Well, that's precisely it. The statement doesn't make a lot of sense.
The Higgs boson, if it were created, would destroy the universe. But it wouldn't just destroy the universe in the future - it would also destroy the past. The creation of a Higgs boson is therefore a physical impossibility, not because it can't be done, but because its creation is undone once it is done. (A universe cannot contain such a temporal paradox.)
I think this is the first time I've ever seen the Chewbacca defense applied to particle physics!
I find it interesting that gathering around the piano to sing music was used as an argument against recording technology, yet today they would consider it public performance and demand royalties. (At least that's the direction things seem to be heading.)
Lately I'm getting swamped by IRS phishes "notice of underreported income" (perhaps 100 of them so far), that I've been sending to the phishing mailbox at irs.gov.
Wait... those aren't Phishes... I was doing the same thing for a while... then the IRS just started showing up at my house in person. They didn't buy it when I tried telling them I thought someone was trying to scam me... Bad times those were... Bad times...
To what benefit is killing the copyright owner ? That just immediately puts their material into the public domain, effectively destroying any possibility of making money from it.
Not that I'd advocate killing copyright owners, works in the public domain are far from worthless. Disney has made tons of money from public domain material: Snow White, Cinderella, Pinocchio...
More recently, Shrek made a ton of money incorporating public domain characters. (Imagine Disney ever giving permission to show Mickey wearing a pink thong!) Another movie that I though gave a brilliant twist on public domain fairy tales was The Brothers Grimm.
There is plenty of money to be made from public domain material. Putting something in public domain doesn't prevent anyone from taking it and putting their own unique spin on it and making money. In fact, perpetual copyright actually prevents that type of creativity. So while Shrek was able to benefit from the public domain, no one will be able to benefit from Shrek for at least 100+ years, provided copyright isn't extended yet again... and provided anyone even remembers Shrek on 100 years since I'm sure it will be shelved once it stops making money...
A library purchases X copies and can LOAN those copies to at most X people at a time. When all copies are loaned, no further people may acquire a copy.
Piracy involves purchasing 1 copy and duplicating it and supplying it to an unlimited number of people.
A borrower from the library must return the copy after a given period of time. If not, they pay a fine which is used to purchase another copy (paying the creator again) if the item is not recovered. The borrower is still obligated to return the copy even after paying said fines or may be charged with theft.
Receiving a pirated copy requires nothing to be returned. The pirate still has the original copy from which even more copies are made.
A borrower from the library may use the content without paying the creator, however, if the borrower wishes to use the content again, it must be re-borrowed from the library or purchased from the creator. If the borrower chooses to get the content from the library, the content is not continuously available to the borrower as it may be borrowed by someone else at the time the borrower may desire it. If the borrower wishes uninterrupted access to the content then it must be purchased from the creator.
Receiving a pirated copy does not require the copy to be returned and is therefore in the receiver's possession in perpetuity. If the receiver losses his copy, he may go back to the pirate to receive another copy as the pirate still retains the original.
It is piracy to make a copy of the item borrowed from the library.
In the context of the library, the content creator has been paid for every copy purchased by the library and borrowed by the consumer.
In the context of piracy, the content creator has been paid only for the original copy and none of the copies traded by the receivers.
Still, since the OP was unaware of exploits targeting DirectX, I provided an example. If we are worried about online gaming exploits, here's another one for DirectPlay which would affect multiplayer games.
Not surprisingly, there isn't much focused on Direct3D specifically since D3D content isn't typically delivered over the internet like audio and video. Yet... That may change if we "start to see DirectX like games directly in web browser."
I had considered this point of view as well until I considered the cost of the standalone unit vs the GPS "service". So you pay a monthly service fee but it's a whole lot cheaper than the standalone unit plus your maps are always up to date. For Garmin anyway, on top of the initial unit cost, map updates are not free...
Of course I have other reasons for not wanting cell phone GPS...
Because people shouldn't have to be prompted to install codecs in order to view in-browser videos.
Yeah really! Every time I go to certain sites I get a prompt to install a new codec to see this hot video... And each time I do that my homepage changes to something not quite safe for work...
I wouldn't mind so much if they'd quit messin with my homepage... sheesh!
I'd be interested in their take on that Season 1 South Park episode... that was broadcast to millions of homes via Comedy Central... you know the one... "Red Rocket! Red Rocket!!"
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's precisely it. The statement doesn't make a lot of sense.
The Higgs boson, if it were created, would destroy the universe. But it wouldn't just destroy the universe in the future - it would also destroy the past. The creation of a Higgs boson is therefore a physical impossibility, not because it can't be done, but because its creation is undone once it is done. (A universe cannot contain such a temporal paradox.)
