But if you buy your new motherboard with the locks already in place, even if Windows Longhorn does default to turning all the locks off, how does that help Linux users?
The letters "V.B.O.G.I." could indicate colors.... Could the wires lead to some sort of ricer extra lights somewhere? Possibly 'neon' tubes that were removed by the seller?
Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl
on
RF-Blocking Wallpaper
·
· Score: 1
You're saying that with this technology I could make a building so that the people inside could not use their cellphones, and you think that's not useful?
If they falsly accused a Mac user, isn't it likely that there's at least ten to twenty Windows users out there who were also falsly accused but weren't lucky enough to have such an easy way to prove it?
However, many artists do not support P2P. Do you think this latter group is misguided?
Only time will tell. I suspect that those of them that have given it any thought are probably not thrilled with the way the recording industry works but they're not idealist enough to think that any other mechanism will work out. They may be right. I also suspect that there's some sort of gambler's dilemma in action. If some sort of alternative low-cost/free music distribution were to magically replace the current recording industry we'd probably see a lot less richer-than-god rock stars as they're mostly an artifact of advertising. If you believed (correctly or otherwise) that you had a good shot at being that one-in-a-million Big Hit, you wouldn't be eager to adopt anything new. Again, I can't say for sure that this is the wrong attitude to have. They may be right.
"to make unauthorized copies of their work even though they would not want you to? "
By "their work", you mean the record company's property? When you buy a CD the artist's work is only a small fraction of what you're paying for. A large portion of it is the recording industry's PR and advertising, various levels of bureaucratic expenses, congressional lobbies, giant legal departments etc. Admittedly, all that costs money and businesses have to pass their expenses to their customers, but I don't want all that and I think the world would be better off without it, and I'm especially not thrilled at the idea of paying for it. (Whether it is my legal right to make this decision does not particularly interest me. I know I won't get caught. And I know it does not conflict with my morals.)
In short -- are there some people to whom the Golden Rule should not be applied?
"Do unto Others as you would have them do unto you."
It's generally understood that this carries the implication "if the situation were reversed". (No one expects a beggar to immediately give all the spare change he collects to the next person who happens along.)
Given this I feel no problem ripping off the recording industry itself. I've been brought up to understand that if I try to swindle someone(legally or otherwise.) they'll try to swindle me back. Nothing personal that's just the way the world works.
If I were to copy a CD I would feel guilty about ripping off the artists themselves of course, but if they choose (and as you pointed out, it is their choice) to only deal with me through a giant faceless corporation(and not all of them do.) then I'm not going to feel any more guilt about not buying a CD than I do about the overseas sweatshops where my sneakers were undoubtedly manufactured, or the latest injustice by committed by the government I pay taxes to.
Why is it insightful to say "People I don't like believe this : " and then a list of ridiculous, obviously false, greatly exagerated, or badly out of context statements?
"Do I kick people off their calls if I switch to a new tower when I drive behind a building? Somehow I doubt it -- the cell networks are designed with roaming in mind." Yes. They're built with roaming in mind. That's the key word there. The cells are laid-out so that you will progress from one to the other in a predictable way. Imagine a map colored so that no to bordering cities share the same color. There is no way you could stand on a line and "see" two red places at once.
In an airplane your signal will carry much farther so you can hit multiple towers running on the same channels. Going back to the map analogy, once you're 40,000ft above the map there are LOTS of places where you could "see" two separate red cities. When that happens there's a good chance that the slot you're using on the tower you're officially connected to is also in use on the tower you're not supposed to be connected to but you are anyway. If that happens they drop both calls so that you can't exploit this effect for wire-tapping purposes.
"yet the FAA won't let you use them because they might 'interfere'." The FAA is cool with it. It's the FCC that won't let you do it, and for good reason. (With any aircraft iirc.)
Most airlines have rules against it too, but that's just paranoia.
