> another drive will eventually come out that has an EFFECTIVE write speed of (near) 16x becuase it will use a Z-CLV or P-CAV.
Nope, 16X Z-CLV or P-CAV will never achieve an effective speed of near 16X.
Consider the current 52X CD writers. Theoretically, at that speed, one should be able to burn an 80-min CD in just 92 seconds. In practice, however, the drives do it in 150 seconds (average), about 60% of the maximum speed.
The reason for that discrepancy is that all the fastest drives use CAV for their highest rating speed. That's bacause CAV can keep the drive rotating at its maximum speed all the time while the other technologies slow it down.
52X for CDs is close to the maximum practical speed of spinning the disk before wobble and other effects force you to slow down. The same is true for 16X DVDs (well, you may be able to reach consistently good 18X but at this point the law of diminishing returns makes it not worth the effort. You don't see many 54X CD drives, do you?)
> The average write speed on this drive barely qualifies it as a 12x drive. > Claiming this is a 16x drive is silly.
No, it is not silly. It's just creative marketing which, incidently, was in common use since CD readers reached 8X speeds.
This particular drive uses CAV (Constant Angular Velocity) technology. That means that the disk spins at a constant speed, just like your old LP record players. The circumference of an inner track is smaller than that of an outer track and yet thay take the same time to complete a revolution. That means that the linear speed thatthe laser reads/writes is lower on the inner tracks than on the outer. The speed increases from the inside to the outside but since CD and DVD disks are written from the inside out, you may not reach the max speed at all if the disk is not full.
Ignoring the "dips" (write quality adjustment attempts), the speed graph should be close to linear.
Most other drives use eithr Z-CLV or P-CAV to achieve higher average speeds. See here, here or here for an explanation of the terms and here for a comparison.
* The author of PlayFair did not neccessarily agree to Apple's terms.
* The hosting providers did not neccessarily agree to Apple's terms.
> If you don't like the number of players Fairplay will authorize, buy your music elsewhere.
Perhaps. But then, it is a contract violation - a purely civil (not criminal) matter. Apple may sue the entities mentioned above if it can prove that they are indeed violating signed agreements, and that the provisions in the agreements are legal and enforceable (e.g., a requirement to sacrifice your firstborn).
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here
on
Update on Playfair
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
>You've still made ONE copy in that process, even if you delete the original. > I'm not saying this is right or wrong, since I believe it's perfectly within > Fair Use to make a decrypted copy. What happens if Apple goes out of > business? What happens if I don't have a suitable network connection to > authorize my Macs? I paid for the music, and do have some right to listen to > it at 100% quality. > > However, all I am stating is the strict legality of the situation. Owning > this tool isn't illegal, but using it is. I don't know, however, that is > enough under Indian law to get them knocked off the servers.
Since when making a copy for purposes covered under fair use provisions (as you stated yourself) is illegal?
Tho the hell modded the parent up??? It is wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin.
> Since more AAC is more better, but there's a quote in the linked article I think is relevant: > > | Apple has stated that PlayFair contravenes the Indian Copyright > | Act. 1957 and the IT Act, 2002, but have not specified how these acts > | are violated. While these acts make the unauthorized copying of music > | illegal, they nowhere bar the creation of tools that could potentially > | be used to illegally copy music. Trying to stop dissemination of a > | tool that permits legal licensees of songs from iTunes to play them on > | non Apple-authorized hardware is purely a business loss prevention > | strategy from Apple and must be deplored.
I have taken the liberty to bold some words in the paragraph that you quoted to help your reading comprehension.
> So they acknowledge that the unauthorized copying of music is illegal, and > believe a tool that makes an unauthorized copy of the music is not illegal?
Hmmm... difficult case indeed. Let's try some analogies:
Stabbing people is illegal, knives are not. Shooting people is illegal, guns are not (at least in the US). Rape is illegal, penises are not. Get it now?
> Because as the author states, Apple already provides a means to permit legal > licensees of songs from iTunes to play on non Apple authorized hardware via > CD burning (and subsequent re-ripping). This is *authorized* copying. > Anything else, then, is unauthorized copying isn't it?
It isn't. The method of copying has nothing to do with it.
> Doing a clean decryption of the AAC file would certainly fall into unauthorized copying, according to the terms of use, I think.
Think again.
> So FairPlay's only legal defense is that it isn't illegal to write such a tool, only illegal to use such a tool...
