They will kill all natural plant life, absorb all available sunlight, douse the planet with darkness, freeze up the North Pole, stop the North Atlantic Conveyor, interfere with the mating rituals of rhesus monkeys and cause the whales to change their tunes. It is the end of the world as we know it!
People will eventually decide that copyright infringement isn't worth the likelihood and cost of getting caught, or there will be a revolution.
There WILL be a revolution. I guarantee it. Darknets, Encryption everywhere, media erasable with the click of a button, boycotts, cheaper end-to-end privacy services... maybe the govts are idiots, but most IT companies realize there's a huge business opportunity for this. And people will use it. Sooner or later, encryption will beat intelligence agencies and then they'll be forced to either reverse their decisions or to become a totalitarian police state.
The US govt needs to be careful where it steps - they might release a monster they're unable to contain.
If it can't be archived, is it still web? Perhaps that's the main question that should be asked. So perhaps it's not a static web of hyperlinks and content anymore, but a dynamic web of everchanging content. But HTTP still defines the means for us to find content that has moved.
Now, what about user generated content? How about Youtube videos that were removed by some greedy corporation? The inclusion of video and audio in web content is definitely changing the web - content is no longer text-only.
And this brings into the map, the "semantic web" and the recent news that Adobe gave search giants the mean to index Flash content. Perhaps in a few years we'll be able to extract text from audio, and maybe later we will have textual descriptions of video elements in a scene. And who knows if there will be a revolutionary music compression method which will replace MIDI music - but with MP3 quality?
The web may have been thought as static, but it's not. To paraphrase Hannibal Lecter, "it's refining its methods. It's evolving". The web is no longer about simple information. It's becoming a part of our society, as we can see in internet cults, internet political campaigns, news containing uploaded user videos, internet video memes (Rick rolling), cyberbulling, etc.
As part of society, the web is subject to experience dramatic changes. Maybe one day we will find ourselves navigating in the Matrix, or submerge ourselves in dot hack's "The world".
Perhaps this is the true meaning of "web 2.0": The Web and Society merging into a third entity. I'm beginning to believe that the movie "Ghost in the Shell" had more truth in it than we originally thought.
There is a little problem with transforming atoms of one material into another... you need to control fusion.
An approach I find much more realistic is the use of "intelligent materials", or heavy use of nanostructures. I just read at physorg about the fabrication of "artificial 2D atoms". Who knows what more wonders can we do with strategically placed atoms in structures? I'm sure that flat screens will give way to field emission displays that consist of arrays of nanotubes.
Now I don't know who I am, or why I have several fake ID's in my posession. I don't know why I am efficient in killing heavily trained soldiers with my bare hands. I only know one thing: My name is Jason Bourne.
Indeed. Among some mathematicians it is a pleasant diversion to take bets on which of the major unsolved (or unprovable) problems has the most solutions appear on the arXiv this week.
I'd bet, but my equation to win big money at it requires the Riemann Hypothesis to be true.
A professor at my university was recently asked by a British TV program to calculate the cost of retrieving data from the HST, and it came out quite a lot cheaper than sending text messages.
Dr Bannister estimated the cost of the data from Hubble could vary between £8.85 and £85 per MB- much cheaper than the £374.49 per MB cost of transmitting one MB of text.
My rejection of the term "intellectual property" is that it's too ambiguous, and it covers patents, copyrights and trade secrets. It's one of the things used by Microsoft to attack Linux and also not to release the source code of various products ("It contains intellectual property". DUH), AND it's used by patent trolls.
Call things by their name. "Code licensed from other companies", "code copyrighted by us", "patent-encumbered code", "patented algorithm", "patented hardware", "patented business method", "trade secret" and "media copyrighted by a third party". But please, do NOT use "Intellectual property". It only creates confusion, as shown by the replies to my post.
You do not have a right to have a product delivered to you in the way you want.
Would you sneak into a movie theater to watch half of a movie just because they wouldn't sell you a ticket to watch half of it at half price?
No. I just get the pirated DVD and the stupid theaters can keep their stupid overpriced popcorn and soda. We live in a time where the powerful make the law to fit them and screw everybody else. Against that, we have something called civil disobedience - more popularly known as "fuck you and your laws".
