> It is only a matter of time until the HDCP master key is reverse-engineered, and > at that point it will become easy to create devices that mimic HDCP functionality, > making HDCP essentially useless.
Unfortunately, manufacturing, distributing and possessing said devices will be illegal.
> You cannot know anything unless you pay for it first- and without a money back guarantee. You > cannot listen to music, see theater, or learn unless you pay- and without a money back guarantee. If > I buy a lemon, and it's core is rotten and infested- I can return it. If I buy a music CD and the > music is complete crap complete with DRM so that I can't actually play it- not only do I not get my > money back but I don't even own the said piece of crap. It's a rental.
Well, why do you think they call it "the information age"?
Hint: it's not because you can have all the information you need.
It's because they found a way to commercialize it. That is: Charge for it, tax it, limit its use and dissemination, make it a scarce resource.
> There's a geologist in my department who developed a technique for measuring > earth density. This could be good for looking for oil or other valuables > underground. He published his work, like all scientists. So some > mining/prospecting company read up on it, patented a related method and then tried > to stop him from doing any more research on it, lest he give away 'their' secrets > to their competitors.
> By owning a picture or looking at a picture,, in and of itself, is simply not > criminal. It may be sick and twisted but it's not a crime.
It is a crime because society (indirectly, via legislators) says it is a crime. If you don't like it, fight to change the definition.
> The laws are so broad now that you could randomly download a ton of pornograhic > images and then delete them. But if somebody finds them in your recycle bin and a > few include minors of any sort you could go to jail for a long time.
See above.
Possession crimes are a peach. It doesn't matter how the matter got into your possession because you are not charged with obtaining it but with possessing it.
> Our justice system isn't just about deterrence. There is a theoretical sense of > balance to it, in that the punishment should fit the crime. If you break a minor > law, you recieve a minor punishment. Break a major law, and receive a major > punishment.
Your legal system ("justice" has nothing to do with it) isn't just about deterrence. There is a theoretical sense of balance to it, in that the punishment fits the means of the accused. If you can afford a better lawyer, you receive a minor punishment. Get a less expensive lawyer, and receive a major punishment.
Yes, mod me "off topic" to oblivion but it needs to be said. Often.
> Theoretically, the justice system in this country is based on justice
Forgive my interruption but you do not have a justice system. You have a legal system.
When innocence or guilt (and the nature and severity of the punishment) is often determined by the quality of the legal representation that one can afford, "justice" does not enter the equation.
> There are a few more that I can get out of the files when I get back to work, > but it is half past midnight our time and I can't think of the references off the > top of my head.
Do you also know any regarding the dangers (or the lack thereof) of cellular towers (masts)?
> Just because this radiation is different in nature and the mechanisms by which it > could cause cancer are not known, that doesn't mean that it can't cause cancer - > especially when research is coming out showing that there may well be an increased risk.
Please point me to this research.
> I work in the scientific community
Good! Then I can expect that the research you will point me to is up to accepted scientific standards.
> Dumb idea. Patents represent actual property. That would be like the government telling you that you couldn't resell your car.
Um, no.
Patents are not property. They are a set of exclusive rights granted by a government to a person for a fixed period of time in exchange for the regulated, public disclosure of certain details of an invention.
> See the Boost Lambda library. Boost is the C++ library working group. Most of the library > enhancements have come from Boost. Lambda's have been around for a while but aren't a part of > the current standardization effort.
The FA1 fighting androids were created by man. They rebelled. They evolved. They look and feel human. Some are programmed to think they are human. There are many copies. And they have a plan.
Slashdot Mirror
> It was Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right [...]
No, no, this is the solution for Rubic's cube.
>I reckon the Oppo DV971H should be on every Slashdot reader's wish list.
Hmmm... HDCP/HDMI?
Isn't it the epitome for "DRM encumbered"?
> The city will have to pay not only for the expensive attorneys they hired, but
> may have to compensate the 16 year old's pro-bono counsel.
The "city" does not pay anything, it's the citizens that do.
Administration makes a blunder, residents get punished.
> Even if someone hasn't developed a working demo yet, I can respect that they
> claimed the idea as their own. Why can't you?
Because the concept of "claiming an idea as their own" is ludicrous.
> Orwell wrote this same essay with more style and more grace in 1946.
Kind of proves the point, doesn't it?
> Thats the entire point of copyright- a limited monopoly in exchange for greater
> incentive to produce.
To produce , not to publish.
> It is only a matter of time until the HDCP master key is reverse-engineered, and
> at that point it will become easy to create devices that mimic HDCP functionality,
> making HDCP essentially useless.
