I think we are beginning to bump up against fundamental problems with the current definition of copyright.
Copyright was intended as a temporary right to benefit creators and encourage innovation/creation. Copyright was not intended as the permanent (effectively so) monopoly over ideas it has become.
Classic songs and other media become popular and are never freed to public license. Consequently, cost increases for the meime. "Happy Birthday" is a good example.
Insidences of copyright violations will continue to increase imo due to the lack of entry of ideas into the public domain. Digital technology will make these violations easier to commit and easier to track.
Protection for creation is intended to benefit society not the creator. It is only an insentive to create so society and culture can reap a benefit.
Unfortunately, what we have now is a strong perversion of the original intent. Perhaps, one could almost say an inversion of the original thought. Creators are rewarded, but almost absolutely. Society never gets the free benefit.
As an example of the danger of unlimited monopoly over ideas, consider what would happen if patents lasted 100 years? Would society be better or worse?
I dug out my account I haven't logged in for a year or so to reply to this thread. I don't really have time to consisely write this, but hopefully it will catch at least some.
The idea of shutting down services like google or archive.org is a virulent stream of bad thought. It is largely predicated on fear and the fact that copyright law has become so perverted.
There is a _very_ strong societal interest in having history. If organizations are not allowed to archive things, then we end up with less history. We (society) are depending on organizations to accurately store their records and faithfully give them to us in the future. Historically, it has been the case that it is not likely that organizations will not clean up their history to favorably reflect themselves (Disney and their WWII propoganda cartoons for example).
Most organizations do not want to pay the cost of storing and have a general interest in avoiding the liability implicit in storing in this day and age.
The argument that some organization must get permission from _every single_ web page it archives is just insanity. Based on that theory everything comes to a halt. I can't take a picture of folks in Time Square because I need everyone's permission, permission of building owners, permission of advertisers, etc.
This is all so frustrating because the U.S.'s constitutional framers were concerned with creating IP rights at all. They feared a overarching monopoly on ideas, which is unfortunately what we are running towards. Surprisingly, copyright wasn't designed to give folks a monopolistic production right. It was designed to give a right ensuring you accuracy of reproductions on your work.
It WAS NOT the idea of copyright that some entity could control production rights EFFECTIVELY FOREVER.
Archive.org obeys robots and you can opt out. They are providing imo a very useful service. They are one of the organizations out there on the front line arguing and fighting battles to preserve _your_ right to history.
General comments:
This type of question is probably best not asked here.
I highly suspect you are whom you say:
1) Why ask questions about such a sensative issue here in such a loose and public forum
2) If your company does indeed control multiple satellites, why do you not have answers to such simple questions as # 1? I would expect you would contact one of your own engineers.
3) This list could go on for quite a while.
I appologize if I'm wrong about the above, but I tend to suspect this is a dupe post by someone either interested in hacking a network or interested in getting people together to hack sat's.
Questions:
1) This would depend to some degree on the com hardware on the bird. Signal jamming is a quite known property of emf communications.
2) Yes. People have deciphered far harder things than a ordered (probably) control protocol.
3) I didn't look at the protocol yet. Yes, folks will want to hack it though. Sat's are l337 d00d.
This was well published at the time, and if I recall correctly, promptly fixed.
I realize it is good measure to always be concerned about security. Keeping in mind past exploits is always a good way to foster security awareness, but I think in this case your point is without merrit.
Id's team takes quality of work fairly seriously. Also, consider how many people attempt to break protection on Quake and how many folks are involved in its dev scene.
I would personally be surprised if they ever screw up like that again.
In HS my computer teacher decided to be an ass and changed my password. In the spirit of this joke, I promptly cracked the Novel network the computers were running on and changed his, along with fixing mine.
He figured this out about 2 hrs later and I go called to his office and everything got straightened out all fine.
It is really scary to think that I would have possibly gone to jail for this.
It is a paper that we wrote last semester. The beginning 2 - 3 pages contains a relatively descent explination of.Net. We started looking at just.Net and then ran into the whole C# thing.
This was bound to happen. The amount of time involved and the increasingly pervasive nature of virtual worlds were bound to bring on a court case.
Some people on the Everquest(eq) server I play on (which has been up for around 17 months) have 190+ days played. That means they have played the game for 190+ 24 hr periods, which is stunning.
