{~/cc_exer}g++ nested_func2.cc nested_func2.cc: In function `void grandaddy_function()': nested_func2.cc:5: parse error before `{' nested_func2.cc: At top level: nested_func2.cc:11: parse error before `}' nested_func2.cc:12: `eger' was not declared in this scope nested_func2.cc:12: ANSI C++ forbids declaration `printf' with no type nested_func2.cc:12: `int printf' redeclared as different kind of symbol /usr/include/stdio.h:250: previous declaration of `int printf(const char *,...)' nested_func2.cc:12: initializer list being treated as compound expression nested_func2.cc:13: parse error before `}' {Mon Feb 21 14:30:03 llewelly@brownie 65 1064} {~/cc_exer}cat nested_func2.cc #include void grandaddy_function(void) { int eger; eger = 2; void daddy_function(void) { void sprog_function(void) { int eger; eger = 5; printf("eger == %d\n", eger); } } printf("eger == %d\n", eger); }
In other words, GNU GCC does not support nested functions in C++ mode; the are only supported in C mode.
You should also run
$info gcc
and type 'gNested Functions' and read the caveats about using gcc's nested functions; they are not true closures, and very error prone. (Think about what could happen if you took the address of sprog_function() and passed it outside of grandaddy_function(). If you still do not see why, ask me for more details, at llewelly at 198 dot dsl dot xmission dot com.)
I do not know whether c++ *should* support true closures; I can think of arguments for and against; but I personally do *not* want the error prone 'nested functions' extension provided by gcc.
As for those of you who claim Tesla was never mentioned in your textbooks, well, my serway physics text names Tesla as the inventor of AC polyphase, the approach to transmitting electricity that 'won out'.
I think my electrical circuits text also covers Tesla; certianly all my EE instructors named him.
As for those of you who claim your education did not include him, well, I was taught about Tesla in both my physics and EE classes. I guess that is what I get for going to a community college.:-)
<my advice. I have placed my editorial advice inside of '<< >>' brackets. >>
I have written to bring to your attention and the attention of your readers the situation unfolding within the DVD video disc industry. First, though, a little history.
<<I have always liked indirect beginings.>>
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the movie industry decried the entry into the market of video cassette recorders as ruinous to their industry. They were all too happy to let people rent video cassettes from stores, but they absolutely did not want consumers to be able to record their own videos. They failed in that attempt to deny consumers choice. Fast forward to the present, and you will find that the video cassette industry has not at all hurt the movie industry. In fact, many movies are either released straight to the video market, or make more money in that market than they made in theaters. This is hardly ruinous for the motion picture industry.
The music industry was up in arms about FM radio. Cries of "people will be able to hear high fidelity music without purchasing it" were heard throughout the land. Now, they use FM radio as a market for advertising albums for sale by promoting selected songs to be played over the air!
The music industry wanted to disallow the use of audio cassette recorders for the same reasons. It was their claim that such devices would promote copying of music media to the extent that it would be impossible for them to eak out even a meager existence. They failed
<< eke is spelled 'eke'. >>
in their attempt to deny consumers choice. The market for music cassettes, then, carried them for a long while until the emergence of CDs. I would now point you to the CD duplicators sold by Phillips as an example of how consumers' ability to duplicate media has hurt the music industry (hint: more CDs were
<< 'has hurt the music industry'? Don't you mean 'has not hurt the music industry? >>
sold last year than the year before, even with the introduction of this new equipment).
By contrast, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the music industry was able to, in effect, make it utterly infeasible for the general public to obtain DAT decks. The market for music on that media format never took off the way it could have, and the music industry was never allowed to benefit from it. They swindled them- selves out of a great deal of money by choking off a potential market.
<<How does the quality of DAT compare to cds? If you do not point out the high quality of DATs, many readers may not care about them; I do not think DATs are known to John Q. Public.>>
History lesson over.
The motion picture industry (the chief mover being the Motion Picture Association of America, or MPAA), along with the Digital Versatile Disc (DVD) Copy Control Association (CCA), collectively referred to hereafter as the DVD Consortium, are now using the courts to limit consumer freedom in the market place. Players and movie discs are region-coded, making it impossible for consumers to, say, import a DVD from Europe and display it on the DVD player equipment they have purchased.
Imagine this scenario:
Your daughter went to France to attend college for a year on a scholarship. While she was there, she purchased a small library of films on DVD, and a player upon which to display them. Her year in France is over, and she comes home. Unfortunately, in the process of moving her belongings home, her DVD player is lost.
