I wonder if, in the case of third party users, the responsibility for not violating patents might extend to the end user BECAUSE of the availability of the code in OS applications. You can hardly hold the user of closed source apps at fault - they supposedly have no idea what's running under the hood. Do users of products with available source code have some sort of 'due diligence' responsibility to ensure the app doesn't violate patents or copyrights? Maybe the EULA should go both ways, so that part of the licensing agreement for software is a statement from the author that 'no patents were harmed in the making of this software'. Part of any contractual agreement could be that the vender assumes any responsibility assigned to the user due to the violation of content rights. Part of IT service providers features sets could be the certification of 'no patent violation' software environments. That said, I'd like to think that if the government is using closed source software for critical activities - especially concerning the privacy of citizens or the accuracy of voting results - that a qualified representative of the government would routinely vet the code for a LOT more than patent violations. Does anyone know if this vetting process exists and if so, who does the checking?
Did it occur to you that none of your responses had anything to do with what I said? Did it occur to you that most of the things you said don't make any sense?
"Third, people pay for services. You buy shoes because they enable you to perform the service of protecting your feet."
Yeh, does that mean a rutabaga is a service that keeps me from dying and smelling up the neighborhood?
I just can't take it anymo....oh I get it - you're a troll - you really had me going. I'm embarrassed to admit I honestly thought there was someone that clueless. You got me good. You're totally wrong about the musician part though. I do know a few in Nashville, but they all get paid pretty good. I've always found it ironic that none of them really likes country music.
Thank you, that is exactly what I was trying to say... just substitute the word "copy" for the word "work".
The words 'copy' and 'work' are two different words with two different meanings. Try substituting 'copied' for 'created' in "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth." Not quite the same meaning is it? Are you trying to say you recognize no difference between the rights of the man who creates a work of art and a man who makes a copy that the creator does not want him to make? You can't make an argument by changing a word in my statement then saying 'see - you agree with me'.
I like that deal, "paying for a service" truely is so much better than "imposing copyright monopoly"
Copyrights are a way to insure that I am paid for the service of creating the content. It is a philosophical construct (like all beliefs and laws) that gives me the right to control the use (including copying) of my original intellectual product. Because YOU can not produce that content the only place you can get it is from me. If you take it without my permission you are stealing. Stealing is not " defined by what is no longer in your posession", to steal is defined as " To take (the property of another) without right or permission". And just what property of mine are you taking? You are taking the information contained in the file you copy. It doesn't matter that I also retain that information, if you got it from me and I have not given it, you have 'taken it'. This 'copying is not stealing because you still have a copy' assertion is one of the more self serving bogus arguments used to support your view. Words can not be swapped in and out and redefined to suit your purpose. What matters is what is in YOUR possession that was not, not what remains in mine. Would you assert that a spy who broke into a laboratory and photographed the plans for a nuclear missile did not steal them? Put another way - if the control of the use of my original content is the method I use to secure payment for my efforts, that control represents real world value. When you take that control from me and transfer that control to you, you are stealing real world value. It's irrelevant that you decide not to charge for further copies, every copy you distribute represents potential real world value you have taken from me. You can not possibly know how many of the people who received free copies from you would have paid me for the same information. The media file which contains the information is irrelevant because it is the information (remember information economy?) that represents the value. Even by your definition you have taken potential sales from me - you have stolen them. Please don't be stupid enough to suggest they are not worth anything - Pink Floyd has been around a long time, but people still buy the albums.
"I BEG anyone to show me one goddam musician who will turn away 5000 people paying $50 bucks a head to see him perform live in concert because they won't respect "his copyrights"'.
This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The one situation has NOTHING to do with the other. This is another example of a favorite but invalid, technique used to support your arguments i.e. 'the RIAA has a record of ripping off musicians and suing grandmothers, therefore there should be no copyrights'. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. Anyone who uses arguments this logically flawed should be ashamed of themselves. The real pity is that there are a great many VALID arguments that support the opinion that the RIAA is not good for creativity and should be watched very closely. Using invalid and transparently flawed arguments just lets them point at their opponents and say "see, they're fanatics - what they say is idiotic and doesn't make sense".
And which people who download the music are responsible for "the very low" number of times the artist SHOULD be paid. If you listen to my work you must find it has some value. EACH person who listens is finding value - not persons 1 through 100 of 25,000. Even if your low evaluation of my work is correct - why should the first 100 pay the whole tab when if all 25,000 chipped in they would all pay less? And if 24,999 people are willing to pay, why should I, or they, be OK with letting you have it for free? If we don't let you, you're ripping it off. Your arguments are predicated on your definitions of 'value' and 'work'. I don't agree with either. I also reject your authority to determine 'limits' on 'compensation' for anyone but yourself. Once again your arguments boil down to "I don't want to pay". Good on ya! Don't pay - steal it - just don't try to justify the theft with BS.
