This is the same as porn sites shamelessly stealing competition's photos, and stating "by clicking "Enter" you agree not to use any materials within against us." meaning they can countersue for breach of contract if you sue them for copyright infringement.
Actually, attempting to apply the T&Cs of the offending website in that manner would void the contract, as it would bind the consenting parties to conceal evidence of a crime.
Imagine this were some failed Microsoft product - would the OSS community all start bouncing on their chairs clammering to take it over and give up on this 'Linux thing'?
Actually, a lot of OSS peole would LOVE to open source some MS projects. The only problem is that MS won't do that for many projects because of their IP centered business plan. They can afford to sit on old IP in hopes that new value can be found - like what they tried to do with FAT. (I know, it was a patent issue - not exactly the same as open sourcing project code, but the point is still clear.)
UYFB (Use Your F***ing Brain): Do you want all the info on your passport's personal details page readable by absolutely everyone you walk by?
Passport cloning isn't even the primary security concern here. Cloning a passport has become no harder or easier thanks to RFID. But Identity theft will become much much easier.
That's an option, but reflecting the beam at any target other than its origin requires some fairly advanced aiming systems. Once developed, a reflector suit would probably be fairly cheap. (And it wouldn't require any electronics or moving parts.) An ADS reflecting/retargeting system would be an entirely different sort of creature. I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to just develop your own ADS instead of bothering to reflect the incoming one.
Would a metal plate reflect the radiation back at them?
You'd have to use a corner reflector (or more probably an array of them). Such a reflector would send the beam more or less directly back in the direction it came from. This would only be a useful retaliation if the weapon were being held by the operator, or the operator were in close proximity to the weapon. If it were turret mounted, then there wouldn't be any point.
6. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. If you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights management services or using full volume disk drive encryption.
drinkypoo said:
What they're saying is that windows DRM cannot be counted on to work properly inside of a virtual machine. If that is somehow an unreasonable statement, I haven't yet figured out how.
The second part is definitely advice. As you say, this is completely reasonable. The first sentence is clearly an explicit prohibition. The purpose also seems pretty clear: it is to give MS another legal tool to combat anyone who wants to reverse engineer or just analyse their encryption/DRM technologies - for whatever purposes. No security research is allowed by the EULA. Microsoft is taking complete control of all the data in any security discussion about Windows Vista. Conclude what you will. (Of course, occasionally an "independent" researcher will be granted permission to look into issues that may come up -but any such permission is outside the scope of the EULA.)
So every time someone wants to access something quality, do some research, they have to jump in the car and go to the library-that's your solution? In my case that's close to a 40 mile round trip, and obviously only when they are open.
Many univeristy libraries allow non-students/staff to use their services (sometimes for a nominal card fee). In this case, you will often get access to all the online journals that are available to the faculty. Many of the journals you claim to care about are available online instantly, at no marginal cost. Were you trying to make some point about it being an expense and an inconvenience? How's that working out for you?
And if you would prefer not to have to use a university's library, then why don't you take your blind faith in democracy down to your county council and bring your local library into the 21st century? How's that for a practical application of the wikipedia mentality?
If they want to contribute to wikipedia, then publish their papers, wiki picks up the tab over at their site.
What "tab" are you talking about? If you think bandwidth and a distribution channel are the main services that journals provide, then you're just advertising your own ignorance. There's plenty of bandwidth for free publication at pretty much any university around. They could host their own material without a problem if they wanted to (and many do if you dig your head out of your ass and look for it). So you're saying that wikipedia would "pick up the tab" for its oh-so-valuable "peer" review services? Whose side are you arguing for anyways? It's laughable.
If they want to contribute to wikipedia, then publish their papers, wiki picks up the tab over at their site. If they want to restrict it to the expensive pay per view, then don't be surprised if very few people ever read them over there. Which is fine really, really, it is, if that is your's or their's goal-your choice,but dissin' wikipedia because you as the academic have a beef with some of the content, yet don't want to share your content, is beyond hypocritical,
No it's not hypocritical at all. Not when people start claiming that wikipedia has reliability in any sense that's comparable to other sources. Then it is fair to judge its quality on the merits of the claim - simple as that. And when it comes to technical topics (other than Star Wars trivia and memes), wikipedia falls short and is rightly criticized. In fact, your claim that nobody can fairly criticize wikipedia if they don't give everything away for free is an obvious example of how thorough the wikipedian brainwashing has been in your case. It's mind-numbingly ignorant.
