I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the software-industry/IFPI/RIAA - and in fact EVERY entity making a living of pure digitalised works - is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music/software/movie. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see former aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Ofcourse they *claim* they are suffering, and that it's all due to online d/l, but it's far from being a scientific valid causility. And frankly, even if it were true, it is partly their own fault, and partly because their sort of business (as it is today) has simply become obsolete.
Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare [sourceforge.net].
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
In my country there is a consumer-protection magazine (probably most western countries have something like that) who looked into CD-R's and their longlivety.
Turns out, that 60% of the cheaper CD-R(W)s (though some 'big names' as well) were mechanically corrupted after 20 months, even when they were conserved in prestine conditions, after the burning.
So much for extended periods of time which not to worry about! Put bluntly: CD-R(W)s are crappy for archiving things, and I can't recommend libraries or the BBC archiving anything on that, unless they plan on frequent re-transferring it.
For long-term archiving, maybe one should look into the laser-ruby method, where the data is stored by 'punching' holes with laserlight (of a perticular frequency) into a ruby. It had the potential for *vast* storage, and very-long term archiving (thousands of years). I don't think it was re-writable, but the biggest problem was making big enough, pure rubies...with the current relatively cheap but yet high-quality synthetic diamant/ruby making procedures, this would be no problem anymore.
I read it in some science book or magazine years ago, but since I'm no physicist myself, I'm not going to debate it endlessly.
As far as I can remember it also covered light in a vacuum, since in a medium where light is slowed down, it's not very farfetched and rather obvious to expect it is possible for photons to be faster *in that medium*.
I think the theory was, that particles with no mass and with the speed of light (or subatomic particles very close to the speed of light) might make a 'quantum-jump' and go faster then light. Nothing prohibits something going faster then light, as far as I recall, just reaching that point is deemed impossible. But for quantummechanical particles you have a possibility thanks to the strange laws governing there.
Well, whatever, if you say it's absolutely impossible, I'll bow to your wisdom!;-)
But that wouldn't still explain Gmail having less protection then the other mailservices. Even outlook has a function to search; does that give the DoJ the right to snoop in it because it's a 'searchengine'?
Besides...how *do* they know you have read those emails before they have actually seized them, and how can they seize them (without a warrant) with the excuse that it's in a 'lower legal' status if they actually have no right to do so, if the emails are not read?
It's sort off the chicken&egg problem. One that I hope will will make scrambled eggs out of their reasonings.
As for the EFF...the moment they will sponsor Freenet, I will donate something to them;-)
I didn't know you were argumenting semantics. I try to avoid that, since it never leads to anything constructive.
For all normal purposes in this discussion, the 'speed of light' is regarded as a constant. Otherwise, playing semantics, this leads to meaningless statements. For instance; what if another quantum-particle achieves faster-then-light speed, even if it ain't a photon? Using semantics, I could argue that it's not exceeding the speed of light at all, because it's not a photon.
The whole thing would become stranded in the absurdity of pedantic semantic definitions.
While not an absolute fact (there never is, in science), the concept of faster-then-light photons is *not* ridiculed or disregarded by physicists.
For instance, Professor Feynman is a distinguished physicist who has explained the theory behind it many times. (He is also a member of the American Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the National Academy of Science; in 1965 he was elected a foreign member of the Royal Society, London (Great Britain)...)
I know it's a deeply believed dogma that nothing can go faster then light, but, for quantummechanical particles, the data suggests it *is* possible.
'If need be, the mail can be held temporarily unencrypted before delivery to the user (because then it has ECPA protection) and thus indexed and tied to ads.'
As far as I know, your email is still protected as email, even *when* encrypted, so the real reason not to do it right away, is the latter: commercial issues; tying it to ads.
Google might be a good company, but the author is being overly apologetic, IMHO.
And I also do not understand his reasoning to doubt if Gmail would have the same protection as other mail, because it can be searched. The point seems absurd: G*mail* is still portayed as a *mail*service, isn't it? And people have the the expectation that it's for emailing, not for using it as a search/database.
When the prime function is email (which even google itself won't deny), then there is no reason why this emailservice would have lower legal protection then any other.
