But you can still have the same quality in an audio file without compression. The problem with CDs is that with the advent of the Internet they're a very inefficient and expensive way of moving data.
Article contradicts itself by first saying US Customs can confisicate without reason and then saying the a Federal Court ruled it needs at least "reasonable suspicion". I would have thought the latter to be correct according to the wording of the 5th Amendment that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, which is generally held to be at least reasonable suspicion.
1. It is censorship. Third parties can practice censorship as much as the government.
2. Aren't domain registrars everywhere controlled by their governments? The effect being that this *is* government censorship.
3. The majority would agree? Is that wishful thinking or agumentum ad populum?
4. You assume that by allowing pornie.ie society would not be prim, proper, polite and personable. What you state is merely your opinion passed off as fact.
Rule of thumb in the US seems to be that information cannot be secret unless the government has a "compelling interest" to make it so. It's not up to the public to make the case that they need the information, it's up to the government to show they have a compelling interest in keeping it from them.
We must never forget the purpose of copyright laws. They are there to promote the useful arts. Ask yourself: how is suing youtube accomplishing this?
The idea that no one will create anything if youtube users are allowed to use it in their homemade videos is absurd. But don't blame Universal. Blame congress for favoring promotion over profits and allowing the recording industry to make massive campaign contributions in what would *appear* to be an exchange for legislation.
The entertainment gives our elected officials about
$30 million/year to make sure they can bring lawsuits like this one.
Allowing other people who you don't even know to use your internet connection is just plain dumb. Downloading music is the least of the problems you could face: what if they downloaded kiddie porn or used your connection to communicate with "terrorist groups"? You might get out of it after a nice friendly chat with an FBI agent, but you might find yourself fighting criminal charges.
Unless you've actually committed an offense YOU ARE NOT LIABLE. Goes all the way back to Magna Carta.
For your own good, close that connection. Free open WiFi sounds like a great idea, but doesn't work out so well in real life.
Don't give in so easily. Don't worry about what the "authorities" might do. Stand up for what you believe is right. Share your bandwidth, it's not illegal. Allowing yourself to be intimidated by what might happen to live in fear.
What works for me: I use a laptop and find the mouse pad less troublesome than a mouse. I also set the mouse pad to respond to single and double clicks so I and can move and tap with minimum effort.
Sounds similar to the RIAA case against Candy Chan of Michigan, for the actions of her 13 year old daughter, Brittany Chan. The court ruled the mother could not be sued for the actions of her daughter.
Net Neutrality is not a business concept, it's based on a theory in
computer science that the most efficient and cheapest networks are
those based on the principle that protocol operations (i.e. TCP/IP)
should occur at the end-points of the network.
This principle was used by DARPA when it worked on Internet design and
it's the reason TCP/IP communications have experienced massive growth.
It's a principle supported by almost everyone except the backbone
owners. Verizon's CEO has said many times that the pipes belong to him
and if you're going to make a profit off them then he wants a cut too
(referring to Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, et al who oppose Net Neut).
An example of a non-net-neut service is a cell-phone. I'm no fan of government regulation, but I don't want my ISP bill to
start looking like my cell-phone bill.
The only reason I plan on buying an HP instead of a Dell is for (AMD turion) 64-bit support which the duo core apparently does not have (expected in core 2). The wiki entry also mentions a duo core high memory latency due to the lack of on-die memory controller (further aggravated by system-chipset's use of DDR-II RAM).
Frankly I don't care who's suing them. I hope that many people jump on the bandwagon to sue them. I would like to see them fight it out to the end, instead of taking a settlement.
The accusation is only that Microsoft didn't adequately disclose details of the tool... The bitter end, after Microsoft has spent a fortune on lawyers, will likey be that they must be more upfront about WGA. Noting more.
In a properly working market, the price is the determined by the costs of the sellers, not the desires of the buyers. In most circumstances, this means marginal cost plus fair return on investment.
When the cost of a wireless phone service is more than a wired one and where the wired service costs more to build and maintain, it seems the service providers charge what they think the consumer will pay.
Ok, well then how do you propose dividing up the spectrum so that everyone's happy then? If the government doesn't do it, what organization should.
Of course the government should do it. They just shouldn't be 'selling' it for billions to the highest bidder almost without regard as to how it's going to be used. Under the current system the best parts of the spectrum go to those with the most money not necessarily those with the best ideas.
We don't need the FCC regulating the Internet. Not for "neutrality" or any other excuse someone can think of.
Yeah, we need to allow the telcos, for example, to ban VOIP traffic so they can keep their prices artificially high. We also need to let the ISP for company X, restrict traffic for company X's competitor, Y. While we're at it, let's chuck out *all* antitrust legislation and allow the free market to sort everything out.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Alex and I asked the Copyright Office for an exemption allowing users to remove from their computers certain DRM software that causes security and privacy harm.
they want the Copyright Office to withhold from users permission to uninstall DRM software that actually does threaten critical infrastructure and endanger lives.