Time is essentially the fundamental metric of success on massivly multiplayer online role playing games. The cost of time is not equivilent in real life. I can be a 15 year old and play for fun because I have nothing better to do. Similarly, I can be a 34 year old doctor who likes to play but has very little time. Economics is going to say that I pay the kid to get what I don't have time to in the game. What is 500 $ to me compared to the 100 hrs it would take me to amass the items if I played?
Another side effect of these games is that I don't think companies will be able to get by with a click disclaimer. Say I violate a policy unawares in everquest one night. Verant can technically destroy 1000's of hours of my time. I understand the desire to keep strict control, but how can that kind of loss be enforced in a court of law for swearing or some little offence.
As a overly dramatic analogy, consider comparison to jail time. Should it be legal to sentence someone to half a year of jail time for selling an item in an online game. It would be insane.
The ultimate question comes down to ownership. Verant is claiming they own anything and everything. Customers will claim that the money they pay and the 1000's of hours they put in give them rights. The conclusions will be far reaching, so it will make an interesting fight. Ironicially, it will be a fight over things that essentailly do not even exist.
Uh. I downloaded the demo of Alice on Sunday, and Monday I went out and bought it. Heh, then by Wednesday I finished it because I couldn't stop playing it. The game is absolutely beautiful. One of the best, probably if not the best game like that I have seen since half-life. I cannot express in words how graphically amazing and innovative this game is. It is a bit twisted, but if you can get around that it is _definitely_ more than worth the money.
If the text is from project gutenberg how can they say that it cannot be copied? Is there something about the provisons under which proj gutenberg operates that I am missing?
Probably would be the IP of the company that created it. That would suck.
Plus, we will probably get lawyer computer AI's that will halt progress anyway. Never underestimate the power of lawyers and politicians to slow things down.
Uh, I don't mean to flame, but I am uncertain whether you are kidding or not.
I play quake at above 1024x768 at around 80 fps.
I have also been doing some early work with.Net as far as evaluating the security of the runtime, so I feel I can speak somewhat on it.
In a larger sense with graphics and things like.Net, you have two options as far as graphics. One, you can send screenshots too the client or two, you can send code to the client and have them generate their own imagies.
As far as sending screenshots of 1024x768 at 80fps goes, bandwidth to do that just isn't going to be around for your average joe for a while. I'm pretty sure that would bog a 100mbs ethernet line. If you run the code locally, you still need the same 3d acceleration.
Also, there are mad latency, etc issues with streaming screenshots.
Well another side of the coin is that technology inventions like this make it increasingly hard to control copyrights. Media is much easier to control if it is hard to reproduce. Frankly, I don't see decreasing control over copyrights as a bad thing. I don't think that anyone should be able to own the rights to any idea/work for more than 20 years.
But seriously, how can the govt possibly police every single home to make sure that these things aren't copying music or movies. Even if it could I don't think the government will risk making criminals out of everybody.
It's impressive how portable information is getting.
As a cd sized thing:
I used to be able to carry a lot of text
Then I could carry a long book
Then I could carry an album
With Mp3's I can carry all of a groups works
With Dvd's I could carry a whole movie or a mess of books
With this thing I could carry around 18 movies or around 97 thousand books.
If the Army keeps doing things like this, along with things like their 33% across the board pay raise to tech workers, they could slowly be working on a better rep.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we are beginning to bump up against fundamental problems with the current definition of copyright.
Copyright was intended as a temporary right to benefit creators and encourage innovation/creation. Copyright was not intended as the permanent (effectively so) monopoly over ideas it has become.
Classic songs and other media become popular and are never freed to public license. Consequently, cost increases for the meime. "Happy Birthday" is a good example.
Insidences of copyright violations will continue to increase imo due to the lack of entry of ideas into the public domain. Digital technology will make these violations easier to commit and easier to track.
Protection for creation is intended to benefit society not the creator. It is only an insentive to create so society and culture can reap a benefit.
Unfortunately, what we have now is a strong perversion of the original intent. Perhaps, one could almost say an inversion of the original thought. Creators are rewarded, but almost absolutely. Society never gets the free benefit.
As an example of the danger of unlimited monopoly over ideas, consider what would happen if patents lasted 100 years? Would society be better or worse?
I thought it was talking about Everquest 2
So between:
Facial profiling
Universal Id's
Echelon systems
Wiretaps that don't require court orders
Carnavore systems
We don't have an increasing trend of monitoring technology?
