Think and read before replying -- apoptosis is, under normal circumstances, a good thing. The whole reason it says "emergency medication" is because that's the type of medication this knowledge would be used for. When cells don't get oxygen for whatever reason (let's say, pulmonary or cardiac failure of some sort), they start to die off. So you'd inject them with some of this if you couldn't get their heart started in time to prevent cell death, or in a similar situation.
Seriously, haven't you people ever watched House!?
It's never lupus.
I suggest you do some reading on this "singularity" -- it doesn't depend on government efficiency, or even one country for that matter. It's inevitable, sir; no superpower is going to evit it with a few wasted billions.
Want it, yes. Will they get it? Read the testimony. He very, very clearly states that this does not stop BitTorrent or traffic that is encrypted, among other false-positive preventing measures. So no, Clouseau is _not_ intended to eliminate P2P altogether. It is rather intended as a means of assistance toward that end, i.e., making litigation more effective and better targeted. Not to mention a nice cash flow for SafeMedia. Of course they have to sell it as being all-encompassing and bulletproof (you quoted from their sales pitch). Any IT person worth his salt, however, knows nothing is such; the fellow who gave the testimony appears to have no such illusions, and was very straightforward.
I understand that one does not own the right to the music, only the license to have a copy. That's what I meant, and it should have been pretty obvious given the context. You missed the point of my post. The parent of my post didn't see any reason for actually buying music other than benefiting its creator; the other reason is to have some semblance of legitimacy ("right to own a copy" transferred from creator -> original buyer -> secondhand buyer). Presumably one is justified in downloading a lower-quality copy of the same music one has already paid for, yes? Many music stores are now throwing off the DRM or allowing multiple downloads of the same song for just this reason.
What do you think will happen once they 'shape' a WoW patch
Well, first of all, I believe WoW patches are done via BitTorrent. The testimony specifically states that the technology does not target BitTorrent. This is about keeping users from unintentionally sharing their copyrighted material via P2P networks like Kazaa.
The title is a little bit misleading; they're not talking about eliminating P2P altogether.
The technology this fellow talks about in his testimony is pretty clearly intended to primarily protect users from doing things like sharing their entire hard drives (he names one example of a woman who shared a directory containing credit card information) and thereby becoming unwitting contributors to copyright infringement and identity theft. He comes right out to say that it doesn't target BitTorrent (even though everybody knows BitTorrent is used primarily for "piracy") at all, nor does it block tunnelling or encrypted traffic.
Anybody who was trying to crack down on piracy in general would make a box that would effectively unplug the internet connection by blocking everything suspicious in the least. This is about curtailing inadvertent contributions to piracy and identity theft, to help better target the willing contributors (as he says, BitTorrent peers require identification and consent before participating in a network).
Programs like Kazaa (I haven't used any of those for a while, so please forgive the lack of examples) often take users through a wizard to find things they want to share on the P2P network, or have a default of sharing all media files found, or worse, sharing the entire hard drive or user directory. Uninitiated users won't realise this, and might just want to download one or two songs -- they end up sharing their music collections with the world.
This is about making it easier for the {RI,MP}AA and their government helpers to target the "problem users," and helping their image by cutting down on litigation against six-year-old kids, stay-at-home moms, and dead people.
I have a friend who doesn't approve of illegaly downloading music... in what way does buying second hand CDs benefit the artists/RIAA more than just downloading the damn thing?
Perhaps it's more about legally purchasing the right to own the music than benefiting the creators.
... and even usher in a "Minority Report" era (as portrayed in the Steven Spielberg science fiction film of that name)
Does anyone else want to strangle the author of this article? It was a Philip K. Dick story adapted by Spielberg. Please give credit where credit is due.
Boss: Pretend you're me, make a managerial decision: you find this, what would you do?
"Jack": [pauses] Well, I gotta tell you: I'd be very, very careful who you talk to about that, because the person who wrote that...is dangerous.
[Gets up from the chair]
"Jack": [Talking slowly] And this button-down, Oxford-cloth psycho might just snap, and then stalk from office to office with an Armalite AR-10 carbine gas-powered semi-automatic weapon, pumping round after round into colleagues and co-workers. This might be someone you've known for years. Someone very, very close to you.
My post was merely intended as an update on CFLs, in case you hadn't tried them in a while (which was not specified in your original post). Like I said in my original reply, I am not concerned with what you do, merely that you have up-to-date information about the current state of CFLs. I absolutely respect your right to do what you wish, but if you are making that decision based on outdated information, it should be reevaluated, assuming you like saving money. My reasons for using CFLs do not concern environmental impact, but rather the savings I obtain. If you have tried them recently and still hate the effect, please immediately disregard everything I've said, and continue in peace; sorry if I ruined your day with my greenery:)
Please excuse me if this is slightly tangential, but...