Excuse me, but I never knew the copyright office could change the law.
They're asking the wrong branch of government. The copyright office is part of the Library of Congress, it keeps records and acts in an advisory capacity to Congress. I'd be very surprised if the copyright office had the power to grant exemptions to a law Congress has passed and the President has signed.
Copyrights and their exemptions are codified in
Title 17 of the US Code. Pretty sure the copyright office cannot rewrite any of this. I may be wrong.
True it was non partisan. But mostly democrats by a small margin IIRC. Though it was really bought and paid for by the entertainment industry.
And this man is guiltly of malfeasance.
Between 1997 and 1998 he accepted over $50,000
from the entertainment industry in exchange for indroducing the DMCA to Congress. It's what Ralf Nader calls legalized bribery. You give us money, we'll support your bill. Oh the madness of it!
The attentuation you're talking about is the wavelength/(2*pi) "skin depth" which is why we need more shortwave and more of a spectrum spread to counter the baud limitation.
If we're talking about plain old analog bandwidth with no algorithms then you're right,
there's probably not enough to go around. But if we take significant chunks of the entire spectrum using short and long waves, combine multiplexing, and data caching/distribution models not unlike bittorent, it just may be possible to develop a pretty good working system.
Technology has an amazing way of evolving ingenuity. Take interfence for example.
Collision dectection/aviodance was unthinkable even to the best engineers just a few years ago. The idea that you could run 100 access points within range of each other and get megabit throughput was thought impossible. Yet from my rooftop in downtown San Francisco I can see 150-200 Wi-Fi access points, many of them open, to which I can connect with no noticble interference problems, getting up to 1.5Mbs. CSMA/CA has solved the problem.
At the very least I think we amateurs should have the same rights in terms of bandwidth and power that any of the private providers have. Perhaps we could do a better job.
Slashdot Mirror
But you can still have the same quality in an audio file without compression. The problem with CDs is that with the advent of the Internet they're a very inefficient and expensive way of moving data.
Article contradicts itself by first saying US Customs can confisicate without reason and then saying the a Federal Court ruled it needs at least "reasonable suspicion". I would have thought the latter to be correct according to the wording of the 5th Amendment that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, which is generally held to be at least reasonable suspicion.
Respectfully disagree:
1. It is censorship. Third parties can practice censorship as much as the government.
2. Aren't domain registrars everywhere controlled by their governments? The effect being that this *is* government censorship.
3. The majority would agree? Is that wishful thinking or agumentum ad populum?
4. You assume that by allowing pornie.ie society would not be prim, proper, polite and personable. What you state is merely your opinion passed off as fact.
Rule of thumb in the US seems to be that information cannot be secret unless the government has a "compelling interest" to make it so. It's not up to the public to make the case that they need the information, it's up to the government to show they have a compelling interest in keeping it from them.
We must never forget the purpose of copyright laws. They are there to promote the useful arts. Ask yourself: how is suing youtube accomplishing this?
The idea that no one will create anything if youtube users are allowed to use it in their homemade videos is absurd. But don't blame Universal. Blame congress for favoring promotion over profits and allowing the recording industry to make massive campaign contributions in what would *appear* to be an exchange for legislation.
The entertainment gives our elected officials about $30 million/year to make sure they can bring lawsuits like this one.
This is making fun of people because of their sexual orientations/preferences. It's the kind of thing you'd expect of highschool students.
Don't give in so easily. Don't worry about what the "authorities" might do. Stand up for what you believe is right. Share your bandwidth, it's not illegal. Allowing yourself to be intimidated by what might happen to live in fear.
What works for me: I use a laptop and find the mouse pad less troublesome than a mouse. I also set the mouse pad to respond to single and double clicks so I and can move and tap with minimum effort.
Sounds similar to the RIAA case against Candy Chan of Michigan, for the actions of her 13 year old daughter, Brittany Chan. The court ruled the mother could not be sued for the actions of her daughter.
See Priority v. Chan
Basically it sounds like you have to sue the person who allegedly committed the offence. The RIAA needs to refile against the right person.
If someone phones in a bomb threat, you prosecute the person who made the call, not the person who pays the phone bill, right?
Net Neutrality is not a business concept, it's based on a theory in computer science that the most efficient and cheapest networks are those based on the principle that protocol operations (i.e. TCP/IP) should occur at the end-points of the network.
See "End-to-end arguments in system design" by Jerome H. Saltzer, David P. Reed, and David D. Clark:
This principle was used by DARPA when it worked on Internet design and it's the reason TCP/IP communications have experienced massive growth.
It's a principle supported by almost everyone except the backbone owners. Verizon's CEO has said many times that the pipes belong to him and if you're going to make a profit off them then he wants a cut too (referring to Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, et al who oppose Net Neut).
An example of a non-net-neut service is a cell-phone. I'm no fan of government regulation, but I don't want my ISP bill to start looking like my cell-phone bill.