While I sometimes have my misgivings about the human race - sometimes even downright cynical - I must say that on the other side, we have a wonderfull way of improving ourselves (at least in a technical sense) and solve problems.
The data-speed limit that is being portrayed here as an unsurmountable barrier is only a small hickup to the road of eternally improving (in this case, speeding up) our technical tools. It always makes me remember my former professor, which was a wise man, but of an older generation and rather conservative of what humans are capable of. He always claimed this or that barrier would never be broken or that it would take ages (the human genome project was one of his pet-topics: when it was started, he predicted it would take at least half a century to unrafel our genetic code, but, a decade later, here we are;-).
The fact is, I think there is little to no limit in our problem solving capabilities, and this is one more example. note that they are talking about *magnetic* datastorage/retrieval and transfer. while it is certainly true that electrons and magnetic bits will come to a boundary not to far away in the future, this, by no means, will be the end of our immer increasing speed-improvement.
For instance, we are already working on lighttransfer (actually, fibercables already do that), lightswitches and new photon-based storage mechanisms. (In fact, wasn't there a/. article not too long ago, which told about a new holographic storagedecice?) As everyone knows, light travels way faster then any electron does, so we're not at the end of the road yet.
And sen the recent article about entangled photons, maybe even the light speed isn't a barrier. (Though, admitedly, the carrier itself still has to be send, which doesn't exceed lightspeed, of course).
That photons can be slowed down is not even disputed anymore, there have been numerous examples of it in various degrees (depending on the medium it passes through). I even believe there was a slashdot-article about it, when some researchers managed to slow it down to a crawl.
For faster then light photons (obviously, only possible with non-mass quantummechanical particles) there is more discusion about it, since it's extremely difficult to prove. However, this experiment actually *would* be a possible contestant in proving the hypothesis.
I dunno why you got a zero for that remark, but actually you are right. I've mentionned it in my post too, and there I got a 4, so I dunno how the moderating-system works around here:-).
There *is*, in fact, a theory that tries to explain it by the hypothesis of parallel universes.
Indeed, a switch could never actually use the quantums too determine the direction it should send it too, without altering it. However, a purely lightreflecting switch would not alter anything, it would merely reflect the photons (as does the glass-cable now).
Remains the question how to determine the destination...I suppose a sequence of photons that may be altered could do the trick, after which the actual message comes (once the destination has been reached).
An interesting theory trying to explain this seemingly inexplicable result, is by taking the hypothetical possibility that the bands are created by photons that exceed the speed of light. Only when they revert to another (visible) quantummechanical state (by hitting the wall, for instance) do they become noticable.
This is not impossible, because, contrary to what most ppl think, lightspeed is in fact an average; within one beam, there can be photons that are moving slightly slower, and photons that move slightly faster then the speed of light.
This, however, leads to the conclusion that those particular photons come from - at least potentially - another time or space. So, the film 'paycheck' might not be complete bullocks after all (though it's doubtfull we are ever going to be able to create a usefull 'time-viewing' tool out of it).
Then again, never say never, as Bill Gates with his '640K is enough for everyone' can vow.
The theory about another 'space', in contrast, leads us to the possibility that those photons actually come from parallell universes. It seems SF, but it are, in effect, valid scientific hypotheses which deserve further investigation.
After all, apart from these theories, there *is* no explication for the result of that experiment.
This is really amazing; think of the possibilities that this offers. If this sort of system gets affordable, mass-produced and hits the market, it will invoke a whole new era of communication!
Gone are the hackers who snif out passwords and creditcardnumbers; the moment they try to intercept it, it is discovered. Brute force attacks become meaningless, since the key is generated completely at random and is of a one-path nature, which is theoretically proven to be unbreakable (in contrast with every ordinary assymetric - and most symmetric - encryption used today on the Net).
An those old encryption methods and mathimatical formula's *will* become obsolete, by that very same thing: quantum mechanics. It's no secret that a lot of people (especially in the military branche) are working hard to create a quantum-computer capable of breaking any currently existing encryption in mere minutes.