"might be irritated by fluorescent lights, even if you're willing to cut back in a zillion other ways"
If you're irritated by fluorescent lights, I'm guessing these are the normal tube types you find in commercial buildings and the like. Compact fluorescent lamps (the kind you would screw into a lamp socket at home) have really progressed. I started using them almost exclusively at my home last year. They have a surprisingly natural colour; it's like an incandescent lamp, except slightly whiter. I believe it's called "higher colour temperature" than other fluorescent lamps. I was pleasantly surprised at the fact that no one could tell the difference in the light from a CFL over an incandescent bulb of similar brightness, except it seemed slightly brighter (effect of it being closer to white).
There's really no excuse for not replacing a lot of your home's wasteful incandescent bulbs with CFLs, except for those on dimmers or the necessarily warmer decorative lights, other than the slightly different colour temperature and the initial costs of buying all those bulbs. I'm not personally concerned with whether you do; just trying to dispel a few leftover notions from when CFLs sucked.
It's part of our emotion-over-reason society of today...
Global warming fits into their emotional, self-loathing storyline of mankind destroying Eden. Hence, the overblown alarmism of today...
Perhaps it does fit into someone's agenda or view of the world. That's not a valid reason to dismiss a theory out of hand. Also, you are correct: there are far too many people formulating opinions based on their emotions or even simply what they read reported in news stories. How much feeling and how much thinking are you doing in formulating your opinion on the topic? Read some actual studies -- studies with varying conclusions -- and their criticisms in the scientific community.
Not being a climatologist myself, I recently buckled down and did some hard reading on climate change, because I got tired of trying to sort out the fact from fiction. Now it's a little easier, and I've got an opinion based on real science (and I can usually spot the FUD). I think this is the only way to come up with a solid position on the subject with all the FUD out there; anything else is irresponsible.
I'm seriously considering buying some of this DRM-free music -- I normally stay away from major labels -- just to help their little experiment be successful. Maybe if this is a success, media companies will at long last make the realisation that DRM only hurts their customers, and thereby their profits. Some artists on major labels are actually good; buy some of this, even if it's just a couple songs.
You should not use Bittorrent with Tor, no matter how enticing or appropriate a use it may seem -- Tor is made up of a large network of volunteer nodes all communicating with each other in mostly a "mesh" fashion; this kind of topology and the average bandwidth of nodes does not survive well under the kind of load BT puts on it. If you want Tor to survive for its intended purpose (legitimate anonymity), please don't use its resources for illegitimate reasons (hiding your identity because you're doing some illegal/unethical, i.e., piracy).
Slashdot Mirror
And everyone, please note, this is PC World, the store in the UK, not the magazine.
Email address: customer.services@pcworld.co.uk
Portable Firefox + USB thumb drive.
Think and read before replying -- apoptosis is, under normal circumstances, a good thing. The whole reason it says "emergency medication" is because that's the type of medication this knowledge would be used for. When cells don't get oxygen for whatever reason (let's say, pulmonary or cardiac failure of some sort), they start to die off. So you'd inject them with some of this if you couldn't get their heart started in time to prevent cell death, or in a similar situation. Seriously, haven't you people ever watched House!? It's never lupus.
I suggest you do some reading on this "singularity" -- it doesn't depend on government efficiency, or even one country for that matter. It's inevitable, sir; no superpower is going to evit it with a few wasted billions.
Want it, yes. Will they get it? Read the testimony. He very, very clearly states that this does not stop BitTorrent or traffic that is encrypted, among other false-positive preventing measures. So no, Clouseau is _not_ intended to eliminate P2P altogether. It is rather intended as a means of assistance toward that end, i.e., making litigation more effective and better targeted. Not to mention a nice cash flow for SafeMedia. Of course they have to sell it as being all-encompassing and bulletproof (you quoted from their sales pitch). Any IT person worth his salt, however, knows nothing is such; the fellow who gave the testimony appears to have no such illusions, and was very straightforward.
Fair enough, but just look at all the other responses ;-)
"HAHA OMG U CAN'T STOP THE P2P TRAIN," etc.
I understand that one does not own the right to the music, only the license to have a copy. That's what I meant, and it should have been pretty obvious given the context. You missed the point of my post. The parent of my post didn't see any reason for actually buying music other than benefiting its creator; the other reason is to have some semblance of legitimacy ("right to own a copy" transferred from creator -> original buyer -> secondhand buyer). Presumably one is justified in downloading a lower-quality copy of the same music one has already paid for, yes? Many music stores are now throwing off the DRM or allowing multiple downloads of the same song for just this reason.
The title is a little bit misleading; they're not talking about eliminating P2P altogether.
The technology this fellow talks about in his testimony is pretty clearly intended to primarily protect users from doing things like sharing their entire hard drives (he names one example of a woman who shared a directory containing credit card information) and thereby becoming unwitting contributors to copyright infringement and identity theft. He comes right out to say that it doesn't target BitTorrent (even though everybody knows BitTorrent is used primarily for "piracy") at all, nor does it block tunnelling or encrypted traffic.
