turn on the computer.
That is the same with me. I am at work for 8 hours a day, not counting lunch, and I am actually working maybe 5 per day. There are occasions when I have worked late, but that is because I get involved in something that, although I could leave until the next day, it would be more efficient to just finish while I am thinking about it.
I saw a news story over the weekend that here in Canada the government sells our census data with the names removed. Companies love detailed information with income brackets and personal tastes, all compiled by location.
Then this system is useless for preventing crime. If they have to wait until you commit a crime to approach you, then this system doesn't really improve over the current situation.
Not really, there aren't just two options: arresting somebody or leaving them alone. If somebody is acting suspicious the monitoring guard could get the patrol guard to just walk past the area, or the monitoring guard could do that himself if this is a small operation.
If a guard walks by everytime you start casing something you will quickly move to a less guarded place. I also don't think a guard walking by would offend innocents either.
So should we not improve ourselves? When somebody invented a better spear or club, or cultivated fire thousands of years ago was that not a good thing? The people that benefitted from the fire or spear thrived, those that didn't have access probably died. But that is the way it works.
These are major obstacles -- probably more challenging to us now than the obstacles facing the Apollo project were in the 1960's.
So you are saying that we shouldn't go because it's too difficult. What happened to the ideals Kennedy launched the Apollo project with "We choose to go to the moon not because it is easy but because it is difficult" Or something like that.
I work at a fairly small buisness ~ 20 people. We recently got a server and it's running Linux. It's used as a fileserver mostly, and nobody needs to know it's Linux. The user has W95/98 on their desk and it runs everything just fine. We saved quite a bit of money by going Linux.
What do you mean by "fit comfortably"? How many square feet each?
I ran some numbers on this, somebody correct me if it looks wrong. 6billion people / 261914 square miles area of texas (State of Texas website) = 22908 people/sqmi 5280 ft/mile squared/22908 = 1217 sq ft per person. Which is roughly a 35 foot square for each person. I wouldn't call that comfort, but it was more than I expected.
Or what about "synthesizing food to stop world hunger"? The major cause of famines is not lack of FOOD, but lack of MONEY. When you get right down to it, plant organisms are remarkably efficient at building food, far more efficient than robots building food could be. Enough food exists in the world for everyone to be fat and lazy, but the starving people can't afford to buy it.
This will be the biggest problem with more automation. If 90% of all work become automated should 90% of all people be out of work and poor? Or should everybody only have to work 10% as hard? My fear is that it will turn out to be more of the first than the second.
This idea is bad from the beginning, and it will lead to worse ones if its allowed to be put into practice, it may start with just the killing of severly retarded children, but that will lead to the killing of any newborn with any kind of birth defect and from there will lead to the killing of any imperfect child for any from being near sighted to haveing a oversized birthmark! allowing the euthenizing of children because of mental or physical retardation will lead us down a road that 50 years ago we fought to destroy.
Ah, the slippery slope argument. Are you saying that society is so inept that it is incapable of implementing a policy that won't degenerate to the lowest level? There is capital punishment in the States and many countries. By your argument killing a serial murderer would lead to killing an accidental murderer then to killing a robber then killing a jaywalker. Has it?
Eugenics of this sort could also work against the survival of the species. Sometimes a 'defect' may give a person a better chance of survival than a 'normal' person. An example is sickle cell aneamea which is eventualy fatal but provides some resistance to malaria which is more rapidly fatal, thus improving the viability of the population in a Malaria rich environment. I see that, but nobody is suggesting you kill everybody who has sickle cell aneamea (at least I don't think anybody is). But if somebody is so disabled that they can't do anything for themselves how is keeping them alive going to be of use to anybody? Eugenics is one of the best examples of a slippery slope we have. In general society has chosen not to venture on to that slope. I just don't see why society should have to pay the cost of caring for somebody who has never been and never will be a benefit to society.
The article was worse than the story on the CBC news. The way I understood the news story was that this was aimed at bill payments first. The stat they gave was that 59 million bills were paid with bank machines and that means 59 million stamps not sold. They are not planning to interfere with regular mail.
The other interesting thing from the news story was that they seemed to make no attempt to get more into the package delivery field which has boomed since more people are buying stuff online. Especially since they would be perfectly suited to do so.
Communism and socialism have been given their shot, and left a legacy of economic failure and human misery for all to see.
