Well you're kind of ignoring my post, and directly attempting to make me feel bad. Fortunately I know I make mistakes and it doesn't bother me at all, especially when I have a limited time to get a post in and have to type quickly.
I think he was trying to make the point that the average user doesn't understand the concept of a terminal any more.
Even if it wasn't that humor has a full right to a place in the community. 90% of humor is about the failabilities of others, the other 10% is about ourselves. The submitter isn't hurting anyone by finding that concept amusing, especially not in an environment that is primarily *nix users in the first place.
Depends on what you define as success. Pennywise, NOFX, and Bad Religion are pretty damn succesful. Succesful enough that MTV keeps trying to get permission to show their videos. They don't buy into that rock star crap, and you don't end up with people at the shows because it's trendy to like that band.
Yeah it does get annoying that the only song you hear from Social D is ball and chain, except for a few weeks around the release of a new album. I still love Ball and Chain, but one of the reasons I don't listen to the radio is because of their repitition of music. It's kinda funny though when you think about it. Ball and Chain is played relatively frequently on the radio, and it's not a pay-for-play song, it's played 'cuz people want to hear it, not because a record company is paying to have it driven into your head.
Yes... err no actually. But there is in general a transition of some bands from punk to mainstream. Green Day is one of them Kerplunk was great and they went steadily downhill from there. The Offspring were pretty good until they started constantly ripping off the Vandals.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of bands that have become succesful and stayed true, Social Distortion, Pennywise, Bad Religion, NOFX (even with the frat boy following they developed).
It's good. I love Pennywise so of course I liked it, they're pretty consistent. A guy at work summed it up pretty nicely though "It's a so-so pennywise album but a good Bad Religion album". For some reason a lot of the songs sound a lot like BR.
This is true, which is the point I made in an earlier post, the last place I would expect that crap is from a section of the industry that produces sample cd's for 3 bucks. But I need to check who made the cd, if it says it at all, it may be some sort of package deal that Epitath has worked out with another company... you never know. It's not the Pennywise cd it's the sampler, believe me if the Pennywise cd wouldn't play on my cdrom I'd have taken it back immediately.
My point of view is that you ARE contributing just by the purchase. You are refusing to give money to that other organization. In this capitalist society you vote more with your dollars than anything else. Does the person who buys dolphin friendly tuna, have to actually go out and actively try to prevent a dolphin un-safe company from producing product, or help the dolphin safe ones? No, the consumer does the right thing by refusing to support a company that has morals that are aligned with his own, and refusing to support a company that does not.
...a protected cd. Actually a cd came bundled with another cd I bought. The new Pennywise album comes with a punk sampler wrapped up with it. I've mentioned it before, but this cd will not play in any cdrom drive. I'll have to investigate the manufacturer when I get home.
It sounds like a good test for the record industry, "let's distribute a protected cd for free to see if anyone complains, and they can't return it because it's free".
I'll reply anyway for the benefit of others. There is a distinction between reduction ad absurdium (the logical fallacy) and reduction ad absurdium (to show the silliness of a concept). Which is why I pointed that out in my original post.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your point seems to be that if someone says that they intended to hide something that it should be wrong and not if otherwise. This is the absurdity. To begin with, who determines whether or not something has been "hidden" well enough to imply protection? In this case I'd say rot13 isn't quite enough, though adobe seems to think differently. Contrary to your belief, I believe that if I have some type of media, I can extract any meaning from it I wish, and instruct others on my thought processes that led me to those meanings. The meaning in a painting (especially an abstract one) is hidden (encrypted) often times, but I am certainly allowed to point out to anyone who cares to listen what the meaning is. The artist has no right to try to stop me because he/she did not want me to see that meaning.
If you want to keep something secure, keep it in your head, if you make it public, it is public, I don't care what your implenentation of it is, you've given up your ability and to hide it. And morally, IMHO, you have no business telling me what I can or can not derive from it.
What if I were to write my posts in haxor-speak. Would it be illegal for someone to write some code to change it back to english so that they could understand it? I think not. Otherwise we will have a legal system that prosecutes publishing houses for translating literature to other languages without permission. Encryption is a nebulous word. In fact if it's reversible it's not encryption in the strictest sense of the word, it's obfuscation.
What we have here is the root of the problem, it is all a matter of belief. I do believe someone who does things to support the good of all is a better person than one who does not. You it seems do not. Stupid I am not, and neither are my ideas, your phrase about having no bearing on anyone else implies a moral relativism that precludes you from catsing aspersions on anyone elses beliefs. Which in the end makes your post hypocritical, while you deride me for expressing my beliefs and (falsely I might add imply that I force them on others) you turn around and try to force yours on me.
