The problem with digital signatures is that as soon as someone finds a way to hack them, and this is proven in court, then a certain degree of "deniability" is instantly endowed upon every contract ever signed; because there are no witnesses to the digital signing, anyone who wants to claim "it wasn't me who signed" is perfectly free to do so and get out of a contract they signed. Even worse is the fraud that will result. If the digital signature in any court case can be called into question, then instantly all digital signatures will become useless - the point of having a signature is to have proof of non-repudity. And it only takes one hacked signature to render useless all signatures! At least paper signings must be disproved on a case by case basis. Those companies who built their business model on the digital signature may find their contracts utterly worthless when this does (and it will) happen.
What does it matter what the MPAA does? Folks, for 100 bucks you can buy a VCR and watch and even copy all the VHS movies you want. Why should we even care what happens to DeCSS - after all, if the MPAA wanted to sell DVD's to Linux users, they'll have to license the technology, period. Will I buy DVD's? Not until it's available on Linux. Sooner or later, the MPAA is going to realize that their single platform approach to licensing is going to cost them sales, and the sooner we stop using MS, the better.
But now for the philosophical digression. What bothers me is this "freedom on the internet" genre of posts which makes it sound like us techies are being "oppressed" by big corporations. How is it that big corporations can control the 'net? Aren't we the ones with the technical skills to master the internet? And how is it that they can make the rules?
The truth is, they can't. Linux is proof of that. Who needs DVD? If we want to watch movies, we, the techies, should write an open source movie format. Or is this too difficult a challenge for a bunch of geeks? To be effective, it would have to be portable across all platforms, and provide a reasonable degree of copy protection.
That's right, copy protection. Movie makers make movies for the sake of making money. If we want them to use our standard (assuming we wrote one), then we would have to offer them assurances that their works could not be copied en masse and distributed without them making a profit.
As much as I would like to agree with most of the opinions regarding DeCSS and the MPAA, I can't. You see, they wrote the software - it is theirs. For us to claim that hindering the distribution of DeCSS is restricting our freedoms is ridiculous - it has the ability to destroy the very foundation for profit upon which the MPAA stands. Think about your own values regarding privacy and secrecy:
Say someone discovered your debit card number; You wouldn't want them to post it on the internet.
But say that someone did post it. Now, you could lose everything in that account.
Businesses are just like that debit card, folks. Investors have placed lots of money in the development of DVD technology - and stand to lose a lot in the face of DeCSS. The appeal of DVD to the movie makers is that it prevents unauthorized copying. Take away this, and DVD is a glorified CDROM. And here is the problem.
We say investors, but we mean people. Real people like you and me invest in technology. We risk our hard earned money. And when something like DeCSS comes along, it threatens to nullify the investment that real people have made in technology, and make people more reluctant to accept new technology. Real people lose real money. It's not just an issue of freedom, but of ethics. To destroy someone else's business investment for the sake of "freedom" is unethical, to say the least. Our careers, our lives are dependent upon the acceptance of new technology, and ironically, DeCSS has probably hurt the geek community more than it has helped. Without trust in technology, we could look forward to careers in janitorial duties.
DeCSS is not the way to get DVD to Linux. We as a community need to display a little integrity and work with the DVD folks. An Open Source license may not be appropriate. But then, no one wants to be friends with someone who can't keep a secret. So we should either develop our own standard, or work with the MPAA. But we should stop whining about "freedom"(which isn't the issue at all), and do something to bring movies to Linux.
Okay, so you want a fast system. You go out and buy an Athlon. Then you buy an overclocking kit to squeeze every last CPU cycle you can. The only problem: your machine runs just as slow as it did before because the rest of the system can't keep up with the processor. I don't understand why everyone worships processor speed when in reality it's bus, memory, and hard drive speed that have the greatest influence over system performance. Processor speed will never be the limiting factor in overall system speed. I'm not going to drool when the 1 GHz Athlons come out; however, I might get very excited when that $100 motherboard has a 500MHz backside bus.
Interestingly enough, Linus seemed more focused on the issue of making Linux a better server than a better desktop OS. For all of those "Linux is the Ultimate OS" zealots out there, this seems like a bit of a sleight. Could Linux be headed toward a niche market? What about GNOME and KDE? These are great desktops, but unfortunately, the complexity of the Linux kernel seeps through and reduces their viability for the non-technical user. If Linus responds more favorably to criticisms of Linux's server performance than to criticisms of usability, Linux will probably fill a niche in the server arena and PC users will still be stuck with Windows....