No, the legal defence is that it is illegal to use such a tool (or any tool) for illegal purposes (such as unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material) but it has significant non-infringing uses.
And if that defence is not good enough for you, you should be incarcerated for posessing a tool that can be used for rape.
Maybe the current IP situation is not the problem? Maybe it is just a symptom?
Laws are meant to benefit society, not to make everybody a criminal.
Take a law, any law, and calculate the percentage of the population that breaks it. Then add add all the people that oppose it but are affraid of the consequences of breaking the law. If you get 50% or more then it is a bad law and must be removed, forcefully if needed, from the books.
Take a law, any law, and calculate the percentage of the population that benefits from it. Then compare it to the part that is harmed by it. If the law causes more harm than good then it is a bad law and must be removed, forcefully if needed, from the books.
If almost everybody speeds then the only explanation is that the speed limits are unreasonable. If the current IP laws only serve the purpose of making a handful of rich people richer, they have no right to exist.
Unfortunately, the slave's dream is not to abolish slavery but to be a slave-owner himself.
> After just a few hundred searches, you don't need to be a Kreskin to do a little data-mining and get a good idea of a user's interests, proclivities, and possible "deviancy" from his search terms.
Are you referring to the same "Amazing Kreskin" that gave us the following "prediction": (caps and formatting as in the original, emphasis mine)
"THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WILL BE ALERTED
THAT WE ARE AT WAR, THE MOST DIFFICULT WAR IN MODERN TIMES, THAT OF TERRORISM. THE UNITED STATES WILL BECOME STRONGER AND SAFER THANKS TO THE MILITARY MINDS OF GEN. COLIN POWELL AND DICK CHENEY."
> According to this, if leaving songs in a shared directory is legal, then > so would the following: - Leaving the doors to my place of business open and > advertising Free Music! - Put out some burners and my CD collection - Sell > snacks & drinks & blank CD's at somewhat inflated prices Afterall, I'm only > making it easy for others to copy for personal use!
You may be surprised but according to my understanding of the relevant Canadian laws this is perfectly legal.
> While this seems to be a good idea in some ways, I can't help but be > reminded of those "free speech zones" they command protesters to stay within > if they want to protest something. After all, the entire country is supposed > to be a free speech zone, and the entire internet is supposed to be open to > any form of speech (that is, within reasonable limits).
Who sets the limits? Who decides that's "reasonable"?
> It isn't in the Constitution. It's in the political system, where it gets more deeply embedded with every new law restricting ballot access and regulating poltical speech.
>> Don't think for a moment that this is just another >> way for Bushcroft & co. to harass people they >> don't like by denying them transportation rights. > > And don't think for a moment that things will change for the better should Bush lose the election
Correction: things will not change for the better should Bush lose the election to a Republican/Democrat candidate.
Please show me the passage in your constitution that mandates only two choices.
Is this going to be similar to the screening policies that have old grannies being detained for possible terror threats? What gets me is what's going to happen when someone innocent is labeled as the uber-terrorist by this new system...there better be a nice little compensation package for those folks. Oh wait, we as the rest of the consumers will have to pay for both the system AND the compensation. Well, fancy that.
You forget one thing, there will be no mistakes. Innocent people will never be flagged as threats because the fact that they are flagged as threats proves their guilt.
There will be no explanation, no due process and no possibility of appeal because that would compromise national security. Oh, did I mention that once you're on the list, you'll stay there forever? That's right, once a terrorist - allways a terrorist.
Don't think for a moment that this is just another way for Bushcroft & co. to harass people they don't like by denying them transportation rights. No sir! This is the finest example of your taxes at work. You should trust your government, it only tries to protect the country against terrorists.
Now be a good citizen and vote for Kodos, or Kang, does not really matter.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a difference between the linear and the angular speeds.
> another drive will eventually come out that has an EFFECTIVE write speed of (near) 16x becuase it will use a Z-CLV or P-CAV.
Nope, 16X Z-CLV or P-CAV will never achieve an effective speed of near 16X.
Consider the current 52X CD writers. Theoretically, at that speed, one should be able to burn an 80-min CD in just 92 seconds. In practice, however, the drives do it in 150 seconds (average), about 60% of the maximum speed.
The reason for that discrepancy is that all the fastest drives use CAV for their highest rating speed. That's bacause CAV can keep the drive rotating at its maximum speed all the time while the other technologies slow it down.