Don't fall into the trap that the things you own make you a better person
I didn't say that. It's not the ownership that makes you better, it's the choice to use something that promotes the free exchange of information, rather than something that inhibits it. Where you choose to spend your money (or not to spend it) does make a difference.
This is true, and I try not to act like that. Although when I'm attacked I can quickly get that way. Helping people with Linux can be fun IMHO. Not if it's someone who doesn't appreciate it. But I like showing people stuff and saying "isn't that f'in cool, now check this out..."
You aren't a BETTER PERSON because you installed your OS off of a debian CD than a windows CD. You are a BETTER PERSON because you took the time to help out someone
I have to disagree with this point. I believe you are a better person for using Linux. Yes, you are even better for helping someone out, I agree.
Company A produces a widget that involves the exploitation of children (or kills dolphins whatever) person A uses this widget. Person B uses a widget made by company B. They're widget (is technically superior but that's besides the oint) doesn't exploit children... it actually helps them. Who's better person A or person B?
It's allright to feel superior becuase you use a better operating system than Windows (don't forget though that Linux is not the only quality alternative), but to be an ass about it is wrong.
I think part of the problem is that people like to believe that everyone is equal. That's a load of horse shit. People will never be equal (though their oppurtunity should). Some people will be better than others (not necessarily in all areas). In computer terms the operating system you choose is a reflection of your status in that arena. In the same way that being a sports star, or a model, or having a P.H.d, is s reflection of status in their respective arenas. (I will admit that it's not always an accurate reflection, again besides the point).
Wow, I was trying to prove my point by reduction ad absurdium, (not the logical fallacy read on for an explanation). When you boil it down to the essence encryption is nothing more that a foreign language. What the DMCA is basically saying is that we have no right to learn a foreign language to so that we can comprehend media in that language. Doesn't make sense does it? But my reduction does make logical sense, and it seems to me that lawmakers don't seem to work out the implications of their decisions.
I wasn't aware at the time of my post that something like this was already going on. I'll have to look into that.
It's getting to the point where I just want to leave the field, bury my head in the sand and never touch a computer again.
This post is encrypted in the "english language method", any attempt to decipher meaning from these symbols is a violation of the DMCA. This includes, but is not limited to: interpreting the symbols through use of biological, visual decryption devices, translating the symbols into another language encryption scheme, and digital processing the sybols into a form conducive to aural intrepretation. Thank you for your time.
No you are wrong, even without a typo. Not all cd audio players implement those features. Those features are not required by the audio standard. You've proven my point, many car stereos do include those features so they won't be able to play the protected cd's. You're acting as if the data tech came out and instantly all cd players use it. This is patently untrue. That's why this particular form of copy protection works. It exploits those differences.
I think I'll go file my patent for "buying stuff from a store", it's the same damn thing. Besides, define a download. Every packet I receive could be part of the nebulous concept of download. I think I'm just going to lie back down and pull the covers over my head.
True enough. However, if it does't play in my car they should refund my money, compensation for my time, and punitive damages for ruining my faith in the music industry for buying what I thought was a compact disc, but didn't adhere to the specifications.
I agree the DMCA may not hold up in the long run over this, but I'd not want to be one of the first few tried against it.
No I doubt it, see my post above for more detail, but I believe that this is a plan by the industry to try and ensure demonstrable success of the scheme. If they were concerned about someone cracking it they would want that done as early as possible, to minimize the money invested. Besides, don't you lnow that it's illegal to circumvent copy protections schemes, according to the DMCA (grin).
Which is why they won't say what the cd is. They're trying to stop people (us) from intentionally buying a cd we wouldn't otherwise buy just to return it to prove a point. This way they have the ability (or the hope that they will be able) to in the future say see "we didn't have any more returns on this cd than any other, this copy protection does not affect the consumer". It's likely, given this premise that the cd is one that would be used by very few geeks, who would, hopefully, figure out why their cd was different, but by a demographic group that is the least likely to play in in equipment that will cause problems and least likely to return it if it did. (I.e. hillbilly's, just kidding). In this way they will try to ensure that they can point to return and complaint numbers and have them be no higher than usual. And allow them to ignore later complaints when cd's are released, and there is foreknowledge of the protection. So it's actually kind of important to find out what the cd is and complain.
That's not true at all. CD-ROM drives are different hardware than cd sudio players. They are two different specifications. There are ways to stop a cdrom from playing a disc that will play in a normal audio device. It's not just a matter of software. While it may be possible to write a driver to try and get around it, this may not be possible on all drives.
