Lets say YOU are in charge of a secret government program to try and control the weather. If you needed to conduct these tests would you:
A. Fly planes and dump chemicals over Cleveland, Ohio. Where any joe sixpack can look up and see the results. B. Fly planes in one of the vast territories in which the human population is so sparse that you could walk in a straight line for days before even encountering a road? Or, barring that, the Pacific Ocean?
Extra Credit!!!!
For what nefarious purpose is the US government conspiring to control the sunny days in Cleveland?
am so sick of hearing this from the Ron Paul crowd! Do you really believe that everyone that disagrees with your view of the Constitution must necessarily hold the document in contempt?
If you really want to catch flames. Call yourself a Libertarian. Within 5 minutes you will have at least 2-3 posts stating that not only are you NOT a Libertiarian, but that you are also a totalitarian and/or facist. Because a 'real' Libertarian would never...
It isn't even enough to say that you hold some Libertarian beliefs. It's an all or nothing deal apparantly.
That isn't necessarily true. I was injected with a radioactive isotope to check for a fractured sternum. The idea was that if there was damage, the radiation would be concentrated on a fracture as the body attempts to repair it.
The hospital was busy, and had no open waiting rooms while I waited for the results. They sat me down in a side room. Every couple of minutes a tech came in and was checking on a piece of equipment. He ended up with this very puzzled expression on his face. Left and came back a few times.
Eventually it looked as if a lightbulb had lit in his mind and he glanced at the machine, then at me, then back at the machine. Eventually he asked me 'So, let me guess, you are radioactive?' With a sheepish grin I replied what type of test I was in there for and that they had placed me in the room. Apparantly he had been trying to test some type of radioactive material as well and his numbers were 100x larger than what he had been expecting. The radiation I was emitting threw off his numbers to an extreme degree from across the room.
I drove home a few minutes after that and had there been a radiation detector on the side of the road I'm confident that I would have set it off as well.
There is nothing stopping a dedicated pirate from going, pixel by pixel, dumping the current pixel color values into a massive 2d array -- -- -- Actually, there is. It's called HDCP, and means that only "authenticated" output devices will get digital data.
I doubt those devices will stop a dedicated pirate with good soldering talents. The data has to go to the screen at some point.
That is a good point. One interesting side effect of having higher resolution video is that as the analog portion gets to be more well defined, the easier it is for the human eye to ignore the compression artifacts.
In the past, when dealing with a lower resolutions stream, it was important to get every last detail out of the original source. You simply didn't have that much room for error. Yet with higher resolution sources, I'm willing to bet that the 'analog hole' is larger than ever since the resolution is so high to start with that any reduction or compression artifacts become less obvious to the human eye.
This is all a side thought though. In the end you are correct that the real method by which we can judge a succesful cracking attempt is if the original source is retrieved intact.
You can complain all you want about wanting to play your hd movies on linux, but the simple fact is that BD+ has kept blurays off torrent sites where people are certainly NOT "backing up," and that's the point of DRM, no matter how you would like to pretend they want to steal rights from the customer, it has always been about preventing people from just stealing the movie.
Actually I often refer to torrent sites when I've worn out a disc yet again.
There is one particular album which I have purchased twice. The first time I lost the disc, the second time the disc was scratched (on the label side) when it fell out of it's case.
I legally purchased the album twice. At that point I wasn't about to purchase it again (since I already had acquired a license for personal use) So I found the torrent of the album and pulled down digital copies. I'm actually considering purchasing the album again, so I can store it in a lossless format.
Sometimes I've used it to get a copy of a program that I already own onto a computer which has no DVD drive. There are many legitimate uses for such sites. (Of course, I never do that on anything important, since I don't trust the files to be virus free)
My point is that Torrent sites are an excellent source for retrieving the data that you already have a license to use.
But I think it's quite clear that the market doesn't work for this.
Actually it does work for it. What it shows is that the bar has been set far too high for what the common conscience has determined to be 'obscene'. Just because you may dislike what the public expects from its airways shouldn't be used as a standard for what should be allowed.
Say what you want by the stove. If I have a microphone connected to a live ABC feed, then kindly blurt something else-- or at least give one a chance to explain the unique circumstances. No one is trying to stifle speech here. Instead, the argument is about what goes over the public (not private) airwaves.
Yet what if I feel that the extreme degree of my displeasure can only properly be expressed by utilizing very specific words.
If this were over private airwaves, I could understand censorship. But these are public, and the purpose of the government is to ensure that the broadcasters don't go beyond the spectrum which is allocated to them, and to provide certain services to the government such as the emergency broadcast systems.
I find it insulting that the government seems to find the female nipple obscene while the male nipple is wholesome. The government should manage the spectrum, not the content.
I suppose some parents view it as "too late" if their children accidentally see something unexpected on television (such as, for example, cooking and serving a human placenta on a daytime food show).
Actually, I doubt that would be covered by how most of these 'obscenities' are classified. Nor do I think it should.