She goes out and buys another DVD player, pops up some popcorn, tosses one of the discs in the player, and plops down on the couch to watch a movie she brought home. There is a problem, however. The movies she purchased in France will not work in a player sold in the United States. It's not a problem of television scan format, like the problem experienced by video tape recorders, but a problem with the region codes placed on the disc and in the players. The DVD Consortium has limited her freedom to play films (even American films) she bought overseas!
A similar, but not hypothetical, scenario is faced by computer users today.
You or your readers may have heard about the Linux operating system. It is an upstart computer operating system that is lately making its presence known in some segments of the computer industry. Several other such systems exist, some commercial and some not, and they all face this dilemma.
The problem is that no DVD player software exists for computers running these operating systems. Players exist for Intel-compatible personal computers running the Microsoft Windows operating system, and for Apple Macintosh computers.
To solve this problem, a group of youngsters in Norway reverse-engineered the protection scheme (called CSS) used on the DVD discs. There are already a number of packages sprouting up to fill the need for a DVD player software in that segment of the computer market. Consumers now have a choice: they can run an alternative operating system on their computers (whose benefits are such that it is important to THEM to use that system), and they can play DVD movies that they've purchased on their computers. The software that they produced is called DeCSS, and it is at the center of a growing international controversy.
Unfortunately, the DVD Consortium is abusing the U.S. courts to stifle this action on false claims that the software was intended to aid in movie piracy. They have even gone so far as to pressure the police in Norway to arrest one of the talented youngsters who made this choice possible. The police have seized the boy's computer hardware and his mobile phone, and have raided his father's business. All at the behest of the DVD Consortium. Not only are they abusing the system we have in place to protect us in the United States, but they are abusing the freedoms of people overseas.
I would like to disseminate some facts about the DVD matter, so that you and your readers are better informed, and so that the truth about this travesty may be brought to light and wrongs may be righted.
The DVD Consortium, led by the MPAA, have cited the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1999 as their legal basis for conducting these abuses. In fact, that same document GUARANTEES the right of people to reverse- engineer technologies that would allow them to access information that they have a legal right to access. In other words, if I went out and bought a movie on DVD, I have every right to watch that movie - no matter how I accomplish that feat.
It is also a fact that Norway's laws are different from those in the United States. There it is illegal for a company to try to deprive you of your right to see how something you bought works. It is also legal for us in the United States to do so, though the DVD Consortium would like to limit that right.
Would you buy a car that had its hood welded shut?
It is the position of the DVD Consortium that the DeCSS program source code will enable people to make illicit copies of DVD movies, which would violate the copyrights they own. They contend that such technology is illegal, and that the spread of this technology will irreparably harm their ability to conduct business and make money. This is the same argument the motion picture industry had against video tapes, a segment of the market that makes them money hand-over-fist today.
In fact, DeCSS cannot be used in this way. There are commercially available DVD duplicators on the market that can be used to make an EXACT DUPLICATE of a DVD movie disc; a copy so precise that no DVD player on Earth would be able to tell it apart from the original disc.
<<Perhaps you should also point out that blank DVD media costs $30-$40 dollars a disk, while a DVD with a movie on it is frequently less; i.e. $10-$25. Note that a DVD writer can cost $290 or more. Show te reader that the kind of piracy the MPAA babbles about cannot be profitable. Also, I think you should explicitly state that 'Comercially available DVD duplicators do not require DeCSS and have nothing to do with it.'>>
If it is piracy that the DVD Consortium is alarmed about, it should be very concerned indeed about such products. Such systems have valid functions, though. This cannot be denied, as doing so would be arguing that video cassette recorders and audio cassette recorders have no valid reasons for existing. As such, the DVD consortium will not target the manufacturers of such equipment. They conveniently ignore these systems when bringing their complaints before the courts.
How many times have you made an illicit copy of a movie on video cassette?
If I had to take a guess, the average reader would say that they had done so very few times. I would also guess, correctly, that far more people have rented or purchased a movie on video tape, and have abided by the agreement to not copy and distribute the contents of that movie than those who have willfully broken the law. The fact that the motion picture industry turns record profits from the distribution of video tapes fully supports this theory. That people have abused the capabilities of the machines they possess is an unfortunate situation, and it cannot be morally put aside, but in monetary terms the costs incurred by the movie industry is infinitesimally small.
The DVD Consortium is concerned about DeCSS because it would allow people to pirate movies over the Internet. This may be a valid concern, but let us take a closer look at reality.
The average DVD movie consumes about fifteen gigabytes of data storage. That's roughly 1,500 megabytes of data space. It is only recently that such space has been available to consumers for storing data on their home systems! Consider now that most people connect to the Internet at an incredibly slow speed. This may eventually change, but the days of slow internet access are numbered long. It is highly unlikely that anyone will be at all willing to download a fifteen gigabyte movie file to their home computer over a modem. To do so would take many, many days.
