... if for no other reason than it's going to raise a generation of children who are so sheltered that they'll be worthless when they grow up. When you change the content of a work you change the meaning. It doesn't matter how slight, because there is no way to draw the line. Here the option, if you don't want to watch an R movie or don't want your kids to, don't watch it. But don't destroy it by screening parts of it out.
Imagine you have set your DVD to no violence, and you pop in 1984, you miss the last scene and the entire point of the movie. I'd be pretty angry if my children watched this sanitized version over another childs house, I would rather my kids wait until they are old enough to handle the violence than to screen it out.
Children have been raised for generations without this shit, there's no reason for it now.
Yeah I have to agree, over the years from what I've read RMS definitly puts the technology second to his socail and political views. Not that that is either good or bad, it's just the person he is.
Unfortunately I never played CivII the old original Civ was always enough for me though, I didn't need graphics to suck me in, but since CivIII has graphics and is (it sounds like) essentially a new game, I've been slobbering over it.
Uh the old Civ didn't have FMV, maybe the last Civ did, but the old Civ was lacking in the graphics department, but is still one of the most addictive games ever.
You seem to be saying that because the object code is functionally identical to the source code, it must therefore be protected speech al
Not exactly, I'm saying that since object is expressively the same as source it is free speech. My feeling is as follows: expression encapsulates idea, source code represents idea, compiled source represents exact same idea, therefore they express the same thing. It doesn't matter if I say "tomorrow", or "manana". The idea is the same, just different versions. If you take your argument to it's necessary conclusion all natural languages are functional only, their function is to convey ideas (just as source and object are in my view). A side effect of this is that the only thing expressive (in my understanding of your argument) is how you express those ideas, unfortunately it leads us to a situation where you are free to express ideas in any manner you wish, but that certain ideas are illegal (or immoral or whatever) to express. The crux of the problem is that the line between the expressiveness and the functional aspect of a piece of speech does not exist. They are each necessarily implied by the other.
I shouldn't be saying you're wrong either, it can go either way, just happens to be something I feel strongly about. It's all essentially arbitrary, just as the line between encryption and translation is.
That doesn't mean it's lossy, it's only lossy if the meaning is different from the original. It is not. And as an added bonux you CAN reproduce the entire original exact meaning. Which is something you cannot do in natural language.
But that's not true, the compiled code does have an expressive purpose. It's just in a different language, one that a computer can easily read as well as a human ( not everyone can read object code but it's not impossible).
In the chain of events that makes up a running program there is never a point that the code is purely functional, at every step it is an expression, it's a language explaining to the computer how to carry out the given task. Whether it's source code, object code or microcode. If the decryption device were entirely hardware based you could probaly make an argument that it only has a functional purpose, but software running on a general purpose computer... never.
I disagree, number one it's not lossy at all, number two not being lossy isn't an attribute that characterizes free speech.
First number two. Translate from English to Spanish. Is that lossy, yes. Is the Spanish version still free speech? Of course. Try translating back, do you get the same thing, hell no, you lose even more during the re-translation. Lossy-ness is not a factor in determining if something is free speech.
Number one. When you translate from source to object code, you lose nothing. The exact meaning of your source code is translated directly to object code. Just because it is difficult to translate back to source doesn't make it not free speech, it's easier to determine exact meaning from object than it is the original english to splanih translation above since the meaning of the source is converted exactly to the object language.
When you encrypt something does it no longer become free speech? Of course not, even though it's in a different format, one not immediately readable by humans it still has the quality that it conveys the idea... only to people that have the key to decrypt it certainly, but it still conveys the idea. Object code on the other hand IS human readable, even if that's a rare skill, it still conveys the idea much more easily than encypted data.
I said it in an earlier post but this is bullshit, there isn't any less idea content in compiled code than source code. If I compile a bit of text describing a landscape into a picture of that landscape, has it lost it's ability to convey ideas. Of course not. This decision is a step in the right direction, but it still has it's flaws.
So what else is new? Other than this fact is now recognized by the court?
Fact no, opinion yes. Source Code is free speech, and SO IS compiled code. It's just a translation to another language. I can translate english to spanish, is the spanish now not free speech. What if I can read object code. Translating free speech from one format to another DOES NOT negate the fact that it is free speech.
That's not insightful, it's an absurd analogy. Up until now the DMCA has not been a problem anywhere near on the scale of the Holocaust.
It hasn't even really been tried in court. When it's being used to sentence 6 million criminals to death you can make that analogy, but until then you cheapen the tragedy of the Holocaust by doing it.
That's more than a little unfair. As time goes on fields increase in depth requiring more time to become proficient in and not allowing those who are interested in multiple fields to spread there studies out across fields. Not to deny Leonardo his genius, but it was much, much easier for him to dabble in a wide variety of fields than it would be for someone today. It took less effort for him to become an expert in a subject, especially when it was a subject that little was known about.