So, by the time this quantum-encrytion hits the consumer, we'll need it!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the IFPI/RIAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see former aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Ofcourse they *claim* they are suffering, and that it's all due to online d/l, but it's far from being a scientific valid causility. And frankly, even if it were true, it is partly their own fault, and partly because their sort of business (as it is today) has simply become obsolete.
Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare.
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
I've said it before; probes can't colonise. And I think colonising planets is a survival advantage which is important enough to keep funding human exploration alongside robotic-exploration.
Saying 'but let's wait untill things get cheaper' is a non-argument: one can ALWAYS say that, because, even if hardware becomes a hundredfold cheaper, it STILL will be more expensive to send humans, and by that time, robots will be so flexible that they rival or surpass humans.
But that's not the point; unless we send self-replicating intelligent robots that we consider to be our heirs, and sit back and die out as a species ourselves, we STILL have to continue exploring and colonising planets.
13 year olds are ALREADY doing that, though they call it 'sharing their beloved music with friends'.
I doubt their is any such thing as a/. plan, but no plan still beats the plan of the RIAA to sue 12y-olds.
Feel free to make a post that actually tries to argument a viewpoint with rationality, instead of just making a sneer based on emotions and personal opinions.
Your first three paragraphs are quite true, but have no bearing at all on what I was saying. I was saying that the claim those companies make that 'It is just the same as stealing from a shop' (actual quote) is false.
It does not matter what kind of contract they have with the musicians, nor if they are owners, nor if I or anyone else agreed to the licence. The *statement* is false. If I go to a shop, see some vase, let's say, and I copy that vase at home, can the shop or the owner accuse me of stealing his vase? No. (at least not icn the jurisdiction I live). I *could* be breaking copyright or some patents, yes, but I would not be charged with stealing it from the shop.
The RIAA claims one could, if one does exactly the same, but instead of a vase, with one of their CDs. THAT is what is absurd, and what I was arguing.
The problem with your line of reasoning, is that it starts from the established point of copyrights that we have developped into today, and do not try to see outside the framework that is now almost considered a natural right. but it isn't, and, in fact, it never was. It's very clear (whatever the Supreme Court says about it) that the founding fathers meant it to be a right of limited scope and duration, to *stimulate* new and innovative works, and then bring it to the public good.
This, clearly, has been perverted and corrupted in a system that has virtual no limitations anymore, and which main goal is the squeeze as much money and profit out of it by and for the middle-man; corporations that have huge profits but hardly create anything innovative themselves, and, in fact, try their best to stiffle innovation when they feel threatened.
You think 'asking to reform' will do actually amount to anything, since it would mean they practically vanish from the scene? Me thinks not. I think the chance of that happening is as big as it was if the serfs would have 'asked' the aristocracy if they would please give up their powerbase.
This line of reasoning shows an apparent lack of sense for reality.
Unjust laws are most often overruled by breaking them en masse, and what's more, I do not think that that is an immoral act on itself, on the contrary. Far from me to entice anyone in doing something illegal, but I still can say what I think (unless Free speech has been abolished too?), and I think that the law, as it was original conceived and intended was just, but what it is and has become today is unjust and immoral, and should not be used to make ppl guilty, let alone criminalised, when they are disregarding those perverted laws.
"To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard"
Yes, well, I'm sure the aristocracy that had been exploiting the populace for centuries thought the same when the poor masses rebelled. Or maybe not, because they used the term 'revolutionary' as if it meant 'criminal'. In any way, it's all in the eye of the beholder, it would seem. But we can safely say that it's a good thing their rights were trampled on and disgarded and abolished, or most of us would still be serfs.
The IFPI/RIAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality).
Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare.
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
Slashdot Mirror
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the software-industry/IFPI/RIAA - and in fact EVERY entity making a living of pure digitalised works - is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music/software/movie. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see former aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Ofcourse they *claim* they are suffering, and that it's all due to online d/l, but it's far from being a scientific valid causility. And frankly, even if it were true, it is partly their own fault, and partly because their sort of business (as it is today) has simply become obsolete.
Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare [sourceforge.net].
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
In my country there is a consumer-protection magazine (probably most western countries have something like that) who looked into CD-R's and their longlivety.