<<Assuming 7KB/s (dammed good phone line), 1.5 GB would take about 59.5 hours. 'Assuming one had a 56k modem and the highest possible quality phone line, it would take at least 60 hours to download a single movie.' might have more force than 'many many days'.>>
In effect, even if some did abuse the technology to make pirated copies of DVD movies available to denizens of the Internet, the monetary loss to the movie industry would be negligible. The fact of the matter is that DVD is a great format: it doesn't wear out, possesses astounding picture quality and incredible audio quality, usually carries with it highlights and extras like interviews, and is in a very convenient and elegant form factor. The costs associated with making illicit copies of the movies available on the internet make the benefits of doing so seem paltry, and people are not going to waste their time doing so.
These are the facts of the case. There may be some valid concerns, but the sheer weight of history and of evidence would tend to minimalize these concerns.
What the DVD Consortium is doing, limiting the rights of people to watch movies that they have purchased, is wrong.
I would urge you and your readers to investigate this attempt to curtail your freedoms. To wit, I offer the web site of the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, at http://www.eff.org and the web site specifically for the promotion of the open DVD software, at http://www.opendvd.org.
Thank you,
<<Overall, excellent. It is sad that this letter has not been moderated up.>>
In 1999, Knuth was a nominee for the fsf award, but he lost it to Miguel de Icaza.
I can't be certain, but I think Knuth was also nominated for th 1998 fsf award, which Larry Wall won.
Now, he gets nominated for a Beanie Award, and loses to a Camel.
"Ha Ha Knuth! you will always be second place in the minds of the Open Source and Free Software communities!"
"The quality of our software depends on the algorithms which you so clearly explained in your books, our only defense against nasty patents is evidence of prior art, which you also provided much of, and you wrote TeX, the best open source typesetting tool, but you are still second place in our hearts."
"And by the way, nobody uses Web; 'literate programmer' is a contradiction in terms."
Don't laugh. It is only funny if your head is screwed on backwards.
You are obviously one of those defunct Luddites who thinks English is still the language of choice.
Here on/. , we have invented our own, vastly improved and greatly simplified language: Slashdottish.
Allow me to explain some of the advantages of Slashdottish:
(0) Spelling is optional. Never again will we be victimized by Draconian English teachers and satanic spell checkers. Spell any word any way you want to. If your alternative spellings confuse someone, well, they need to learn how to read.
(1) Efficiency. Bloated English needs 3 words for 'their': 'there', 'they're', and 'their'. Slashdottish requires only 'their'. Same word is used for all 3 totally different meanings. Same thing with 'your'. If that confuses you, tough shit.
(2) Grammar is optional. Like spelling, this is a freedom of choice issue. Order words in whatever order suits your taste, or just pipe your comments through a perl script that selects a random order. Again, if this confuses somebody, the reader is at fault.
(3) Beautiful, wonderful, glorious acronyms:
(3.1) IANAL == I Am Not A Literate person.
(3.2) AFAIK == After Failing Anglish, I Kannot spel.
(3.3) AFAICT == After Failing Analytical thought, I Cannot Think.
(3.4) IMHO == My Opinion is Hugely Important. (Remember, word order is optional.:-)
(Note: We shamelessly stole many of these acronyms from places like abUSENET.)
(To those of you for whom English is not your native language, I offer this consolation: You use it better than many of my fellow Americans, most of whom are native English speakers.)
I am not sure I agree with all of the above; I for one would like to see some goverment support for privacy.
However, the above post is very well reasoned, with well chosen quotes. Excellent.
It has been moderated up to 1. However, this is only becuase jim robinson was logged in when he posted.
The moderators have either not read it, or are overlooking its value
Previously, people have complained that early posts are much more likely to be moderated up (as they are read by more moderators), thus favoring reload junkies who post without taking the time to read and think about the article.
I am suggesting that all moderators read with 'Newest first' enabled. This way, early comments are not favored because they are now at the bottom, and fewer moderators will get to them. Later comments are also not favored because there are usually more comments still to come.
This has probably been suggested before, but I feel it is important enough to be said again.
It amazes me that people would complain at a mere 1700 words.
It worries me that people believe 700 words (for example) is always enough to clearly state a complex thought.
Personally, I find that much of what I read is too shallow, too causually treated, missing details and subtleties I consider important. I feel that short articles almost always worsen this problem.
As for articles that are too long, well, I do not need to read all of them. Skimming is an important part of literacy.
