Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Isn't this exempted? (Score 1) 288

by Alsee (#47570553) Attached to: Ford, GM Sued Over Vehicles' Ability To Rip CD Music To Hard Drive

Nope, you misunderstand what the loophole was. It's utterly irrelevant whether or not it's easy to copy the music out.

You need to forget "plain English" and what "makes sense". We're dealing with the law and legalese. You need to think like a computer running into odd code. If a programmer writes "int Two=3;" then you'll get "Two+2=5". You need to obey the definition you're given, even if it clashes with what you think it should mean. You can't just assume Two+2 is supposed to be 4 when the code (or the law) says something different.

This law has a definitions section, and we are concerned with with three key pieces. I'll trim it to the critical bits.

A "digital musical recording" is a material object [...blah blah...]
A "digital musical recording" does not include a material object [...blah blah blah..] in which one or more computer programs are fixed

Therefore, according to the law, MP3 files on a computer hard drive are not "digital musical recordings".

A "digital audio copied recording" is a reproduction in a digital recording format of a digital musical recording [...blah blah...]

Therefore, according to the law, an MP3 player that copies an MP3 off of a computer is not creating a "digital audio copied recording".

A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device [...blah blah...] making a digital audio copied recording

Therefore an MP3 player copying MP3's off a computer is not a "digital audio recording device".

The law only applies to "digital audio recording devices", therefore nothing in the law applies to MP3 players. Unfortunately this shitty law does seem to apply to a car audio system copying music off of CDs. Unless the judge gets "creative" in interpreting the law, it seems to me that car manufacturers are going to have to pay damages for every unit produced so far, are going to have to implement DRM on these car audio systems (preventing them from loading any song that's flagged as already being a copy), and are going to have to pay royalties to the RIAA for each future unit sold.

-

Comment: Re:Are they serious? (Score 1) 288

by Alsee (#47568749) Attached to: Ford, GM Sued Over Vehicles' Ability To Rip CD Music To Hard Drive

The Audio Home Recording Act makes it illegal to manufacture or sell "Audio Recording Devices" unless they implement the Serial Copy Management System (a form of DRM).

The Audio Home Recording Act has a clause explicitly excluding computers from being "an Audio Recording Device", and excluding computer hard drives from being "Audio Recording Media". So when MP3 players copy music from a computer they basically slide through a loophole in the law. The music industry fought a court case over MP3 players and lost on this exact point. According to that court ruling, MP3 players do NOT fall within the law's explicit definition of "Audio Recording Device". Therefore MP3 players are not required to implement the idiot DRM system.

It looks like the system installed in these cars does fall within the law's definition of Audio Recording Device. It looks like the music industry has a solid case here, unless an "activist" judge sees how stupid this all is and comes up with some creative way to avoid applying this idiot law.

-

Comment: Re:Isn't this exempted? (Score 1) 288

by Alsee (#47568483) Attached to: Ford, GM Sued Over Vehicles' Ability To Rip CD Music To Hard Drive

The Audio Home Recording Act is a horrid law mandating DRM in any digital audio recording device. This law is directly responsible for the extermination of all technological innovation in the field, up until MP3 players essentially slipped through a loophole. Digital Audio Tape (DAT) failed in the consumer market because of this DRM crap. Minidisc failed even harder. And god-knows how many other technologies were killed by this law and I can't name them because they never got far enough to be named.

That said.... you are looking at the wrong part of the law. I'll post the correct sections below. I sure as hell hope the music industry loses this case, but based on this asinine law I don't see how they'd lose.

Section 1001. Definitions
(3) A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use, except for -
(A) professional model products, and
(B) dictation machines, answering machines, and other audio recording equipment that is designed and marketed primarily for the creation of sound recordings resulting from the fixation of nonmusical sounds.

