OK, we have DeCSS... do we have code that actually ENCRYPTS stuff with CSS? What if people widely started encrypting their own works with CSS, (not as secure encryption, just as slightly-better-than-ROT13) then there would be an obvious reason to have it.
Could decrypting your own work actually be illegal?
Ya... I'm sorely disappointed with the number of original open-source games. Of course, cutting edge games are hard to make part-time. Most people (such as myself) working on games need/want to do it all day long to get anything done. It's important to eat too.:-) So, we end up making cool, but closed-source, games.
It's also hard to keep focused. I started to write lots of (eventually aborted) shareware games years ago. That experience got me my current job, but it's too easy to get bored with your own game and keep changing it forever, never getting to a finished state. Cloning an existing game at least has a definite target. Open source might get around that problem though if people can pick up when you get bored. Still, the problem is in the definite target, and design by open-source comittee would fall somewhere between painful and disasterous.
Obviously trying to do all of them at the same time would be counterproductive, so preemptive multitasking would be a pretty bad model for a human. However, if I'm getting stuck on one particular problem, it is often helpful to switch to something else for a while until the "solution presents itself."
This probably has more in common with threads than tasks if you want to be really picky... but the lower overhead of threads might make this an excellent analogy as well.:-)
In any case, having other tasks to run while waiting on input, output or paralell processes can still improve efficiency, just don't switch tasks for no reason...
This is a (very) rough overview of the letter I am writing. It doesn't flow particularly well right now, but the ideas are there. I thought I would throw it to the wolves to get some feedback before I finish it:
Introduction
I am a computer programmer with a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science from the University of Calgary. I am currently employed as a software engineer developing entertainment software.
My current position exists almost entirely because of the existence of copyright law. Under existing laws, I can and do make a respectable living. I obtained this position because I am an inquisitive and creative person. The desire to figure things out or to take things apart and figure out how they work is the main driving force behind advancement in all fields.
I am gravely concerned that the introduction of laws to "prevent the circumvention of technologies used to protect copyright material" will undermine the rights of those who which to use the materials.
Copy Protection vs Access Prevention
Copy protection has been used by producers of copyright materials to prevent the copying of materials in a manner that would violate existing copyright law. Such measures, unfortunately, also prevent the users of copy protected materials from freely using the materials within the bounds of the Copyright Act. Additionally, copy protection also inhibits, or entirely prevents, such materials from ever entering the public domain, even when the copyright has expired.
All computer data is merely numbers. These numbers are interpreted to represent different things, such as words, pictures or sounds. It is impossible to prevent the duplication of simple numbers, and generally counterproductive. For instance, that is how information travels across the Internet. Data copied several times as it passes through systems on the route to its final destination, where a copy of the data is stored for use. The Internet is all about copying. At its most basic level, that is the only thing it does.
Attempts to "copy protect" data that is transmitted via the Internet, and most other forms of copy protection, would be more accurately referred to as "access prevention." Everyone is free to copy the data, but it is useless to anyone without the appropriate "key" to access the data.
Access prevention is commonly achieved through software, by "scrambling" data in such a way that it is not usable without performing a "reverse scrambling" process. A simple form of "scrambling" is the "secret decoder ring" method. A message can be "protected" by substituting one letter of the alphabet for another. For instance, if we substitute each letter of the alphabet by its preceding letter, the word "Hello" becomes "Gdkkn." To reverse the process, merely replace each letter with each successive letter of the alphabet. More intricate methods exist to "protect" data more effectively, but the general procedure is similar.
The problem with criminalizing circumvention technologies should be obvious: it is necessary to circumvent the copy protection to use the material at all.
This raises some very important questions: Who is authorized to create "circumvention technologies?" Who is authorized to use them, and when? Who dictates the terms under which such technologies may be used?
Freedom to develop software.
The skills that make me valuable as a software developer are the same skills that could be used to circumvent copy protection. Presently, there are no laws restricting the type of software I may write or possess. Current copyright laws restrict what I may do with this software, and need no further extensions.
Copy protection programs are no different from other types of software, they are merely a set of step-by-step instructions. Computers allow these instructions to be carried out very quickly, but the instructions could be performed with simply paper and a pencil.