It has been my observation that when asked to make something shorter, most people do not really try to revise it; they just find things to rip out until they are below the length limit.
I do often feel that Katz needs to put his articles through more re-read, get a second opinion, edit, cycles, but I do not think a draconian length limit will improve this.
Reentry is expensive. Designing a probe to do a nice soft landing is hard.
Personally, I admire NASA for trying to cut costs in this way. Build the vehicle to survive the crash, and then just drop it. Why go to all the expense of providing a nice soft landing when you can simply uses a protective areoshell to protect the probe from the impact? Faster, better, cheaper.
So the more over-reactionary elements of slashdot have over-reacted (again) sent useless flames Wieger instead of well-informed objections to the FBI.
This article nearly overwhelmed me with deja vu.
Now, now people. We are all familiar with slashdot. We are all familiar with how easy it is to be immature on the Internet. We all know how easy it is to misunderstand these things and get mad at the wrong party.
I think the most likely chain of events was became obvious when the original article was posted on slashdot.
We all knew this was going to happen
What I don't know is why wired thinks this is news.
After I read that wired article, I (once again) wished I hadn't given wired's hit counters one more little boost that (a) they don't deserve, and (b) will encourage them to become still more sensationalist, continuing their transformation from a typical lousy computer magazine to the Enquirer of the net.
It is certainly regrettable that these things happen. It is worth pointing out that slashdot at least tries to apologize and convince its more over-reactionary members to be better behaved next time.
But news? Come now. This happens all the time.
Slashdot can be forgiven for posting a link to this article because they are trying to apologize (A Good Thing(tm), even if it doesn't change the behavior of slashdot's more reactionary readers).
Oh, btw the way, if share my opinion, moderate me up. If you don't, moderate me down. Encourage like-mindedness.
Proof by analogy is fraud. Proof by anecdote is urban legend.
I find it interesting that nearly every post I have read has made use of an analogy between guns and dangerous software, and nearly all seem to consider it a perfect analogy.
A gun is rather difficult to duplicate and/or manufacture.
Software is necessarily trivial to copy.
If you wish to own a gun, you must find seller (easy), spend the money (easy - hard), comply with / evade the gun restrictions in your area (easy - very hard). If you want multiple guns, you must repeat this process for every gun. At some point, the money part starts to add up.
If you want dangerous software, you just download it. (trivial - easy). If you want multiple copies of said dangerous software, cp will do the trick (trivial).
I think dangerous software can become far, far easier to distribute or obtain than guns. (Guns don't replicate themselves.)
Guns do direct, physical damage.
Software cannot do physical harm so directly... it needs to be run on a machine that will cause physical harm as a result of the software being run. It is worth pointing out that relatively little physical harm is done by software.
It is difficult to use a gun without being aware of it. Accidents do happen, but the majority of people who make such mistakes are at least *aware* that they mis-handled a gun.
It can be much more difficult to be aware of all the software one is using, however. How many of us can, with a high degree of certainty, list every piece of software we have used? If you have made such a list, does it include GNU readline? If bash is your login shell, you have used GNU readline, as bash includes it.
Unawareness of the user is one of the fundamental principles of virus design, and *the* principle of Trojan horse design. If some user downloads a Trojan horse, and it later runs, killing someone, is the user guilty of murder? of manslaughter? Or is this merely a terrible accident?
Given the differences between guns and dangerous software, I claim that drawing analogies between them is highly suspect.
I *do* feel that primary responsibility for damage done should rest with the user, assuming the user actually knows what he/she is using. However, I am unwilling to accept arguments to this effect which are based on the 'guns are like dangerous software' analogy.
I also believe that the idea of 'sole responsibility' is one of the biggest loads of BS Americans regularly subscribe to... but that is a topic for another post.
fscking slashdot doesn't know how to preserve decent indenting.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn moderator. Ruined a perfectly good joke.
There is a more informed discussion of this issue over on technocrat.net .
gcc.gnu.org
... :-)
sourceware.cygnus.com/libstdc++
One of the best compilers.
If you have $$$, SGI's MIPSpro (7.3.5 or later) is good, as is KAI C++.
But gcc gives the most bang for the buck
{~/cc_exer}g++ nested_func2.cc ...)'