It seems to me that this was the first chance that many of the 'V for Vendetta' fans were waiting for. Something where they could reenact the crowd from the movie. It was bound to happen some time or another, but I would have thought it would be more appropriate for protesting a government action, rather than some cult.
While that is true, it only matters if a significantly large portion of the population is in a similar situation when trying to plan for the best average case.
But it does show that there is apparantly a lot of room for improvement over what is in the wild now. It demonstrates that the money that a lot of companies declared was wasted by torrent traffic, was indeed waste, and not an insurmountable obstacle that the only solution to it was to throw more bandwidth at the problem.
They probably discussed the number so many times that they lost track of how it was referenced. Lets say they cut it down to 25 from 100. If they went from their method, to the old method, then it would be a 400% increase in the hopcount.
Sloppy, but we can understand what they were trying to say.
Of course, one could always wonder if Bob Dylan would have been so famous had he been the only performer of his songs. When a majority of the music that you write is 'known' as works by other performers (Joan Baez, Jimi Hendrix, etc) you have to admit that there is more than a minor amount of credit due the performer.
Though in contrast, most historical works are known by the writer (Mozart, Bach, etc)
Perhaps the only thing that changed now is how we are introduced to the music. Before recorded sound, the name of the writer was of utmost importance, now, the name of the performer. I suppose it is because we now have something to compare one performance to another without having to travel across countries and listen to different orchestras.
If you can follow it, or take the time to read it very carefully (like you need to do with most of Tolkein's works) it isn't a half bad book.
The point tha talways drove me nuts though was Turin. Was it just me, or did it seem like whenever the narrator wasn't looking Turin was jacking up on HGH and steroids. His mannerisms put roid-rage to shame.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets say YOU are in charge of a secret government program to try and control the weather. If you needed to conduct these tests would you:
A. Fly planes and dump chemicals over Cleveland, Ohio. Where any joe sixpack can look up and see the results.
B. Fly planes in one of the vast territories in which the human population is so sparse that you could walk in a straight line for days before even encountering a road? Or, barring that, the Pacific Ocean?
Extra Credit!!!!
For what nefarious purpose is the US government conspiring to control the sunny days in Cleveland?
Wyoming has done similar tests (click "listen now").
Very true, but one thing to consider:
91,000 seats at this stadium.
37,000 workers for weather control
Probably another 5000 general workers in and around the stadium (at a minimum)
133,000 people in the 'effect' area.
Now consider that Wyoming is a very large state, and only has a population of 493,782.
To me, that seems like a rather large concentration of people who will be exposed to this.
Wouldn't a patent from 1985 have expired though? (Which, I think, is your point)
am so sick of hearing this from the Ron Paul crowd! Do you really believe that everyone that disagrees with your view of the Constitution must necessarily hold the document in contempt?
If you really want to catch flames. Call yourself a Libertarian. Within 5 minutes you will have at least 2-3 posts stating that not only are you NOT a Libertiarian, but that you are also a totalitarian and/or facist. Because a 'real' Libertarian would never...
It isn't even enough to say that you hold some Libertarian beliefs. It's an all or nothing deal apparantly.
That isn't necessarily true. I was injected with a radioactive isotope to check for a fractured sternum. The idea was that if there was damage, the radiation would be concentrated on a fracture as the body attempts to repair it.
The hospital was busy, and had no open waiting rooms while I waited for the results. They sat me down in a side room. Every couple of minutes a tech came in and was checking on a piece of equipment. He ended up with this very puzzled expression on his face. Left and came back a few times.
Eventually it looked as if a lightbulb had lit in his mind and he glanced at the machine, then at me, then back at the machine. Eventually he asked me 'So, let me guess, you are radioactive?' With a sheepish grin I replied what type of test I was in there for and that they had placed me in the room. Apparantly he had been trying to test some type of radioactive material as well and his numbers were 100x larger than what he had been expecting. The radiation I was emitting threw off his numbers to an extreme degree from across the room.
I drove home a few minutes after that and had there been a radiation detector on the side of the road I'm confident that I would have set it off as well.
There is nothing stopping a dedicated pirate from going, pixel by pixel, dumping the current pixel color values into a massive 2d array
-- -- --
Actually, there is. It's called HDCP, and means that only "authenticated" output devices will get digital data.
I doubt those devices will stop a dedicated pirate with good soldering talents. The data has to go to the screen at some point.
That is a good point. One interesting side effect of having higher resolution video is that as the analog portion gets to be more well defined, the easier it is for the human eye to ignore the compression artifacts.
In the past, when dealing with a lower resolutions stream, it was important to get every last detail out of the original source. You simply didn't have that much room for error. Yet with higher resolution sources, I'm willing to bet that the 'analog hole' is larger than ever since the resolution is so high to start with that any reduction or compression artifacts become less obvious to the human eye.
This is all a side thought though. In the end you are correct that the real method by which we can judge a succesful cracking attempt is if the original source is retrieved intact.