"Excelent, your resume says you're the best mechanical engineer in the world, and that you're the only person to every memorise the Space Shuttle's entire schematic. Very good. Oh, but I see you failed the color test. Well, I think we may still be able to offer you a janatorial job."
Since the Enterprise(D)'s communication system appears to transmit intra-ship communications including the opening line (usualy), there's only one way it could work.
Obviously the only answer is that the computer must know who you with to speak to before you state their name. Either the computer is far smarter than they give it credit for or it's reading their minds. (This could help explain the universal translator as well.)
This is further supported by the instances in the show when the recipient of a call speaks a short aside to a person they are physicaly talking with before answering the communicator and the computer correctly relays only the speach directed at the person on the other end of the line. Even if they never touch their com-badge or a wall panel!
The only problem the computer-reading-the-mind theory doesn't seem to account for why Picard sometimes takes over a minute to respond to a hail but Worf can tell in under three seconds if a Romulan is going to pick up the line.
Doesn't broadcast sporting evnets? Are you kidding?
My Local UPN affiliate always, without fail, shows a hockey game in Star Trek's time-slot.
Now, I'm not a hockey fan, but I'm pretty sure the hockey season hasn't started yet. However, I do not belive this will stop UPN from withholding Star Trek from me. I have confidence that they will find a way to somehow broadcast hockey instead of Star Trek.
It has redundant motors. Unless two motors fail it won't spin around in circles. In fact all the major parts are redundant... I sort of wonder if that's what attributing to the price tag.
As for supermarkets, Think of all the contraptions they already allow in there. Old ladies with motorized wheel-chairs, walkers and even many even offer motorized shopping carts. It's certainly possible that these will be allowed in Supermarkets and what-not. It really depends a lot on who the early adopters are. Nerds? Or people who have trouble walking?
They're also living on the invention of Writing, Currency, The Personal Computer, The CD-ROM, Binary, etc. They depend on many things. Just like any other company.
But the service they sell costs them money. Why is this bad in any way? Sure *IF* Linux didn't exist neither would RedHat but that's quite a stretch. *IF* it wasn't for hammers the people selling nails would be out of luck(you might say they'd be screwed). Should people manufactuing nails pay off the people manufacturing hammers?
Red Hat isn't selling Linux itself. That's just the vehicle. What they're selling is The Disk, The Manual, The Good Feeling some people get from owning A Software Box. and most importantly support.
They certainly pay for these things. Just like any other company.
Linux can be gotten for free (or media cost) just about anywhere. Or hadn't you heard?
-Andy
P.S. If you're so upset about it, go over to CheapBytes and buy your OS from them. Only a fool would buy from Red Hat if he didn't care about the support/manual/box.
This may have been a perfectly valid thing to patent back in 1996. (At least more so then now.) But to just begin to enforce it now would simply be silly.
If, in the time it takes to get your patent, other people come up with the same idea from scratch, You've defeated the purpose of Patents. They haven't stolen anything from you but you can still sue them. You've simply created a bizarre legal weapon.
You have to be able to begin selling and licensing your new product ASAP after inventing it. Otherwise you're allowing other people to duplicate your effort. Duplication of effort is never a good thing and it is even worse if you're going to come along later and say that their duplicated effort is now worthless. If That happens now the Patent Holder is essentially stealing from everyone else!
The patent office needs to find a way to turn around patents a lot faster. I suppose they this means they need a larger, better-trained staff. But it would be worth a few tax bucks.
Slashdot Mirror
"You do know that actual terrorists used actual airplanes for actual terrorism, right? And that it was recently?"
Yes, I think I heard something about that on the news.
Funny how we havn't heard anything more about it.
But if you buy your new motherboard with the locks already in place, even if Windows Longhorn does default to turning all the locks off, how does that help Linux users?
The letters "V.B.O.G.I." could indicate colors....
Could the wires lead to some sort of ricer extra lights somewhere? Possibly 'neon' tubes that were removed by the seller?
You're saying that with this technology I could make a building so that the people inside could not use their cellphones, and you think that's not useful?