Just go away then, keep doing what you are doing-some people are getting more involved with this and the open access concept is starting to get noticed and have some legs. Knowledge sharing will progress across the globe, and will be using what remains of the original concept of the web, despite you and some of your peers archaic and dark ages modelled elitist snob ways.
Your hostility is quite amusing. I am not against open access. I enjoy it. I enjoy the open access that already exists to ~99.? % of scholarly work. I also do not begrudge the effort that it might take to dig up some dusty neglected tome. I enjoy the quest. It is incredibly rewarding. I am also not against more open models of scholarly publication, but the fact remains that the wikipedia model is fundamentally incompatible with most (but not all) meaningful scholarly activity. Scholarly work requires more control over editing priveleges - simple as that. If you don't understand why, then it's impossible to communicate to you what it is that a researcher really does.
I agree with the inventor, you are free to disagree. We'll be seeing how it works out in the long run.
This analogy illustrates how far you are from "getting it". Scienti
...Wikipedia-in part - is the reaction to this "keep knowledge buried and expensive and only available to the elite" nonsense. I thought this got sorted out in the middle ages when it was finally decided that "the commoners" could learn to read...
Ugh. The only thing keeping you from reading those "oh so secret" papers is you. Get off your lazy ass and go to the library. Doesn't seem so hard now, does it? I don't hear you bitching about how Crichton has the nerve to charge for his books. Or how the New York Times is evil for not giving away their paper. If you want it for free, go to your library. And yes, your library can get academic volumes for you. You just have to wait a bit.
And the other reason academics don't all just throw their preprints up on the web (some do) before review is because they don't want them to be widely read until they have been reviewed by some competent critics. It's because academics KNOW that much of what they write is crap - which is more than can be said for most of wikipedia's contributors.
but apparently it is still some sort of feudalistic system.
That's actually fairly accurate. It is a system based on the medieval system of apprenticeship. It is designed to foster competence, respect, and (as I hinted above) humility. I know, those things are anathema to the wikipedians, but everybody already knows that iconoclasm and utopianism don't get you very far on a scale of crappy to reliable - well except for the drones who actually believed that the Nature article "proved" that wikipedia was reliable. That was good for a laugh.
There is hope for wikipedia, but it does not lie with people who share your attitude. Fortunately, there are a couple people left within wikipedia who might be able to foster more productive dialog than yours.
They're also really cramped for anything that needs airflow. It can be done, but I wouldn't want to. I'd like ot try watercooling a microATX build in an O2. I think that'd be sweet. I've always loved the O2 cases.
To me, "mashup" sounds like anti-synergy, where the whole is LESS than the sum of its parts. That may not be the intended meaning by the person using the word, but it's typically appropriate enough!
Exactly. To me "mashup" reminds me of such terms as "fuckup" and "cockup".
Even if the result ends up holding, it's not time to close the book on simulation methods yet. The result shows (or claims to show) existence and uniqueness. It does this through an indirect method that is not constructive. (i.e. It doesn't tell you what the solution is, only that it's out there somewhere.)
If this holds up, the methods used are doubtless going to lead to better approximations and possibly - after a lot more research - to constructive methods. It's going to be exciting to see what happens to the field of fluids if this result holds, but it's not time to close the book on NV. In fact, this might open up some new subfields of PDE theory.
It would actually be very surprising to me if there ever were constructive solution methods that are significantly faster than simulation. It's a complexity thing. (That's just me musing in a highly speculative manner, though.) IMHO the real power of a constructive solution method would primarilly be for analysing other theoretical characteristics of solutions - not necessarilly for fast algorithms. (Like how if you want to compute a numerical solution to a potential problem, it's easier to do a numerical simulation of a stressed membrane and let it reach equilibrium than to numerically integrate a Green's function. The Green's function gives a theoretically constructive method that lets you determine properties of the solutions, but if you want to actually copute the thing, it's not the best way to go.)
..are zero because he can use university-owned equipment.