Freedom to explain how specific copy protection methods work.
This is a fundamentally a matter of freedom of expression. It is also necessary to ensure companies providing copy protection are not making false claims about their software.
Beyond this, as there is no difference in functionality between software "authorized" by the copyright holder and "unauthorized" software, it does not seem reasonable to draw a distinction between the two.
Freedom to use materials within the bounds of the existing Copyright Act.
Access prevention technologies obliterate all fair-use aspects of copyright and deny the ability to use materials freely within the limits of the Copyright Act.
For example, if "secret decoder ring" style protection is used, it must remain legal for me to study how the "decoder ring" works and to build my own, should the device break or be inadequate to allow me to use the material in otherwise legal ways.
Securing the transition to public domain.
Public domain tools to permit access are not allowed to exist, even after copyright expires. This prevents materials from entering the public domain.
Additionally, current software is frequently only commercially viable for less than five years, often closer to six months. As technology advances rapidly, software becomes obsolete very quickly. This software is not able to benefit society in the public domain under the current duration of copyright. Extending the copyright duration would merely make this problem worse.
It may be worth considering substantially reducing the copyright on specific works, but allowing copyright to be maintained on individual components of characters, music and artwork to promote the continued creation of new works.
The fundamental nature of the internet is copying data. It gets copied from the host, copied at the routers, and plants a copy on the user's system. There cannot BE scarcity of information on the Internet, because no one ever needs to lose information to give it to someone else.
The Internet does not obey "economic laws" because of the fundamental nature of information technology, not because someone decided it should be that way. It would be like repealing the law of gravity because it was inconvenient for business, it's a fundamentally stupid suggestion.
I spent most of last night drafting a letter to the Government of Canada. The central point with repsect to the "circumvention" requirement of the WIPO treaty, was that it is necessary to circumvent copy protection to use copy protected materials at all.
The question then becomes, who is allowed to circumvent copy protection, and when? As a programmer skilled enough to bypass or circumvent copy protection, are there things I am not allowed to know? Are there programs I am not allowed to write? Corporations are allowed to write and sell circumvention technology so consumers can use copy protected material, but I, as a private citizen, am not allowed to create software that performs exactly the same function?
Copy protection law moves copyright away from restrictions on copying of materials and towards control of the types of materials I am allowed to possess or create, since software to view copy protected materials is at its core no different from the material it is protecting.
Our government seems clued in to some degree, but compliance with the WIPO treaty would seem to require contradicting common sense.
Any feedback regarding this approach would be welcome.
Is it just me, or does everyone who whines about something not being "real AI" really mean that it's not "real intelligence?" What is real artificial intelligence? That's an oxymoron.
Well, it would be interesting if background "extras" and even small-part characters were CGI. Very hard to say how the economics will turn out, but I still think a talented animator would be paid way more than an average actor. Until AI advances to a point where an average (or, potentially, nonexistent) animator can create a life-like character, I don't know if it will be much more than a novelty. I could be wrong, but if I am there will be WAY cooler applications of such a system than movie-making.:-)
Well... just because it is technically possible, doesn't necessarily mean that it is more economical (dollars and time) than sticking people in front of a camera, or that there are more skilled animators than there are skilled actors, or that celebrity of Real Live Humans(TM) doesn't have tremendous benefits.
This is very cool, and this sort of thing has a strong future, but using it to replace actors is like solving a problem that doesn't exist...
The real skill that employers need is the ability to APPLY math concepts.
I think that was the point I was trying to make... the slide rule IS an application of mathematics to the physical world. As several posters pointed out, it can also give an intuitive and visual understanding of how logarithms work. That would seem to me to be a valuable tool when teaching logarithms, and an example of the application of mathematics, and of problem solving using mathematics. Whether they'll ever actually need to use one seems beside the point.
I'm sure that when slide rules came out, your intellectual ancestors were just as adamant that the young people needed to be taught to do their math in the dirt with a stick, in case they ever broke a sliderule.
So... are you suggesting that we shouldn't be teaching children how to add base-10 numbers by adding columns and carrying the overflow, but rather just teach them which buttons to push on a calculator? Dirt, paper or mental, the argument is the same.