Section 1002. Incorporation of copying controls
(a) Prohibition on Importation, Manufacture, and Distribution. - No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any digital audio recording device or digital audio interface device that does not conform to -
(1) the Serial Copy Management System;
(2) a system that has the same functional characteristics as the Serial Copy Management System and requires that copyright and generation status information be accurately sent, received, and acted upon between devices using the systemâ(TM)s method of serial copying regulation and devices using the Serial Copy Management System; or
(3) any other system certified by the Secretary of Commerce as prohibiting unauthorized serial copying.

Section 1009. Civil remedies
(a) Civil Actions. - Any interested copyright party injured by a violation of section 1002 or 1003 may bring a civil action in an appropriate United States district court against any person for such violation.

-

Comment: Re:Alternative explanation (Score 1) 394

by Alsee (#47541327) Attached to: Enraged Verizon FiOS Customer Seemingly Demonstrates Netflix Throttling

The sending provider pays the receiving provider for the bandwidth, and this is the only rational way it can be.

Right..... because when Verizon customer's pay for internet connection service, and Verizon customers request pages and media from Wikipedia.... Wikipedia should pay Verizon. That totally makes sense. On crack.

packets originating on their network

Everything is originating on Verizon's network..... Verizon customer's are the ones wanting to open a connection to Netfix and request the data.

When I make a phonecall to someone, and I spend 99% of the call listening to what that person has to say, NO ONE is going to buy that my local phone company can SEND A BILL TO THE PERSON I CALLED.

-

Comment: Re:Alternative explanation (Score 1) 394

by Alsee (#47541259) Attached to: Enraged Verizon FiOS Customer Seemingly Demonstrates Netflix Throttling

Level3 is trying to charge Verizon an exorbitant rate for enough bandwidth to handle that peer. Verizon said "No"

No. Level3 offered to upgrade the connection FOR FREE. Level3 offered to pay 100% of the cost of the extra hardware to upgrade the link and GIFT it to Verizon.

The second part of your comment was correct.... the part about Verizon saying "No". Verizon doesn't want the problem fixed for free - Verizon wants to use their monopoly position to bottleneck their customer's datastreams, to try to extort a slice of the content-revenue-stream pie.

Verizon has plenty of bandwidth, Netflix has plenty of bandwidth

Yep. Verizon themselves put out a graphic showing that there's abundant bandwidth, and that the entire problem is the one chokepoint where they're linked to Level3. Which Level3 offered to foot 100% of the bill of fixing.

-
-

Comment: Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (Score 1) 394

by Alsee (#47541207) Attached to: Enraged Verizon FiOS Customer Seemingly Demonstrates Netflix Throttling

a small step away from saying that Verizon should provide free internet services for every service their customers request.

Screw "a small step away".
Verizon should provide free internet services for every service their customers request.

The customer is paying for internet service, and the ISP goddamn well needs to round-trip delivery of the customer's internet data, up to the quantity and speed THAT THE CUSTOMER PAYED FOR.

The truly insane thing here is that Level3 has gone to the absurd length of offering to pay 100% of the cost GIFTING Verizon with the additional network cards and cables to expand the link and fix the problem. Verizon refused. Verizon isn't happy being a network provider - they see the revenue Netflix and others gets being a content providers, and Verizon doesn't want the connection problem fixed for free.... Verizon wants to extort Netflix to give them a permanent revenue stream from the content pie. Verizon is abusing their monopoly power to bottleneck customer's data.... trying to force Netflix to raise prices and pay that extra money as a KICKBACK to Verizon. Verizon is abusing their monopoly position to try to gouge their own customers - and trying to force Verizon's price-gouging to show up on customer's Netflix bills rather than appearing on Verizon's own bills.

-

Comment: Re:Laws of Physics have become Heresy? (Score 1) 649

by Alsee (#47274709) Attached to: Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In Britain's Schools

you think we should ban a classroom discussion of the 2nd Law?

I think it should be MANDATORY to teach the 2nd law of thermodynamics in any physics education. I wish your teachers had been more clear on it. Your notion of the 2nd law is clearly flawed or incomplete, as it would prohibit the natural formation of highly ordered snowflakes from chaotic water vapor, as well as prohibiting countless other common physical processes.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that the total entropy of a closed system tends to increase, with overwhelming probability. It does not apply to any system subject to a flow of energy an outside source. It not prohibit one location or object in a system from increasing in order while other objects/locations in that system have an equal or larger increase in disorder.

