One premise of the Known Space setting is that by then the earthlings have interbred so much that the racial lines have melted away and there is no clear border between one race and another. A proper Louis Wu would not look particularly asian. He'd look like a composite morph of several races, with maybe just a hint more asian than the other races. The actor could be pretty much anybody.
That's the problem. Niven's Known Space has far too much backstory leading up to Ringworld.
I read Ringworld as my first Niven book. I hadn't read any previous Niven books or short stories, and I was able to get through it just fine. In fact, it makes a good intro to Known Space, becuase it is written with that type of reader in mind. Everything is explained as you encounter it. Now, Ringworld Engineers, on the other hand, doesn't make much sense without at least some of Known Space because I didn't know what a Pak Protector was, and here the book was jumping right in as if the reader was expected to already know that. Instead of the reaction Niven was obviously looking for when that was revealed, "Holy cow - it's the Pak Protectors...That's really signifigant", my reaction was, "The Pak Who? What? What's he talking about?"
I have hope for this because there's a lot of potential for some good scenes that would work better in visual as opposed to verbal form in Ringworld - like the flycycles suspended in the 'police station', where Louis has to act like a monkey and swing his way out while Speaker just looks on in amazement.
I still would much rather see Integral Trees done as a movie, though. It's got the right length of story for making into a movie. It's all about the visuals. And I would love to see a special effects department come up with the breaking of the tree scene - with the bark rushing by beneath you as the halves separate, making a deafening Whoosh sound and a terrible wind.
Only if you do so in a way that copies ownership or viewership to a second person (Borrow someone else's book and make a copy for yourself, or make a copy of your own book and give it to someone else.)
Depends - if you did the work for a corporation, such that a corporation owns your IP, then anywhere inside that corporation counts as the same "person" as far as the law cares.
If you did the work for yourself and then distributed it in a corporation, then it would be a case of crossing the boundry where the GPL is activated.
The only thing you can trust is the IP of remote end
Next time you decide to belittle me, try actually reading what I posted first. I specified IP address as one of the things that should be looked for. Your entire ego-stroking rant is based on the premise I that I didn't include that.
Try arguing against what I actually wrote next time.
For something to be plural, it has to be countable in a discrete way. If I tell you I have 3 data, that doesn't tell you anything at all. The natural question that arises is "three *whats* of data? - three bytes? Three measures taken at spots in space (the USGS meaning)? What is it?" And when looked at that way, you see that the plural is actually on the measure, not on the data. You don't have 3 data. You have 3 *bytes* (of data), or 3 numbers (of data) or 3 points (of data).
You can't pluralize 'data' any more than you can pluralize "air" or "mud" or "water".
In English it's neither plural nor singular. Data is a mass noun - like "water" or "air" - you don't count how many of them you have without specifying a container or a measurement of some sort. Just like it is nonsense to say "I have 3 airs here", but you could say "I have 3 bottles of (or litres of, or cubic feet of, or kilograms of...) air here. It's nonsense to say "I have 3 data here." That doesn't mean anything. Now, "3 Bytes of (or pages of, or databases of, or integers of, or strings of, or columns of...) data, now that makes sense. The singular or plural designation goes on the measurement noun, not on the mass noun.
I'm not against using psuedonyms. I'm against lying about what your name is. If someone says their name is "flossie" or "DunbarTheInept", then it's pretty obvious that it's an anonymous name. Spammers aren't doing that. They're trying hard to make their names look real, under the hope you'll be fooled into thinking you're seeing a message from a person instead of from a computer. That's dishonesty, just as much as outright lying, and it pisses me off.
When I read a story, I'm making a copy of it in my mind. This is not illegal. When I read it aloud, I am making a copy of it in audio form. This is not illegal.
You aren't circumventing anything if you already own the copy and the right to view it. Until you use the technology to circumvent copyright, that clause doesn't take effect.
Once the server knows that that particular message is to be refused, it no longer needs to wait for the DATA section to detect that, for the next several seconds, subsequent sends of that same message should be refused. The remote IP address, the RCPT TO, and the MAIL FROM are sufficient information to identify that message as a resend attempt of the previously rejected message for the next few minutes. *
Please remove the foot from your mouth.
* - Yeah, there's a small but nonzero chance that a legitimate message comes from the same user within a few minutes after his computer was used to forward spam that looked like it was from him - but in that case I don't see rejecting his message as that much of a problem, since he's got a compramised computer that needs to be fixed.
Not if they don't actually distribute it, which was the point. You can do anything with GPL code and not violate the GPL if what you do stays inside your organization and never leaves it.