I think this is the first time I've ever seen the Chewbacca defense applied to particle physics!
If it was up to the **AAs, we would be copying sheet music for our spinets with sharpened quill pens.
No... We wouldn't...
Quill pens would be deemed illegal as a circumvention device under the DMCA.
I find it interesting that gathering around the piano to sing music was used as an argument against recording technology, yet today they would consider it public performance and demand royalties. (At least that's the direction things seem to be heading.)
Lately I'm getting swamped by IRS phishes "notice of underreported income" (perhaps 100 of them so far), that I've been sending to the phishing mailbox at irs.gov.
Wait... those aren't Phishes... I was doing the same thing for a while... then the IRS just started showing up at my house in person. They didn't buy it when I tried telling them I thought someone was trying to scam me... Bad times those were... Bad times...
To what benefit is killing the copyright owner ? That just immediately puts their material into the public domain, effectively destroying any possibility of making money from it.
Not that I'd advocate killing copyright owners, works in the public domain are far from worthless. Disney has made tons of money from public domain material: Snow White, Cinderella, Pinocchio...
More recently, Shrek made a ton of money incorporating public domain characters. (Imagine Disney ever giving permission to show Mickey wearing a pink thong!) Another movie that I though gave a brilliant twist on public domain fairy tales was The Brothers Grimm.
There is plenty of money to be made from public domain material. Putting something in public domain doesn't prevent anyone from taking it and putting their own unique spin on it and making money. In fact, perpetual copyright actually prevents that type of creativity. So while Shrek was able to benefit from the public domain, no one will be able to benefit from Shrek for at least 100+ years, provided copyright isn't extended yet again... and provided anyone even remembers Shrek on 100 years since I'm sure it will be shelved once it stops making money...
does he mean the chairs should be plastic?
Yeah, I'm not really into sports... however, sometimes I like to think about baseball.
Because the kernel works. It's the desktop that needs help.
Yeah right!
In the context of the library, the content creator has been paid for every copy purchased by the library and borrowed by the consumer.
In the context of piracy, the content creator has been paid only for the original copy and none of the copies traded by the receivers.
Here are a bunch more.
I haven't found one yet for the second bulletin I posted. Feel free to conduct your own research.
DirectShow and Direct3D are part of DirectX
Still, since the OP was unaware of exploits targeting DirectX, I provided an example. If we are worried about online gaming exploits, here's another one for DirectPlay which would affect multiplayer games.
Not surprisingly, there isn't much focused on Direct3D specifically since D3D content isn't typically delivered over the internet like audio and video. Yet... That may change if we "start to see DirectX like games directly in web browser."
However, here's a more comprehensive list.
Microsoft Security Bulletin MS05-050: Vulnerability in DirectShow Could Allow Remote Code Execution (904706)
I got all excited thinking I was going to get a first post with "You don't need a mouse for VI". Great minds... ;)
There, fixed that for you.
I had considered this point of view as well until I considered the cost of the standalone unit vs the GPS "service". So you pay a monthly service fee but it's a whole lot cheaper than the standalone unit plus your maps are always up to date. For Garmin anyway, on top of the initial unit cost, map updates are not free... Of course I have other reasons for not wanting cell phone GPS...
I don't want my GPS attached to anything that transmits a signal.
Here are a few notes I wrote a while ago on the subject: http://kegel.com/academy/opensource.html
http://kegel.com/wine/sweng/ might also be of some interest.
I'll be honest, I thought those links were to something else entirely.
And you clicked on them based on that rather than an interest in programming topics? Dude you're messed up... :P
Because people shouldn't have to be prompted to install codecs in order to view in-browser videos.
Yeah really! Every time I go to certain sites I get a prompt to install a new codec to see this hot video... And each time I do that my homepage changes to something not quite safe for work... I wouldn't mind so much if they'd quit messin with my homepage... sheesh!
Not prior art though because CamSpace uses magic: http://www.camspace.com/about
Sure but magic predates all modern technology so it should still qualify...
If only this article came out a few years earlier, maybe we wouldn't have given him so much crap!
Because using OpenDNS is voluntary. With what Verisign did you couldn't even opt out.
I'd be interested in their take on that Season 1 South Park episode... that was broadcast to millions of homes via Comedy Central... you know the one... "Red Rocket! Red Rocket!!"
How true... and unfortunate. This of course is the whole point of Lessig's presentation summed up in a single sentence.
They did raise quite a bit of money with the aptly named Hear 'n Aid project.