*rant* You absolutely do count, as does your opinion, but only when it comes to YOUR work. Trash it, give it away, transmit it to the universe. Just don't tell me YOU can decide what I can or can not do with MY work. Consider that you might sit down and reach a different conclusion if YOU could "sit on my ass and collect a million bucks". Who are you to decide what attitude is proper for me? If it takes all my time to create quality work, do you expect me to give that up so I can pay for a place to live and food to eat? If you believe in equal value transactions why should you trade your stellar quality work that took a decade to perfect for something I dashed off on a napkin last happy hour? How about this deal - I'll do my best to provide something you like - you give me some money so I won't starve while I make it. This 'right to copy' shit is logically flawed. The cost of making a copy is NOT the cost of creating the content. Following your logic - doctors, lawyers, and journalists shouldn't be paid either. After all they've already been educated, it doesn't cost a doctor anything to use a stethoscope. Maybe cabdrivers only deserve gas money - the automobile's just equipment - like instruments and recording equipment. In your world musicians don't deserve to be compensated for buying their equipment, why should anyone else? Get real - if one person gets it free - all people should get it for free. Or should someone else pay for your free ride? If I want to encrypt my music 9 ways to Friday you have NOTHING to say about it. If I want satan his unholy self to represent me YOU have nothing to say about it. YOU can pay my price or hit the road. If you take my content without my permission - call it 'sharing' or 'exerting your right to copy' or 'rebelling against the Evil Empire' - you are stealing from me! Quit your bitching and create something excellent. Then see how you like someone telling you your time and effort mean nothing because it's so incredibly easy to copy your work. I'm really not greedy, after all, I traded this post for yours. */rant*
billy - I aplogize for any personal allusions, I mean 'you' in the generic sense
Which came first ripping cds and illegally distributing their content or DCMA? Your arguments boil down to "people don't want to pay". Your points about varied content and lower prices mean nothing when no one pays. Do you think all the p2p people are ripping off the people who DID pay the artists for their work by buying the cds? Damn straight they are.
billy - sick of the self serving BS and rationalization and holier then thou and...
Yah, I hadn't considered that until you pointed it out. He's pissed because his friends didn't get paid so it's OK for everyone to avoid paying...
So, explain it to me...how do his friends get paid again?
I know he's saying why pay if the money doesn't get where it's supposed to go - but all his friends sure seem to want the money. And come on now, 41 users and 144,000 files - that's file ripping of biblical proportions (sorry)! It's awfully hard to justify that much 'sharing'. Having 1000 songs on your hard drive that you've never heard doesn't do anyone any good. That's not sharing - that's hoarding.
Give the man a cigar! If his article was a/. post I'd suspect it was a troll. Card was a god/hero for a while after Ender's Game came out, but dropped off sharply even in the Ender sequels. His characters were pretty transparent and predictable if I remember right. Yes, Ender's Game had a clever twist - but not a whole lot more that could be considered original. Hell, Captain Nemo had a tortured soul plagued by a violent past. The fact that he seems to find NOTHING redeeming in Trek - not even the multiracial makeup of the crew - seems like sour grapes to me. Hey, watching women turn on their planet, culture, and families just cause Kirk slipped them some of his own 'rocket ship' did get old. You gotta admit that the wide variety of interstellar lifeforms did express itself in some awfully explorable forms. I remember when...well... nevermind.
billy - "not that there'e anything wrong with that"
what if you had to pay a fee to get a newspaper to print your letter to the editor? And, then the newspaper still charged to get reprints of that letter and the op-ed pages?
Do you often write letters to newspapers to which you don't subscribe? Maybe you should just consider that you are paying to read other people's comments. And newspapers do sell your letters - along with everything else in that issue. If the site can't find a way to make enough money to pay for itself with ads I guess it should just shut down. I don't know about you, but I really don't want newspaper level ad density on online forums. Popups are the online equivilent of newspaper inserts, do you think that would be a good way for the "ad people" to "figure out how to get sponsers to support the forums"? Most places people meet have some sort of entry cost involved - be it cover charge, admission fee, taxes, or just the cost of a beer to sit at the bar. Try going down to your local office supply store and telling them you deserve free paper and pens because you're going to put up some valuable 'content'. Try plastering some of that content up on the wall at your local mall. I'm sure you can imagine the form 'moderation' would take. You know, if you place so much value on your comments, maybe others would also. Then you can become a columnist and get paid for your views. You could try it yourself but I doubt your revenues would cover the bandwidth. Don't forget though that every bite of your reader's comments is going to cost a little for storage. Do you really believe that 80% of the content in most forums has value to anyone besides its author? On/. for every good post there are 4 or 5 that don't make sense, repeat other posts, or are just plain idiotic. Hell I post idiotic comments for a laugh from time to time - they SHOULD make me pay for some of them.
Actually, LSD was discovered by Albert Hofmann, a chemist working for Sandoz Pharmaceutical, in Basel, Switzerland in 1938. Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert were fired from Harvard in 1963 after establishing the Psychedelic Research Project in 1960. The "Summer of Love" took place in 1967. The CIA first started experimenting with LSD in 1951. I imagine they've pretty much got it down to a science by now.
billy - "But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion"
Well, at the least that explains the "Suck It" post. Although I can see differing opinions existing regarding this practice, I don't believe the parent is a troll. Whatever I decide about Piquepaille, this is the first I've heard about him, and I find the information to be of value. I personally don't have a problem with someone else paying this guy. I doubt many/.ers SEE the ads, much less read them. If the assertions that Piquepaille used to copy without giving credit and has changed his ways are true, then/. can claim a positive influence.
As for the complaints about the/. editors - don't look a gift horse in the mouth! I don't subscribe and as far as I'm concerned that limits my right to complain to approximately zero. The ONLY valid way to express my opinion is to choose not to use the service. It's not difficult to bypass stories I'm not interested in viewing - and I may decide to pass on future Piquepaille stories. As a general policy I'm very open minded toward funding models that provide free content. Besides, I can think of a lot worse articles than this if I really want to bitch.
Reading your article, I get the impression that you've tried appealing to both the users and the powers that be without much success. It seems obvious that whatever solution you decide to implement is going to involve a lot of your own time and effort. I suggest you make it worth your while. I don't know what is your particular area of study, but it probably wouldn't be too hard to come up with a way to get some credits for working on this problem. The IT connection is obvious. If you are LA you should be able to work in an angle in psychology, sociology, even some sort of human/technology interface thing for the sciences. Two or three independent study credits might go a long way toward mitigating your frustration. Don't give up if the obvious professors are not responsive - it shouldn't be too hard to find an LA professor delighted to sponsor a program solving a technical problem with a humanistic approach.