The common consumer is totally screwed when it comes to using a PC. Consider the following:
My grandmother would like to get a computer. She says she won't get one because she doesn't know how to use one. Say I decide to get her one for Christmas. I have two choices. I could get her Windows, and hear her complain every time it blue screens or hangs. Or, I could get her Linux, and try to explain virtual filesystems, users, permissions, and a whole host of other things. Should she want to get any kind of additions (modem upgrade, software, internet, etc..), the local Best Buy would be absolutely clueless, and in all likelihood, sell her something she can't use. Chances are that either way, she'll get frustrated and won't use the machine. So much for a "Personal Computer". The fact of the matter is that most consumers can't use a PC; they aren't technical enough for Linux, and Windows keeps them from using their machines via the "random crash" feature.
Try a Compaq Presario 1245 sometime - the keyboard on it is actually usable. However it does have some disadvantages: 1. The computer was designed to be run with Windows 98 - translation: The hard drive is filled to full capacity, and it has a Winmodem. 2. RedHat 6.0 will work with it, including sound, but you can't disable the touchpad, even by plugging in a mouse. Find a way to cover the touchpad when typing, or be prepared to curse when that accidental brush of the palm selects-deletes the text you were typing. 3. The hard drive is intolerably slow, and it comes with too little memory. I recommend getting at least a 64MB upgrade. Overall, the machine is very slow, even for a Compaq (expect the equivalent of a pentium-120 desktop), but at least you can type a term paper on it without getting carpal tunnel syndrome. And it is relatively cheap for a laptop.
To find out that David Bowie is a geek. I was always under the impression that being a popular musician and geekhood were mutually exclusive. I guess that's what I get for thinking. Fortunately, there are people like David Bowie taking the stigma out of geekdom and blowing the pocket-protector stereotype to pieces.
When talking about public good and the constitution, many so-called entrepreneurs will point out that a system of rewards is necessary for the promotion of progress in the arts and sciences. Isn't this what was intended by the framers of the Constitution? The right to secure exclusive priveledge for a period of time so as to reap a material harvest from one's intellectual efforts is the cornerstone of today's copyright and patent law. This law was enacted so that society as a whole would benefit, not just the individual inventor. And I believe that this is what the FSF and RMS promote - the good of all computer users, without sacrificing the financial rewards for innovation.
But to treat intellectual discoveries as property (as our courts do today) was not the original goal. For if this had been the case, the wording would not have included the "limited times" phrase. After all, if someone truly owns something, he or she doesn't just control it for a "limited time," but rather until that person freely relinquishes ownership. Thus source code is not property. I find it remarkable that the current view of code as property has resulted in overpriced and unstable software (Windows), and society as a whole has lost out. Why is it that the Free Software Foundation produces software that is significantly more useful and reliable than the "proprietary only" software companies? The answer is simple - the very nature of open source and peer review of one's code encourages developers to write better code than they would otherwise. Treating source code as property has only kept the vast majority of the world in WindowsLand, where program quality, functionality, and stability are notoriously below even the academic standards. I could not turn in Microsoft-quality code and pass my CS courses....
I just hope the courts come to their senses before things get worse...
Didn't it ever occur to anyone that hydrocarbons could be made by both biological and interstellar processes? This would certainly explain the finding of hydrocarbons throughout the universe, as well as beneath the Earth's surface. Furthermore, the presence of biological matter in oil should not be taken as proof that such created oil; one could argue that at one time oil oozed to the surface, killed the life there, and carried the dead matter back underground during subsequent seismological disturbances.
If this passes the muster of the courts, then we are all in trouble, because this indicates that the courts are clueless when it comes to technology. However, I don't think this merits serious discussion - after all, coffee drinkers didn't get up in arms over the lady who sued McDonalds (and won) over serving hot coffee. I think that this is just another frivolous lawsuit filed by someone who wants to get rich off of the Y2K problem.
Finally, people have forgotten what the internet is all about - information exchange. Now it has attracted the attention of the soulless giants of corporate America, and from now on, we'll have to deal with the excrement byproducts of corporate greed - lawsuits and restrictive legislation. No, I don't agree with cyber-squatters; they are even greedier than the corporations they supplant. But the problem lies in that of using the internet for commerce - any time there is money involved, legislation will follow. The easiest forseeable solution is to create a substantial distinction between the commercial and non-commercial side of the net. Oh, wait, that exists -.com. But very few people on the net today know the difference between.com and.org, or any other extension, for that matter. Thus, because many people don't know the difference, any use of a "commercial trademark," regardless of the extension, will translate into infringement, regardless of which agency makes the decision.