I fail to see how the ability to do math mentally should be replaced by instruction on how to use calculators. Or, as the article had it, determine the square root of 144 or 2 to the power of 10. These can be done mentally more quickly than they could be punched into a calculator. If you didn't have to do it mentally, you could pass your math tests by reading the question "What is the squre root of 144" as "enter 144 and press the square root button" rather than "what number squared gives the result 144?" In other words, it makes it possible to get a "A" without even understanding the question.
At university, I initially found some of my computer science courses a bit abstract, and they seemed slightly pointless, but it was explained this way: we were being taught skills that would be relevant and useful regardless of the changes in technology.
You can use then use the computer to find out how to run a slide rule if you are so inclined.
Teaching that would take, what, a day? An hour? http://www.google.com, there, done. Now can we teach them skills they will use regardless of the direction technology takes? Hoping kids stumble across useful information is NOT what education is supposed to be about.
This reminds me of The Hitchhiker's Guide - we want to know the Great Answer, but we don't even know what the Question is (and I would not be at all surprised to discover the answer to be 42).
It's kind of a silly question, really. What the heck is Artificial Intelligence supposed to mean? I think most people mean "Real Intelligence" when they say "true AI," but that has to be the most bass ackwards description I have ever heard. It's intelligence, but not REAL intelligence? It's intelligence, but not running on REAL hardware? What?
I think AI is supposed to mean intelligence that's not running on a human. Or maybe intelligence that's not biology based (although that's unnecessarily limiting). Or maybe we haven't the foggiest idea what constitutes "intelligence" and needed a catchy name to get funding.:-)
We in the industry have this thing we like to call "a chair." When two are placed side by side in front of a computer, you generally have all the hardware you need to monitor computer usage.
Trying to downplay the incident one official said, 'It was a compromise, not really an attack.
He said that in an attempt to downplay the incident? Does he actually understand what either of those words mean? How is it better to have people actually break into your system (compromise) than to have them trying, but failing (attacking)?
I will be very interested to see how consumers react to this sort of thing. In general, the more difficult they make it to use these sorts of "services," the more people will migrate to readily available and free music.
And until they find a way to restrict my ability to record my own compositions, or they find some way to stop my guitar strings from vibrating without a properly installed license, I'll have all the music I need, and they will have none of my money.
I imagine it's pretty hard to sustain a cultural phenomenon when friends can't say "hey, listen to this!" because everything is pay-per-play. It will be quite interesting to see how effective the brainwashing has been.
being a 16-bit character definition allowing a theoretical total of over 65,000 characters. However, the complete character sets of the world add up to approximately 170,000 characters.
So, add a byte or two per document as a language ID...
There just isn't enough there from the RTS perspective (that assumption is based on RTS's that are already out, maybe I'll be suprised). A game that were true to the Dune series would not fit in any genre or combinations thereof.
Dune II basically INVENTED the RTS genre. So... essentially what you're saying is true, it didn't fit any genre, but I think you've got the whole thing backwards...
"Can you give me an example where two people, treated equally under law, should be permitted to communicate with each other freely and equally?"
Isn't that really what they're asking? Personally, I think it's the wrong question, because the question inherently assumes that you are NOT generally free, with minor restrictions for the betterment of society.
And that's really what laws are supposed to be FOR in a free society - to say "you are free to do absolutely anything that you want, except for these few items so that everybody else can continue doing what they want and all are happy."
To answer the question - isn't a TELEPHONE P2P? It just uses a different network.
Sexium being after Pentium doesn't even make logical sense
I'm aware of that... but you're trying to tell me it makes significantly less sense than "Pentium?" And that anything that comes out of the Intel marketing department makes logical sense? AND that Sexium isn't just a significantly funnier/better name than Hexium?
Slashdot Mirror
OK, we have DeCSS... do we have code that actually ENCRYPTS stuff with CSS? What if people widely started encrypting their own works with CSS, (not as secure encryption, just as slightly-better-than-ROT13) then there would be an obvious reason to have it.
Could decrypting your own work actually be illegal?