The earth is receiving energy from the sun. The enormous entropy increase within the sun easily "pays for" the ongoing creation of order and complexity here on earth. So long as the sun shines, that energy flow can and does fuel natural self-organizing physical processes. You can see this in snowflake formation, the self-organization of hurricanes, the development of an individual organism, as well as the genetic evolution of a population. There is no violation of the 2nd law here. The sun's energy input pays for, fuels, these self-organizing natural processes.

What branch of Science did you say you were from?

Computer science, with an active interest in physics and science in general. Computer science deals extensively with Information Theory, the ways that information can measured, processed, transformed, and CREATED. Evolution is not merely a "theory", it is an applied science. Evolutionary Algorithms is a field of computer science where complex, ordered, useful, problem-solving information is CREATED by replication with mutation and natural selection of "digital-DNA". I have personally witnessed the fact that evolution can and does create complex useful new information. It is an applied science put to active use in one way or another by a majority Fortune 500 companies. It is quite common for evolution to create designs better than the best "Intelligent Designs" by human engineers. One particular case comes to mind of one team that applied evolution to jet engine design, which evolved an engine more fuel efficient than any human engineer had ever been able to achieve. And there is at least one company solely dedicated to filing patents on valuable innovations generated via evolution.

Here is a grossly oversimplified illustration. Roll one hundred dice. The chances of them all coming up 6 is effectively zero. Now apply evolution. Take that random result and REPLICATE it, and lets apply one MUTATION re-rolling one random die. Now SELECT (keep) the set with the higher total, and kill (discard) the set with the lower or equal total. After approximately 3000 replication-selection steps you will have a perfect set of all 6's.

This process works even when you do not have a pre-determined target. All it requires to work is that you have some means of measuring which set of DNA is "better" or "worse" than another. Evolution will generate whatever information is required to satisfy the selection criteria.

But as I said, that was a grossly oversimplified example. Evolution's power to generate information is exponentially increased when there is a population with sexual reproduction (genetic recombination). This has been mathematically proven by the Schemata Theorem (J. Holland 1975). I won't attempt to explain it here, but a Google search on schemata theorem turns up 122,000 results. It is a seminal paper, widely cited by subsequent scientific work in mathematics and computer science and biological evolution. It mathematically proves a major principal whereby population evolution is almost infinitely more powerful than the trivial dice example I gave above.

-

Comment: Re:Laws of Physics have become Heresy? (Score 1) 649

by Alsee (#47271809) Attached to: Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In Britain's Schools

Oh joy, an "engineer" who doesn't have the faintest clue what the fuck the 2nd law of thermodynamics says, and doesn't seem to have much grasp of anything else in science either. I sure as hell hope you don't "engineer" anything safety-critical.

Now the 2nd law of thermodynamics says: "All natural systems (e.g. nature) progresses from a state of order (creations) to a state of chaos (puddle of mud)".

Riiiiiight.... that's what it says..... which also means snow is impossible because chaotic water molecules in the air cannot self-organize into beautiful complex highly ordered snowflakes.

Jeremy Connell Ministries: Snow, it doesn't exist.

-

Comment: Re:You show me yours, I'll show you mine (Score 1) 649

by Alsee (#47271605) Attached to: Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In Britain's Schools

What peer reviewed evidence do you have to support the non-existence of a god ?
Until you can answer that question, teaching my children that there is no god has no place in science class.

Your comment is pointless because everyone already agrees with that.
Unless you are one of those confused people who thinks teaching evolution is atheism, in which case I suggest you ask for a refund on your "actual scientific degree from a respected university".