.)
nested_func2.cc: In function `void grandaddy_function()':
nested_func2.cc:5: parse error before `{'
nested_func2.cc: At top level:
nested_func2.cc:11: parse error before `}'
nested_func2.cc:12: `eger' was not declared in this scope
nested_func2.cc:12: ANSI C++ forbids declaration `printf' with no type
nested_func2.cc:12: `int printf' redeclared as different kind of symbol
/usr/include/stdio.h:250: previous declaration of `int printf(const char *,
nested_func2.cc:12: initializer list being treated as compound expression
nested_func2.cc:13: parse error before `}'
{Mon Feb 21 14:30:03 llewelly@brownie 65 1064}
{~/cc_exer}cat nested_func2.cc
#include
void grandaddy_function(void) {
int eger;
eger = 2;
void daddy_function(void) {
void sprog_function(void) {
int eger;
eger = 5;
printf("eger == %d\n", eger);
}
}
printf("eger == %d\n", eger);
}
In other words, GNU GCC does not support nested functions in C++ mode;
the are only supported in C mode.
You should also run
$info gcc
and type 'gNested Functions' and read the caveats about using gcc's
nested functions; they are not true closures, and very error
prone. (Think about what could happen if you took the address of
sprog_function() and passed it outside of grandaddy_function(). If
you still do not see why, ask me for more details, at llewelly at
198 dot dsl dot xmission dot com
I do not know whether c++ *should* support true closures; I can
think of arguments for and against; but I personally do *not* want
the error prone 'nested functions' extension provided by gcc.
Go and search for 'tesla'. It told me I got 11 hits, but it would not display any of them. Is anyone else having this problem?
:-)
Try the smithsonians history of electricity . No mention of Tesla here either.
As for those of you who claim Tesla was never mentioned in your textbooks, well, my serway physics text names Tesla as the inventor of AC polyphase, the approach to transmitting electricity that 'won out'.
I think my electrical circuits text also covers Tesla; certianly all my EE instructors named him.
As for those of you who claim your education did not include him, well, I was taught about Tesla in both my physics and EE classes. I guess that is what I get for going to a community college.
<my advice. I have placed my editorial advice inside of '<< >>'
.>>
brackets. >>
I have written to bring to your attention and the
attention of your readers the situation unfolding
within the DVD video disc industry. First, though,
a little history.
<<I have always liked indirect beginings.>>
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the movie industry
decried the entry into the market of video cassette
recorders as ruinous to their industry. They were
all too happy to let people rent video cassettes from
stores, but they absolutely did not want consumers to
be able to record their own videos. They failed in
that attempt to deny consumers choice. Fast forward to
the present, and you will find that the video cassette
industry has not at all hurt the movie industry. In
fact, many movies are either released straight to the
video market, or make more money in that market than
they made in theaters. This is hardly ruinous for the
motion picture industry.
The music industry was up in arms about FM radio.
Cries of "people will be able to hear high fidelity
music without purchasing it" were heard throughout
the land. Now, they use FM radio as a market for
advertising albums for sale by promoting selected
songs to be played over the air!
The music industry wanted to disallow the use of audio
cassette recorders for the same reasons. It was their
claim that such devices would promote copying of music
media to the extent that it would be impossible for
them to eak out even a meager existence. They failed
<< eke is spelled 'eke'. >>
in their attempt to deny consumers choice. The market
for music cassettes, then, carried them for a long
while until the emergence of CDs. I would now point
you to the CD duplicators sold by Phillips as an
example of how consumers' ability to duplicate media
has hurt the music industry (hint: more CDs were
<< 'has hurt the music industry'? Don't you mean 'has not hurt the
music industry? >>
sold last year than the year before, even with the
introduction of this new equipment).
By contrast, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the
music industry was able to, in effect, make it utterly
infeasible for the general public to obtain DAT decks.
The market for music on that media format never took
off the way it could have, and the music industry was
never allowed to benefit from it. They swindled them-
selves out of a great deal of money by choking off a
potential market.
<<How does the quality of DAT compare to cds? If you do not point out
the high quality of DATs, many readers may not care about them; I do
not think DATs are known to John Q. Public.>>
History lesson over.
The motion picture industry (the chief mover being
the Motion Picture Association of America, or MPAA),
along with the Digital Versatile Disc (DVD) Copy
Control Association (CCA), collectively referred to
hereafter as the DVD Consortium, are now using the
courts to limit consumer freedom in the market place.
Players and movie discs are region-coded, making it
impossible for consumers to, say, import a DVD from
Europe and display it on the DVD player equipment they
have purchased.
Imagine this scenario:
Your daughter went to France to attend college for a
year on a scholarship. While she was there, she
purchased a small library of films on DVD, and a
player upon which to display them. Her year in France
is over, and she comes home. Unfortunately, in the
process of moving her belongings home, her DVD player
is lost.