Ya... I'm sorely disappointed with the number of original open-source games. Of course, cutting edge games are hard to make part-time. Most people (such as myself) working on games need/want to do it all day long to get anything done. It's important to eat too. :-) So, we end up making cool, but closed-source, games.
It's also hard to keep focused. I started to write lots of (eventually aborted) shareware games years ago. That experience got me my current job, but it's too easy to get bored with your own game and keep changing it forever, never getting to a finished state. Cloning an existing game at least has a definite target. Open source might get around that problem though if people can pick up when you get bored. Still, the problem is in the definite target, and design by open-source comittee would fall somewhere between painful and disasterous.
"Star Wars" by itself is already kind of an odd name. That just doesn't work for me, sorry.
Fall of the Jedi
Fall of the Republic
Return of the Sith
They all tie in nicely to "Return of the Jedi."
Everybody was howling that about "The Phantom Menace" as well. I'd say the odds are low. Non-zero, but low.
The Phantom Menace
Attack of the Clones
???
A New Hope
The Empire Strikes Back
Return of the Jedi
They're all silly unless you've been conditioned as a child to think they're all amazingly cool. Fortunately, I have. :-)
Obviously trying to do all of them at the same time would be counterproductive, so preemptive multitasking would be a pretty bad model for a human. However, if I'm getting stuck on one particular problem, it is often helpful to switch to something else for a while until the "solution presents itself."
This probably has more in common with threads than tasks if you want to be really picky... but the lower overhead of threads might make this an excellent analogy as well. :-)
In any case, having other tasks to run while waiting on input, output or paralell processes can still improve efficiency, just don't switch tasks for no reason...
Wow! It actually does a pretty good rendition of:
I teleported home one night,
With Ron and Sid and Meg.
Ron stole Meggie's heart away,
And I got Sidney's leg.
That is exceedingly cool.
This is a (very) rough overview of the letter I am writing. It doesn't flow particularly well right now, but the ideas are there. I thought I would throw it to the wolves to get some feedback before I finish it:
Introduction
I am a computer programmer with a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science from the University of Calgary. I am currently employed as a software engineer developing entertainment software.
My current position exists almost entirely because of the existence of copyright law. Under existing laws, I can and do make a respectable living. I obtained this position because I am an inquisitive and creative person. The desire to figure things out or to take things apart and figure out how they work is the main driving force behind advancement in all fields.
I am gravely concerned that the introduction of laws to "prevent the circumvention of technologies used to protect copyright material" will undermine the rights of those who which to use the materials.
Copy Protection vs Access Prevention
Copy protection has been used by producers of copyright materials to prevent the copying of materials in a manner that would violate existing copyright law. Such measures, unfortunately, also prevent the users of copy protected materials from freely using the materials within the bounds of the Copyright Act. Additionally, copy protection also inhibits, or entirely prevents, such materials from ever entering the public domain, even when the copyright has expired.
All computer data is merely numbers. These numbers are interpreted to represent different things, such as words, pictures or sounds. It is impossible to prevent the duplication of simple numbers, and generally counterproductive. For instance, that is how information travels across the Internet. Data copied several times as it passes through systems on the route to its final destination, where a copy of the data is stored for use. The Internet is all about copying. At its most basic level, that is the only thing it does.
Attempts to "copy protect" data that is transmitted via the Internet, and most other forms of copy protection, would be more accurately referred to as "access prevention." Everyone is free to copy the data, but it is useless to anyone without the appropriate "key" to access the data.
Access prevention is commonly achieved through software, by "scrambling" data in such a way that it is not usable without performing a "reverse scrambling" process. A simple form of "scrambling" is the "secret decoder ring" method. A message can be "protected" by substituting one letter of the alphabet for another. For instance, if we substitute each letter of the alphabet by its preceding letter, the word "Hello" becomes "Gdkkn." To reverse the process, merely replace each letter with each successive letter of the alphabet. More intricate methods exist to "protect" data more effectively, but the general procedure is similar.
The problem with criminalizing circumvention technologies should be obvious: it is necessary to circumvent the copy protection to use the material at all.
This raises some very important questions: Who is authorized to create "circumvention technologies?" Who is authorized to use them, and when? Who dictates the terms under which such technologies may be used?