With almost all forms of communication going digital we don't have increasingly easy monitoring?
With the war on terrorism we don't have justification for increased monitoring?
What about all the cameras we now have all over Britain and increasingly in other metro areas?
We definitely are increasingly having Orwell's big brother/sister. I'd say the distinction is that society is welcoming/asking for it.
I dug out my account I haven't logged in for a year or so to reply to this thread. I don't really have time to consisely write this, but hopefully it will catch at least some.
The idea of shutting down services like google or archive.org is a virulent stream of bad thought. It is largely predicated on fear and the fact that copyright law has become so perverted.
There is a _very_ strong societal interest in having history. If organizations are not allowed to archive things, then we end up with less history. We (society) are depending on organizations to accurately store their records and faithfully give them to us in the future. Historically, it has been the case that it is not likely that organizations will not clean up their history to favorably reflect themselves (Disney and their WWII propoganda cartoons for example).
Most organizations do not want to pay the cost of storing and have a general interest in avoiding the liability implicit in storing in this day and age.
The argument that some organization must get permission from _every single_ web page it archives is just insanity. Based on that theory everything comes to a halt. I can't take a picture of folks in Time Square because I need everyone's permission, permission of building owners, permission of advertisers, etc.
This is all so frustrating because the U.S.'s constitutional framers were concerned with creating IP rights at all. They feared a overarching monopoly on ideas, which is unfortunately what we are running towards. Surprisingly, copyright wasn't designed to give folks a monopolistic production right. It was designed to give a right ensuring you accuracy of reproductions on your work.
It WAS NOT the idea of copyright that some entity could control production rights EFFECTIVELY FOREVER.
Archive.org obeys robots and you can opt out. They are providing imo a very useful service. They are one of the organizations out there on the front line arguing and fighting battles to preserve _your_ right to history.
If this "The kind with whips _and_ whip cream" is the wildest sex you can imagine, I am quite sorry for you.
Please stick to the topic.
General comments:
This type of question is probably best not asked here.
I highly suspect you are whom you say:
1) Why ask questions about such a sensative issue here in such a loose and public forum
2) If your company does indeed control multiple satellites, why do you not have answers to such simple questions as # 1? I would expect you would contact one of your own engineers.
3) This list could go on for quite a while.
I appologize if I'm wrong about the above, but I tend to suspect this is a dupe post by someone either interested in hacking a network or interested in getting people together to hack sat's.
Questions:
1) This would depend to some degree on the com hardware on the bird. Signal jamming is a quite known property of emf communications.
2) Yes. People have deciphered far harder things than a ordered (probably) control protocol.
3) I didn't look at the protocol yet. Yes, folks will want to hack it though. Sat's are l337 d00d.
Note the 1998 date.
This was well published at the time, and if I recall correctly, promptly fixed.
I realize it is good measure to always be concerned about security. Keeping in mind past exploits is always a good way to foster security awareness, but I think in this case your point is without merrit.
Id's team takes quality of work fairly seriously. Also, consider how many people attempt to break protection on Quake and how many folks are involved in its dev scene.
I would personally be surprised if they ever screw up like that again.
In HS my computer teacher decided to be an ass and changed my password. In the spirit of this joke, I promptly cracked the Novel network the computers were running on and changed his, along with fixing mine.
He figured this out about 2 hrs later and I go called to his office and everything got straightened out all fine.
It is really scary to think that I would have possibly gone to jail for this.
Yay! One step closer to Gattaca. Wheee.
At first I thought this was a great thing, the more I think about it the more I realize that this is a bad idea.
What constitutes a typo ( 1,2,3,4 letters?, arranged together?, etc)?
What about freedom of speach or parody?
I think this is a idea that in its basic sense is appealing, but in its thought out implications is damning.
<A HREF ="http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~jsinger/comp527/comp 527_final.pdf"></A>
.Net. We started looking at just .Net and then ran into the whole C# thing.
It is a paper that we wrote last semester. The beginning 2 - 3 pages contains a relatively descent explination of
This was bound to happen. The amount of time involved and the increasingly pervasive nature of virtual worlds were bound to bring on a court case.
Some people on the Everquest(eq) server I play on (which has been up for around 17 months) have 190+ days played. That means they have played the game for 190+ 24 hr periods, which is stunning.