Uh don't forget to figure in the cost of production. A vinyl lp cost ALOT more to manufacture than a cd. You need to weigh all of the factors... not just the ones that make your point.
They shouldn't be able to stop me from copying a copy protected cd either. For the longest time cd's were uncopyable without special (expensive) exquipment. In the industry's eyes they were uncopyable, right? Now they have to put some sort of extra protection on the cd. Say I find a way to copy a protected cd, it's no different than before when I needed to find a way to get a hold of equipment. I am paying for a series of 1's and 0's. I don't care if those values are necrypted or not. I can copy them if I want. In a fair world that is, of course in our world, enter the DMCA.
Slashdot Mirror
No wonder there are fireballs hitting the U.S. East coast.
Well you're kind of ignoring my post, and directly attempting to make me feel bad. Fortunately I know I make mistakes and it doesn't bother me at all, especially when I have a limited time to get a post in and have to type quickly.
Even if it wasn't that humor has a full right to a place in the community. 90% of humor is about the failabilities of others, the other 10% is about ourselves. The submitter isn't hurting anyone by finding that concept amusing, especially not in an environment that is primarily *nix users in the first place.
Yeah it does get annoying that the only song you hear from Social D is ball and chain, except for a few weeks around the release of a new album. I still love Ball and Chain, but one of the reasons I don't listen to the radio is because of their repitition of music. It's kinda funny though when you think about it. Ball and Chain is played relatively frequently on the radio, and it's not a pay-for-play song, it's played 'cuz people want to hear it, not because a record company is paying to have it driven into your head.
Yes... err no actually. But there is in general a transition of some bands from punk to mainstream. Green Day is one of them Kerplunk was great and they went steadily downhill from there. The Offspring were pretty good until they started constantly ripping off the Vandals.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of bands that have become succesful and stayed true, Social Distortion, Pennywise, Bad Religion, NOFX (even with the frat boy following they developed).
It's good. I love Pennywise so of course I liked it, they're pretty consistent. A guy at work summed it up pretty nicely though "It's a so-so pennywise album but a good Bad Religion album". For some reason a lot of the songs sound a lot like BR.
This is true, which is the point I made in an earlier post, the last place I would expect that crap is from a section of the industry that produces sample cd's for 3 bucks. But I need to check who made the cd, if it says it at all, it may be some sort of package deal that Epitath has worked out with another company... you never know. It's not the Pennywise cd it's the sampler, believe me if the Pennywise cd wouldn't play on my cdrom I'd have taken it back immediately.
My point of view is that you ARE contributing just by the purchase. You are refusing to give money to that other organization. In this capitalist society you vote more with your dollars than anything else. Does the person who buys dolphin friendly tuna, have to actually go out and actively try to prevent a dolphin un-safe company from producing product, or help the dolphin safe ones? No, the consumer does the right thing by refusing to support a company that has morals that are aligned with his own, and refusing to support a company that does not.
It sounds like a good test for the record industry, "let's distribute a protected cd for free to see if anyone complains, and they can't return it because it's free".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your point seems to be that if someone says that they intended to hide something that it should be wrong and not if otherwise. This is the absurdity. To begin with, who determines whether or not something has been "hidden" well enough to imply protection? In this case I'd say rot13 isn't quite enough, though adobe seems to think differently. Contrary to your belief, I believe that if I have some type of media, I can extract any meaning from it I wish, and instruct others on my thought processes that led me to those meanings. The meaning in a painting (especially an abstract one) is hidden (encrypted) often times, but I am certainly allowed to point out to anyone who cares to listen what the meaning is. The artist has no right to try to stop me because he/she did not want me to see that meaning.
If you want to keep something secure, keep it in your head, if you make it public, it is public, I don't care what your implenentation of it is, you've given up your ability and to hide it. And morally, IMHO, you have no business telling me what I can or can not derive from it.
What if I were to write my posts in haxor-speak. Would it be illegal for someone to write some code to change it back to english so that they could understand it? I think not. Otherwise we will have a legal system that prosecutes publishing houses for translating literature to other languages without permission. Encryption is a nebulous word. In fact if it's reversible it's not encryption in the strictest sense of the word, it's obfuscation.
What we have here is the root of the problem, it is all a matter of belief. I do believe someone who does things to support the good of all is a better person than one who does not. You it seems do not. Stupid I am not, and neither are my ideas, your phrase about having no bearing on anyone else implies a moral relativism that precludes you from catsing aspersions on anyone elses beliefs. Which in the end makes your post hypocritical, while you deride me for expressing my beliefs and (falsely I might add imply that I force them on others) you turn around and try to force yours on me.