As far as method...I suggest you take your lead from the hacker/cracker community. Implement a Social Engineering attack. There are many fine examples of specific techniques to be found in the comments of this thread. I especially like the "scarlet V" approach. I suggest the following:
- "anyone who gets infected is a lamer old school twerp who is so behind the technology curve that they can't even stop high school script kiddies from using them like zombie flesh puppets"
- "allowing your owned machine to infect the local net is dissing everyone in the dorm - especially if you are too clueless to know how to prevent it"
- "you're getting played, you clueless dork, every time you click that stupid 'yes' button it's like bending over and dropping your drawers"
I'm sure you can do a much better job coming up with the proper approach. Just remember that establishing the proper attitude is key - even a few people is a good start. Then public humiliation and shame will work wonders. One advantage of this solution is it will stay with the users after they leave the influence of a network tech fix. Hey, maybe you'll change the world. At least it could help you get a little closer to graduating - and add some stretch to your resume. It might also help you get a little more respect from the powers that be when you slap down your independent study paper with the big, fat 'A' on the cover.
billy - who went to UT - volunteer is NOT a dirty word
Sure would be nice to have a space elevator. I'm having my doubts that this group of 5 full time and 4 part time people are going to have much to contribute. There is a lot of talk on their website about plans and research and 'groups', but very little substance. It seems their first priority was to develop a line of clothing and an online store. The "Finance" portion of their group consists of investment club opportunities which they generously offer to the public. I couldn't find any mention of other members of their "Group" apart from the sub-companies consisting of the same 9 employees. So far it looks like they have received some money from NASA and $100K from local development agencies in New Jersey where they have announced the building of their first factory. The money from NASA is a little misleading, however. It seems that another company, High Lift Systems, got its start when LiftPort's President, Michael J. Laine, ran into Brad Edwards on a space forum. Edwards is a physicist who worked at Los Alamos National Laboratories for 11 years and had raised $570K from NASA to study the feasibility of a space elevator. Laine originally wasn't interested - "I thought it was ridiculous,' says Laine"- but quickly changed his mind. Edwards is also the only scientist or researcher connected to LiftGroup on their website. Unfortunately for LiftGroup, but probably not for Edwards, after about a year he gave Laine the boot and went off to do research at Eureka Scientific under a NASA grant. Currently he has received $2.5M from the US government to fund his own lab. His take on Laine? He says that Laine "spins his wheels" and "if Michael Laine is standing there with something, Boeing and the Air Force won't even notice him."
LiftPort Group seems to be a lot of talk and a website. Search results for Laine are few and all related to LiftPort, yet supposedly he has been a leading proponent of the space elevator for years. Content about LiftGroup on other websites consists almost entirely of Liftgroup press releases, with no information other than that provided by LPG. LiftPort Group claims that LiftPort Carbon is a leading force in the industry and its product, Liftite(TM) carbon nanotubes, will "revolutionize the way the world thinks about materials". There is no third party reference to this not originating from LiftPort that I could find. As a matter of fact, I can not find ANY reference from ANY acknowledged authority in the field confirming any of LiftPorts claims. While other companies are mentioned in news stories about product releases, cooperative ventures, and funding awards, LiftGroup is mentioned in quotes from its own press releases. Maybe I'm missing a huge body of information somewhere, if not, the only question left seems to be...is Michael Laine a kook or a crook? I guess time will tell.
billy - who disavows all knowledge of THIS particular mission
I think you are missing the point. A single photon of light is sent down an optical channel made out of artificially produced diamond particles. The sender measures the photon using one of two methods A or B. Which method is used is randomly determined. The measurement results in one of two values (i.e. left or right, up or down.) The sender records the method of measurement and the determined value. The two measured states represent 1s and 0s in binary. The photon travels down the channel to the receiver. The receiver measures the photon using either A or B. Also determined at random. When the stream is complete the receiver tells the sender which measurement method was used for each photon. The sender then tells the receiver which photons were measured with the same methods. The binary data from any photons that were not measured with the same method is deleted from the message. This results in a series of 1s and 0s. Please note - even at this point the message can not be compromised - because THERE IS NO MESSAGE!
The next step in the process is validating the security of the transmission. This is done by comparing the binary results for matching photons. There are several ways to do this. One way is to use a process that splits the binary list into blocks using randomly chosen members of the list so that the list can be compared a block at a time. By comparing blocks at different parts of the list any interception of the data can be detected. How? If two photons were measured with the same method and the measurements don't match it means the data was corrupted. This could result from noise of various kinds, including interception. Too much noise is a strong indication of eavesdropping. Remember - the eavesdropper can only choose one of the two measurement methods and once the photon is measured the other measurement method is rendered invalid. That's why they call it "quantum". So for any photon measured by the eavesdropper there is a chance the receiver will get the wrong binary result even with the measurement method that matches the sender. Enough wrong matches and the eavesdropper is exposed. At this point there is still NO MESSAGE!
If they determine that no interception has occurred they use a normal bit parity check to eliminate errors. After each segment of the check they discard a bit from a prearranged location in the block (first, last, etc.) to reinforce security. By making the block sizes bigger as errors are discarded they eventually derive usable bit lists. These bit lists are then modified by prearranged formula and the resultant string becomes the key. And it is at that point that there is finally a message.
Currently, commercial quantum cryptography systems are available, but they are are expensive. Some major players in the development of quantum cryptography systems include IBM, NEC, DARPA, Toshiba, Fujitsu, MIT and Harvard. There are sure to be breakthroughs and roll-outs in the near future. Interestingly, one problem affecting the implementation of this new technology is the transmission of data over distances. Optical amplifiers evidently 'observe' the photons, thus rendering them useless. I guess that's just more proof that there really is a 'ghost in the machine'.
Index.dat Suite is freeware for Windows that will make a 'run-once' batch file you can customize to remove anything you want at boot. As a bonus it scans for and removes little MS gems like 'cookies/index.dat' and several other pesky 'unexplained' files. Overall the sites worth checking out.