Another thing people forget when using the "Communism has been tried and failed" argument is the circumstances around it's attempt. Russia was backward compared to the other western nations before WW2 they advanced signifigantly before and during the war. After the war where they lost 20 million people and had their industrial base burnt to the ground, they were forced into a cold war with the Americans who lost 300k and none of their industrial base during the war. In order to keep the Americans from nuking the hell out of them Russia had to pump money into their military instead of into helping their people. This is where you get the infamous food lines everybody uses as evidence of the failure of Communism. I'd like to see the eastern seaboard burned to the ground and see how well the US recovers with a hostile power threatening them constantly.
What is the reason for lumping together the two types of attacks?
I would think it's because they are both terrorist style attacks. Attacks that have the ability to effect a great many people or to great harm to a target, but that can be launched by a small enough organization that no deterrant (ie MAD) would be effective.
Slashdot Mirror
When the first 3 y-wings go into the trench you get the *front* deflector screens line.
So I wasn't the only one who's first thought when reading this was "Well I am sure there is no way the Russians can fuck this up"
Machine vision wouldn't have to distinguish between an actual pedestrian and a bus stop ad. I don't want to run over either of them.
We do. I would also argue that anybody who is a serious enough computer geek to want to download the CD image would also have DSL, or cable internet which would decrease the DL time.
Except that you are supposed to pay GST and PST (if it applies) to purchases from the states. I had to pay both for my dell I ordered from the states.
Well what you really need is basically a huge music server where you can pay 50 cents or a dollar for a song. They could have two copies of each song, one with dimished quality which would be free to allow you to sample without buying. The other would be in impeccible quality which would be the pay song.
Would people use something like this? I probably would. One thing I don't like about Napster is that the selection changes constantly, sometimes a file is mislabled or sounds like it was recorded through somebodys ass. I would certinly pay to get quality, but I hate paying $16 for two songs that I like and 10 songs I never want to hear again.
I don't have the time, resources or energy to try and set something like this up but I do think it wouldn't be that hard as long as you could get a bunch of artists together.
Some very good points.
I am surprised the community here has such a static view of the law. Many people have expressed the opinion that "It's against the law, so don't even consider doing it". That is a valid viewpoint at times. However the law is (or at least should be) fluid, if society or technology changes the law should as well. It used to be legal to own slaves it now is not. It used to be illegal for blacks to crap in a "white" bathroom it is now legal. If everybody had the attitude that the law is the law these would never have been changed.
The original concept of stealing is that you take from somebody leaving you with said object and them without. IP rights had to be put in place because ideas or words can't be stolen in the original sense. Copyrights worked because it used to either take signifigant resources to copy a work properly, or the resultant quality was worsened. With a digital format I can make a perfect copy leaving the original intact in seconds with almost no resources used, it is clear we need to redress the law.
In the meantime I would suggest not buying CD's. If you really have time and energy write to groups that you like and say that if their music was in a digital format that you could pay them for you would buy it, but that you are unhappy with the current format options available. I am sure if enough artists realized that they could cut out the record companies and make $1 or 50 cents per song with almost all of that going straight to them they would jump on that.
So is there really an incentive to give your encryption key? You would give up your key to a locked cabinet or something like that because it's easy to brute force open something like that. If they do, then they wreck your cabinet. But there is no way to wreck your virtual cabinet that your data is in.
I agree that it is legal to make my own CD's and MP3's from originals that I own. But do you consider it legal if I made a mix CD for a friend for their birthday, just as people have made mix tapes in the past? If you believe that is legal what is the difference in giving out that same music free to anybody? Isn't the real illegality in profiting from redistributing copyrighted material?
Another point is that not everybody likes to, or can get their information from a computer. My Dad has no interest in ever using a computer, and my Mom hates reading off a screen. She doesn't think of internet news as "real" news.
I am young enough to get some kinds of news from the net, but classifieds and local news for smaller cities aren't real convinent to get from the net. Also as many have mentioned I read the paper in the morning while I have breakfast, and at that time of the morning I really don't feel like going downstairs to turn on the computer.
I would pay money to hear Celine Dion singing Uncle Fucka.
That is the same with me. I am at work for 8 hours a day, not counting lunch, and I am actually working maybe 5 per day. There are occasions when I have worked late, but that is because I get involved in something that, although I could leave until the next day, it would be more efficient to just finish while I am thinking about it.
I saw a news story over the weekend that here in Canada the government sells our census data with the names removed. Companies love detailed information with income brackets and personal tastes, all compiled by location.