I didn't say that. It's not the ownership that makes you better, it's the choice to use something that promotes the free exchange of information, rather than something that inhibits it. Where you choose to spend your money (or not to spend it) does make a difference.
This is true, and I try not to act like that. Although when I'm attacked I can quickly get that way. Helping people with Linux can be fun IMHO. Not if it's someone who doesn't appreciate it. But I like showing people stuff and saying "isn't that f'in cool, now check this out..."
I have to disagree with this point. I believe you are a better person for using Linux. Yes, you are even better for helping someone out, I agree.
Company A produces a widget that involves the exploitation of children (or kills dolphins whatever) person A uses this widget. Person B uses a widget made by company B. They're widget (is technically superior but that's besides the oint) doesn't exploit children... it actually helps them. Who's better person A or person B?
It's allright to feel superior becuase you use a better operating system than Windows (don't forget though that Linux is not the only quality alternative), but to be an ass about it is wrong.
I think part of the problem is that people like to believe that everyone is equal. That's a load of horse shit. People will never be equal (though their oppurtunity should). Some people will be better than others (not necessarily in all areas). In computer terms the operating system you choose is a reflection of your status in that arena. In the same way that being a sports star, or a model, or having a P.H.d, is s reflection of status in their respective arenas. (I will admit that it's not always an accurate reflection, again besides the point).
I wasn't aware at the time of my post that something like this was already going on. I'll have to look into that.
It's getting to the point where I just want to leave the field, bury my head in the sand and never touch a computer again.
This post is encrypted in the "english language method", any attempt to decipher meaning from these symbols is a violation of the DMCA. This includes, but is not limited to: interpreting the symbols through use of biological, visual decryption devices, translating the symbols into another language encryption scheme, and digital processing the sybols into a form conducive to aural intrepretation. Thank you for your time.
No you are wrong, even without a typo. Not all cd audio players implement those features. Those features are not required by the audio standard. You've proven my point, many car stereos do include those features so they won't be able to play the protected cd's. You're acting as if the data tech came out and instantly all cd players use it. This is patently untrue. That's why this particular form of copy protection works. It exploits those differences.
I think I'll go file my patent for "buying stuff from a store", it's the same damn thing. Besides, define a download. Every packet I receive could be part of the nebulous concept of download. I think I'm just going to lie back down and pull the covers over my head.
I agree the DMCA may not hold up in the long run over this, but I'd not want to be one of the first few tried against it.
No I doubt it, see my post above for more detail, but I believe that this is a plan by the industry to try and ensure demonstrable success of the scheme. If they were concerned about someone cracking it they would want that done as early as possible, to minimize the money invested. Besides, don't you lnow that it's illegal to circumvent copy protections schemes, according to the DMCA (grin).
Which is why they won't say what the cd is. They're trying to stop people (us) from intentionally buying a cd we wouldn't otherwise buy just to return it to prove a point. This way they have the ability (or the hope that they will be able) to in the future say see "we didn't have any more returns on this cd than any other, this copy protection does not affect the consumer". It's likely, given this premise that the cd is one that would be used by very few geeks, who would, hopefully, figure out why their cd was different, but by a demographic group that is the least likely to play in in equipment that will cause problems and least likely to return it if it did. (I.e. hillbilly's, just kidding). In this way they will try to ensure that they can point to return and complaint numbers and have them be no higher than usual. And allow them to ignore later complaints when cd's are released, and there is foreknowledge of the protection. So it's actually kind of important to find out what the cd is and complain.
That's not true at all. CD-ROM drives are different hardware than cd sudio players. They are two different specifications. There are ways to stop a cdrom from playing a disc that will play in a normal audio device. It's not just a matter of software. While it may be possible to write a driver to try and get around it, this may not be possible on all drives.
Uh don't forget to figure in the cost of production. A vinyl lp cost ALOT more to manufacture than a cd. You need to weigh all of the factors... not just the ones that make your point.
They shouldn't be able to stop me from copying a copy protected cd either. For the longest time cd's were uncopyable without special (expensive) exquipment. In the industry's eyes they were uncopyable, right? Now they have to put some sort of extra protection on the cd. Say I find a way to copy a protected cd, it's no different than before when I needed to find a way to get a hold of equipment. I am paying for a series of 1's and 0's. I don't care if those values are necrypted or not. I can copy them if I want. In a fair world that is, of course in our world, enter the DMCA.
No Michael J. Fox is the anti Elvis, and Elvis is in Joan Rivers but he's trying to get out. -- Mojo Nixon paraphrased