Turns out, that 60% of the cheaper CD-R(W)s (though some 'big names' as well) were mechanically corrupted after 20 months, even when they were conserved in prestine conditions, after the burning.
So much for extended periods of time which not to worry about! Put bluntly: CD-R(W)s are crappy for archiving things, and I can't recommend libraries or the BBC archiving anything on that, unless they plan on frequent re-transferring it.
For long-term archiving, maybe one should look into the laser-ruby method, where the data is stored by 'punching' holes with laserlight (of a perticular frequency) into a ruby. It had the potential for *vast* storage, and very-long term archiving (thousands of years). I don't think it was re-writable, but the biggest problem was making big enough, pure rubies...with the current relatively cheap but yet high-quality synthetic diamant/ruby making procedures, this would be no problem anymore.
I read it in some science book or magazine years ago, but since I'm no physicist myself, I'm not going to debate it endlessly.
;-)
As far as I can remember it also covered light in a vacuum, since in a medium where light is slowed down, it's not very farfetched and rather obvious to expect it is possible for photons to be faster *in that medium*.
I think the theory was, that particles with no mass and with the speed of light (or subatomic particles very close to the speed of light) might make a 'quantum-jump' and go faster then light. Nothing prohibits something going faster then light, as far as I recall, just reaching that point is deemed impossible. But for quantummechanical particles you have a possibility thanks to the strange laws governing there.
Well, whatever, if you say it's absolutely impossible, I'll bow to your wisdom!
the DoJ sucks ;-)
;-)
But that wouldn't still explain Gmail having less protection then the other mailservices. Even outlook has a function to search; does that give the DoJ the right to snoop in it because it's a 'searchengine'?
Besides...how *do* they know you have read those emails before they have actually seized them, and how can they seize them (without a warrant) with the excuse that it's in a 'lower legal' status if they actually have no right to do so, if the emails are not read?
It's sort off the chicken&egg problem. One that I hope will will make scrambled eggs out of their reasonings.
As for the EFF...the moment they will sponsor Freenet, I will donate something to them
I didn't know you were argumenting semantics. I try to avoid that, since it never leads to anything constructive.
For all normal purposes in this discussion, the 'speed of light' is regarded as a constant. Otherwise, playing semantics, this leads to meaningless statements. For instance; what if another quantum-particle achieves faster-then-light speed, even if it ain't a photon? Using semantics, I could argue that it's not exceeding the speed of light at all, because it's not a photon.
The whole thing would become stranded in the absurdity of pedantic semantic definitions.
I'm getting tired of this 'no way, josé' thingy.
While not an absolute fact (there never is, in science), the concept of faster-then-light photons is *not* ridiculed or disregarded by physicists.
For instance, Professor Feynman is a distinguished physicist who has explained the theory behind it many times. (He is also a member of the American Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the National Academy of Science; in 1965 he was elected a foreign member of the Royal Society, London (Great Britain)...)
I know it's a deeply believed dogma that nothing can go faster then light, but, for quantummechanical particles, the data suggests it *is* possible.
ermmm...esperanto? :-)
;-)
PS. Maybe I'm not german, but I'm so fluent in different languages one language flows almost unnoticable into the other?!
*cough*
'If need be, the mail can be held temporarily unencrypted before delivery to the user (because then it has ECPA protection) and thus indexed and tied to ads.'
As far as I know, your email is still protected as email, even *when* encrypted, so the real reason not to do it right away, is the latter: commercial issues; tying it to ads.
Google might be a good company, but the author is being overly apologetic, IMHO.
And I also do not understand his reasoning to doubt if Gmail would have the same protection as other mail, because it can be searched. The point seems absurd: G*mail* is still portayed as a *mail*service, isn't it? And people have the the expectation that it's for emailing, not for using it as a search/database.
When the prime function is email (which even google itself won't deny), then there is no reason why this emailservice would have lower legal protection then any other.
While I sometimes have my misgivings about the human race - sometimes even downright cynical - I must say that on the other side, we have a wonderfull way of improving ourselves (at least in a technical sense) and solve problems.
;-).
/. article not too long ago, which told about a new holographic storagedecice?) As everyone knows, light travels way faster then any electron does, so we're not at the end of the road yet.