Corporate greed is about to spoil the party, folks. Unless we can create a very visible division in the internet between the commercial and non-commercial, we will be forced to deal with more issues like this in the future.
A good solution. After all, if I have to use the (tm) when refering to Microsoft Windows(tm), shouldn't the internet be the same way? If Microsoft is bound to use the (tm) every time they mention their product name in printed documentation, it should be part of their domain name as well....
The other night I was surfing and decided to enter my full name as a URL. Fortunately, no one else has registered my full name. But I can see a world in which someone else registers my name and uses it to present inflammatory or objectionable material. The problem: I'll get spammed/fired/not hired/sued/etc. over a mistaken identity which I have no control over. Should the NSI be held responsible? Not really. However, those individuals who have no legitimate claim to a name should not be able to keep a domain name that infringes on someone else's trademark. Fortunately, slander is already against the law. But cyber-squatting is not, and it hurts those with a genuine interest in protecting their reputations, while serving the interests of only the cyber-squatters. Why should anyone have to pay exorbitant fees to a third party to use their (already) registered trademark on the 'net. Isn't the internet supposed to be a medium free from the burdens of censorship? Doesn't a cyber-squatter restrict free speech by charging a company (or organization, or individual) for the internet use of THEIR OWN NAME!? While we shouldn't hold NSI responsible for this, we should hold individuals responsible. On a side note: It wouldn't be too difficult for the NSI to check a database of uncontested trademarks before issuing a domain to an individual, and this step could have keep NSI from the expense of lawyers every time a major company decides a domain name violates their trademark. Such a database wouldn't be very difficult to create/maintain, either - just look at the DNS. No, they couldn't check every trademark - but they would probably catch enough cyber-squatters to deter the practice.
If Linux wasn't open source, the GNU free operating system would be running on a GNU-built kernel, and probably better off for doing so. Face it, the Linux kernel was built for uniprocessor PC's and SMP was backended into it by someone who had an interest in doing so. Having to recompile a kernel every time to add a device driver is a chore that makes even Windoze *seem* sensible. Frankly, I run Linux not because I am a UNIX fan, but rather because I want something reliable, stable, and free. While Linux is taking off, the key to gaining the desktop market is simplicity - and Linux is by no means simple. The historic accident that caused RMS to run with the Linux kernel has in some ways limited GNU/Linux to the PC.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with digital signatures is that as soon as someone finds a way to hack them, and this is proven in court, then a certain degree of "deniability" is instantly endowed upon every contract ever signed; because there are no witnesses to the digital signing, anyone who wants to claim "it wasn't me who signed" is perfectly free to do so and get out of a contract they signed. Even worse is the fraud that will result. If the digital signature in any court case can be called into question, then instantly all digital signatures will become useless - the point of having a signature is to have proof of non-repudity. And it only takes one hacked signature to render useless all signatures! At least paper signings must be disproved on a case by case basis. Those companies who built their business model on the digital signature may find their contracts utterly worthless when this does (and it will) happen.
But now for the philosophical digression. What bothers me is this "freedom on the internet" genre of posts which makes it sound like us techies are being "oppressed" by big corporations. How is it that big corporations can control the 'net? Aren't we the ones with the technical skills to master the internet? And how is it that they can make the rules?
The truth is, they can't. Linux is proof of that. Who needs DVD? If we want to watch movies, we, the techies, should write an open source movie format. Or is this too difficult a challenge for a bunch of geeks? To be effective, it would have to be portable across all platforms, and provide a reasonable degree of copy protection.
That's right, copy protection. Movie makers make movies for the sake of making money. If we want them to use our standard (assuming we wrote one), then we would have to offer them assurances that their works could not be copied en masse and distributed without them making a profit.
As much as I would like to agree with most of the opinions regarding DeCSS and the MPAA, I can't. You see, they wrote the software - it is theirs. For us to claim that hindering the distribution of DeCSS is restricting our freedoms is ridiculous - it has the ability to destroy the very foundation for profit upon which the MPAA stands. Think about your own values regarding privacy and secrecy:
- Say someone discovered your debit card number; You wouldn't want them to post it on the internet.
