In the faq of the LAMP site it says :
"* Is this really legal? How?
We are transmitting music over the non-digital portion of MIT's internal cable television system. Because it is impossible to record exact copies of CDs from a non-digital cable television system, under the copyright law the licensing requirements are less stringent than for over the Internet: similar to the requirements for radio stations."
So since when were MP3s transferred over the internet exact copies of the CDs?
I appreciate that LAMP have bulk-licenses, but a while back an idea for p2p sharers and peercasters to get radio-licenses was not accepted (by the p2p communities and advocates) as legal, so what's the difference?
I am not sure if you personally believe Bush to be doing God's work, but I doubt God does. - The 6th, 9th and 10th commandments (but particularly the 6th) have unambiguously been broken by the man. Those commandments don't allow any exceptions. That leaves him with at most 70% righteousness - which is shit;-)
I think the issue here is the failure of the parachute(s?). Either stunt helicopters or Zem the stunt mattress from Squornshellous Zeta would have been fine had the 'chutes opened. Neither could have been in the right place at the right moment with any degree of accuracy without...
"If you shoot me an email and my c/r implementation sends you a challenge because you're not on my white list (provided, the from address is not spoofed) and your c/r system doesn't recognize my address as whitelisted and, in turn, sends me a c/r token we have a basic breakdown of communication"
My C/R system has proved 100% effective at keeping the 500+ spams-per-week out of my inbox. (Really). It avoids the infinite loop problem by whitelisting any address that I send mail to, so any challenge originating from that address could get through. The one dislike I have about it is that it blocks genuine failed delivery notices, along with all the fake bounces which are actually spam.
Argrh! Contact sickened me in that it had as its central premise the exact opposite of the premise of the book, and the exact opposite of what Carl Sagan laboured his whole life for (that observation and reason is a better way to explain the cosmos than faith and pseudoscience). Then it ended with a dedication "For Carl".
He would have been deeply disappointed had he lived to see it.
"Or at least, I found it to be told in a slow and uninvolving way. "
That's a pity. 2001 is pretty much unique in sci-fi in that it breaks the usual rules of film-storytelling.
We are so used to films which -for example- have a quick cutaway at a crucial moment, to remind the audience of some small but significant detail that was shown previously, so that they will understand what is happening with no problem.
2001 doesn't do this, indeed it doesn't spoon-feed its ideas at all. This makes it intimidating and boring to some viewers that aren't used to being tested by a film.
I would suggest that next time you see it (there is always a next time with this film), you study it for its divergence from the norm, and what methods of concept-illustration are employed instead. - It is a masterpiece of the visual, so many familiar (to us nerds) concepts demonstrated visually. Also, *every* line of dialogue is essential...
Check out the shot during the transmission from the moon, where the sun can be seen above TMA1 for the first time in 3 million years - it is the hook to the whole film, but you the viewer need to work at it to know that.
It is also in a class of its own for the accuracy of its science. - this is rare indeed. In fact, can anyone here nit-pick anything?
And, it even has one joke in it; the instructions for the zero-g toilet:)
Are not all of these laws implicit in Asimov's 3 - given robots with sufficient insight, as discussed by Asimov's later work?
Now, I agree with Asimov that it will be a long time before his 3 laws could be represented by computer code, if ever, but what do these new 10 add to the concept, if it were acheivable?
Does no-one in this thread think it's a joke?
It appears to be functional, but it is clearly humourous, satirical, ironic - that kind of thing.
Hats off to them.
One thing I find iritating is the number of systems which I need a secure password for (and it's getting worse).
And yet, only one of the 6-or-so systems I use at work each day actually needs to be secure, -(for privacy and anti-fraud reasons).
The others only need the login and password to actually identify me, so if I annotate anything on the systems, or write a letter for instance, my name will populate a data-field somewhere.
A 4-numeric PIN, with a 10-attempt lockout would be perfectly safe for that...
I don't want to sound cynical, but as the legal system is created and maintained by the rich, I always felt it existed to protect the rich from the poor, (at least as far as property law is concerned anyway).
I suppose some might have more generous interpretations...
I don't think it was such a bad idea to ban talking on mobiles while driving with specific law. What happens when people claim they were on the phone but still applying due care and attention to driving? - There was an ambiguity which has now been removed. - The truth is many, many drivers had formed a habit for using phones while driving and it needed to be stamped-out.