52X for CDs is close to the maximum practical speed of spinning the disk before wobble and other effects force you to slow down. The same is true for 16X DVDs (well, you may be able to reach consistently good 18X but at this point the law of diminishing returns makes it not worth the effort. You don't see many 54X CD drives, do you?)
> The average write speed on this drive barely qualifies it as a 12x drive.
> Claiming this is a 16x drive is silly.
No, it is not silly. It's just creative marketing which, incidently, was in common use since CD readers reached 8X speeds.
This particular drive uses CAV (Constant Angular Velocity) technology. That means that the disk spins at a constant speed, just like your old LP record players.
The circumference of an inner track is smaller than that of an outer track and yet thay take the same time to complete a revolution. That means that the linear speed thatthe laser reads/writes is lower on the inner tracks than on the outer. The speed increases from the inside to the outside but since CD and DVD disks are written from the inside out, you may not reach the max speed at all if the disk is not full.
Ignoring the "dips" (write quality adjustment attempts), the speed graph should be close to linear.
Most other drives use eithr Z-CLV or P-CAV to achieve higher average speeds.
See here, here or here for an explanation of the terms and here for a comparison.
> Do you dare probe further to figure out what it's doing?
> Certainly not; you could well violate the DMCA.
Exactly what copyrighted content does this encryotion protect?
> It's .NET source.
No, it is not.
> VisualStudioProject
> ProjectType="Visual C++"
> Version="7.10"
That's the version of the environment.
I tried running mldonkey twice (admittedly, win32 platforms) and both times it killed all internet access on the machine.
> Wouldn't it be nice if farmers could make a living growing food and shit
I pefer that they concentrate on the former.
> instead of hiring lawyers and shit?
No need repeating yourself.
> Show me a reference to a law where copying a data file for archival purposes is considered fair use.
Last time I looked, it was about music.
> I can see one for computer programs, but not computer data.
Please define "computer data" and explain how it differs from any other type of data from a legal standpoint.
> TITLE 17 - CHAPTER 1 - Sec. 117.
Nice try but totally irrelevant to neither FairPlay nor PlayFair.
> The user agrees to Apple's terms upon purchase.
* The author of PlayFair did not neccessarily agree to Apple's terms.
* The hosting providers did not neccessarily agree to Apple's terms.
> If you don't like the number of players Fairplay will authorize, buy your music elsewhere.
Perhaps. But then, it is a contract violation - a purely civil (not criminal) matter. Apple may sue the entities mentioned above if it can prove that they are indeed violating signed agreements, and that the provisions in the agreements are legal and enforceable (e.g., a requirement to sacrifice your firstborn).
>You've still made ONE copy in that process, even if you delete the original.
> I'm not saying this is right or wrong, since I believe it's perfectly within
> Fair Use to make a decrypted copy. What happens if Apple goes out of
> business? What happens if I don't have a suitable network connection to
> authorize my Macs? I paid for the music, and do have some right to listen to
> it at 100% quality.
>
> However, all I am stating is the strict legality of the situation. Owning
> this tool isn't illegal, but using it is. I don't know, however, that is
> enough under Indian law to get them knocked off the servers.
Since when making a copy for purposes covered under fair use provisions (as you stated yourself) is illegal?
Tho the hell modded the parent up???
It is wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin.
> Since more AAC is more better, but there's a quote in the linked article I think is relevant:
>
> | Apple has stated that PlayFair contravenes the Indian Copyright
> | Act. 1957 and the IT Act, 2002, but have not specified how these acts
> | are violated. While these acts make the unauthorized copying of music
> | illegal, they nowhere bar the creation of tools that could potentially
> | be used to illegally copy music. Trying to stop dissemination of a
> | tool that permits legal licensees of songs from iTunes to play them on
> | non Apple-authorized hardware is purely a business loss prevention
> | strategy from Apple and must be deplored.
I have taken the liberty to bold some words in the paragraph that you quoted to help your reading comprehension.
> So they acknowledge that the unauthorized copying of music is illegal, and
> believe a tool that makes an unauthorized copy of the music is not illegal?
Hmmm... difficult case indeed. Let's try some analogies:
Stabbing people is illegal, knives are not.
Shooting people is illegal, guns are not (at least in the US).
Rape is illegal, penises are not.
Get it now?
> Because as the author states, Apple already provides a means to permit legal
> licensees of songs from iTunes to play on non Apple authorized hardware via
> CD burning (and subsequent re-ripping). This is *authorized* copying.