I agree that knowing the conviction rate of wire tap suspects would be a valuable indication of the accuracy of law enforcement's suspicions. You're also right that 634 convictions in 4506 attempts would be dismal. I suspect though that the majority of the suspects have not been tried yet. I'm sure their lawyers could keep the cases tied up for quite a while arguing the legality of the wiretaps. I also suspect that rather than filing an official rejection to a wiretap request, a lot of judges just chase the offending officer out of their chambers with a look of disgust. Paperwork sucks...and leaves a trail at election time! In any case, real professionals don't discuss business on phones of any kind unless they use a prearranged code. In most cases a number on a pager can communicate anything you really need to know. The vast majority of tapped information is used as background to help the tappers understand the situation and identify possible sources. Dumping your girlfriend in such a situation is a problematic decision.
My contempt for you is only exceeded by my pity when I consider the obvious lameness of your life. I can only hope that you are the victim of a mental disorder and not such an idiot that you actually consider your editing to be clever or funny. If you were such an idiot, you might believe anonymous posting was really anonymous. Of course it could be an experiment to see if anyone catches your changes. Either way...dude...you suck. I'll take solace that, in my experience, punks with attitudes like the one your disrespect of/. and all its readers implies usually end up in bad places surrounded by bad people. But you'll be OK - you're clever. By the way, tossed any salads lately?
There are a couple of reasons why google is news and in a way, will be always. The first is the rise of a company from literally nothing to a multiBILLION dollar business in less than 10 years. That's incredible. Even more incredible is that not only have most of the people using Google's service never paid a dime, they have never been asked to. A good argument could be made that google has delivered more value to more people at less cost to them than any organization in history. That includes governments and religions.
Google is also news because of its continuing role in the evolution of a major paradigm shift in human society. The usable access to the knowledge base the internet represents is an equalizer even more powerful and universal than the printing press or the revolver of the old American west. Google has held the line against the commercial corruption that would seek to control our access to information. For the first time in history it is actually possible for the average citizen to be reasonably informed concerning all aspects of the world, his society and his government. Yep, that's right you bastards, we've got our eyes on you. Google's presence as both a top of the line search engine and their commitment to free and advertising transparent searching has prevented the establishment of a cutthroat, strictly commercial search engine environment. It's not too hard to imagine an internet where your choices were pay-for-search, by query or subscription, and free engines based on commercial models featuring top loading, competitor filtering, and even social and political censorship. The Google alternative has played a vital role in keeping the rest of the players relatively honest.
A lot of dreams were shattered when the dot com bubble collapsed. It's easy to look back and decide that the ideals of the early days of the internet were as flawed as the business plans of the hundreds of failed companies. Today's web represents a more traditional approach to business. Making a dollar has replaced making a difference. Yet Google stands as proof that the dream CAN work. By creating and maintaining a first rate product and adopting their "Ten things Google has found to be true" they have proven that truly you don't have to do evil to make money. If only for that, Google deserves to be considered one of the foundations of the internet. Sometimes it does us good to remember where we were, it gives us a good perspective on where we may be going.
billy - not only that...they made a SHIT LOAD of cash
The dudes at Rice invented 3 of the 4 current methods for producing buckytubes. Their current research involves the use of catalysts applied to the end of existing tubes which results in "cloning" the tube, allowing for unprecedented control of the tubes characteristics. Here are some of Smalley's comments on buckytubes...
"These single walled carbon nanotubes are uniquely specified by two small integers, n and m. The diameter is roughly proportional to the sum, n+m. The electronic properties, however, are determined by the difference, n-m. If n and m are the same, then n-m=0 and the tube conducts electrons like a perfect metal. In the trade it is called and "arm-chair" tube. Electrons move down this tube as a coherent quantum particle, traveling down the tube much like a photon of light travels down a single mode optic fiber. Individual armchair tubes can conduct as much as 20 microamps of current. This doesn't sound like much until you realize that his little molecular wire is only 1 nanometer in diameter. A half inch thick cable made of these tubes aligned parallel to each other along the cable, would have over 100 trillion conductors packed side-by-side like pipes in a hardware store. If each of these tubes carried only one microamp, only 2 percent of its capacity, the half inch thick cable would be carrying one hundred millions amps of current. Fabricating such a cable - we call it the "armchair quantum wire" - is a prime objective of our work."
Buckytubes exceed the strength of carbon fiber (30 to 100 times that of steel), the thermal transfer ability of diamonds, and are the best electrical conductor of any molecule known. They promise great advances not only for the transmission of energy, but also for energy storage (including hydrogen), composite fabrics, and even solar power. The world's leading producer of buckytubes is Carbon Nanotechnologies Incorporated, a Houston based spin-off from Rice. In the computer category, IBM has already announced the successful manufacture of buckytube transistors. It may not be all that long until we start to see some real world applications that begin to fulfill the exalted "gee whiz" promise of nanotechnology. And I'm not talking about facial creams.
billy - no...they are NOT calling the transistor 'little blue'
Are we uping the anty concerning the possible negative ramifications of shouting out into the void? Right now we're basically yelling -
"Hey it's us! We're called h u m a n s. Look isn't our planet great? Look at all the resources! Look at all the people! See how advanced we are - we can send uncontrolled unmanned probes who knows where. We're peaceful too! With this technology we don't have much choice. Well, here's where we live - just follow the TV signals. See ya soon!"