In this case (the comm department), you're probably right. It's likely that the room has facilities, but many departments aren't magical fairy tale lands of free flowing technology. Not all universities have equipment coming out the wazoo. And just because the university might be able to procure equipment doesn't mean it's free. University departments have budgets. I'm guessing you either have never worked at a university, or are one of the lucky ones at a school that's swimming in new equipment.
As for the rest of your post, well that's a nice bubble you live in. I hope it doesn't pop. Let me guess, you think that musicians shouldn't own the copyright to their concerts because the fans paid for their tickets to the live show, right? It's the same argument.
I commend you for pointing out that the slavery reference was hyperbole. Good form.
With current technology, it still costs something to produce recordings. Given that he's not selling any volume, the equipment costs alone (for just a decent voice recorder with remote mic, and a couple gigs for archiving) could justify a lot more than $2.50 per lecture. If he were selling a couple hundred a semester those costs would get diluted quickly, but you can count on the frat house archives to keep the prices high forever.
.
If you actually read the policies of any (well most) universities, you'd know that what you just said is total crap. The right to record is usually only granted unilaterally to students with disability related needs. For "normal" students, the lecturer has total control over the copyright of the lecture audio.
Teaching is a public service, true. His contract requires him to provide lectures, office hours, etc. Recordings have typically always been the property of the instructor (as I said above). What he does with them is his own business. Hell, by your reasoning no professor would be entitled to sell any products that might be derived from their research, as that would be violating their sacred "public service" duties. I call bullshit. Their duties are outlined in their contract. Anything more that they provide is a bonus, nothing more. To pretend that your opinion is motivated by some "ideal" or altruism is a dreadful hypocrisy.
Maybe if the third condition (they believe that Microsoft does not collect private information using WGA) is not true, then circumventing WGA might have some perceived benefit. How does the Kool-Aid taste?
I swore off inkjets years ago when lasers became affordable, and it was clear that all the inkjet manufacturers had embraced the "printer at a loss/refill at a high markup" model.
The only reason to use inkjets is if you got one free with your computer. And then use refill kits or off-brand ink (or toss the thing). And don't get me started on how stupid photo printers are.
Slashdot Mirror
Except for the fact that the physical DVD is NOT "the bulk of that $15 price". Not by a long shot.
Simple: the same way you insure against mortgage defaults...
Economics isn't a perfect science...
Correction: economics isn't a science.
Passport cloning isn't even the primary security concern here. Cloning a passport has become no harder or easier thanks to RFID. But Identity theft will become much much easier.
It's the " /. " symbol! :)
That's an option, but reflecting the beam at any target other than its origin requires some fairly advanced aiming systems. Once developed, a reflector suit would probably be fairly cheap. (And it wouldn't require any electronics or moving parts.) An ADS reflecting/retargeting system would be an entirely different sort of creature. I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to just develop your own ADS instead of bothering to reflect the incoming one.
Gives a whole new meaning to the term "moonshot".
Many univeristy libraries allow non-students/staff to use their services (sometimes for a nominal card fee). In this case, you will often get access to all the online journals that are available to the faculty. Many of the journals you claim to care about are available online instantly, at no marginal cost. Were you trying to make some point about it being an expense and an inconvenience? How's that working out for you?
And if you would prefer not to have to use a university's library, then why don't you take your blind faith in democracy down to your county council and bring your local library into the 21st century? How's that for a practical application of the wikipedia mentality?
What "tab" are you talking about? If you think bandwidth and a distribution channel are the main services that journals provide, then you're just advertising your own ignorance. There's plenty of bandwidth for free publication at pretty much any university around. They could host their own material without a problem if they wanted to (and many do if you dig your head out of your ass and look for it). So you're saying that wikipedia would "pick up the tab" for its oh-so-valuable "peer" review services? Whose side are you arguing for anyways? It's laughable.
No it's not hypocritical at all. Not when people start claiming that wikipedia has reliability in any sense that's comparable to other sources. Then it is fair to judge its quality on the merits of the claim - simple as that. And when it comes to technical topics (other than Star Wars trivia and memes), wikipedia falls short and is rightly criticized. In fact, your claim that nobody can fairly criticize wikipedia if they don't give everything away for free is an obvious example of how thorough the wikipedian brainwashing has been in your case. It's mind-numbingly ignorant.