Freedom to develop software.
The skills that make me valuable as a software developer are the same skills that could be used to circumvent copy protection. Presently, there are no laws restricting the type of software I may write or possess. Current copyright laws restrict what I may do with this software, and need no further extensions.
Copy protection programs are no different from other types of software, they are merely a set of step-by-step instructions. Computers allow these instructions to be carried out very quickly, but the instructions could be performed with simply paper and a pencil.
Freedom to explain how specific copy protection methods work.
This is a fundamentally a matter of freedom of expression. It is also necessary to ensure companies providing copy protection are not making false claims about their software.
Beyond this, as there is no difference in functionality between software "authorized" by the copyright holder and "unauthorized" software, it does not seem reasonable to draw a distinction between the two.
Freedom to use materials within the bounds of the existing Copyright Act.
Access prevention technologies obliterate all fair-use aspects of copyright and deny the ability to use materials freely within the limits of the Copyright Act.
For example, if "secret decoder ring" style protection is used, it must remain legal for me to study how the "decoder ring" works and to build my own, should the device break or be inadequate to allow me to use the material in otherwise legal ways.
Securing the transition to public domain.
Public domain tools to permit access are not allowed to exist, even after copyright expires. This prevents materials from entering the public domain.
Additionally, current software is frequently only commercially viable for less than five years, often closer to six months. As technology advances rapidly, software becomes obsolete very quickly. This software is not able to benefit society in the public domain under the current duration of copyright. Extending the copyright duration would merely make this problem worse.
It may be worth considering substantially reducing the copyright on specific works, but allowing copyright to be maintained on individual components of characters, music and artwork to promote the continued creation of new works.
Is he talking about scarcity?
The fundamental nature of the internet is copying data. It gets copied from the host, copied at the routers, and plants a copy on the user's system. There cannot BE scarcity of information on the Internet, because no one ever needs to lose information to give it to someone else.
The Internet does not obey "economic laws" because of the fundamental nature of information technology, not because someone decided it should be that way. It would be like repealing the law of gravity because it was inconvenient for business, it's a fundamentally stupid suggestion.
I spent most of last night drafting a letter to the Government of Canada. The central point with repsect to the "circumvention" requirement of the WIPO treaty, was that it is necessary to circumvent copy protection to use copy protected materials at all.
The question then becomes, who is allowed to circumvent copy protection, and when? As a programmer skilled enough to bypass or circumvent copy protection, are there things I am not allowed to know? Are there programs I am not allowed to write? Corporations are allowed to write and sell circumvention technology so consumers can use copy protected material, but I, as a private citizen, am not allowed to create software that performs exactly the same function?
Copy protection law moves copyright away from restrictions on copying of materials and towards control of the types of materials I am allowed to possess or create, since software to view copy protected materials is at its core no different from the material it is protecting.
Our government seems clued in to some degree, but compliance with the WIPO treaty would seem to require contradicting common sense.
Any feedback regarding this approach would be welcome.
Is it just me, or does everyone who whines about something not being "real AI" really mean that it's not "real intelligence?" What is real artificial intelligence? That's an oxymoron.
Well, it would be interesting if background "extras" and even small-part characters were CGI. Very hard to say how the economics will turn out, but I still think a talented animator would be paid way more than an average actor. Until AI advances to a point where an average (or, potentially, nonexistent) animator can create a life-like character, I don't know if it will be much more than a novelty. I could be wrong, but if I am there will be WAY cooler applications of such a system than movie-making.
Well... just because it is technically possible, doesn't necessarily mean that it is more economical (dollars and time) than sticking people in front of a camera, or that there are more skilled animators than there are skilled actors, or that celebrity of Real Live Humans(TM) doesn't have tremendous benefits.
This is very cool, and this sort of thing has a strong future, but using it to replace actors is like solving a problem that doesn't exist...
I think that was the point I was trying to make... the slide rule IS an application of mathematics to the physical world. As several posters pointed out, it can also give an intuitive and visual understanding of how logarithms work. That would seem to me to be a valuable tool when teaching logarithms, and an example of the application of mathematics, and of problem solving using mathematics. Whether they'll ever actually need to use one seems beside the point.