You can complain all you want about wanting to play your hd movies on linux, but the simple fact is that BD+ has kept blurays off torrent sites where people are certainly NOT "backing up," and that's the point of DRM, no matter how you would like to pretend they want to steal rights from the customer, it has always been about preventing people from just stealing the movie.
Actually I often refer to torrent sites when I've worn out a disc yet again.
There is one particular album which I have purchased twice. The first time I lost the disc, the second time the disc was scratched (on the label side) when it fell out of it's case.
I legally purchased the album twice. At that point I wasn't about to purchase it again (since I already had acquired a license for personal use) So I found the torrent of the album and pulled down digital copies. I'm actually considering purchasing the album again, so I can store it in a lossless format.
Sometimes I've used it to get a copy of a program that I already own onto a computer which has no DVD drive. There are many legitimate uses for such sites. (Of course, I never do that on anything important, since I don't trust the files to be virus free)
My point is that Torrent sites are an excellent source for retrieving the data that you already have a license to use.
To add to your comment. I run an AV software to catch the stupid things that I might do.
Man, you're too clever for me.
:)
If you were the one he was replying to, then he was clever enough to get you to stop posting as an AC.
But I think it's quite clear that the market doesn't work for this.
Actually it does work for it. What it shows is that the bar has been set far too high for what the common conscience has determined to be 'obscene'. Just because you may dislike what the public expects from its airways shouldn't be used as a standard for what should be allowed.
Say what you want by the stove. If I have a microphone connected to a live ABC feed, then kindly blurt something else-- or at least give one a chance to explain the unique circumstances. No one is trying to stifle speech here. Instead, the argument is about what goes over the public (not private) airwaves.
Yet what if I feel that the extreme degree of my displeasure can only properly be expressed by utilizing very specific words.
If this were over private airwaves, I could understand censorship. But these are public, and the purpose of the government is to ensure that the broadcasters don't go beyond the spectrum which is allocated to them, and to provide certain services to the government such as the emergency broadcast systems.
I find it insulting that the government seems to find the female nipple obscene while the male nipple is wholesome. The government should manage the spectrum, not the content.
Civility exists only for those who desire it for themselves. I think I'm the one who should decide if I wish to act 'civilly' or not.
Which is more likely: Teen pregnancy or teen murder?
That discrepency isn't as silly as it initially sounds.
Yes it is silly. The likelihood of an act shouldn't be a reason to ban anything even remotely connected with even the topic of the act you dislike.
If I tell the FCC to 'go fuck yourself', is that going to encourage teenyboppers to have unprotected sex?
an obvious examples examples being frontal nudity
What is wrong with nudity?
I suppose some parents view it as "too late" if their children accidentally see something unexpected on television (such as, for example, cooking and serving a human placenta on a daytime food show).
Actually, I doubt that would be covered by how most of these 'obscenities' are classified. Nor do I think it should.
After all, what part of that would be 'obscene'?
It seems to me that this was the first chance that many of the 'V for Vendetta' fans were waiting for. Something where they could reenact the crowd from the movie. It was bound to happen some time or another, but I would have thought it would be more appropriate for protesting a government action, rather than some cult.
Well when I said that I'd offer my suggestions for free in the old thread I didn't think they actually would.
Oh well, my payment will be in the form of a show that I'll definately be watching.
While that is true, it only matters if a significantly large portion of the population is in a similar situation when trying to plan for the best average case.
But it does show that there is apparantly a lot of room for improvement over what is in the wild now. It demonstrates that the money that a lot of companies declared was wasted by torrent traffic, was indeed waste, and not an insurmountable obstacle that the only solution to it was to throw more bandwidth at the problem.
They probably discussed the number so many times that they lost track of how it was referenced. Lets say they cut it down to 25 from 100. If they went from their method, to the old method, then it would be a 400% increase in the hopcount.
Sloppy, but we can understand what they were trying to say.
its interesting how far we have come technologically, but socially we are just differently dressed "romans".
I don't know about you, but happen to enjoy my toga.
Of course, one could always wonder if Bob Dylan would have been so famous had he been the only performer of his songs. When a majority of the music that you write is 'known' as works by other performers (Joan Baez, Jimi Hendrix, etc) you have to admit that there is more than a minor amount of credit due the performer.
Though in contrast, most historical works are known by the writer (Mozart, Bach, etc)
Perhaps the only thing that changed now is how we are introduced to the music. Before recorded sound, the name of the writer was of utmost importance, now, the name of the performer. I suppose it is because we now have something to compare one performance to another without having to travel across countries and listen to different orchestras.
You may have the perfect grasp of irony, but your sense of humor could use a guide dog.
If you can follow it, or take the time to read it very carefully (like you need to do with most of Tolkein's works) it isn't a half bad book.
The point tha talways drove me nuts though was Turin. Was it just me, or did it seem like whenever the narrator wasn't looking Turin was jacking up on HGH and steroids. His mannerisms put roid-rage to shame.