The data-speed limit that is being portrayed here as an unsurmountable barrier is only a small hickup to the road of eternally improving (in this case, speeding up) our technical tools. It always makes me remember my former professor, which was a wise man, but of an older generation and rather conservative of what humans are capable of. He always claimed this or that barrier would never be broken or that it would take ages (the human genome project was one of his pet-topics: when it was started, he predicted it would take at least half a century to unrafel our genetic code, but, a decade later, here we are
The fact is, I think there is little to no limit in our problem solving capabilities, and this is one more example. note that they are talking about *magnetic* datastorage/retrieval and transfer. while it is certainly true that electrons and magnetic bits will come to a boundary not to far away in the future, this, by no means, will be the end of our immer increasing speed-improvement.
For instance, we are already working on lighttransfer (actually, fibercables already do that), lightswitches and new photon-based storage mechanisms. (In fact, wasn't there a
And sen the recent article about entangled photons, maybe even the light speed isn't a barrier. (Though, admitedly, the carrier itself still has to be send, which doesn't exceed lightspeed, of course).
Well, I've heard of it.
That photons can be slowed down is not even disputed anymore, there have been numerous examples of it in various degrees (depending on the medium it passes through). I even believe there was a slashdot-article about it, when some researchers managed to slow it down to a crawl.
For faster then light photons (obviously, only possible with non-mass quantummechanical particles) there is more discusion about it, since it's extremely difficult to prove. However, this experiment actually *would* be a possible contestant in proving the hypothesis.
I dunno why you got a zero for that remark, but actually you are right. I've mentionned it in my post too, and there I got a 4, so I dunno how the moderating-system works around here :-).
There *is*, in fact, a theory that tries to explain it by the hypothesis of parallel universes.
Indeed, a switch could never actually use the quantums too determine the direction it should send it too, without altering it. However, a purely lightreflecting switch would not alter anything, it would merely reflect the photons (as does the glass-cable now).
Remains the question how to determine the destination...I suppose a sequence of photons that may be altered could do the trick, after which the actual message comes (once the destination has been reached).
An interesting theory trying to explain this seemingly inexplicable result, is by taking the hypothetical possibility that the bands are created by photons that exceed the speed of light. Only when they revert to another (visible) quantummechanical state (by hitting the wall, for instance) do they become noticable.
This is not impossible, because, contrary to what most ppl think, lightspeed is in fact an average; within one beam, there can be photons that are moving slightly slower, and photons that move slightly faster then the speed of light.
This, however, leads to the conclusion that those particular photons come from - at least potentially - another time or space. So, the film 'paycheck' might not be complete bullocks after all (though it's doubtfull we are ever going to be able to create a usefull 'time-viewing' tool out of it).
Then again, never say never, as Bill Gates with his '640K is enough for everyone' can vow.
The theory about another 'space', in contrast, leads us to the possibility that those photons actually come from parallell universes. It seems SF, but it are, in effect, valid scientific hypotheses which deserve further investigation.
After all, apart from these theories, there *is* no explication for the result of that experiment.
in cryptography! :-)
This is really amazing; think of the possibilities that this offers. If this sort of system gets affordable, mass-produced and hits the market, it will invoke a whole new era of communication!
Gone are the hackers who snif out passwords and creditcardnumbers; the moment they try to intercept it, it is discovered. Brute force attacks become meaningless, since the key is generated completely at random and is of a one-path nature, which is theoretically proven to be unbreakable (in contrast with every ordinary assymetric - and most symmetric - encryption used today on the Net).
An those old encryption methods and mathimatical formula's *will* become obsolete, by that very same thing: quantum mechanics. It's no secret that a lot of people (especially in the military branche) are working hard to create a quantum-computer capable of breaking any currently existing encryption in mere minutes.
So, by the time this quantum-encrytion hits the consumer, we'll need it!
When will they begin with the same communication-experiments based on bonobo's? ;-)
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see former aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Ofcourse they *claim* they are suffering, and that it's all due to online d/l, but it's far from being a scientific valid causility. And frankly, even if it were true, it is partly their own fault, and partly because their sort of business (as it is today) has simply become obsolete.
Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare.
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
I've said it before; probes can't colonise. And I think colonising planets is a survival advantage which is important enough to keep funding human exploration alongside robotic-exploration.
Saying 'but let's wait untill things get cheaper' is a non-argument: one can ALWAYS say that, because, even if hardware becomes a hundredfold cheaper, it STILL will be more expensive to send humans, and by that time, robots will be so flexible that they rival or surpass humans.
But that's not the point; unless we send self-replicating intelligent robots that we consider to be our heirs, and sit back and die out as a species ourselves, we STILL have to continue exploring and colonising planets.
13 year olds are ALREADY doing that, though they call it 'sharing their beloved music with friends'.
/. plan, but no plan still beats the plan of the RIAA to sue 12y-olds.
I doubt their is any such thing as a
Feel free to make a post that actually tries to argument a viewpoint with rationality, instead of just making a sneer based on emotions and personal opinions.
"A better one would be a store that made you promise not to copy the vase before letting you see it..."
Irrelevant. Then they *still* couldn't say you stole the vase; they could only say that you broke your contract.
So, whatever the RIAA says about it, it is *not* just the same as stealing a vase out of a shop.
As in contrast with...your totally nonsensical bullshit, you mean? ;-)
Exellent way of debating something when you have an opposite viewpoint!
Keep the good work up!
Your first three paragraphs are quite true, but have no bearing at all on what I was saying. I was saying that the claim those companies make that 'It is just the same as stealing from a shop' (actual quote) is false.
It does not matter what kind of contract they have with the musicians, nor if they are owners, nor if I or anyone else agreed to the licence. The *statement* is false. If I go to a shop, see some vase, let's say, and I copy that vase at home, can the shop or the owner accuse me of stealing his vase? No. (at least not icn the jurisdiction I live). I *could* be breaking copyright or some patents, yes, but I would not be charged with stealing it from the shop.
The RIAA claims one could, if one does exactly the same, but instead of a vase, with one of their CDs. THAT is what is absurd, and what I was arguing.
The problem with your line of reasoning, is that it starts from the established point of copyrights that we have developped into today, and do not try to see outside the framework that is now almost considered a natural right. but it isn't, and, in fact, it never was. It's very clear (whatever the Supreme Court says about it) that the founding fathers meant it to be a right of limited scope and duration, to *stimulate* new and innovative works, and then bring it to the public good.
This, clearly, has been perverted and corrupted in a system that has virtual no limitations anymore, and which main goal is the squeeze as much money and profit out of it by and for the middle-man; corporations that have huge profits but hardly create anything innovative themselves, and, in fact, try their best to stiffle innovation when they feel threatened.
You think 'asking to reform' will do actually amount to anything, since it would mean they practically vanish from the scene? Me thinks not. I think the chance of that happening is as big as it was if the serfs would have 'asked' the aristocracy if they would please give up their powerbase.
This line of reasoning shows an apparent lack of sense for reality.
Unjust laws are most often overruled by breaking them en masse, and what's more, I do not think that that is an immoral act on itself, on the contrary. Far from me to entice anyone in doing something illegal, but I still can say what I think (unless Free speech has been abolished too?), and I think that the law, as it was original conceived and intended was just, but what it is and has become today is unjust and immoral, and should not be used to make ppl guilty, let alone criminalised, when they are disregarding those perverted laws.
Yes, well, I'm sure the aristocracy that had been exploiting the populace for centuries thought the same when the poor masses rebelled. Or maybe not, because they used the term 'revolutionary' as if it meant 'criminal'. In any way, it's all in the eye of the beholder, it would seem. But we can safely say that it's a good thing their rights were trampled on and disgarded and abolished, or most of us would still be serfs.
The IFPI/RIAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality).
Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare.
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
Imagine a cluster of homeless people...o, wait...
Well, ok: a beowulfcluster!
Each RFID-tag with 64kb, multiplied by millions of homeless people!! (at least in the USA).
The first HERD (Homeless Exploited RFID Distributing) Supercomputer is born!
But he's right about one thing: the new change of heart of Red Hat is disturbing, to say the least.
Ah well... Mandrake Linux was always the better one anyway.