Time is essentially the fundamental metric of success on massivly multiplayer online role playing games. The cost of time is not equivilent in real life. I can be a 15 year old and play for fun because I have nothing better to do. Similarly, I can be a 34 year old doctor who likes to play but has very little time. Economics is going to say that I pay the kid to get what I don't have time to in the game. What is 500 $ to me compared to the 100 hrs it would take me to amass the items if I played?
Another side effect of these games is that I don't think companies will be able to get by with a click disclaimer. Say I violate a policy unawares in everquest one night. Verant can technically destroy 1000's of hours of my time. I understand the desire to keep strict control, but how can that kind of loss be enforced in a court of law for swearing or some little offence.
As a overly dramatic analogy, consider comparison to jail time. Should it be legal to sentence someone to half a year of jail time for selling an item in an online game. It would be insane.
The ultimate question comes down to ownership. Verant is claiming they own anything and everything. Customers will claim that the money they pay and the 1000's of hours they put in give them rights. The conclusions will be far reaching, so it will make an interesting fight. Ironicially, it will be a fight over things that essentailly do not even exist.
Uh. I downloaded the demo of Alice on Sunday, and Monday I went out and bought it. Heh, then by Wednesday I finished it because I couldn't stop playing it. The game is absolutely beautiful. One of the best, probably if not the best game like that I have seen since half-life. I cannot express in words how graphically amazing and innovative this game is. It is a bit twisted, but if you can get around that it is _definitely_ more than worth the money.
If the text is from project gutenberg how can they say that it cannot be copied? Is there something about the provisons under which proj gutenberg operates that I am missing?
Probably would be the IP of the company that created it. That would suck.
Plus, we will probably get lawyer computer AI's that will halt progress anyway. Never underestimate the power of lawyers and politicians to slow things down.
If it has a red eye that pulses on it, they will still plenty. Apple got it to work with that stupid I-Mac mouse.
P.S. Careful what you say. If they _really_ do somehow make AI it might come read these comments and be pissed : ).
I think this kind of stuff wouldn't be happening if there were real competitors.
Who wants to put up with this kind of thing? Why are we going to?
Hopefully, this will breathe more life into the remaining office suites.
an ibm T series thinkpad. I will name my children after you.
Uh, I don't mean to flame, but I am uncertain whether you are kidding or not.
.Net as far as evaluating the security of the runtime, so I feel I can speak somewhat on it.
.Net, you have two options as far as graphics. One, you can send screenshots too the client or two, you can send code to the client and have them generate their own imagies.
I play quake at above 1024x768 at around 80 fps.
I have also been doing some early work with
In a larger sense with graphics and things like
As far as sending screenshots of 1024x768 at 80fps goes, bandwidth to do that just isn't going to be around for your average joe for a while. I'm pretty sure that would bog a 100mbs ethernet line. If you run the code locally, you still need the same 3d acceleration.
Also, there are mad latency, etc issues with streaming screenshots.
This 3d accelerator is a _good_ thing.
Well another side of the coin is that technology inventions like this make it increasingly hard to control copyrights. Media is much easier to control if it is hard to reproduce. Frankly, I don't see decreasing control over copyrights as a bad thing. I don't think that anyone should be able to own the rights to any idea/work for more than 20 years.
But seriously, how can the govt possibly police every single home to make sure that these things aren't copying music or movies. Even if it could I don't think the government will risk making criminals out of everybody.
It's impressive how portable information is getting.
As a cd sized thing:
I used to be able to carry a lot of text
Then I could carry a long book
Then I could carry an album
With Mp3's I can carry all of a groups works
With Dvd's I could carry a whole movie or a mess of books
With this thing I could carry around 18 movies or around 97 thousand books.
Technology rules sometimes.
I volunteer to demo this, thx : )
Ahh my bad. One can only hope a policy maker will read this and up the mil salaries :). Thanks for the correction.
:(.
P.S. Yeah I know LBE - load bearing equip : ). Heavy as *#&$ on long runs
If the Army keeps doing things like this, along with things like their 33% across the board pay raise to tech workers, they could slowly be working on a better rep.
And I will help the protest and drink it down
Oh and I promise to belch curses at them after consuming the sweet sweet brew.
P.S. Widget cans preferred
I've been dealing with mcglen micro over some bad(from all my testing) ram. They charged me full price tho.