Anybody who was trying to crack down on piracy in general would make a box that would effectively unplug the internet connection by blocking everything suspicious in the least. This is about curtailing inadvertent contributions to piracy and identity theft, to help better target the willing contributors (as he says, BitTorrent peers require identification and consent before participating in a network).
Programs like Kazaa (I haven't used any of those for a while, so please forgive the lack of examples) often take users through a wizard to find things they want to share on the P2P network, or have a default of sharing all media files found, or worse, sharing the entire hard drive or user directory. Uninitiated users won't realise this, and might just want to download one or two songs -- they end up sharing their music collections with the world.
This is about making it easier for the {RI,MP}AA and their government helpers to target the "problem users," and helping their image by cutting down on litigation against six-year-old kids, stay-at-home moms, and dead people.
Apparently, those are Afghan children, not Iraqi children.
Greenpeace and FUD? Who ever thought those two words would be found in the same sentence?!
This was my fault. I'll take more showers.
CSS++
Does anyone else want to strangle the author of this article? It was a Philip K. Dick story adapted by Spielberg. Please give credit where credit is due.
Boss: Pretend you're me, make a managerial decision: you find this, what would you do? "Jack": [pauses] Well, I gotta tell you: I'd be very, very careful who you talk to about that, because the person who wrote that...is dangerous. [Gets up from the chair] "Jack": [Talking slowly] And this button-down, Oxford-cloth psycho might just snap, and then stalk from office to office with an Armalite AR-10 carbine gas-powered semi-automatic weapon, pumping round after round into colleagues and co-workers. This might be someone you've known for years. Someone very, very close to you.
My post was merely intended as an update on CFLs, in case you hadn't tried them in a while (which was not specified in your original post). Like I said in my original reply, I am not concerned with what you do, merely that you have up-to-date information about the current state of CFLs. I absolutely respect your right to do what you wish, but if you are making that decision based on outdated information, it should be reevaluated, assuming you like saving money. My reasons for using CFLs do not concern environmental impact, but rather the savings I obtain. If you have tried them recently and still hate the effect, please immediately disregard everything I've said, and continue in peace; sorry if I ruined your day with my greenery :)
Please excuse me if this is slightly tangential, but ...
"might be irritated by fluorescent lights, even if you're willing to cut back in a zillion other ways"
If you're irritated by fluorescent lights, I'm guessing these are the normal tube types you find in commercial buildings and the like. Compact fluorescent lamps (the kind you would screw into a lamp socket at home) have really progressed. I started using them almost exclusively at my home last year. They have a surprisingly natural colour; it's like an incandescent lamp, except slightly whiter. I believe it's called "higher colour temperature" than other fluorescent lamps. I was pleasantly surprised at the fact that no one could tell the difference in the light from a CFL over an incandescent bulb of similar brightness, except it seemed slightly brighter (effect of it being closer to white).
There's really no excuse for not replacing a lot of your home's wasteful incandescent bulbs with CFLs, except for those on dimmers or the necessarily warmer decorative lights, other than the slightly different colour temperature and the initial costs of buying all those bulbs. I'm not personally concerned with whether you do; just trying to dispel a few leftover notions from when CFLs sucked.
Clearly a rather extreme example of the Law of Fives.
Perhaps it does fit into someone's agenda or view of the world. That's not a valid reason to dismiss a theory out of hand. Also, you are correct: there are far too many people formulating opinions based on their emotions or even simply what they read reported in news stories. How much feeling and how much thinking are you doing in formulating your opinion on the topic? Read some actual studies -- studies with varying conclusions -- and their criticisms in the scientific community.
Not being a climatologist myself, I recently buckled down and did some hard reading on climate change, because I got tired of trying to sort out the fact from fiction. Now it's a little easier, and I've got an opinion based on real science (and I can usually spot the FUD). I think this is the only way to come up with a solid position on the subject with all the FUD out there; anything else is irresponsible.
Not that mixing -- fuel/air mixing in operation.
http://music.yahoo.com/promos/norahjonesmp3/ Worked for me. I did end up buying the track.
I'm seriously considering buying some of this DRM-free music -- I normally stay away from major labels -- just to help their little experiment be successful. Maybe if this is a success, media companies will at long last make the realisation that DRM only hurts their customers, and thereby their profits. Some artists on major labels are actually good; buy some of this, even if it's just a couple songs.
You should not use Bittorrent with Tor, no matter how enticing or appropriate a use it may seem -- Tor is made up of a large network of volunteer nodes all communicating with each other in mostly a "mesh" fashion; this kind of topology and the average bandwidth of nodes does not survive well under the kind of load BT puts on it. If you want Tor to survive for its intended purpose (legitimate anonymity), please don't use its resources for illegitimate reasons (hiding your identity because you're doing some illegal/unethical, i.e., piracy).
Of course, let's discount the fact that it can act as a PPTP endpoint (feature from m0n0wall).