Finally, a movie is *NOT* a good that you have to pay for. A movie, piece of music, or whatever fits the description of "intellectual property" is an infinite product, exempt from the laws of supply-and-demand. When the cost of producing such thing approaches zero, the producers have the moral obligation of not asking too much money for that. It's worse when they're the only way of reaching the mainstream media (hello, exclusivity agreements!). Either you sell your soul (pardon, all your music) to the big farms (pardon, firms), or you won't get heard in any radio station - except the ones that promote indie music.
They can't adapt. People are breaking the law to get their product for free. You can't compete with your own product for free.
It's actually worse. You're competing with a cheaper *AND* improved version of your own product (for example, with anime, fansubs have much better content than the "original" dubs). DRM free, you can back them up, you can skip the stupid FBI warnings, you can play them in a DVD player of ANY region... seriously, piracy wins.
I've found myself buying pirated copies of copy-protected products that I already own. And just to make a political statement, I scratch and throw away the crappy originals and put the pirated one in the box. Guess where my Genuine XP-SP2 CD is now?:)
I've benefited a lot from the GPL, but in the back of my mind I've always considered Richard Stallman as something of a crackpot.. A bit too odd..
But the more I think about it, the more he makes sense. He's talking about software, but imagine if other knowledge was as free as the source code. Imagine how *anyone* could learn and be productive without the barrier of money.
Please don't say IP. There is *NO SUCH THING* as intellectual "property". Musicians and content "producers" have the right to get a return of their investment. But after that return, they're no longer being "stolen" by pirates because they already got their money back.
I'd recommend you to read The Pirate's Dilemma, and see how piracy is beneficial to EVERYONE. It's more about economics than morals. In fact, the U.S. progressed so fast because they "pirated" european patents and paid absolutely no royalties (don't believe me, read the book).
The industry's business model (make music, sell it) is fine. Except that the people it wants to sell its product to are breaking the law to get their product by other means.
Wrong. The industry's business model is to get music which follows certain guidelines (duration, volume, beat, things which are "popular"), distorting it to make it "louder", and then resell it at a stratospheric price and pay the musicians a tiny percentage of all that money. And that's *NOT* fine!
Here's an excerpt from one of his articles at Infoworld, entitled "Schwartz doesn't get Linux".
Schwartz really had me going there - right up to his next line. "And frankly," he said, "its principal competitor is none other than Microsoft Windows." Huh?! That's like a company that sells nothing but certified, purebred cocker spaniels claiming that the principal competition for its product is a purebred cat. But then, Sun has never been able to own up to the elephant-size mutt in the room. Say what you want about Microsoft's business practices, but at least give Redmond credit for giving up on pretending Linux doesn't exist. If you look at Sun's public statements about Linux over the past few years, you can sum up its competitive strategy in three easy steps:
1. Equate all Linux with Red Hat
2. Trash-talk Red Hat, its pricing, and its business model
3. Point customers toward Solaris
That may be a clever way to run a sales call, but Schwartz can't honestly believe that's how the thought process works in real life - can he? "We will be one of the consolidators of the open source industry," Schwartz went on to say, "as well as, certainly, in the open source operating system industry." Consolidators? Can he be serious? I know that, what with all the buzz around Oracle recently, buying up small open source companies is in vogue. But at least Larry Ellison is smart enough to recognize that it's hard to buy and sell what you cannot own.
While I read the roughlydrafted article pointing to Oliver Rist as a shill, at least we can be sure Neil does NOT shill. In fact, the whole article was anti-fud. Neil, you're on my friends list now. Keep up the good work.
I remember the days when PC magazine was a good magazine. It had reviews, technical howto articles and did decent reviews. I still remember the war between Windows and OS/2. As Microsoft became the only player in town, the magazine stopped being "PC magazine" and became "Windows magazine". Then it went all downhill.
Ok, Ok, I overreacted. He SOUNDS like a Microsoft Shill. There.
My point was about his assumption that the only way of measuring usefulness is through income. He may be very smart and objective, but that argument was a huge load of crap. Just say "i wanted to see my software get sold" and throw the usefulness speech to the garbage.
Slashdot Mirror
And how, exactly, does this improve on correctly using "prompt the question"?
I don't understand what "prompt the question" means. The first thing that comes to my mind is:
C:\>The question
Maybe I need to get out more often, sorry.