So the new plan is to send a toxic little present with the message. I hope we don't lose the whole planet in a liability judgement.
billy - yes I'm paranoid...now go away before you set off the booby traps
Hey, I know it's below the/. radar, but the big ISPs ARE doing something about the malware problem. The focus of the current round of competing commercials is 'free' add on services like spam blockers and anti-virus. They know most users won't spend the time and effort to secure their machines so they are going to do it for them. Of course that pretty much dismisses any change of privacy from your ISP. I guess the ISPs figure if you'll lay back and spread your legs for viruses you'll do it for them as well. I believe MS is using this same philosophy, as illustrated by the changes in their default system behaviors. The average user has proven that he won't patch and update, so now the system just does it for him. Pretty much the same for maintenance. Too bad it takes a year from launch for us to figure out how to turn all that shit off.
Off topic...so Seti@home is a big giant antenna aimed at outer space that captures data and sends it to computers across the planet...wonder what kind of firewall they got on that thing?
billy - who welcomes our benevolent new cyber-overlords
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if, in the case of third party users, the responsibility for not violating patents might extend to the end user BECAUSE of the availability of the code in OS applications. You can hardly hold the user of closed source apps at fault - they supposedly have no idea what's running under the hood. Do users of products with available source code have some sort of 'due diligence' responsibility to ensure the app doesn't violate patents or copyrights? Maybe the EULA should go both ways, so that part of the licensing agreement for software is a statement from the author that 'no patents were harmed in the making of this software'. Part of any contractual agreement could be that the vender assumes any responsibility assigned to the user due to the violation of content rights. Part of IT service providers features sets could be the certification of 'no patent violation' software environments. That said, I'd like to think that if the government is using closed source software for critical activities - especially concerning the privacy of citizens or the accuracy of voting results - that a qualified representative of the government would routinely vet the code for a LOT more than patent violations. Does anyone know if this vetting process exists and if so, who does the checking?
billy - hell no I didn't vote for him
Did it occur to you that none of your responses had anything to do with what I said? Did it occur to you that most of the things you said don't make any sense?
"Third, people pay for services. You buy shoes because they enable you to perform the service of protecting your feet."
Yeh, does that mean a rutabaga is a service that keeps me from dying and smelling up the neighborhood?
I just can't take it anymo....oh I get it - you're a troll - you really had me going. I'm embarrassed to admit I honestly thought there was someone that clueless. You got me good. You're totally wrong about the musician part though. I do know a few in Nashville, but they all get paid pretty good. I've always found it ironic that none of them really likes country music.
billy - is your ps some sort of
Thank you, that is exactly what I was trying to say
The words 'copy' and 'work' are two different words with two different meanings. Try substituting 'copied' for 'created' in "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth." Not quite the same meaning is it? Are you trying to say you recognize no difference between the rights of the man who creates a work of art and a man who makes a copy that the creator does not want him to make? You can't make an argument by changing a word in my statement then saying 'see - you agree with me'.
I like that deal, "paying for a service" truely is so much better than "imposing copyright monopoly"
Copyrights are a way to insure that I am paid for the service of creating the content. It is a philosophical construct (like all beliefs and laws) that gives me the right to control the use (including copying) of my original intellectual product. Because YOU can not produce that content the only place you can get it is from me. If you take it without my permission you are stealing. Stealing is not " defined by what is no longer in your posession", to steal is defined as " To take (the property of another) without right or permission". And just what property of mine are you taking? You are taking the information contained in the file you copy. It doesn't matter that I also retain that information, if you got it from me and I have not given it, you have 'taken it'. This 'copying is not stealing because you still have a copy' assertion is one of the more self serving bogus arguments used to support your view. Words can not be swapped in and out and redefined to suit your purpose. What matters is what is in YOUR possession that was not, not what remains in mine. Would you assert that a spy who broke into a laboratory and photographed the plans for a nuclear missile did not steal them? Put another way - if the control of the use of my original content is the method I use to secure payment for my efforts, that control represents real world value. When you take that control from me and transfer that control to you, you are stealing real world value. It's irrelevant that you decide not to charge for further copies, every copy you distribute represents potential real world value you have taken from me. You can not possibly know how many of the people who received free copies from you would have paid me for the same information. The media file which contains the information is irrelevant because it is the information (remember information economy?) that represents the value. Even by your definition you have taken potential sales from me - you have stolen them. Please don't be stupid enough to suggest they are not worth anything - Pink Floyd has been around a long time, but people still buy the albums.
"I BEG anyone to show me one goddam musician who will turn away 5000 people paying $50 bucks a head to see him perform live in concert because they won't respect "his copyrights"'.
This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The one situation has NOTHING to do with the other. This is another example of a favorite but invalid, technique used to support your arguments i.e. 'the RIAA has a record of ripping off musicians and suing grandmothers, therefore there should be no copyrights'. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. Anyone who uses arguments this logically flawed should be ashamed of themselves. The real pity is that there are a great many VALID arguments that support the opinion that the RIAA is not good for creativity and should be watched very closely. Using invalid and transparently flawed arguments just lets them point at their opponents and say "see, they're fanatics - what they say is idiotic and doesn't make sense".
"And one more more thing. BILLY
And which people who download the music are responsible for "the very low" number of times the artist SHOULD be paid. If you listen to my work you must find it has some value. EACH person who listens is finding value - not persons 1 through 100 of 25,000. Even if your low evaluation of my work is correct - why should the first 100 pay the whole tab when if all 25,000 chipped in they would all pay less? And if 24,999 people are willing to pay, why should I, or they, be OK with letting you have it for free? If we don't let you, you're ripping it off. Your arguments are predicated on your definitions of 'value' and 'work'. I don't agree with either. I also reject your authority to determine 'limits' on 'compensation' for anyone but yourself. Once again your arguments boil down to "I don't want to pay". Good on ya! Don't pay - steal it - just don't try to justify the theft with BS.