Actually, the law only comes into effect when you transfer that copy to someone else. So long as you just use it yourself, the law is irrelevant. Breaking CSS is not a violation of the DMCA. TELLING people how to break CSS is, and transferring software that does so is. (Effectively making it impossible to make a legal open source DVD player in US jursidiction.), but the USE of that software isn't what the DMCA actually covers - it's the dissemation of it.)
Backups don't last forever. New CD's and DVD's are made with a glue that can break down over time, making the thin filmy layer develop bubbles that act as lenses on the surface, and thus deflect the laser beam and make the disc unreadable. It's not always the owner's fault that he needs more than one backup.
In the US the burden of proving falsity is on the plaintiff, not the defendant.
Not always. In this case, the plantiff starts by having to prove that:
1 - the defendant said the defamatory things.
2 - the things said were in fact dematory.
And that's enough right there for the plantiff's case. At that point the defendant can defend by saying:
1 - The defamatory things said were true.
It's like having an alabi - it's not necessary to have one to prove you're innocent, but having one can 'trump' any evidence against you.
Your response seems to assume the e-mail blocking occurs at the end-user's client machine (with your mention of IMAP and POP) - It could also occur at the e-mail server level (SMTP), and there you *could* close the port 25 TCP/IP socket the moment you read the subject line.
The reason there is a lack of adoption is that all the technical solutions I have seen ignore the very real problem of "how do you get there from here". There are a lot of good proposals out there that would work great if we didn't already have a worldwide e-mail system and were making a new one from scratch. But the problem of how to slowly bring in the new system, with all it's rejections and denials of improprer e-mails, at a time when not every e-mail server uses the new system yet, never seem to be properly addressed.
The solution always seems to be "Well, eventually when enough people use the new system there will be incentive for the people using the old one to change over because their e-mails are being rejected..." Nope. That won't work. What will happen is that people will perceive the new system as being "in error" when it is first introduced at a few small sites, and it won't get adopted enough to force the rest to comply.
Nitpick point (but an important one): Playing a DVD on non-approved hardware is NOT piracy, no matter how much the MPAA repeats that lie. There is some illegal activity going on when you do that, but piracy isn't the kind of illegal activity that is occuring. It's a bit like calling it murder when someone steals a car. Both are illegal acts, but it's important to keep them seperate and not apply the penalties for one to the other. Furthermore, the legal 'lawbreaker' in the hypothetical case of you using nonapproved DVD playing software is the one who provided the software, not the one (you) who would be using it.
Provided the person providing the decryption software is outside the jursidiction of the DMCA, you are legally capable of using that software. You just aren't legally able to pass it on to anyone else after you get your copy of it - all the passing of the software has to originate outside the DMCA juristiction.
There is a legal way to play DVD's on non-approved hardware right now, but it depends on the fact that the DMCA doesn't have worldwide jurisdiction. If you still wish to boycott DVD's as a message to the MPAA over this, that's fine - but it's not true that there is "no" way to legally play DVD's with non-approved systems. The DMCA covers the dissemation of the tools that do so, not the use of them once you have them.
You are. People here aren't mad at RIAA for going after copyright infringement. They're mad at RIAA for presuming guilt unfairly in copyright issues, and mad at the legal system for buying into thier story. Having the ability to copy files does not make you a pirate. Having the ability to copy a CD does not make you a pirate. Having the ability to transfer from CD to MP3 does not make you a pirate. According to the RIAA, it does and therefore the country needs DRM technology.
I'm almost as mad at the freeloaders as the RIAA. The RIAA is guilty of lying. The freeloaders gave them the scapegoat they needed to get to the REAL issue they were looking for - total control of the vertical market.
If I buy a copy of a song, what I do with that song for personal use is none of the RIAA's damn business, and they won't admit to that.
(about your sig you mentioned): People don't complain about RIAA going up against copyright infrigers. They complain about RIAA, in their attempt to go up against infringers, stepping on the rights of everybody else in the process too - using copyright infringement as a scapegoat to help them attain control of the whole vertical market.
THe hypocracy you allude to is a figment of your imagination.
I was about to show you up by showing I would do the above un-abashedly (since some of it is irrelevant, and the stuff that is relevant can all be obtained by other means anyway) But then I realized you asked for "everything else" and I don't have that much time.
It's not anonymity that's the problem. It's lying about anonymity that's the problem. If you want to be anonymous, you have every right to, but only if you honestly admit to being anonymous, instead of trying to pretend to have a real name with a real return address. Anonymity is a right, but having a fake (but seemingly real) identity is not. A spammer sending me mail allegedly from "John.Doe@some.server.com" is guilty of the same thing as a person using a fake ID card.
Slashdot Mirror
One premise of the Known Space setting is that by then the earthlings have interbred so much that the racial lines have melted away and there is no clear border between one race and another. A proper Louis Wu would not look particularly asian. He'd look like a composite morph of several races, with maybe just a hint more asian than the other races. The actor could be pretty much anybody.