Your hostility is quite amusing. I am not against open access. I enjoy it. I enjoy the open access that already exists to ~99.? % of scholarly work. I also do not begrudge the effort that it might take to dig up some dusty neglected tome. I enjoy the quest. It is incredibly rewarding. I am also not against more open models of scholarly publication, but the fact remains that the wikipedia model is fundamentally incompatible with most (but not all) meaningful scholarly activity. Scholarly work requires more control over editing priveleges - simple as that. If you don't understand why, then it's impossible to communicate to you what it is that a researcher really does.
This analogy illustrates how far you are from "getting it". Scienti
That's the sound of sarcasm passing stealthily by...
Ugh. The only thing keeping you from reading those "oh so secret" papers is you. Get off your lazy ass and go to the library. Doesn't seem so hard now, does it? I don't hear you bitching about how Crichton has the nerve to charge for his books. Or how the New York Times is evil for not giving away their paper. If you want it for free, go to your library. And yes, your library can get academic volumes for you. You just have to wait a bit.
And the other reason academics don't all just throw their preprints up on the web (some do) before review is because they don't want them to be widely read until they have been reviewed by some competent critics. It's because academics KNOW that much of what they write is crap - which is more than can be said for most of wikipedia's contributors.
That's actually fairly accurate. It is a system based on the medieval system of apprenticeship. It is designed to foster competence, respect, and (as I hinted above) humility. I know, those things are anathema to the wikipedians, but everybody already knows that iconoclasm and utopianism don't get you very far on a scale of crappy to reliable - well except for the drones who actually believed that the Nature article "proved" that wikipedia was reliable. That was good for a laugh.There is hope for wikipedia, but it does not lie with people who share your attitude. Fortunately, there are a couple people left within wikipedia who might be able to foster more productive dialog than yours.
It's like ebonics for Web 2.0 people.
They're also really cramped for anything that needs airflow. It can be done, but I wouldn't want to. I'd like ot try watercooling a microATX build in an O2. I think that'd be sweet. I've always loved the O2 cases.
If this holds up, the methods used are doubtless going to lead to better approximations and possibly - after a lot more research - to constructive methods. It's going to be exciting to see what happens to the field of fluids if this result holds, but it's not time to close the book on NV. In fact, this might open up some new subfields of PDE theory.
It would actually be very surprising to me if there ever were constructive solution methods that are significantly faster than simulation. It's a complexity thing. (That's just me musing in a highly speculative manner, though.) IMHO the real power of a constructive solution method would primarilly be for analysing other theoretical characteristics of solutions - not necessarilly for fast algorithms. (Like how if you want to compute a numerical solution to a potential problem, it's easier to do a numerical simulation of a stressed membrane and let it reach equilibrium than to numerically integrate a Green's function. The Green's function gives a theoretically constructive method that lets you determine properties of the solutions, but if you want to actually copute the thing, it's not the best way to go.)
Duh. Parent even said "And not in the Duke Nukem Forever sense of the word." Mods these days.
As for the rest of your post, well that's a nice bubble you live in. I hope it doesn't pop. Let me guess, you think that musicians shouldn't own the copyright to their concerts because the fans paid for their tickets to the live show, right? It's the same argument.
I commend you for pointing out that the slavery reference was hyperbole. Good form.
.
If you actually read the policies of any (well most) universities, you'd know that what you just said is total crap. The right to record is usually only granted unilaterally to students with disability related needs. For "normal" students, the lecturer has total control over the copyright of the lecture audio.
Teaching is a public service, true. His contract requires him to provide lectures, office hours, etc. Recordings have typically always been the property of the instructor (as I said above). What he does with them is his own business. Hell, by your reasoning no professor would be entitled to sell any products that might be derived from their research, as that would be violating their sacred "public service" duties. I call bullshit. Their duties are outlined in their contract. Anything more that they provide is a bonus, nothing more. To pretend that your opinion is motivated by some "ideal" or altruism is a dreadful hypocrisy.
So DVD then? That is, until HDCP is cracked. Shouldn't be long.
Maybe if the third condition (they believe that Microsoft does not collect private information using WGA) is not true, then circumventing WGA might have some perceived benefit. How does the Kool-Aid taste?
The only reason to use inkjets is if you got one free with your computer. And then use refill kits or off-brand ink (or toss the thing). And don't get me started on how stupid photo printers are.