billy - don't get me started
*rant*
You absolutely do count, as does your opinion, but only when it comes to YOUR work. Trash it, give it away, transmit it to the universe. Just don't tell me YOU can decide what I can or can not do with MY work. Consider that you might sit down and reach a different conclusion if YOU could "sit on my ass and collect a million bucks". Who are you to decide what attitude is proper for me? If it takes all my time to create quality work, do you expect me to give that up so I can pay for a place to live and food to eat? If you believe in equal value transactions why should you trade your stellar quality work that took a decade to perfect for something I dashed off on a napkin last happy hour? How about this deal - I'll do my best to provide something you like - you give me some money so I won't starve while I make it. This 'right to copy' shit is logically flawed. The cost of making a copy is NOT the cost of creating the content. Following your logic - doctors, lawyers, and journalists shouldn't be paid either. After all they've already been educated, it doesn't cost a doctor anything to use a stethoscope. Maybe cabdrivers only deserve gas money - the automobile's just equipment - like instruments and recording equipment. In your world musicians don't deserve to be compensated for buying their equipment, why should anyone else? Get real - if one person gets it free - all people should get it for free. Or should someone else pay for your free ride? If I want to encrypt my music 9 ways to Friday you have NOTHING to say about it. If I want satan his unholy self to represent me YOU have nothing to say about it. YOU can pay my price or hit the road. If you take my content without my permission - call it 'sharing' or 'exerting your right to copy' or 'rebelling against the Evil Empire' - you are stealing from me! Quit your bitching and create something excellent. Then see how you like someone telling you your time and effort mean nothing because it's so incredibly easy to copy your work. I'm really not greedy, after all, I traded this post for yours.
*/rant*
billy - I aplogize for any personal allusions, I mean 'you' in the generic sense
Which came first ripping cds and illegally distributing their content or DCMA? Your arguments boil down to "people don't want to pay". Your points about varied content and lower prices mean nothing when no one pays. Do you think all the p2p people are ripping off the people who DID pay the artists for their work by buying the cds? Damn straight they are.
billy - sick of the self serving BS and rationalization and holier then thou and...
Yah, I hadn't considered that until you pointed it out. He's pissed because his friends didn't get paid so it's OK for everyone to avoid paying...
So, explain it to me...how do his friends get paid again?
I know he's saying why pay if the money doesn't get where it's supposed to go - but all his friends sure seem to want the money. And come on now, 41 users and 144,000 files - that's file ripping of biblical proportions (sorry)! It's awfully hard to justify that much 'sharing'. Having 1000 songs on your hard drive that you've never heard doesn't do anyone any good. That's not sharing - that's hoarding.
billy - who doesn't like mp3s anyway
In this case it's more
I know you are - and so am I.
billy - wanta bet whether the prof wants to get paid if he hits it big?
Give the man a cigar! If his article was a
billy - "not that there'e anything wrong with that"
what if you had to pay a fee to get a newspaper to print your letter to the editor? And, then the newspaper still charged to get reprints of that letter and the op-ed pages?
Do you often write letters to newspapers to which you don't subscribe? Maybe you should just consider that you are paying to read other people's comments. And newspapers do sell your letters - along with everything else in that issue. If the site can't find a way to make enough money to pay for itself with ads I guess it should just shut down. I don't know about you, but I really don't want newspaper level ad density on online forums. Popups are the online equivilent of newspaper inserts, do you think that would be a good way for the "ad people" to "figure out how to get sponsers to support the forums"? Most places people meet have some sort of entry cost involved - be it cover charge, admission fee, taxes, or just the cost of a beer to sit at the bar. Try going down to your local office supply store and telling them you deserve free paper and pens because you're going to put up some valuable 'content'. Try plastering some of that content up on the wall at your local mall. I'm sure you can imagine the form 'moderation' would take. You know, if you place so much value on your comments, maybe others would also. Then you can become a columnist and get paid for your views. You could try it yourself but I doubt your revenues would cover the bandwidth. Don't forget though that every bite of your reader's comments is going to cost a little for storage. Do you really believe that 80% of the content in most forums has value to anyone besides its author? On
billy - the checks in the mail
Do you think my browser shows the ads?
billy - who has NEVER clicked an ad
Actually, LSD was discovered by Albert Hofmann, a chemist working for Sandoz Pharmaceutical, in Basel, Switzerland in 1938. Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert were fired from Harvard in 1963 after establishing the Psychedelic Research Project in 1960. The "Summer of Love" took place in 1967. The CIA first started experimenting with LSD in 1951. I imagine they've pretty much got it down to a science by now.
billy - "But we decide which is right And which is an illusion"
Yes, maybe.
But I bet they didn't do them TOGETHER...
*shudder*
billy -
Well, at the least that explains the "Suck It" post. Although I can see differing opinions existing regarding this practice, I don't believe the parent is a troll. Whatever I decide about Piquepaille, this is the first I've heard about him, and I find the information to be of value. I personally don't have a problem with someone else paying this guy. I doubt many
As for the complaints about the
billy - there's no such thing as a free pipe
Reading your article, I get the impression that you've tried appealing to both the users and the powers that be without much success. It seems obvious that whatever solution you decide to implement is going to involve a lot of your own time and effort. I suggest you make it worth your while. I don't know what is your particular area of study, but it probably wouldn't be too hard to come up with a way to get some credits for working on this problem. The IT connection is obvious. If you are LA you should be able to work in an angle in psychology, sociology, even some sort of human/technology interface thing for the sciences. Two or three independent study credits might go a long way toward mitigating your frustration. Don't give up if the obvious professors are not responsive - it shouldn't be too hard to find an LA professor delighted to sponsor a program solving a technical problem with a humanistic approach.