...if Linux was banned, hell I'd probably start looking for a new job. I don't use windows for any serious work, the Windows head on my desk runs winamp, outlook, and a web browser, that's it. My productivity would be severely (negatively) impacted by being forced to use Windows, even more so by a locked down version.
Yeah, I agree. You'd think companies would learn from the past and not do their best to shut hobbyist developers out. I'm sure MS would love to take this concept to the extremes... and chate per widget or module as you suggested. I can see it now: A user starts up a game and it bails immediately with the message "This software cannot be run until the susbcription to the for loop on line 145 is renewed please go to www.microsoft.com to renew".
You're nuts, you can't read between the lines in the future, that's a violation of the DMCA, you're not allowed to gather any additional information from copyrighted material. You are only allowed to copy the information that is explicitly what the copyright holder wished you to have. Intelligence and free thinking were outlawed when the DMCA came along, didn't you know?
A check is much easier to trace, and in general, slightly more difficult to get, physical access is needed; I will admit that if someone wants that info they can get it. Although personally I don't pay by check unless absolutely necessary. More do to the fact that I find it archaic and a pain in the ass to write out checks. So I do something worse, I use my check card. So I'm already tracked everywhere.
You'd be suprised what you can do with a bank account number, I'd be suprised what you can do with a bank account number. In fact look at it like this, if a bank account number was used as a form of id online, what's to stop someone from signing on at a site as me?
As far as the MS thing goes, if it's the usual anti-ms gripe it's only because MS has given so much to gripe about. I refuse to allow them to have any of my information, their security is so poor that I'd never feel safe.
Uhh, no, I agree with you for the most part, but I am a honest ebay user and there is no way in hell I'm giving them my bank account number. I barely trust them with a cc#, especially since they're in bed with MS.
Not only will the authorities will be able to observe me easily, that asshole who follows my girl friend around will have a watch tied to his shoe instead of a mirror .
secondly, why such a need for the standards compliance? in the past (and still currently afaik), browsers were build on loose compliance, and extending the standards to where they see the standards going into the future (css).
Which is why we have the piece of crap system we have today. MS extensions don't work in Netscape and vice versa. I find it hard to believe that you are apparently agruing the importance to standards. It's called opening up the window of choice in operating systems and applications. When you know that any application can handle the same file formats or whatever, you have much greater flexibility in what you use to do your work, and it makes it convenient to work with others who haven't made the same choices as you.
I should no better to reply to flambait but here goes anyway. She calls my cell phone when she needs me, I didn't think that was that difficult to understand. Not to mention that it's trivial to distinguish between a payphone and a Unknown caller.
... I'm working on answering machine software for my linux box, I was going to have personalized messages based on the number I got through caller id, one for my parents, friends ect. It'd be a snap to record a piercing screetch and have the software answer with that everytime a Uknown Caller Unknow number comes through. Kick ass, automated revenge.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhhh, only if you charge for it, you can give the MAME emulator away and MS gets nothing.
Heh we always used to call RPS , Receive Package Smashed. I don't think we ever got anything undamaged through them
Imagine you have set your DVD to no violence, and you pop in 1984, you miss the last scene and the entire point of the movie. I'd be pretty angry if my children watched this sanitized version over another childs house, I would rather my kids wait until they are old enough to handle the violence than to screen it out.
Children have been raised for generations without this shit, there's no reason for it now.
Unfortunately I never played CivII the old original Civ was always enough for me though, I didn't need graphics to suck me in, but since CivIII has graphics and is (it sounds like) essentially a new game, I've been slobbering over it.
Uh the old Civ didn't have FMV, maybe the last Civ did, but the old Civ was lacking in the graphics department, but is still one of the most addictive games ever.
Not exactly, I'm saying that since object is expressively the same as source it is free speech. My feeling is as follows: expression encapsulates idea, source code represents idea, compiled source represents exact same idea, therefore they express the same thing. It doesn't matter if I say "tomorrow", or "manana". The idea is the same, just different versions. If you take your argument to it's necessary conclusion all natural languages are functional only, their function is to convey ideas (just as source and object are in my view). A side effect of this is that the only thing expressive (in my understanding of your argument) is how you express those ideas, unfortunately it leads us to a situation where you are free to express ideas in any manner you wish, but that certain ideas are illegal (or immoral or whatever) to express. The crux of the problem is that the line between the expressiveness and the functional aspect of a piece of speech does not exist. They are each necessarily implied by the other.
I shouldn't be saying you're wrong either, it can go either way, just happens to be something I feel strongly about. It's all essentially arbitrary, just as the line between encryption and translation is.
That doesn't mean it's lossy, it's only lossy if the meaning is different from the original. It is not. And as an added bonux you CAN reproduce the entire original exact meaning. Which is something you cannot do in natural language.