Slashdot Mirror
In the faq of the LAMP site it says : "* Is this really legal? How? We are transmitting music over the non-digital portion of MIT's internal cable television system. Because it is impossible to record exact copies of CDs from a non-digital cable television system, under the copyright law the licensing requirements are less stringent than for over the Internet: similar to the requirements for radio stations." So since when were MP3s transferred over the internet exact copies of the CDs? I appreciate that LAMP have bulk-licenses, but a while back an idea for p2p sharers and peercasters to get radio-licenses was not accepted (by the p2p communities and advocates) as legal, so what's the difference?
"law is nothing more than the rigorous application of pedantism" You mean 'pedantry', not 'pedantism'.
I am not sure if you personally believe Bush to be doing God's work, but I doubt God does. ;-)
- The 6th, 9th and 10th commandments (but particularly the 6th) have unambiguously been broken by the man. Those commandments don't allow any exceptions.
That leaves him with at most 70% righteousness - which is shit
I think the issue here is the failure of the parachute(s?).
Either stunt helicopters or Zem the stunt mattress from Squornshellous Zeta would have been fine had the 'chutes opened.
Neither could have been in the right place at the right moment with any degree of accuracy without...
"If you shoot me an email and my c/r implementation sends you a challenge because you're not on my white list (provided, the from address is not spoofed) and your c/r system doesn't recognize my address as whitelisted and, in turn, sends me a c/r token we have a basic breakdown of communication"
My C/R system has proved 100% effective at keeping the 500+ spams-per-week out of my inbox.
(Really).
It avoids the infinite loop problem by whitelisting any address that I send mail to, so any challenge originating from that address could get through.
The one dislike I have about it is that it blocks genuine failed delivery notices, along with all the fake bounces which are actually spam.
Argrh!
Contact sickened me in that it had as its central premise the exact opposite of the premise of the book, and the exact opposite of what Carl Sagan laboured his whole life for (that observation and reason is a better way to explain the cosmos than faith and pseudoscience).
Then it ended with a dedication "For Carl".
He would have been deeply disappointed had he lived to see it.
"Or at least, I found it to be told in a slow and uninvolving way. "
:)
That's a pity. 2001 is pretty much unique in sci-fi in that it breaks the usual rules of film-storytelling.
We are so used to films which -for example- have a quick cutaway at a crucial moment, to remind the audience of some small but significant detail that was shown previously, so that they will understand what is happening with no problem.
2001 doesn't do this, indeed it doesn't spoon-feed its ideas at all. This makes it intimidating and boring to some viewers that aren't used to being tested by a film.
I would suggest that next time you see it (there is always a next time with this film), you study it for its divergence from the norm, and what methods of concept-illustration are employed instead. - It is a masterpiece of the visual, so many familiar (to us nerds) concepts demonstrated visually. Also, *every* line of dialogue is essential...
Check out the shot during the transmission from the moon, where the sun can be seen above TMA1 for the first time in 3 million years - it is the hook to the whole film, but you the viewer need to work at it to know that.
It is also in a class of its own for the accuracy of its science. - this is rare indeed. In fact, can anyone here nit-pick anything?
And, it even has one joke in it; the instructions for the zero-g toilet
Are not all of these laws implicit in Asimov's 3 - given robots with sufficient insight, as discussed by Asimov's later work?
Now, I agree with Asimov that it will be a long time before his 3 laws could be represented by computer code, if ever, but what do these new 10 add to the concept, if it were acheivable?
Does no-one in this thread think it's a joke? It appears to be functional, but it is clearly humourous, satirical, ironic - that kind of thing. Hats off to them.
One thing I find iritating is the number of systems which I need a secure password for (and it's getting worse). And yet, only one of the 6-or-so systems I use at work each day actually needs to be secure, -(for privacy and anti-fraud reasons). The others only need the login and password to actually identify me, so if I annotate anything on the systems, or write a letter for instance, my name will populate a data-field somewhere. A 4-numeric PIN, with a 10-attempt lockout would be perfectly safe for that...
I don't want to sound cynical, but as the legal system is created and maintained by the rich, I always felt it existed to protect the rich from the poor, (at least as far as property law is concerned anyway). I suppose some might have more generous interpretations...
I don't think it was such a bad idea to ban talking on mobiles while driving with specific law.
What happens when people claim they were on the phone but still applying due care and attention to driving? - There was an ambiguity which has now been removed.
- The truth is many, many drivers had formed a habit for using phones while driving and it needed to be stamped-out.