She goes out and buys another DVD player, pops up some
popcorn, tosses one of the discs in the player, and
plops down on the couch to watch a movie she brought
home. There is a problem, however. The movies she
purchased in France will not work in a player sold in
the United States. It's not a problem of television
scan format, like the problem experienced by video
tape recorders, but a problem with the region codes
placed on the disc and in the players. The DVD
Consortium has limited her freedom to play films (even
American films) she bought overseas!
A similar, but not hypothetical, scenario is faced by
computer users today.
You or your readers may have heard about the Linux
operating system. It is an upstart computer operating
system that is lately making its presence known in
some segments of the computer industry. Several other
such systems exist, some commercial and some not, and
they all face this dilemma.
The problem is that no DVD player software exists for
computers running these operating systems. Players
exist for Intel-compatible personal computers running
the Microsoft Windows operating system, and for Apple
Macintosh computers.
To solve this problem, a group of youngsters in Norway
reverse-engineered the protection scheme (called CSS)
used on the DVD discs. There are already a number of
packages sprouting up to fill the need for a DVD
player software in that segment of the computer
market. Consumers now have a choice: they can run an
alternative operating system on their computers (whose
benefits are such that it is important to THEM to use
that system), and they can play DVD movies that
they've purchased on their computers. The software
that they produced is called DeCSS, and it is at the
center of a growing international controversy.
Unfortunately, the DVD Consortium is abusing the U.S.
courts to stifle this action on false claims that the
software was intended to aid in movie piracy. They
have even gone so far as to pressure the police in
Norway to arrest one of the talented youngsters who
made this choice possible. The police have seized the
boy's computer hardware and his mobile phone, and have
raided his father's business. All at the behest of
the DVD Consortium. Not only are they abusing the
system we have in place to protect us in the United
States, but they are abusing the freedoms of people
overseas.
I would like to disseminate some facts about the DVD
matter, so that you and your readers are better
informed, and so that the truth about this travesty
may be brought to light and wrongs may be righted.
The DVD Consortium, led by the MPAA, have cited the
Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1999 as their legal
basis for conducting these abuses. In fact, that same
document GUARANTEES the right of people to reverse-
engineer technologies that would allow them to access
information that they have a legal right to access. In
other words, if I went out and bought a movie on DVD, I
have every right to watch that movie - no matter how I
accomplish that feat.
It is also a fact that Norway's laws are different
from those in the United States. There it is illegal
for a company to try to deprive you of your right to
see how something you bought works. It is also legal
for us in the United States to do so, though the DVD
Consortium would like to limit that right.
Would you buy a car that had its hood welded shut?
It is the position of the DVD Consortium that the
DeCSS program source code will enable people to make
illicit copies of DVD movies, which would violate the
copyrights they own. They contend that such technology
is illegal, and that the spread of this technology will
irreparably harm their ability to conduct business and
make money. This is the same argument the motion
picture industry had against video tapes, a segment of
the market that makes them money hand-over-fist today.
In fact, DeCSS cannot be used in this way. There are
commercially available DVD duplicators on the market
that can be used to make an EXACT DUPLICATE of a DVD
movie disc; a copy so precise that no DVD player on
Earth would be able to tell it apart from the original
disc.
<<Perhaps you should also point out that blank DVD media costs
$30-$40 dollars a disk, while a DVD with a movie on it is frequently
less; i.e. $10-$25. Note that a DVD writer can cost $290 or
more. Show te reader that the kind of piracy the MPAA babbles about
cannot be profitable. Also, I think you should explicitly state that
'Comercially available DVD duplicators do not require DeCSS and have
nothing to do with it.'>>
If it is piracy that the DVD Consortium is alarmed
about, it should be very concerned indeed about such
products. Such systems have valid functions, though.
This cannot be denied, as doing so would be arguing
that video cassette recorders and audio cassette
recorders have no valid reasons for existing. As such,
the DVD consortium will not target the manufacturers
of such equipment. They conveniently ignore these
systems when bringing their complaints before the
courts.
How many times have you made an illicit copy of a
movie on video cassette?
If I had to take a guess, the average reader would say
that they had done so very few times. I would also
guess, correctly, that far more people have rented or
purchased a movie on video tape, and have abided by
the agreement to not copy and distribute the contents
of that movie than those who have willfully broken the
law. The fact that the motion picture industry turns
record profits from the distribution of video tapes
fully supports this theory. That people have abused
the capabilities of the machines they possess is an
unfortunate situation, and it cannot be morally put
aside, but in monetary terms the costs incurred by
the movie industry is infinitesimally small.
The DVD Consortium is concerned about DeCSS because
it would allow people to pirate movies over the
Internet. This may be a valid concern, but let us
take a closer look at reality.
