That game totally got me into hacking at the tender age of 8! I *needed* to know how they made the computer shout "Ghostbusters!" when you caught a ghost and "He slimed me!" when you failed. A few months later I got a magazine with code that showed you how - sampling from the built in tape. The results were up to three seconds of shitty audio that would all but fill the 128kb of RAM.
If you were to look closely enough at it the spoon would begin to pixelate. It is not that there is no spoon so much as the substrate on which the spoon exists is finite.
That argument has surely got no chance of flying. The OSX splash screen says that Apple own the copyrights on the software as does the pretty box the disks come in and all you need to assert copyright ownership is a mark on the product that says so.
That restricting OSX to apple approved hardware is anti-competitive might have a chance but even with a little hat that first snowball ain't gonna last long.
Excellent point. So if you find any website you dislike, anywhere in the world, as long as it might violate a Kentucky state law you can get it's domain name pwnd by the court.
Fun one to try: find some european law which a few of the big US companies are breaking and try the same trick. Wouldn't it be fun to own www.microsoft.com or www.google.com
Actually some French students did try to get yahoo.com to comply with French law around the display and sale of Nazi paraphernalia a few years back. The case was thrown out in the US.
Why don't these companies just move their domains to a registrar that doesn't have to follow US law?
And that would stop this judgement how exactly? Apparently the law of the state of Kentucky is applicable to any server on the internet, regardless of country of origin.
The book Blown to Bits we previously discussed goes into this in some detail but there is a clear, and increasing, problem that legislatures are very far behind the curve on the global nature of the internet. Not only can district courts in the US have a say, potentially, on the content hosted on a server in another country - let alone another state - but it also creates a pressure to host your servers in the country with the most lax laws around content control.
The application of laws designed to deal with print or broadcast media being applied to the internet - where ISPs are neither publishers nor distributors, from a strict legal perspective - is fraught with difficulty.
The application of social laws, like restricting your citizens access to gambling, also has an inherent problem when the social sphere in question is virtual. The law givers reaction often seems to be to target the technology when the social problem is what the law is meant to address.
You can't protect software by disabling it. Corporations underestimate the community's ability to understand, and work around, any software problem they come across.
The technical problem and limitation of DRM is more subtle than that - you cant encrypt something and send the encryption key along with it and expect it to remain secure - most ably demonstrated by the BlueRay and HDDVD cracks. What they are attempting to do, manage digital files after they have been released into the wild, is actually impossible. All they can succeed in doing is annoying their genuine customers and driving people, including legitimate customers, away from content with DRM stamped on it. Cory Doctorow's recently released transcript on Life in the Information Economy is a fascinating look at the subject as is Blown to Bits, recently reviewed on/..
Re:Since when is Ebay a stock exchange?
on
Transmeta Up For Sale
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
there's already 3, well-regulated, well-defined places to do it at - The New York Stock Exchange, The Nasdaq Stock Exchange, and the American Stock Exchange.
Are you sure? Have you been watching the news recently?
... company in a death spiral pretty much will become a patent troll.
It's like the Main Sequence - start bright, burning hard and beautiful then slowly collapse into an ugly red dwarf sucking matter off of the younger brighter stars.
Camden Parkway? You must be mad! Crockfords backway gambit will have you pinned down. Unless you're planning to employ The Lesser Urmston side watch in which case... ah, yes, very clever. Very clever indeed. But I think I can head you off.
Paddington? Ordinarily a foolish move but I see you've got several options open under the Pershing subset however I suspect that if I apply the Ornstein Variation (which I do believe is valid under Pershing) I can hop straight past White City and play Swiss Cottage!
The Shackleton Amendment (or "Old Shakey" as most of us like to refer to it) only applies on the Northern Line. From Bethnel Green, when you're trying to implement the Reverse-Ksmiov, options are limited to South Kensington, Elephant and Castle or Paddington, though why you'd play to a national rail terminus when following the third or higher Welsh form of the the Duke of Edinburgh rules is quite beyond me.
The only sensible move at this point is therefore South Kensington though its going to take a pretty nifty Boggleworth's Express Interdiction to get out of that corner.
Frankly the whole strategy fell apart back at Finsbury Park East.
Slashdot Mirror
That game totally got me into hacking at the tender age of 8! I *needed* to know how they made the computer shout "Ghostbusters!" when you caught a ghost and "He slimed me!" when you failed. A few months later I got a magazine with code that showed you how - sampling from the built in tape. The results were up to three seconds of shitty audio that would all but fill the 128kb of RAM.
If you were to look closely enough at it the spoon would begin to pixelate. It is not that there is no spoon so much as the substrate on which the spoon exists is finite.
Kneel before iZOD!
PJ takes one week off, and everybody moves back to Slashdot.