"Truecrypt or similar commercial offerings are available and reliable. Protect your data and ours."
Whatever happened to "Information wants to be free?"
I'm confused.
And that information that wants to be free, includes, of course, the names and employers of the bastards who stole the f**ing luggage.
They will kill all natural plant life, absorb all available sunlight, douse the planet with darkness, freeze up the North Pole, stop the North Atlantic Conveyor, interfere with the mating rituals of rhesus monkeys and cause the whales to change their tunes. It is the end of the world as we know it!
I feel fine...
People will eventually decide that copyright infringement isn't worth the likelihood and cost of getting caught, or there will be a revolution.
There WILL be a revolution. I guarantee it. Darknets, Encryption everywhere, media erasable with the click of a button, boycotts, cheaper end-to-end privacy services... maybe the govts are idiots, but most IT companies realize there's a huge business opportunity for this. And people will use it. Sooner or later, encryption will beat intelligence agencies and then they'll be forced to either reverse their decisions or to become a totalitarian police state.
The US govt needs to be careful where it steps - they might release a monster they're unable to contain.
And the RIAA and MPAA will die anyway.
If it can't be archived, is it still web? Perhaps that's the main question that should be asked. So perhaps it's not a static web of hyperlinks and content anymore, but a dynamic web of everchanging content. But HTTP still defines the means for us to find content that has moved.
Now, what about user generated content? How about Youtube videos that were removed by some greedy corporation? The inclusion of video and audio in web content is definitely changing the web - content is no longer text-only.
And this brings into the map, the "semantic web" and the recent news that Adobe gave search giants the mean to index Flash content. Perhaps in a few years we'll be able to extract text from audio, and maybe later we will have textual descriptions of video elements in a scene. And who knows if there will be a revolutionary music compression method which will replace MIDI music - but with MP3 quality?
The web may have been thought as static, but it's not. To paraphrase Hannibal Lecter, "it's refining its methods. It's evolving". The web is no longer about simple information. It's becoming a part of our society, as we can see in internet cults, internet political campaigns, news containing uploaded user videos, internet video memes (Rick rolling), cyberbulling, etc.
As part of society, the web is subject to experience dramatic changes. Maybe one day we will find ourselves navigating in the Matrix, or submerge ourselves in dot hack's "The world".
Perhaps this is the true meaning of "web 2.0": The Web and Society merging into a third entity. I'm beginning to believe that the movie "Ghost in the Shell" had more truth in it than we originally thought.
That is, with 238% more lolcats, buttsecks, and social networking sites
O RLY? :<>
There is a little problem with transforming atoms of one material into another... you need to control fusion.
An approach I find much more realistic is the use of "intelligent materials", or heavy use of nanostructures. I just read at physorg about the fabrication of "artificial 2D atoms". Who knows what more wonders can we do with strategically placed atoms in structures? I'm sure that flat screens will give way to field emission displays that consist of arrays of nanotubes.
they only produce power when the curtains are closed.
Not necessarily. They may produce 1 to 10% when they're open - unless the curtains are completely hidden from the window.
Now I don't know who I am, or why I have several fake ID's in my posession. I don't know why I am efficient in killing heavily trained soldiers with my bare hands. I only know one thing: My name is Jason Bourne.
How come nobody here has mentioned Eye of the Beholder and the dungeon-crawling genre?
Indeed. Among some mathematicians it is a pleasant diversion to take bets on which of the major unsolved (or unprovable) problems has the most solutions appear on the arXiv this week.
I'd bet, but my equation to win big money at it requires the Riemann Hypothesis to be true.
A professor at my university was recently asked by a British TV program to calculate the cost of retrieving data from the HST, and it came out quite a lot cheaper than sending text messages.
From the physorg article:
Dr Bannister estimated the cost of the data from Hubble could vary between £8.85 and £85 per MB- much cheaper than the £374.49 per MB cost of transmitting one MB of text.
My rejection of the term "intellectual property" is that it's too ambiguous, and it covers patents, copyrights and trade secrets. It's one of the things used by Microsoft to attack Linux and also not to release the source code of various products ("It contains intellectual property". DUH), AND it's used by patent trolls.