That's the problem. Niven's Known Space has far too much backstory leading up to Ringworld.
I read Ringworld as my first Niven book. I hadn't read any previous Niven books or short stories, and I was able to get through it just fine. In fact, it makes a good intro to Known Space, becuase it is written with that type of reader in mind. Everything is explained as you encounter it. Now, Ringworld Engineers, on the other hand, doesn't make much sense without at least some of Known Space because I didn't know what a Pak Protector was, and here the book was jumping right in as if the reader was expected to already know that. Instead of the reaction Niven was obviously looking for when that was revealed, "Holy cow - it's the Pak Protectors...That's really signifigant", my reaction was, "The Pak Who? What? What's he talking about?"
I have hope for this because there's a lot of potential for some good scenes that would work better in visual as opposed to verbal form in Ringworld - like the flycycles suspended in the 'police station', where Louis has to act like a monkey and swing his way out while Speaker just looks on in amazement.
I still would much rather see Integral Trees done as a movie, though. It's got the right length of story for making into a movie. It's all about the visuals. And I would love to see a special effects department come up with the breaking of the tree scene - with the bark rushing by beneath you as the halves separate, making a deafening Whoosh sound and a terrible wind.
Only if you do so in a way that copies ownership or viewership to a second person (Borrow someone else's book and make a copy for yourself, or make a copy of your own book and give it to someone else.)
Depends - if you did the work for a corporation, such that a corporation owns your IP, then anywhere inside that corporation counts as the same "person" as far as the law cares.
If you did the work for yourself and then distributed it in a corporation, then it would be a case of crossing the boundry where the GPL is activated.
it is not fixed in a tangible medium.
How do chemical configurations in my brain differ from, say, electronic ones on a disk, for the sake of this definition?
The only thing you can trust is the IP of remote end
Next time you decide to belittle me, try actually reading what I posted first. I specified IP address as one of the things that should be looked for. Your entire ego-stroking rant is based on the premise I that I didn't include that.
Try arguing against what I actually wrote next time.
For something to be plural, it has to be countable in a discrete way. If I tell you I have 3 data, that doesn't tell you anything at all. The natural question that arises is "three *whats* of data? - three bytes? Three measures taken at spots in space (the USGS meaning)? What is it?" And when looked at that way, you see that the plural is actually on the measure, not on the data. You don't have 3 data. You have 3 *bytes* (of data), or 3 numbers (of data) or 3 points (of data).
You can't pluralize 'data' any more than you can pluralize "air" or "mud" or "water".
In English it's neither plural nor singular. Data is a mass noun - like "water" or "air" - you don't count how many of them you have without specifying a container or a measurement of some sort. Just like it is nonsense to say "I have 3 airs here", but you could say "I have 3 bottles of (or litres of, or cubic feet of, or kilograms of...) air here. It's nonsense to say "I have 3 data here." That doesn't mean anything. Now, "3 Bytes of (or pages of, or databases of, or integers of, or strings of, or columns of...) data, now that makes sense. The singular or plural designation goes on the measurement noun, not on the mass noun.
I'm not against using psuedonyms. I'm against lying about what your name is. If someone says their name is "flossie" or "DunbarTheInept", then it's pretty obvious that it's an anonymous name. Spammers aren't doing that. They're trying hard to make their names look real, under the hope you'll be fooled into thinking you're seeing a message from a person instead of from a computer. That's dishonesty, just as much as outright lying, and it pisses me off.
When I read a story, I'm making a copy of it in my mind. This is not illegal. When I read it aloud, I am making a copy of it in audio form. This is not illegal.
You aren't circumventing anything if you already own the copy and the right to view it. Until you use the technology to circumvent copyright, that clause doesn't take effect.
Once the server knows that that particular message is to be refused, it no longer needs to wait for the DATA section to detect that, for the next several seconds, subsequent sends of that same message should be refused. The remote IP address, the RCPT TO, and the MAIL FROM are sufficient information to identify that message as a resend attempt of the previously rejected message for the next few minutes. *
Please remove the foot from your mouth.
* - Yeah, there's a small but nonzero chance that a legitimate message comes from the same user within a few minutes after his computer was used to forward spam that looked like it was from him - but in that case I don't see rejecting his message as that much of a problem, since he's got a compramised computer that needs to be fixed.
Killing a socket always works, whatever the protocol may say about it. The sender can't retry the delivery on a closed socket.
Not if they don't actually distribute it, which was the point. You can do anything with GPL code and not violate the GPL if what you do stays inside your organization and never leaves it.