So... are you suggesting that we shouldn't be teaching children how to add base-10 numbers by adding columns and carrying the overflow, but rather just teach them which buttons to push on a calculator? Dirt, paper or mental, the argument is the same.
I fail to see how the ability to do math mentally should be replaced by instruction on how to use calculators. Or, as the article had it, determine the square root of 144 or 2 to the power of 10. These can be done mentally more quickly than they could be punched into a calculator. If you didn't have to do it mentally, you could pass your math tests by reading the question "What is the squre root of 144" as "enter 144 and press the square root button" rather than "what number squared gives the result 144?" In other words, it makes it possible to get a "A" without even understanding the question.
At university, I initially found some of my computer science courses a bit abstract, and they seemed slightly pointless, but it was explained this way: we were being taught skills that would be relevant and useful regardless of the changes in technology.
Teaching that would take, what, a day? An hour? http://www.google.com, there, done. Now can we teach them skills they will use regardless of the direction technology takes? Hoping kids stumble across useful information is NOT what education is supposed to be about.
Apparently the server was running Commodore 64 BASIC.... on native hardware.
What do you mean by "true AI"?
:-)
This reminds me of The Hitchhiker's Guide - we want to know the Great Answer, but we don't even know what the Question is (and I would not be at all surprised to discover the answer to be 42).
It's kind of a silly question, really. What the heck is Artificial Intelligence supposed to mean? I think most people mean "Real Intelligence" when they say "true AI," but that has to be the most bass ackwards description I have ever heard. It's intelligence, but not REAL intelligence? It's intelligence, but not running on REAL hardware? What?
I think AI is supposed to mean intelligence that's not running on a human. Or maybe intelligence that's not biology based (although that's unnecessarily limiting). Or maybe we haven't the foggiest idea what constitutes "intelligence" and needed a catchy name to get funding.
We in the industry have this thing we like to call "a chair." When two are placed side by side in front of a computer, you generally have all the hardware you need to monitor computer usage.
Trying to downplay the incident one official said, 'It was a compromise, not really an attack.
He said that in an attempt to downplay the incident? Does he actually understand what either of those words mean? How is it better to have people actually break into your system (compromise) than to have them trying, but failing (attacking)?
I will be very interested to see how consumers react to this sort of thing. In general, the more difficult they make it to use these sorts of "services," the more people will migrate to readily available and free music.
And until they find a way to restrict my ability to record my own compositions, or they find some way to stop my guitar strings from vibrating without a properly installed license, I'll have all the music I need, and they will have none of my money.
I imagine it's pretty hard to sustain a cultural phenomenon when friends can't say "hey, listen to this!" because everything is pay-per-play. It will be quite interesting to see how effective the brainwashing has been.
being a 16-bit character definition allowing a theoretical total of over 65,000 characters. However, the complete character sets of the world add up to approximately 170,000 characters.
So, add a byte or two per document as a language ID...
Anybody feel like joining me at Milliways?
There just isn't enough there from the RTS perspective (that assumption is based on RTS's that are already out, maybe I'll be suprised). A game that were true to the Dune series would not fit in any genre or combinations thereof.
Dune II basically INVENTED the RTS genre. So... essentially what you're saying is true, it didn't fit any genre, but I think you've got the whole thing backwards...
"Can you give me an example where two people, treated equally under law, should be permitted to communicate with each other freely and equally?"
Isn't that really what they're asking? Personally, I think it's the wrong question, because the question inherently assumes that you are NOT generally free, with minor restrictions for the betterment of society.
And that's really what laws are supposed to be FOR in a free society - to say "you are free to do absolutely anything that you want, except for these few items so that everybody else can continue doing what they want and all are happy."
To answer the question - isn't a TELEPHONE P2P? It just uses a different network.
Morning rant concludes...
Sexium being after Pentium doesn't even make logical sense
I'm aware of that... but you're trying to tell me it makes significantly less sense than "Pentium?" And that anything that comes out of the Intel marketing department makes logical sense? AND that Sexium isn't just a significantly funnier/better name than Hexium?
:-)