The average DVD movie consumes about fifteen gigabytes
of data storage. That's roughly 1,500 megabytes of
data space. It is only recently that such space has
been available to consumers for storing data on their
home systems! Consider now that most people connect
to the Internet at an incredibly slow speed. This may
eventually change, but the days of slow internet access
are numbered long. It is highly unlikely that anyone
will be at all willing to download a fifteen gigabyte
movie file to their home computer over a modem. To do
so would take many, many days.
<<Assuming 7KB/s (dammed good phone line), 1.5 GB would take about
59.5 hours. 'Assuming one had a 56k modem and the highest possible
quality phone line, it would take at least 60 hours to download a
single movie.' might have more force than 'many many days'
In effect, even if some did abuse the technology to
make pirated copies of DVD movies available to denizens
of the Internet, the monetary loss to the movie
industry would be negligible. The fact of the matter
is that DVD is a great format: it doesn't wear out,
possesses astounding picture quality and incredible
audio quality, usually carries with it highlights and
extras like interviews, and is in a very convenient
and elegant form factor. The costs associated with
making illicit copies of the movies available on the
internet make the benefits of doing so seem paltry,
and people are not going to waste their time doing so.
These are the facts of the case. There may be some
valid concerns, but the sheer weight of history and
of evidence would tend to minimalize these concerns.
What the DVD Consortium is doing, limiting the rights
of people to watch movies that they have purchased, is
wrong.
I would urge you and your readers to investigate this
attempt to curtail your freedoms. To wit, I offer the
web site of the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, at
http://www.eff.org and the web site specifically for
the promotion of the open DVD software, at
http://www.opendvd.org.
Thank you,
<<Overall, excellent. It is sad that this letter has not been
moderated up.>>
In 1999, Knuth was a nominee for the fsf award, but he lost it to Miguel de Icaza.
I can't be certain, but I think Knuth was also nominated for th 1998 fsf award, which Larry Wall won.
Now, he gets nominated for a Beanie Award, and loses to a Camel.
"Ha Ha Knuth! you will always be second place in the minds of the Open Source and Free Software communities!"
"The quality of our software depends on the algorithms which you so clearly explained in your books, our only defense against nasty patents is evidence of prior art, which you also provided much of, and you wrote TeX, the best open source typesetting tool, but you are still second place in our hearts."
"And by the way, nobody uses Web; 'literate programmer' is a contradiction in terms."
Don't laugh. It is only funny if your head is screwed on backwards.
Some time ago, a company I will refer to as B, was developing a new OS, and they needed a new compiler for it (because the one they had sucked rocks).
They went to a company I will call C (which was known for its compilers) and said, "We need a compiler for our cool new OS. Will you sell us one?"
Company C said "Yes, of course. Here you go." . And now company B as nice new C and C++ compilers from their OS.
Would you define the compiler sold to company B as "Comercial software"?
Here on
Allow me to explain some of the advantages of Slashdottish:
(0) Spelling is optional. Never again will we be victimized by Draconian English teachers and satanic spell checkers. Spell any word any way you want to. If your alternative spellings confuse someone, well, they need to learn how to read.
(1) Efficiency. Bloated English needs 3 words for 'their': 'there', 'they're', and 'their'. Slashdottish requires only 'their'. Same word is used for all 3 totally different meanings. Same thing with 'your'. If that confuses you, tough shit.
(2) Grammar is optional. Like spelling, this is a freedom of choice issue. Order words in whatever order suits your taste, or just pipe your comments through a perl script that selects a random order. Again, if this confuses somebody, the reader is at fault.
(3) Beautiful, wonderful, glorious acronyms:
(3.1) IANAL == I Am Not A Literate person.
(3.2) AFAIK == After Failing Anglish, I Kannot spel.
(3.3) AFAICT == After Failing Analytical thought, I Cannot Think.
(3.4) IMHO == My Opinion is Hugely Important. (Remember, word order is optional. :-)
(Note: We shamelessly stole many of these acronyms from places like abUSENET.)
(To those of you for whom English is not your native language, I offer this consolation: You use it better than many of my fellow Americans, most of whom are native English speakers.)
I am not sure I agree with all of the above; I for one would like to see some goverment support for privacy.
However, the above post is very well reasoned, with well chosen quotes. Excellent.
It has been moderated up to 1. However, this is only becuase jim robinson was logged in when he posted.
The moderators have either not read it, or are overlooking its value
Previously, people have complained that early posts are much more likely to be moderated up (as they are read by more moderators), thus favoring reload junkies who post without taking the time to read and think about the article.
I am suggesting that all moderators read with 'Newest first' enabled. This way, early comments are not favored because they are now at the bottom, and fewer moderators will get to them. Later comments are also not favored because there are usually more comments still to come.