That argument has surely got no chance of flying. The OSX splash screen says that Apple own the copyrights on the software as does the pretty box the disks come in and all you need to assert copyright ownership is a mark on the product that says so.
That restricting OSX to apple approved hardware is anti-competitive might have a chance but even with a little hat that first snowball ain't gonna last long.
Excellent point. So if you find any website you dislike, anywhere in the world, as long as it might violate a Kentucky state law you can get it's domain name pwnd by the court.
Shudder. I hope this gets overturned soon.
I believe the legal term is P.O.S.
Isn't it Composit Extretum?
Fun one to try: find some european law which a few of the big US companies are breaking and try the same trick. Wouldn't it be fun to own www.microsoft.com or www.google.com
Actually some French students did try to get yahoo.com to comply with French law around the display and sale of Nazi paraphernalia a few years back. The case was thrown out in the US.
Yes I remember, why it seems like only last week.
No, wait, it was last week.
Why don't these companies just move their domains to a registrar that doesn't have to follow US law?
And that would stop this judgement how exactly? Apparently the law of the state of Kentucky is applicable to any server on the internet, regardless of country of origin.
The book Blown to Bits we previously discussed goes into this in some detail but there is a clear, and increasing, problem that legislatures are very far behind the curve on the global nature of the internet. Not only can district courts in the US have a say, potentially, on the content hosted on a server in another country - let alone another state - but it also creates a pressure to host your servers in the country with the most lax laws around content control.
The application of laws designed to deal with print or broadcast media being applied to the internet - where ISPs are neither publishers nor distributors, from a strict legal perspective - is fraught with difficulty.
The application of social laws, like restricting your citizens access to gambling, also has an inherent problem when the social sphere in question is virtual. The law givers reaction often seems to be to target the technology when the social problem is what the law is meant to address.
You can't protect software by disabling it. Corporations underestimate the community's ability to understand, and work around, any software problem they come across.
The technical problem and limitation of DRM is more subtle than that - you cant encrypt something and send the encryption key along with it and expect it to remain secure - most ably demonstrated by the BlueRay and HDDVD cracks. What they are attempting to do, manage digital files after they have been released into the wild, is actually impossible. All they can succeed in doing is annoying their genuine customers and driving people, including legitimate customers, away from content with DRM stamped on it. Cory Doctorow's recently released transcript on Life in the Information Economy is a fascinating look at the subject as is Blown to Bits, recently reviewed on /..
It was late, I was tired. I apologise to you and all of Slashdot.
You're quite correct and your command of the English language clearly exceeds mine.
I concur as well, I was aiming at funny but I'll take the karma from being incorrectly modded insightful!
Where's the link to his site?
You Tube video of him in action
Rossy's website
I am your own personal Google.
More likely to be a very fast hot one, really.
there's already 3, well-regulated, well-defined places to do it at - The New York Stock Exchange, The Nasdaq Stock Exchange, and the American Stock Exchange.
Are you sure? Have you been watching the news recently?
... company in a death spiral pretty much will become a patent troll.
It's like the Main Sequence - start bright, burning hard and beautiful then slowly collapse into an ugly red dwarf sucking matter off of the younger brighter stars.
I'll give them 500 shares of Lehman Brothers stock and my Star Wars collection.
You'd honestly consider trading you're first run still-in-packaging Boba Fett for a mere multi-million pound business?
Hand your geek card in at the door.
Dang. I should have seen that coming a mile off!
OK, let's see, I'll do a Guiscard Galumph and play for Oval.
Camden Parkway? You must be mad! Crockfords backway gambit will have you pinned down. Unless you're planning to employ The Lesser Urmston side watch in which case... ah, yes, very clever. Very clever indeed. But I think I can head you off.
...
Hmm.
...
Shoreditch.
Paddington? Ordinarily a foolish move but I see you've got several options open under the Pershing subset however I suspect that if I apply the Ornstein Variation (which I do believe is valid under Pershing) I can hop straight past White City and play Swiss Cottage!
There. Get out of that one!
The Shackleton Amendment (or "Old Shakey" as most of us like to refer to it) only applies on the Northern Line. From Bethnel Green, when you're trying to implement the Reverse-Ksmiov, options are limited to South Kensington, Elephant and Castle or Paddington, though why you'd play to a national rail terminus when following the third or higher Welsh form of the the Duke of Edinburgh rules is quite beyond me.
The only sensible move at this point is therefore South Kensington though its going to take a pretty nifty Boggleworth's Express Interdiction to get out of that corner.
Frankly the whole strategy fell apart back at Finsbury Park East.
Amateurs, honestly!
... Yesterday I came across a page ...
Ew. I mean, whatever floats your boat and all but, yuck.
[citation needed]
Here, here and here.