Unfortunately, manufacturing, distributing and possessing said devices will be illegal.
How come nobody mentioned VLC or Media Player Classic yet?
> [...] Linus is an optomist [...]
Is that a cross between an optimist and an optometrist?
> It is way to long [...]
One of the words in your sentence is way too short.
> You cannot know anything unless you pay for it first- and without a money back guarantee. You
> cannot listen to music, see theater, or learn unless you pay- and without a money back guarantee. If
> I buy a lemon, and it's core is rotten and infested- I can return it. If I buy a music CD and the
> music is complete crap complete with DRM so that I can't actually play it- not only do I not get my
> money back but I don't even own the said piece of crap. It's a rental.
Well, why do you think they call it "the information age"?
Hint: it's not because you can have all the information you need.
It's because they found a way to commercialize it.
That is: Charge for it, tax it, limit its use and dissemination, make it a scarce resource.
> There's a geologist in my department who developed a technique for measuring
> earth density. This could be good for looking for oil or other valuables
> underground. He published his work, like all scientists. So some
> mining/prospecting company read up on it, patented a related method and then tried
> to stop him from doing any more research on it, lest he give away 'their' secrets
> to their competitors.
I call bullshit^Wprior art.
> By owning a picture or looking at a picture,, in and of itself, is simply not
> criminal. It may be sick and twisted but it's not a crime.
It is a crime because society (indirectly, via legislators) says it is a crime.
If you don't like it, fight to change the definition.
> The laws are so broad now that you could randomly download a ton of pornograhic
> images and then delete them. But if somebody finds them in your recycle bin and a
> few include minors of any sort you could go to jail for a long time.
See above.
Possession crimes are a peach.
It doesn't matter how the matter got into your possession because you are not charged with obtaining it but with possessing it.
> Our justice system isn't just about deterrence. There is a theoretical sense of
> balance to it, in that the punishment should fit the crime. If you break a minor
> law, you recieve a minor punishment. Break a major law, and receive a major
> punishment.
Your legal system ("justice" has nothing to do with it) isn't just about deterrence. There is a theoretical sense of balance to it, in that the punishment fits the means of the accused. If you can afford a better lawyer, you receive a minor punishment. Get a less expensive lawyer, and receive a major punishment.
Yes, mod me "off topic" to oblivion but it needs to be said. Often.
> Theoretically, the justice system in this country is based on justice
Forgive my interruption but you do not have a justice system.
You have a legal system.
When innocence or guilt (and the nature and severity of the punishment) is often determined by the quality of the legal representation that one can afford, "justice" does not enter the equation.
Thank you very much for the references.
> There are a few more that I can get out of the files when I get back to work,
> but it is half past midnight our time and I can't think of the references off the
> top of my head.
Do you also know any regarding the dangers (or the lack thereof) of cellular towers (masts)?
> Just because this radiation is different in nature and the mechanisms by which it
> could cause cancer are not known, that doesn't mean that it can't cause cancer -
> especially when research is coming out showing that there may well be an increased risk.
Please point me to this research.
> I work in the scientific community
Good!
Then I can expect that the research you will point me to is up to accepted scientific standards.
Thank you.
> By definition, standards are supported by governments, nationaly (national standard organization) or internationaly (by delegation).
Which government "supports" TCP/IP?
> Dumb idea. Patents represent actual property. That would be like the government telling you that you couldn't resell your car.
Um, no.
Patents are not property.
They are a set of exclusive rights granted by a government to a person for a fixed period of time in exchange for the regulated, public disclosure of certain details of an invention.
> Look here.
Thanks.
How about something that does not assume familiarity with either language?
fonbio,
As you seem to have some experience with both, could you try to summarize the main differences between Scheme and Lisp?
> See the Boost Lambda library. Boost is the C++ library working group. Most of the library
> enhancements have come from Boost. Lambda's have been around for a while but aren't a part of
> the current standardization effort.
That's exactly my gripe.
Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas!
Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas!
Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas!
Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas!
Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas! Lambdas!
It is tedious, inefficient and unclear to define a functor for single-use transformations, away from where the code is actually used.
C++ is already a multi-paradigm language.
Add some functional concepts while you're at it.
The FA1 fighting androids were created by man.
They rebelled.
They evolved.
They look and feel human.
Some are programmed to think they are human.
There are many copies.
And they have a plan.
> I'm Australian
Are you now?
And we just have to take your word for it?
> What a crock of shit.
Oh, right.
Sorry to have doubted you, mate.