It would be nice if reviewers rated heat which is becoming a big issue. Especially after the macbook pro problem and anything running on a duo.
According to the wiki entry Intel's duo core has an outstanding "performance per watt" ratio.
The only reason I plan on buying an HP instead of a Dell is for (AMD turion) 64-bit support which the duo core apparently does not have (expected in core 2). The wiki entry also mentions a duo core high memory latency due to the lack of on-die memory controller (further aggravated by system-chipset's use of DDR-II RAM).
Frankly I don't care who's suing them. I hope that many people jump on the bandwagon to sue them. I would like to see them fight it out to the end, instead of taking a settlement.
... The bitter end, after Microsoft has spent a fortune on lawyers, will likey be that they must be more upfront about WGA. Noting more.
The accusation is only that Microsoft didn't adequately disclose details of the tool
In a properly working market, the price is the determined by the costs of the sellers, not the desires of the buyers. In most circumstances, this means marginal cost plus fair return on investment.
When the cost of a wireless phone service is more than a wired one and where the wired service costs more to build and maintain, it seems the service providers charge what they think the consumer will pay.
I had to switch to gentoo then ubuntu just to use my AMD64...
All you need to do is rebuild your kernel. A Linux distro is just a bunch of programs and config files, its not 64-bit specific.
Won't DVDs eventually go the way of the floppy disk anyway? I mean, content control aside, why keep data on cumbersome disks when we have an Internet?
Ok, well then how do you propose dividing up the spectrum so that everyone's happy then? If the government doesn't do it, what organization should.
Of course the government should do it. They just shouldn't be 'selling' it for billions to the highest bidder almost without regard as to how it's going to be used. Under the current system the best parts of the spectrum go to those with the most money not necessarily those with the best ideas.
The last online auction of 3G licenses fetched 22.5 billion Pounds against the expectations of 3 billion.
Interesting that no one ever seems to see these auctions for what they really are -- a government tax on a zero cost medium.
Before you jump in your SUV and drive 15 miles to that burning kiosk, check out gnutella.
The movie industry needs to realize the horse and buggy distro system has been superceded by an Internet. Funny plastic disks are mostly unecessary.
We don't need the FCC regulating the Internet. Not for "neutrality" or any other excuse someone can think of.
Yeah, we need to allow the telcos, for example, to ban VOIP traffic so they can keep their prices artificially high. We also need to let the ISP for company X, restrict traffic for company X's competitor, Y. While we're at it, let's chuck out *all* antitrust legislation and allow the free market to sort everything out.
Or in other words, the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Sounds pretty straight forward to me.
Alex and I asked the Copyright Office for an exemption allowing users to remove from their computers certain DRM software that causes security and privacy harm.
they want the Copyright Office to withhold from users permission to uninstall DRM software that actually does threaten critical infrastructure and endanger lives.
Excuse me, but I never knew the copyright office could change the law.
They're asking the wrong branch of government. The copyright office is part of the Library of Congress, it keeps records and acts in an advisory capacity to Congress. I'd be very surprised if the copyright office had the power to grant exemptions to a law Congress has passed and the President has signed.
Copyrights and their exemptions are codified in Title 17 of the US Code. Pretty sure the copyright office cannot rewrite any of this. I may be wrong.
True it was non partisan. But mostly democrats by a small margin IIRC. Though it was really bought and paid for by the entertainment industry.
And this man is guiltly of malfeasance. Between 1997 and 1998 he accepted over $50,000 from the entertainment industry in exchange for indroducing the DMCA to Congress. It's what Ralf Nader calls legalized bribery. You give us money, we'll support your bill. Oh the madness of it!
Hosting porn sites in Australia has been banned since 2000 under the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999,
They have the same restrictions for web content providers as they do for broadcast television producers. More info here.
Just who defines "violent" or "pornographic" material?
Wise people in government. We would never understand, we're not smart enough.
The attentuation you're talking about is the wavelength/(2*pi) "skin depth" which is why we need more shortwave and more of a spectrum spread to counter the baud limitation.
If we're talking about plain old analog bandwidth with no algorithms then you're right, there's probably not enough to go around. But if we take significant chunks of the entire spectrum using short and long waves, combine multiplexing, and data caching/distribution models not unlike bittorent, it just may be possible to develop a pretty good working system.
Technology has an amazing way of evolving ingenuity. Take interfence for example. Collision dectection/aviodance was unthinkable even to the best engineers just a few years ago. The idea that you could run 100 access points within range of each other and get megabit throughput was thought impossible. Yet from my rooftop in downtown San Francisco I can see 150-200 Wi-Fi access points, many of them open, to which I can connect with no noticble interference problems, getting up to 1.5Mbs. CSMA/CA has solved the problem.
At the very least I think we amateurs should have the same rights in terms of bandwidth and power that any of the private providers have. Perhaps we could do a better job.