- But say that someone did post it. Now, you could lose everything in that account.
Businesses are just like that debit card, folks. Investors have placed lots of money in the development of DVD technology - and stand to lose a lot in the face of DeCSS. The appeal of DVD to the movie makers is that it prevents unauthorized copying. Take away this, and DVD is a glorified CDROM. And here is the problem.We say investors, but we mean people. Real people like you and me invest in technology. We risk our hard earned money. And when something like DeCSS comes along, it threatens to nullify the investment that real people have made in technology, and make people more reluctant to accept new technology. Real people lose real money. It's not just an issue of freedom, but of ethics. To destroy someone else's business investment for the sake of "freedom" is unethical, to say the least. Our careers, our lives are dependent upon the acceptance of new technology, and ironically, DeCSS has probably hurt the geek community more than it has helped. Without trust in technology, we could look forward to careers in janitorial duties.
DeCSS is not the way to get DVD to Linux. We as a community need to display a little integrity and work with the DVD folks. An Open Source license may not be appropriate. But then, no one wants to be friends with someone who can't keep a secret. So we should either develop our own standard, or work with the MPAA. But we should stop whining about "freedom"(which isn't the issue at all), and do something to bring movies to Linux.
Okay, so you want a fast system. You go out and buy an Athlon. Then you buy an overclocking kit to squeeze every last CPU cycle you can. The only problem: your machine runs just as slow as it did before because the rest of the system can't keep up with the processor. I don't understand why everyone worships processor speed when in reality it's bus, memory, and hard drive speed that have the greatest influence over system performance. Processor speed will never be the limiting factor in overall system speed. I'm not going to drool when the 1 GHz Athlons come out; however, I might get very excited when that $100 motherboard has a 500MHz backside bus.
Interestingly enough, Linus seemed more focused on the issue of making Linux a better server than a better desktop OS. For all of those "Linux is the Ultimate OS" zealots out there, this seems like a bit of a sleight. Could Linux be headed toward a niche market?
What about GNOME and KDE? These are great desktops, but unfortunately, the complexity of the Linux kernel seeps through and reduces their viability for the non-technical user. If Linus responds more favorably to criticisms of Linux's server performance than to criticisms of usability, Linux will probably fill a niche in the server arena and PC users will still be stuck with Windows....
My grandmother would like to get a computer. She says she won't get one because she doesn't know how to use one. Say I decide to get her one for Christmas. I have two choices. I could get her Windows, and hear her complain every time it blue screens or hangs. Or, I could get her Linux, and try to explain virtual filesystems, users, permissions, and a whole host of other things. Should she want to get any kind of additions (modem upgrade, software, internet, etc..), the local Best Buy would be absolutely clueless, and in all likelihood, sell her something she can't use. Chances are that either way, she'll get frustrated and won't use the machine. So much for a "Personal Computer". The fact of the matter is that most consumers can't use a PC; they aren't technical enough for Linux, and Windows keeps them from using their machines via the "random crash" feature.
Try a Compaq Presario 1245 sometime - the keyboard on it is actually usable. However it does have some disadvantages: 1. The computer was designed to be run with Windows 98 - translation: The hard drive is filled to full capacity, and it has a Winmodem. 2. RedHat 6.0 will work with it, including sound, but you can't disable the touchpad, even by plugging in a mouse. Find a way to cover the touchpad when typing, or be prepared to curse when that accidental brush of the palm selects-deletes the text you were typing. 3. The hard drive is intolerably slow, and it comes with too little memory. I recommend getting at least a 64MB upgrade. Overall, the machine is very slow, even for a Compaq (expect the equivalent of a pentium-120 desktop), but at least you can type a term paper on it without getting carpal tunnel syndrome. And it is relatively cheap for a laptop.
It's good to see such a big screen. Too bad I'll be an executive before I can afford it....
To find out that David Bowie is a geek. I was always under the impression that being a popular musician and geekhood were mutually exclusive. I guess that's what I get for thinking. Fortunately, there are people like David Bowie taking the stigma out of geekdom and blowing the pocket-protector stereotype to pieces.