As far as method...I suggest you take your lead from the hacker/cracker community. Implement a Social Engineering attack. There are many fine examples of specific techniques to be found in the comments of this thread. I especially like the "scarlet V" approach. I suggest the following:
- "anyone who gets infected is a lamer old school twerp who is so behind the technology curve that they can't even stop high school script kiddies from using them like zombie flesh puppets"
- "allowing your owned machine to infect the local net is dissing everyone in the dorm - especially if you are too clueless to know how to prevent it"
- "you're getting played, you clueless dork, every time you click that stupid 'yes' button it's like bending over and dropping your drawers"
I'm sure you can do a much better job coming up with the proper approach. Just remember that establishing the proper attitude is key - even a few people is a good start. Then public humiliation and shame will work wonders. One advantage of this solution is it will stay with the users after they leave the influence of a network tech fix. Hey, maybe you'll change the world. At least it could help you get a little closer to graduating - and add some stretch to your resume. It might also help you get a little more respect from the powers that be when you slap down your independent study paper with the big, fat 'A' on the cover.
billy - who went to UT - volunteer is NOT a dirty word
Sure would be nice to have a space elevator. I'm having my doubts that this group of 5 full time and 4 part time people are going to have much to contribute. There is a lot of talk on their website about plans and research and 'groups', but very little substance. It seems their first priority was to develop a line of clothing and an online store. The "Finance" portion of their group consists of investment club opportunities which they generously offer to the public. I couldn't find any mention of other members of their "Group" apart from the sub-companies consisting of the same 9 employees. So far it looks like they have received some money from NASA and $100K from local development agencies in New Jersey where they have announced the building of their first factory. The money from NASA is a little misleading, however. It seems that another company, High Lift Systems, got its start when LiftPort's President, Michael J. Laine, ran into Brad Edwards on a space forum. Edwards is a physicist who worked at Los Alamos National Laboratories for 11 years and had raised $570K from NASA to study the feasibility of a space elevator. Laine originally wasn't interested - "I thought it was ridiculous,' says Laine" - but quickly changed his mind. Edwards is also the only scientist or researcher connected to LiftGroup on their website. Unfortunately for LiftGroup, but probably not for Edwards, after about a year he gave Laine the boot and went off to do research at Eureka Scientific under a NASA grant. Currently he has received $2.5M from the US government to fund his own lab. His take on Laine? He says that Laine "spins his wheels" and "if Michael Laine is standing there with something, Boeing and the Air Force won't even notice him."
LiftPort Group seems to be a lot of talk and a website. Search results for Laine are few and all related to LiftPort, yet supposedly he has been a leading proponent of the space elevator for years. Content about LiftGroup on other websites consists almost entirely of Liftgroup press releases, with no information other than that provided by LPG. LiftPort Group claims that LiftPort Carbon is a leading force in the industry and its product, Liftite(TM) carbon nanotubes, will "revolutionize the way the world thinks about materials". There is no third party reference to this not originating from LiftPort that I could find. As a matter of fact, I can not find ANY reference from ANY acknowledged authority in the field confirming any of LiftPorts claims. While other companies are mentioned in news stories about product releases, cooperative ventures, and funding awards, LiftGroup is mentioned in quotes from its own press releases. Maybe I'm missing a huge body of information somewhere, if not, the only question left seems to be...is Michael Laine a kook or a crook? I guess time will tell.
billy - who disavows all knowledge of THIS particular mission
I think you are missing the point. A single photon of light is sent down an optical channel made out of artificially produced diamond particles. The sender measures the photon using one of two methods A or B. Which method is used is randomly determined. The measurement results in one of two values (i.e. left or right, up or down.) The sender records the method of measurement and the determined value. The two measured states represent 1s and 0s in binary. The photon travels down the channel to the receiver. The receiver measures the photon using either A or B. Also determined at random. When the stream is complete the receiver tells the sender which measurement method was used for each photon. The sender then tells the receiver which photons were measured with the same methods. The binary data from any photons that were not measured with the same method is deleted from the message. This results in a series of 1s and 0s. Please note - even at this point the message can not be compromised - because THERE IS NO MESSAGE!
The next step in the process is validating the security of the transmission. This is done by comparing the binary results for matching photons. There are several ways to do this. One way is to use a process that splits the binary list into blocks using randomly chosen members of the list so that the list can be compared a block at a time. By comparing blocks at different parts of the list any interception of the data can be detected. How? If two photons were measured with the same method and the measurements don't match it means the data was corrupted. This could result from noise of various kinds, including interception. Too much noise is a strong indication of eavesdropping. Remember - the eavesdropper can only choose one of the two measurement methods and once the photon is measured the other measurement method is rendered invalid. That's why they call it "quantum". So for any photon measured by the eavesdropper there is a chance the receiver will get the wrong binary result even with the measurement method that matches the sender. Enough wrong matches and the eavesdropper is exposed. At this point there is still NO MESSAGE!
If they determine that no interception has occurred they use a normal bit parity check to eliminate errors. After each segment of the check they discard a bit from a prearranged location in the block (first, last, etc.) to reinforce security. By making the block sizes bigger as errors are discarded they eventually derive usable bit lists. These bit lists are then modified by prearranged formula and the resultant string becomes the key. And it is at that point that there is finally a message.
Currently, commercial quantum cryptography systems are available, but they are are expensive. Some major players in the development of quantum cryptography systems include IBM, NEC, DARPA, Toshiba, Fujitsu, MIT and Harvard. There are sure to be breakthroughs and roll-outs in the near future. Interestingly, one problem affecting the implementation of this new technology is the transmission of data over distances. Optical amplifiers evidently 'observe' the photons, thus rendering them useless. I guess that's just more proof that there really is a 'ghost in the machine'.
billy - who has nothing he needs to encode
Index.dat Suite is freeware for Windows that will make a 'run-once' batch file you can customize to remove anything you want at boot. As a bonus it scans for and removes little MS gems like 'cookies/index.dat' and several other pesky 'unexplained' files. Overall the sites worth checking out.
billy - damned sneaky if you ask me
I agree that knowing the conviction rate of wire tap suspects would be a valuable indication of the accuracy of law enforcement's suspicions. You're also right that 634 convictions in 4506 attempts would be dismal. I suspect though that the majority of the suspects have not been tried yet. I'm sure their lawyers could keep the cases tied up for quite a while arguing the legality of the wiretaps. I also suspect that rather than filing an official rejection to a wiretap request, a lot of judges just chase the offending officer out of their chambers with a look of disgust. Paperwork sucks...and leaves a trail at election time! In any case, real professionals don't discuss business on phones of any kind unless they use a prearranged code. In most cases a number on a pager can communicate anything you really need to know. The vast majority of tapped information is used as background to help the tappers understand the situation and identify possible sources. Dumping your girlfriend in such a situation is a problematic decision.
billy - anyone seen my friend Mary Jane?