Actually, the law only comes into effect when you transfer that copy to someone else. So long as you just use it yourself, the law is irrelevant. Breaking CSS is not a violation of the DMCA. TELLING people how to break CSS is, and transferring software that does so is. (Effectively making it impossible to make a legal open source DVD player in US jursidiction.), but the USE of that software isn't what the DMCA actually covers - it's the dissemation of it.)
Backups don't last forever. New CD's and DVD's are made with a glue that can break down over time, making the thin filmy layer develop bubbles that act as lenses on the surface, and thus deflect the laser beam and make the disc unreadable. It's not always the owner's fault that he needs more than one backup.
In the US the burden of proving falsity is on the plaintiff, not the defendant.
Not always. In this case, the plantiff starts by having to prove that:
1 - the defendant said the defamatory things.
2 - the things said were in fact dematory.
And that's enough right there for the plantiff's case. At that point the defendant can defend by saying:
1 - The defamatory things said were true.
It's like having an alabi - it's not necessary to have one to prove you're innocent, but having one can 'trump' any evidence against you.
Your response seems to assume the e-mail blocking occurs at the end-user's client machine (with your mention of IMAP and POP) - It could also occur at the e-mail server level (SMTP), and there you *could* close the port 25 TCP/IP socket the moment you read the subject line.
The reason there is a lack of adoption is that all the technical solutions I have seen ignore the very real problem of "how do you get there from here". There are a lot of good proposals out there that would work great if we didn't already have a worldwide e-mail system and were making a new one from scratch. But the problem of how to slowly bring in the new system, with all it's rejections and denials of improprer e-mails, at a time when not every e-mail server uses the new system yet, never seem to be properly addressed.
The solution always seems to be "Well, eventually when enough people use the new system there will be incentive for the people using the old one to change over because their e-mails are being rejected..." Nope. That won't work. What will happen is that people will perceive the new system as being "in error" when it is first introduced at a few small sites, and it won't get adopted enough to force the rest to comply.
Nitpick point (but an important one): Playing a DVD on non-approved hardware is NOT piracy, no matter how much the MPAA repeats that lie. There is some illegal activity going on when you do that, but piracy isn't the kind of illegal activity that is occuring. It's a bit like calling it murder when someone steals a car. Both are illegal acts, but it's important to keep them seperate and not apply the penalties for one to the other. Furthermore, the legal 'lawbreaker' in the hypothetical case of you using nonapproved DVD playing software is the one who provided the software, not the one (you) who would be using it.
Provided the person providing the decryption software is outside the jursidiction of the DMCA, you are legally capable of using that software. You just aren't legally able to pass it on to anyone else after you get your copy of it - all the passing of the software has to originate outside the DMCA juristiction.
There is a legal way to play DVD's on non-approved hardware right now, but it depends on the fact that the DMCA doesn't have worldwide jurisdiction. If you still wish to boycott DVD's as a message to the MPAA over this, that's fine - but it's not true that there is "no" way to legally play DVD's with non-approved systems. The DMCA covers the dissemation of the tools that do so, not the use of them once you have them.
Of course, I could be mistaken.
You are. People here aren't mad at RIAA for going after copyright infringement. They're mad at RIAA for presuming guilt unfairly in copyright issues, and mad at the legal system for buying into thier story. Having the ability to copy files does not make you a pirate. Having the ability to copy a CD does not make you a pirate. Having the ability to transfer from CD to MP3 does not make you a pirate. According to the RIAA, it does and therefore the country needs DRM technology.
I'm almost as mad at the freeloaders as the RIAA. The RIAA is guilty of lying. The freeloaders gave them the scapegoat they needed to get to the REAL issue they were looking for - total control of the vertical market.
If I buy a copy of a song, what I do with that song for personal use is none of the RIAA's damn business, and they won't admit to that.
(about your sig you mentioned): People don't complain about RIAA going up against copyright infrigers. They complain about RIAA, in their attempt to go up against infringers, stepping on the rights of everybody else in the process too - using copyright infringement as a scapegoat to help them attain control of the whole vertical market.
THe hypocracy you allude to is a figment of your imagination.
He already said "everything else" in his list.
Everything else...
I was about to show you up by showing I would do the above un-abashedly (since some of it is irrelevant, and the stuff that is relevant can all be obtained by other means anyway) But then I realized you asked for "everything else" and I don't have that much time.
It's not anonymity that's the problem. It's lying about anonymity that's the problem. If you want to be anonymous, you have every right to, but only if you honestly admit to being anonymous, instead of trying to pretend to have a real name with a real return address. Anonymity is a right, but having a fake (but seemingly real) identity is not. A spammer sending me mail allegedly from "John.Doe@some.server.com" is guilty of the same thing as a person using a fake ID card.