In the chain of events that makes up a running program there is never a point that the code is purely functional, at every step it is an expression, it's a language explaining to the computer how to carry out the given task. Whether it's source code, object code or microcode. If the decryption device were entirely hardware based you could probaly make an argument that it only has a functional purpose, but software running on a general purpose computer... never.
First number two. Translate from English to Spanish. Is that lossy, yes. Is the Spanish version still free speech? Of course. Try translating back, do you get the same thing, hell no, you lose even more during the re-translation. Lossy-ness is not a factor in determining if something is free speech.
Number one. When you translate from source to object code, you lose nothing. The exact meaning of your source code is translated directly to object code. Just because it is difficult to translate back to source doesn't make it not free speech, it's easier to determine exact meaning from object than it is the original english to splanih translation above since the meaning of the source is converted exactly to the object language.
When you encrypt something does it no longer become free speech? Of course not, even though it's in a different format, one not immediately readable by humans it still has the quality that it conveys the idea... only to people that have the key to decrypt it certainly, but it still conveys the idea. Object code on the other hand IS human readable, even if that's a rare skill, it still conveys the idea much more easily than encypted data.
I said it in an earlier post but this is bullshit, there isn't any less idea content in compiled code than source code. If I compile a bit of text describing a landscape into a picture of that landscape, has it lost it's ability to convey ideas. Of course not. This decision is a step in the right direction, but it still has it's flaws.
So what else is new? Other than this fact is now recognized by the court?
Fact no, opinion yes. Source Code is free speech, and SO IS compiled code. It's just a translation to another language. I can translate english to spanish, is the spanish now not free speech. What if I can read object code. Translating free speech from one format to another DOES NOT negate the fact that it is free speech.
It hasn't even really been tried in court. When it's being used to sentence 6 million criminals to death you can make that analogy, but until then you cheapen the tragedy of the Holocaust by doing it.
That's more than a little unfair. As time goes on fields increase in depth requiring more time to become proficient in and not allowing those who are interested in multiple fields to spread there studies out across fields. Not to deny Leonardo his genius, but it was much, much easier for him to dabble in a wide variety of fields than it would be for someone today. It took less effort for him to become an expert in a subject, especially when it was a subject that little was known about.
...if Linux was banned, hell I'd probably start looking for a new job. I don't use windows for any serious work, the Windows head on my desk runs winamp, outlook, and a web browser, that's it. My productivity would be severely (negatively) impacted by being forced to use Windows, even more so by a locked down version.
Yeah, I agree. You'd think companies would learn from the past and not do their best to shut hobbyist developers out. I'm sure MS would love to take this concept to the extremes... and chate per widget or module as you suggested. I can see it now: A user starts up a game and it bails immediately with the message "This software cannot be run until the susbcription to the for loop on line 145 is renewed please go to www.microsoft.com to renew".
You're nuts, you can't read between the lines in the future, that's a violation of the DMCA, you're not allowed to gather any additional information from copyrighted material. You are only allowed to copy the information that is explicitly what the copyright holder wished you to have. Intelligence and free thinking were outlawed when the DMCA came along, didn't you know?
A check is much easier to trace, and in general, slightly more difficult to get, physical access is needed; I will admit that if someone wants that info they can get it. Although personally I don't pay by check unless absolutely necessary. More do to the fact that I find it archaic and a pain in the ass to write out checks. So I do something worse, I use my check card. So I'm already tracked everywhere.
As far as the MS thing goes, if it's the usual anti-ms gripe it's only because MS has given so much to gripe about. I refuse to allow them to have any of my information, their security is so poor that I'd never feel safe.
Victim, you were a victim of this. Big difference. %lt;grin>
Uhh, no, I agree with you for the most part, but I am a honest ebay user and there is no way in hell I'm giving them my bank account number. I barely trust them with a cc#, especially since they're in bed with MS.
Not only will the authorities will be able to observe me easily, that asshole who follows my girl friend around will have a watch tied to his shoe instead of a mirror .
secondly, why such a need for the standards compliance? in the past (and still currently afaik), browsers were build on loose compliance, and extending the standards to where they see the standards going into the future (css).
Which is why we have the piece of crap system we have today. MS extensions don't work in Netscape and vice versa. I find it hard to believe that you are apparently agruing the importance to standards. It's called opening up the window of choice in operating systems and applications. When you know that any application can handle the same file formats or whatever, you have much greater flexibility in what you use to do your work, and it makes it convenient to work with others who haven't made the same choices as you.
I should no better to reply to flambait but here goes anyway. She calls my cell phone when she needs me, I didn't think that was that difficult to understand. Not to mention that it's trivial to distinguish between a payphone and a Unknown caller.
... I'm working on answering machine software for my linux box, I was going to have personalized messages based on the number I got through caller id, one for my parents, friends ect. It'd be a snap to record a piercing screetch and have the software answer with that everytime a Uknown Caller Unknow number comes through. Kick ass, automated revenge.