My contempt for you is only exceeded by my pity when I consider the obvious lameness of your life. I can only hope that you are the victim of a mental disorder and not such an idiot that you actually consider your editing to be clever or funny. If you were such an idiot, you might believe anonymous posting was really anonymous. Of course it could be an experiment to see if anyone catches your changes. Either way...dude...you suck. I'll take solace that, in my experience, punks with attitudes like the one your disrespect of
billy - replying to...anonymous COWARD
There are a couple of reasons why google is news and in a way, will be always. The first is the rise of a company from literally nothing to a multiBILLION dollar business in less than 10 years. That's incredible. Even more incredible is that not only have most of the people using Google's service never paid a dime, they have never been asked to. A good argument could be made that google has delivered more value to more people at less cost to them than any organization in history. That includes governments and religions.
Google is also news because of its continuing role in the evolution of a major paradigm shift in human society. The usable access to the knowledge base the internet represents is an equalizer even more powerful and universal than the printing press or the revolver of the old American west. Google has held the line against the commercial corruption that would seek to control our access to information. For the first time in history it is actually possible for the average citizen to be reasonably informed concerning all aspects of the world, his society and his government. Yep, that's right you bastards, we've got our eyes on you. Google's presence as both a top of the line search engine and their commitment to free and advertising transparent searching has prevented the establishment of a cutthroat, strictly commercial search engine environment. It's not too hard to imagine an internet where your choices were pay-for-search, by query or subscription, and free engines based on commercial models featuring top loading, competitor filtering, and even social and political censorship. The Google alternative has played a vital role in keeping the rest of the players relatively honest.
A lot of dreams were shattered when the dot com bubble collapsed. It's easy to look back and decide that the ideals of the early days of the internet were as flawed as the business plans of the hundreds of failed companies. Today's web represents a more traditional approach to business. Making a dollar has replaced making a difference. Yet Google stands as proof that the dream CAN work. By creating and maintaining a first rate product and adopting their "Ten things Google has found to be true" they have proven that truly you don't have to do evil to make money. If only for that, Google deserves to be considered one of the foundations of the internet. Sometimes it does us good to remember where we were, it gives us a good perspective on where we may be going.
billy - not only that...they made a SHIT LOAD of cash
The dudes at Rice invented 3 of the 4 current methods for producing buckytubes. Their current research involves the use of catalysts applied to the end of existing tubes which results in "cloning" the tube, allowing for unprecedented control of the tubes characteristics. Here are some of Smalley's comments on buckytubes...
"These single walled carbon nanotubes are uniquely specified by two small integers, n and m. The diameter is roughly proportional to the sum, n+m. The electronic properties, however, are determined by the difference, n-m. If n and m are the same, then n-m=0 and the tube conducts electrons like a perfect metal. In the trade it is called and "arm-chair" tube. Electrons move down this tube as a coherent quantum particle, traveling down the tube much like a photon of light travels down a single mode optic fiber. Individual armchair tubes can conduct as much as 20 microamps of current. This doesn't sound like much until you realize that his little molecular wire is only 1 nanometer in diameter. A half inch thick cable made of these tubes aligned parallel to each other along the cable, would have over 100 trillion conductors packed side-by-side like pipes in a hardware store. If each of these tubes carried only one microamp, only 2 percent of its capacity, the half inch thick cable would be carrying one hundred millions amps of current. Fabricating such a cable - we call it the "armchair quantum wire" - is a prime objective of our work."
Buckytubes exceed the strength of carbon fiber (30 to 100 times that of steel), the thermal transfer ability of diamonds, and are the best electrical conductor of any molecule known. They promise great advances not only for the transmission of energy, but also for energy storage (including hydrogen), composite fabrics, and even solar power. The world's leading producer of buckytubes is Carbon Nanotechnologies Incorporated, a Houston based spin-off from Rice. In the computer category, IBM has already announced the successful manufacture of buckytube transistors. It may not be all that long until we start to see some real world applications that begin to fulfill the exalted "gee whiz" promise of nanotechnology. And I'm not talking about facial creams.
billy - no...they are NOT calling the transistor 'little blue'
Speaking of crashes...
Are we uping the anty concerning the possible negative ramifications of shouting out into the void? Right now we're basically yelling -
"Hey it's us! We're called h u m a n s. Look isn't our planet great? Look at all the resources! Look at all the people! See how advanced we are - we can send uncontrolled unmanned probes who knows where. We're peaceful too! With this technology we don't have much choice. Well, here's where we live - just follow the TV signals. See ya soon!"
So the new plan is to send a toxic little present with the message. I hope we don't lose the whole planet in a liability judgement.
billy - yes I'm paranoid...now go away before you set off the booby traps
Uhhh...was it because they were by Madonna or as a protest of the lame outmoded audio cassette format? Inquiring minds want to know...
billy - damn, I just got used to 8 tracks
Hey, I know it's below the
Off topic...so Seti@home is a big giant antenna aimed at outer space that captures data and sends it to computers across the planet...wonder what kind of firewall they got on that thing?
billy - who welcomes our benevolent new cyber-overlords