Even the EFF would want some kind of proof that you weren't just wasting their time.
If they falsly accused a Mac user, isn't it likely that there's at least ten to twenty Windows users out there who were also falsly accused but weren't lucky enough to have such an easy way to prove it?
However, many artists do not support P2P. Do you think this latter group is misguided?
Only time will tell. I suspect that those of them that have given it any thought are probably not thrilled with the way the recording industry works but they're not idealist enough to think that any other mechanism will work out. They may be right.
I also suspect that there's some sort of gambler's dilemma in action. If some sort of alternative low-cost/free music distribution were to magically replace the current recording industry we'd probably see a lot less richer-than-god rock stars as they're mostly an artifact of advertising. If you believed (correctly or otherwise) that you had a good shot at being that one-in-a-million Big Hit, you wouldn't be eager to adopt anything new. Again, I can't say for sure that this is the wrong attitude to have. They may be right.
"to make unauthorized copies of their work even though they would not want you to? "
By "their work", you mean the record company's property? When you buy a CD the artist's work is only a small fraction of what you're paying for. A large portion of it is the recording industry's PR and advertising, various levels of bureaucratic expenses, congressional lobbies, giant legal departments etc. Admittedly, all that costs money and businesses have to pass their expenses to their customers, but I don't want all that and I think the world would be better off without it, and I'm especially not thrilled at the idea of paying for it. (Whether it is my legal right to make this decision does not particularly interest me. I know I won't get caught. And I know it does not conflict with my morals.)
In short -- are there some people to whom the Golden Rule should not be applied?
"Do unto Others as you would have them do unto you."
It's generally understood that this carries the implication "if the situation were reversed". (No one expects a beggar to immediately give all the spare change he collects to the next person who happens along.)
Given this I feel no problem ripping off the recording industry itself. I've been brought up to understand that if I try to swindle someone(legally or otherwise.) they'll try to swindle me back. Nothing personal that's just the way the world works.
If I were to copy a CD I would feel guilty about ripping off the artists themselves of course, but if they choose (and as you pointed out, it is their choice) to only deal with me through a giant faceless corporation(and not all of them do.) then I'm not going to feel any more guilt about not buying a CD than I do about the overseas sweatshops where my sneakers were undoubtedly manufactured, or the latest injustice by committed by the government I pay taxes to.
Why is it insightful to say "People I don't like believe this : " and then a list of ridiculous, obviously false, greatly exagerated, or badly out of context statements?
You mean "In this country "? The RIAA is an American organisation. That's what the last 'A' stands for.
Aparently in Russia the Recording Industry Association is not as bad.
Probably because in Russia people are poor enough that they can't affoard to be ripped off by the recording industry.
I'll bet the kangaroos got tired hearing all the sloths shouting "Hey guys! Wait up!"
"Do I kick people off their calls if I switch to a new tower when I drive behind a building? Somehow I doubt it -- the cell networks are designed with roaming in mind."
Yes. They're built with roaming in mind. That's the key word there. The cells are laid-out so that you will progress from one to the other in a predictable way. Imagine a map colored so that no to bordering cities share the same color. There is no way you could stand on a line and "see" two red places at once.
In an airplane your signal will carry much farther so you can hit multiple towers running on the same channels. Going back to the map analogy, once you're 40,000ft above the map there are LOTS of places where you could "see" two separate red cities. When that happens there's a good chance that the slot you're using on the tower you're officially connected to is also in use on the tower you're not supposed to be connected to but you are anyway. If that happens they drop both calls so that you can't exploit this effect for wire-tapping purposes.
"yet the FAA won't let you use them because they might 'interfere'."
The FAA is cool with it. It's the FCC that won't let you do it, and for good reason. (With any aircraft iirc.)
Most airlines have rules against it too, but that's just paranoia.
If it was a really sketchy, super black/white drawing then you'd be able to see that it's really a panda.