This has probably been suggested before, but I feel it is important enough to be said again.
It amazes me that people would complain at a mere 1700 words.
It worries me that people believe 700 words (for example) is always enough to clearly state a complex thought.
Personally, I find that much of what I read is too shallow, too causually treated, missing details and subtleties I consider important. I feel that short articles almost always worsen this problem.
As for articles that are too long, well, I do not need to read all of them. Skimming is an important part of literacy.
It has been my observation that when asked to make something shorter, most people do not really try to revise it; they just find things to rip out until they are below the length limit.
I do often feel that Katz needs to put his articles through more re-read, get a second opinion, edit, cycles, but I do not think a draconian length limit will improve this.
Why is this marked as 'Troll' ? It is a valid complaint. This *was* announced on gnu.org *at least* a week ago... more likely two.
If a CD was placed in a sealed container with a helium atmosphere, and you never read it to reduce the risk of decay, would the data still be there?
Reentry is expensive. Designing a probe to do a nice soft landing is
hard.
Personally, I admire NASA for trying to cut costs in this way.
Build the vehicle to survive the crash, and then just drop it. Why
go to all the expense of providing a nice soft landing when you can
simply uses a protective areoshell to protect the probe from the
impact? Faster, better, cheaper.
So the more over-reactionary elements of slashdot have over-reacted
(again) sent useless flames Wieger instead of well-informed
objections to the FBI.
This article nearly overwhelmed me with deja vu.
Now, now people. We are all familiar with slashdot. We are all
familiar with how easy it is to be immature on the Internet. We all
know how easy it is to misunderstand these things and get mad at the
wrong party.
I think the most likely chain of events was became obvious when the
original article was posted on slashdot.
We all knew this was going to happen
What I don't know is why wired thinks this is news.
After I read that wired article, I (once again) wished I hadn't given
wired's hit counters one more little boost that (a) they don't
deserve, and (b) will encourage them to become still more
sensationalist, continuing their transformation from a typical lousy
computer magazine to the Enquirer of the net.
It is certainly regrettable that these things happen. It is worth
pointing out that slashdot at least tries to apologize and convince
its more over-reactionary members to be better behaved next time.
But news? Come now. This happens all the time.
Slashdot can be forgiven for posting a link to this article because
they are trying to apologize (A Good Thing(tm), even if it doesn't
change the behavior of slashdot's more reactionary readers).
Oh, btw the way, if share my opinion, moderate me up. If you don't,
moderate me down. Encourage like-mindedness.
Proof by analogy is fraud.
... it needs to be run on
Proof by anecdote is urban legend.
I find it interesting that nearly every post I have read has made use
of an analogy between guns and dangerous software, and nearly all
seem to consider it a perfect analogy.
A gun is rather difficult to duplicate and/or manufacture.
Software is necessarily trivial to copy.
If you wish to own a gun, you must find seller (easy), spend the money
(easy - hard), comply with / evade the gun restrictions in your area
(easy - very hard). If you want multiple guns, you must repeat this
process for every gun. At some point, the money part starts to add
up.
If you want dangerous software, you just download it. (trivial -
easy). If you want multiple copies of said dangerous software, cp
will do the trick (trivial).
I think dangerous software can become far, far easier to distribute
or obtain than guns. (Guns don't replicate themselves.)
Guns do direct, physical damage.
Software cannot do physical harm so directly
a machine that will cause physical harm as a result of the software
being run. It is worth pointing out that relatively little physical
harm is done by software.
It is difficult to use a gun without being aware of it. Accidents do
happen, but the majority of people who make such mistakes are at
least *aware* that they mis-handled a gun.
It can be much more difficult to be aware of all the software one is
using, however. How many of us can, with a high degree of
certainty, list every piece of software we have used? If you have
made such a list, does it include GNU readline? If bash is your
login shell, you have used GNU readline, as bash includes it.
Unawareness of the user is one of the fundamental principles of virus
design, and *the* principle of Trojan horse design. If some user
downloads a Trojan horse, and it later runs, killing someone, is the
user guilty of murder? of manslaughter? Or is this merely a
terrible accident?
Given the differences between guns and dangerous software, I claim
that drawing analogies between them is highly suspect.
I *do* feel that primary responsibility for damage done should rest
with the user, assuming the user actually knows what he/she is
using. However, I am unwilling to accept arguments to this effect
which are based on the 'guns are like dangerous software' analogy.
I also believe that the idea of 'sole responsibility' is one of the
biggest loads of BS Americans regularly subscribe to... but that is
a topic for another post.
fscking slashdot doesn't know how to preserve decent indenting.