Call things by their name. "Code licensed from other companies", "code copyrighted by us", "patent-encumbered code", "patented algorithm", "patented hardware", "patented business method", "trade secret" and "media copyrighted by a third party". But please, do NOT use "Intellectual property". It only creates confusion, as shown by the replies to my post.
If I had mod points I'd mod you insightful. But all I have right now is the "friend button". Welcome aboard.
So I had to ditch the HDMI connection, or manually operate my TIVO....
Or I could just spend 10 seconds and download an unencumbered pirated version that works better.
Ahoy! Welcome aboard my friends list, matey! Yarr!
You do not have a right to have a product delivered to you in the way you want.
Would you sneak into a movie theater to watch half of a movie just because they wouldn't sell you a ticket to watch half of it at half price?
No. I just get the pirated DVD and the stupid theaters can keep their stupid overpriced popcorn and soda. We live in a time where the powerful make the law to fit them and screw everybody else. Against that, we have something called civil disobedience - more popularly known as "fuck you and your laws".
Finally, a movie is *NOT* a good that you have to pay for. A movie, piece of music, or whatever fits the description of "intellectual property" is an infinite product, exempt from the laws of supply-and-demand. When the cost of producing such thing approaches zero, the producers have the moral obligation of not asking too much money for that. It's worse when they're the only way of reaching the mainstream media (hello, exclusivity agreements!). Either you sell your soul (pardon, all your music) to the big farms (pardon, firms), or you won't get heard in any radio station - except the ones that promote indie music.
They can't adapt. People are breaking the law to get their product for free. You can't compete with your own product for free.
It's actually worse. You're competing with a cheaper *AND* improved version of your own product (for example, with anime, fansubs have much better content than the "original" dubs). DRM free, you can back them up, you can skip the stupid FBI warnings, you can play them in a DVD player of ANY region... seriously, piracy wins.
I've found myself buying pirated copies of copy-protected products that I already own. And just to make a political statement, I scratch and throw away the crappy originals and put the pirated one in the box. Guess where my Genuine XP-SP2 CD is now? :)
I've benefited a lot from the GPL, but in the back of my mind I've always considered Richard Stallman as something of a crackpot.. A bit too odd..
But the more I think about it, the more he makes sense. He's talking about software, but imagine if other knowledge was as free as the source code. Imagine how *anyone* could learn and be productive without the barrier of money.
Hello... creative commons?
If you can't defend against it with a firearm, then it can't really be a threat, right?
The logical consequence is that we need an equivalent to the second ammendment regarding telecommunications privacy.
Please don't say IP. There is *NO SUCH THING* as intellectual "property". Musicians and content "producers" have the right to get a return of their investment. But after that return, they're no longer being "stolen" by pirates because they already got their money back.
I'd recommend you to read The Pirate's Dilemma, and see how piracy is beneficial to EVERYONE. It's more about economics than morals. In fact, the U.S. progressed so fast because they "pirated" european patents and paid absolutely no royalties (don't believe me, read the book).
The industry's business model (make music, sell it) is fine. Except that the people it wants to sell its product to are breaking the law to get their product by other means.
Wrong. The industry's business model is to get music which follows certain guidelines (duration, volume, beat, things which are "popular"), distorting it to make it "louder", and then resell it at a stratospheric price and pay the musicians a tiny percentage of all that money. And that's *NOT* fine!
Let's hope the Mozilla devs get the Acid3 test to work with Firefox 3.1.
Well, I can dream, can't I?
PCM2 (aka Neil Mcallister) is right.
Here's an excerpt from one of his articles at Infoworld, entitled "Schwartz doesn't get Linux".
While I read the roughlydrafted article pointing to Oliver Rist as a shill, at least we can be sure Neil does NOT shill. In fact, the whole article was anti-fud. Neil, you're on my friends list now. Keep up the good work.
I remember the days when PC magazine was a good magazine. It had reviews, technical howto articles and did decent reviews. I still remember the war between Windows and OS/2. As Microsoft became the only player in town, the magazine stopped being "PC magazine" and became "Windows magazine". Then it went all downhill.
Ok, Ok, I overreacted. He SOUNDS like a Microsoft Shill. There.
My point was about his assumption that the only way of measuring usefulness is through income. He may be very smart and objective, but that argument was a huge load of crap. Just say "i wanted to see my software get sold" and throw the usefulness speech to the garbage.