"Excelent, your resume says you're the best mechanical engineer in the world, and that you're the only person to every memorise the Space Shuttle's entire schematic. Very good. Oh, but I see you failed the color test. Well, I think we may still be able to offer you a janatorial job."
Since the Enterprise(D)'s communication system appears to transmit intra-ship communications including the opening line (usualy), there's only one way it could work.
Obviously the only answer is that the computer must know who you with to speak to before you state their name. Either the computer is far smarter than they give it credit for or it's reading their minds. (This could help explain the universal translator as well.)
This is further supported by the instances in the show when the recipient of a call speaks a short aside to a person they are physicaly talking with before answering the communicator and the computer correctly relays only the speach directed at the person on the other end of the line. Even if they never touch their com-badge or a wall panel!
The only problem the computer-reading-the-mind theory doesn't seem to account for why Picard sometimes takes over a minute to respond to a hail but Worf can tell in under three seconds if a Romulan is going to pick up the line.
More research is indicated.
My Local UPN affiliate always, without fail, shows a hockey game in Star Trek's time-slot.
Now, I'm not a hockey fan, but I'm pretty sure the hockey season hasn't started yet. However, I do not belive this will stop UPN from withholding Star Trek from me. I have confidence that they will find a way to somehow broadcast hockey instead of Star Trek.
You do? Heaven forbid they should put things on their web site that are topical and related to current events.
Hell, I've even heard that Lord of the Rings was even mentioned on Slashdot! IT'S A CONSPIRACY!
It has redundant motors. Unless two motors fail it won't spin around in circles. In fact all the major parts are redundant... I sort of wonder if that's what attributing to the price tag.
As for supermarkets, Think of all the contraptions they already allow in there. Old ladies with motorized wheel-chairs, walkers and even many even offer motorized shopping carts. It's certainly possible that these will be allowed in Supermarkets and what-not. It really depends a lot on who the early adopters are. Nerds? Or people who have trouble walking?
I've watched science fiction. We all know that wormholes collapse right after you travel through them, leaving you stranded wherever they open up.
-Andy
-Andy
Sure they'll make money, but if they're not paying for it, there's no reason they should get away with gouging us $15 for half a dozen songs.
They're also living on the invention of Writing, Currency, The Personal Computer, The CD-ROM, Binary, etc. They depend on many things. Just like any other company.
But the service they sell costs them money. Why is this bad in any way? Sure *IF* Linux didn't exist neither would RedHat but that's quite a stretch. *IF* it wasn't for hammers the people selling nails would be out of luck(you might say they'd be screwed). Should people manufactuing nails pay off the people manufacturing hammers?
-Andy
Red Hat isn't selling Linux itself. That's just the vehicle. What they're selling is The Disk, The Manual, The Good Feeling some people get from owning A Software Box. and most importantly support.
They certainly pay for these things. Just like any other company.
Linux can be gotten for free (or media cost) just about anywhere. Or hadn't you heard?
-Andy
P.S. If you're so upset about it, go over to CheapBytes and buy your OS from them. Only a fool would buy from Red Hat if he didn't care about the support/manual/box.
This may have been a perfectly valid thing to patent back in 1996. (At least more so then now.) But to just begin to enforce it now would simply be silly.
If, in the time it takes to get your patent, other people come up with the same idea from scratch, You've defeated the purpose of Patents. They haven't stolen anything from you but you can still sue them. You've simply created a bizarre legal weapon.
You have to be able to begin selling and licensing your new product ASAP after inventing it. Otherwise you're allowing other people to duplicate your effort. Duplication of effort is never a good thing and it is even worse if you're going to come along later and say that their duplicated effort is now worthless. If That happens now the Patent Holder is essentially stealing from everyone else!
The patent office needs to find a way to turn around patents a lot faster. I suppose they this means they need a larger, better-trained staff. But it would be worth a few tax bucks.
-Andy
I'm prety sure World's Chat pre-dated M-59 by quite a bit.