Most people I know use "Who Hoo" more than the others you mentioned.
Not really, there aren't just two options: arresting somebody or leaving them alone. If somebody is acting suspicious the monitoring guard could get the patrol guard to just walk past the area, or the monitoring guard could do that himself if this is a small operation.
If a guard walks by everytime you start casing something you will quickly move to a less guarded place. I also don't think a guard walking by would offend innocents either.
So should we not improve ourselves? When somebody invented a better spear or club, or cultivated fire thousands of years ago was that not a good thing? The people that benefitted from the fire or spear thrived, those that didn't have access probably died. But that is the way it works.
These are major obstacles -- probably more challenging to us now than the obstacles facing the Apollo project were in the 1960's.
So you are saying that we shouldn't go because it's too difficult. What happened to the ideals Kennedy launched the Apollo project with "We choose to go to the moon not because it is easy but because it is difficult" Or something like that.
I work at a fairly small buisness ~ 20 people. We recently got a server and it's running Linux. It's used as a fileserver mostly, and nobody needs to know it's Linux. The user has W95/98 on their desk and it runs everything just fine. We saved quite a bit of money by going Linux.
I ran some numbers on this, somebody correct me if it looks wrong. 6billion people / 261914 square miles area of texas (State of Texas website) = 22908 people/sqmi 5280 ft/mile squared /22908 = 1217 sq ft per person. Which is roughly a 35 foot square for each person. I wouldn't call that comfort, but it was more than I expected.
This will be the biggest problem with more automation. If 90% of all work become automated should 90% of all people be out of work and poor? Or should everybody only have to work 10% as hard? My fear is that it will turn out to be more of the first than the second.
This idea is bad from the beginning, and it will lead to worse ones if its allowed to be put into practice, it may start with just the killing of severly retarded children, but that will lead to the killing of any newborn with any kind of birth defect and from there will lead to the killing of any imperfect child for any from being near sighted to haveing a oversized birthmark! allowing the euthenizing of children because of mental or physical retardation will lead us down a road that 50 years ago we fought to destroy.
Ah, the slippery slope argument. Are you saying that society is so inept that it is incapable of implementing a policy that won't degenerate to the lowest level? There is capital punishment in the States and many countries. By your argument killing a serial murderer would lead to killing an accidental murderer then to killing a robber then killing a jaywalker. Has it?
Eugenics of this sort could also work against the survival of the species. Sometimes a 'defect' may give a person a better chance of survival than a 'normal' person. An example is sickle cell aneamea which is eventualy fatal but provides some resistance to malaria which is more rapidly fatal, thus improving the viability of the population in a Malaria rich environment.
I see that, but nobody is suggesting you kill everybody who has sickle cell aneamea (at least I don't think anybody is). But if somebody is so disabled that they can't do anything for themselves how is keeping them alive going to be of use to anybody? Eugenics is one of the best examples of a slippery slope we have. In general society has chosen not to venture on to that slope. I just don't see why society should have to pay the cost of caring for somebody who has never been and never will be a benefit to society.
The article was worse than the story on the CBC news. The way I understood the news story was that this was aimed at bill payments first. The stat they gave was that 59 million bills were paid with bank machines and that means 59 million stamps not sold. They are not planning to interfere with regular mail.
The other interesting thing from the news story was that they seemed to make no attempt to get more into the package delivery field which has boomed since more people are buying stuff online. Especially since they would be perfectly suited to do so.
Communism and socialism have been given their shot, and left a legacy of economic failure and human misery for all to see.
Another thing people forget when using the "Communism has been tried and failed" argument is the circumstances around it's attempt. Russia was backward compared to the other western nations before WW2 they advanced signifigantly before and during the war. After the war where they lost 20 million people and had their industrial base burnt to the ground, they were forced into a cold war with the Americans who lost 300k and none of their industrial base during the war. In order to keep the Americans from nuking the hell out of them Russia had to pump money into their military instead of into helping their people. This is where you get the infamous food lines everybody uses as evidence of the failure of Communism. I'd like to see the eastern seaboard burned to the ground and see how well the US recovers with a hostile power threatening them constantly.
What is the reason for lumping together the two types of attacks?
I would think it's because they are both terrorist style attacks. Attacks that have the ability to effect a great many people or to great harm to a target, but that can be launched by a small enough organization that no deterrant (ie MAD) would be effective.