> Anything else, then, is unauthorized copying isn't it?
It isn't. The method of copying has nothing to do with it.
> Doing a clean decryption of the AAC file would certainly fall into unauthorized copying, according to the terms of use, I think.
Think again.
> So FairPlay's only legal defense is that it isn't illegal to write such a tool, only illegal to use such a tool...
No, the legal defence is that it is illegal to use such a tool (or any tool) for illegal purposes (such as unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material) but it has significant non-infringing uses.
And if that defence is not good enough for you, you should be incarcerated for posessing a tool that can be used for rape.
Maybe the current IP situation is not the problem?
Maybe it is just a symptom?
Laws are meant to benefit society, not to make everybody a criminal.
Take a law, any law, and calculate the percentage of the population that breaks it. Then add add all the people that oppose it but are affraid of the consequences of breaking the law. If you get 50% or more then it is a bad law and must be removed, forcefully if needed, from the books.
Take a law, any law, and calculate the percentage of the population that benefits from it. Then compare it to the part that is harmed by it. If the law causes more harm than good then it is a bad law and must be removed, forcefully if needed, from the books.
If almost everybody speeds then the only explanation is that the speed limits are unreasonable.
If the current IP laws only serve the purpose of making a handful of rich people richer, they have no right to exist.
Unfortunately, the slave's dream is not to abolish slavery but to be a slave-owner himself.
There are quite a few multi-protocol messengers.
Did anyone compare them?
Allow editing of posts as long as
a) They were not moderated, and
b) They were not replied to.
> Ya, thats what the subliminal Massages want you to think!
Where can I find a subliminal masseuse?
Are you referring to the same "Amazing Kreskin" that gave us the following "prediction":
(caps and formatting as in the original, emphasis mine)Yea, right...
> So, where is the line? What does a person have to do to infringe copyright these days?
Sing in a camp?
> According to this, if leaving songs in a shared directory is legal, then
> so would the following: - Leaving the doors to my place of business open and
> advertising Free Music! - Put out some burners and my CD collection - Sell
> snacks & drinks & blank CD's at somewhat inflated prices Afterall, I'm only
> making it easy for others to copy for personal use!
You may be surprised but according to my understanding of the relevant Canadian laws this is perfectly legal.
> Where I come from, 10 * 8.5G = 85G
./ when grade one arithmetic is modded +3 Informative.
It is a sad day for
> That's great if you have 2k3. In Outlook 2000 these options do not exist.
The subject specifically mentions OE, not Outlook 2k or 2k3.
> I just can't believe there is no way of blocking HTML in OE, it's absolutely ridiculous.
How about:And, while we're at it:
> While this seems to be a good idea in some ways, I can't help but be
> reminded of those "free speech zones" they command protesters to stay within
> if they want to protest something. After all, the entire country is supposed
> to be a free speech zone, and the entire internet is supposed to be open to
> any form of speech (that is, within reasonable limits).
Who sets the limits?
Who decides that's "reasonable"?
> It isn't in the Constitution. It's in the political system, where it gets more deeply embedded with every new law restricting ballot access and regulating poltical speech.
Exactly my point.
Now, what are you going to do about it?
>> Don't think for a moment that this is just another
>> way for Bushcroft & co. to harass people they
>> don't like by denying them transportation rights.
>
> And don't think for a moment that things will change for the better should Bush lose the election
Correction: things will not change for the better should Bush lose the election to a Republican/Democrat candidate.
Please show me the passage in your constitution that mandates only two choices.
Is this going to be similar to the screening policies that have old grannies being detained for possible terror threats? What gets me is what's going to happen when someone innocent is labeled as the uber-terrorist by this new system...there better be a nice little compensation package for those folks. Oh wait, we as the rest of the consumers will have to pay for both the system AND the compensation. Well, fancy that.
You forget one thing, there will be no mistakes.
Innocent people will never be flagged as threats because the fact that they are flagged as threats proves their guilt.
There will be no explanation, no due process and no possibility of appeal because that would compromise national security.
Oh, did I mention that once you're on the list, you'll stay there forever? That's right, once a terrorist - allways a terrorist.
Don't think for a moment that this is just another way for Bushcroft & co. to harass people they don't like by denying them transportation rights. No sir! This is the finest example of your taxes at work. You should trust your government, it only tries to protect the country against terrorists.
Now be a good citizen and vote for Kodos, or Kang, does not really matter.