-

Comment: Re:You show me yours, I'll show you mine (Score 1) 649

by Alsee (#47271401) Attached to: Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In Britain's Schools

I find belief in invisible-magical-people to be rather odd, but what really baffles me is worshiping Loki, god of mischief and deception.

old the universe at least appears to be by all standards that we can measure... and personally, I think whether or not that appearance belies its "actual" age or not is entirely irrelevant

Yep, it's conceivable that Loki exists and created the universe 6 hours ago and all of your memories and all of the apparent age of the earth is a deliberate fraud. It's conceivable that you're a disembodied brain in a jar wired to to some Matrix-style fictional reality. And it's utterly absurd to waste time with such things. If there were some malevolent all-powerful superbeing dead-set on deceiving you, then you will be deceived. If a malevolent entity wants to deceive you into thinking 2+2=3, then the entire world and all of your thoughts and memories can be deceptively manipulated on the fly. You will believe 2+2=3, if a malevolent god wants you to believe it.

If the earth appears to be 4.5 billion years old, then either the earth actually is 4.5 billion years old or Loki crafted a deliberate deception of a 4.5 billion year age. Either acknowledge that you worship Loki, or drop this nonsense a planet-worth of evidence of age might be some elaborate deception.

You cannon profess to believe in a benevolent god while rejecting truths plainly and exhaustively revealed by the scientific study of the world. If the world appears old, then the world is old. If evolution appears true, then evolution is true. If god exists, and evolution is true, then god simply created a universe which included evolution as part of the design.

-

Comment: Re:Evolution isn't science (Score 1) 649

by Alsee (#47271043) Attached to: Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In Britain's Schools

I checked your link. Most of the pages in fact explain that there *aren't* any "out of place fossils". The closest was a page so blindly-stupid as to think an overthrust creates out of place fossils, and about two lpages that bafflingly think that a newly found slightly earlier ancestor, or a later descendant, is somehow "out of place". Not one single example of a rabbit in the Precambrian, or any other remotely out of place fossil. An out of place fossil has to be an evolutionary descendant (like rabbits) appearing before an ancestor (like dinosaurs). You didn't present a single one, your link didn't present a single example.

-

Comment: Re:Ignorance usually leads to inequity (Score 1) 649

by Alsee (#47270553) Attached to: Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In Britain's Schools

There is not one creationism. To treat it as a monolith is false.

It's not being treated as a monolith. The government was finally spurred to action on this issue mainly because of Islamist trying push religion in science class. The general rule is that you can't false claims about any flavor of creationism being accepted supported science. You have to teach science in a science class. Kinda like you are supposed to be teaching math in a math class.

Old-earth creationists are given short shrift in this approach

No. Old earth creationists are being treated equally. You can't teach old earth creationism in a science class when the only accurate description of the current state of science is that professional scientists consider old-earth creationism unscientific and unsupported scientifically.

Atheism is not the same thing as pro-Scientific.

It seems you need to flip that around.
Scientific is not the same thing as atheism!
Science does not mention gods because there is zero scientific evidence for or against the existence of any gods. Just because science has nothing to say about gods does not make science atheistic. Just because welding class has nothing to say about gods doesn't make welding atheistic.

Questions of the super-natural are, by definition, outside of the scope of proper science.

Yep. And therefore shouldn't be in a science class.

A theology class, comparing and contrasting the major world religions, would be an entirely appropriate class to teach the Islamic, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and other stories of creation.

-

Comment: Re:Science is not consensus (Score 1) 649

by Alsee (#47270503) Attached to: Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In Britain's Schools

What a bizarre argument. You confirm every single point of the case proving AGW, and you counter by citing that atmospheric CO2 only goes up half as fast as we dump CO2 into the atmosphere. This is something that has been long known and factored in by scientists. As long as atmospheric CO2 is going up then you're concurring that the AGW case has been established, and you're merely pointing out that in a fictional world without natural CO2 sinks the CO2 increase would have been twice as fast, a fictional world that would have had faster and more severe warming.

Basically you're saying the effect is real and proven, but it's only half as big as I imagine it could have been, therefore it doesn't exist? Huh?

-

For every bloke who makes his mark, there's half a dozen waiting to rub it out. -- Andy Capp

Working...