But to treat intellectual discoveries as property (as our courts do today) was not the original goal. For if this had been the case, the wording would not have included the "limited times" phrase. After all, if someone truly owns something, he or she doesn't just control it for a "limited time," but rather until that person freely relinquishes ownership. Thus source code is not property. I find it remarkable that the current view of code as property has resulted in overpriced and unstable software (Windows), and society as a whole has lost out. Why is it that the Free Software Foundation produces software that is significantly more useful and reliable than the "proprietary only" software companies? The answer is simple - the very nature of open source and peer review of one's code encourages developers to write better code than they would otherwise. Treating source code as property has only kept the vast majority of the world in WindowsLand, where program quality, functionality, and stability are notoriously below even the academic standards. I could not turn in Microsoft-quality code and pass my CS courses....
I just hope the courts come to their senses before things get worse...
Didn't it ever occur to anyone that hydrocarbons could be made by both biological and interstellar processes? This would certainly explain the finding of hydrocarbons throughout the universe, as well as beneath the Earth's surface. Furthermore, the presence of biological matter in oil should not be taken as proof that such created oil; one could argue that at one time oil oozed to the surface, killed the life there, and carried the dead matter back underground during subsequent seismological disturbances.
If this passes the muster of the courts, then we are all in trouble, because this indicates that the courts are clueless when it comes to technology. However, I don't think this merits serious discussion - after all, coffee drinkers didn't get up in arms over the lady who sued McDonalds (and won) over serving hot coffee. I think that this is just another frivolous lawsuit filed by someone who wants to get rich off of the Y2K problem.
When will I get reimbursed for the Windoze fiasco? Maybe somebody should hire a lawyer...I think they would be doing the world a favor...
Finally, people have forgotten what the internet is all about - information exchange. Now it has attracted the attention of the soulless giants of corporate America, and from now on, we'll have to deal with the excrement byproducts of corporate greed - lawsuits and restrictive legislation. No, I don't agree with cyber-squatters; they are even greedier than the corporations they supplant. But the problem lies in that of using the internet for commerce - any time there is money involved, legislation will follow. The easiest forseeable solution is to create a substantial distinction between the commercial and non-commercial side of the net. Oh, wait, that exists - .com. But very few people on the net today know the difference between .com and .org, or any other extension, for that matter. Thus, because many people don't know the difference, any use of a "commercial trademark," regardless of the extension, will translate into infringement, regardless of which agency makes the decision.
Corporate greed is about to spoil the party, folks. Unless we can create a very visible division in the internet between the commercial and non-commercial, we will be forced to deal with more issues like this in the future.
A good solution. After all, if I have to use the (tm) when refering to Microsoft Windows(tm), shouldn't the internet be the same way? If Microsoft is bound to use the (tm) every time they mention their product name in printed documentation, it should be part of their domain name as well....
The other night I was surfing and decided to enter my full name as a URL. Fortunately, no one else has registered my full name. But I can see a world in which someone else registers my name and uses it to present inflammatory or objectionable material. The problem: I'll get spammed/fired/not hired/sued/etc. over a mistaken identity which I have no control over. Should the NSI be held responsible? Not really. However, those individuals who have no legitimate claim to a name should not be able to keep a domain name that infringes on someone else's trademark. Fortunately, slander is already against the law. But cyber-squatting is not, and it hurts those with a genuine interest in protecting their reputations, while serving the interests of only the cyber-squatters. Why should anyone have to pay exorbitant fees to a third party to use their (already) registered trademark on the 'net. Isn't the internet supposed to be a medium free from the burdens of censorship? Doesn't a cyber-squatter restrict free speech by charging a company (or organization, or individual) for the internet use of THEIR OWN NAME!? While we shouldn't hold NSI responsible for this, we should hold individuals responsible.
On a side note: It wouldn't be too difficult for the NSI to check a database of uncontested trademarks before issuing a domain to an individual, and this step could have keep NSI from the expense of lawyers every time a major company decides a domain name violates their trademark. Such a database wouldn't be very difficult to create/maintain, either - just look at the DNS. No, they couldn't check every trademark - but they would probably catch enough cyber-squatters to deter the practice.
If Linux wasn't open source, the GNU free operating system would be running on a GNU-built kernel, and probably better off for doing so. Face it, the Linux kernel was built for uniprocessor PC's and SMP was backended into it by someone who had an interest in doing so. Having to recompile a kernel every time to add a device driver is a chore that makes even Windoze *seem* sensible. Frankly, I run Linux not because I am a UNIX fan, but rather because I want something reliable, stable, and free. While Linux is taking off, the key to gaining the desktop market is simplicity - and Linux is by no means simple. The historic accident that caused RMS to run with the Linux kernel has in some ways limited GNU/Linux to the PC.