Tribes 2 didn't fair well through the changes to threading in libc. Exporting the kernel version as 2.4 seemed to work at one point, IIRC. But last I tried I couldn't get it working at all. It's not true to say that a binary blob (which most games are) will work perfectly through changes to the underlying OS.
there is nothing imaginery about the fact that if you work for years producing some digital content, you have the right to decide what to charge for it.
Yes there is. That right is completely imaginary. The work you put into whatever you made is not imaginary, but the government granted monopoly over the information you put together should not be.
The fact that a lot of people willfully ignore the law and take what isn't there's anyway does not make the property rights 'imaginery' any mroe than the preponderence of people breaking the speed limit makes the speed limit imaginery either.
Well that's a bad example because the speed limit is a good example of where the law as it's written is different from the law as it's practiced. I've driven 5-10mph over the limit ever since I started driving and have never got a speeding ticket. Similarly, my friends are not going to turn me in for copying music even if they don't agree with it.
I guess the submitter would prefer it if the whole concept of copyright and IP did not exist, but I wouldn't get your hopes up for any new movies, TV, music, softwre or games in that case.
Actually, I and many others are of the opinion that, at least in this day and age, copyright does more to hinder the creation of art than it does to promote it. It is legally impossible for incremental improvement to come from many disorganized contributers. Parodies are supposed to be legal, but there are restrictions on these two, such as Penny Arcade's Strawberry Shortcake parody. Works that have entered the public domain have spawned many derivations and interpretations, such as Romeo and Juliet. But if someone wants to do a send off of a Mickey Mouse and the like they are not able.
I wish all the people moaning about the fact that 99% of entertainment content is commercially produced and requires payment would stop moaning and just produce some free content instead. Could it be that its way easier to complain about the content produced by other people than it is to actually contribute anything yourself?
If there were no copyright, certainly the type of content produced would be different. The 100 million dollar productions you see today simply wouldn't happen. Personally I don't find such big productions very appealing, but even some of the media I enjoy would no longer happen, I'm sure. Nevertheless, it would be an acceptable tradeoff to wrest control of culture from corporations.
Huw Price has an interesting theory that all we need to do is give up the unidirectional nature of time. That is, causes can go forwards and backwards, at the micro level anyway. They can't at the macro level because of thermodynamics. Have physicists explored this option much, or do the recent experiments rule even it out?
I would like to recommend that you respect their more relevant experience instead of your own less relevant experience.
No. I'm tired of being told not to judge people unless I've had exactly the same experiences as them. Any criteria you suggest for judgment should be one that is available to any reasonable adult, regardless of their background. But even if your criteria is correct, it goes both ways. How does anyone have the right to sympathize with her? After all, they have not had the relevant experiences.
Anyway, you said my example was cherry picking but after reading her post again I didn't see anything worse. I didn't see any assertion of other non-public information, but even if I did, I would never give any credence to claims of non-public information. Witness the evidence of WMD in Iraq for a prime example of why I do this. Maybe she has info she's sharing with the police and reasonably doesn't want to make public. That's fine, but then she should not use such hidden evidence for public sympathy.
And I can hardly see this blog post as anything but a call for public sympathy. That in itself, all other things aside, raised the bar for my judgment of whether her reaction to these events has been reasonable or not.
The disanalogies you pointed out are either not relevant or only work against your point. First of all, this is not even a threat: "fuck off you boring slut... i hope someone slits your throat and cums down your gob." Maybe you're just not familiar with the underbelly of the internet, but I see stuff like this all the time. Taking this is a threat is almost as bad as taking "break a leg" as a threat. Tracking down information on someone that is not public shows directed malice, which is a step up from generic misogynist insults.
Secondly, her being a public figure makes each threat less significant, not more. If someone threatens me, who has no normal reason to have attention directed my way, I would be disturbed more than if I started getting weird emails after my name appeared in a paper or something.
Thirdly, her reaction goes beyond "not speaking at public conventions". She's locked herself in her house with a shotgun and guard dog. So her reaction was more severe than mine was.
And fourthly, there will always be disanalogies between any two revelevantly similar cases. Do I have to murder to judge a murderer? Do I actually have to be a victim of a crime to say whether such a victim is overreacting? If I do, then there would be no such thing as overreacting to a crime, which seems absurd.
Different people have different comfort levels with threats of bodily harm. I am not sure that your post reflects an appropriate standard for all victims, and I suspect that you would change your tune fairly rapidly if you, yourself, (or, worse, someone you loved) were the target.
You're telling us not to speak for her and then go on in the next sentence to speak for us? I've been the subject of thinly disguised threats "I know your name and know where you live...", which worried me much more than would "I hope someone slits your throat and gobs down your neck" because the person actually did know my name and where I lived (and this was stuff I did not make public). Still, while I increased my vigilance a bit, I hardly went to the extremes of this woman. I think it's fair to say she's overreacting.
Ok, do you have something to back that up? I was under the impression that everything except calls to engage in imminent illegal activity were protected speech.
I'm in favor of free market but also in favor of anti-price fixing laws. The motivation is the same as for anti-trust laws. The market does not stay healthy and competitive on its own. Inefficiencies build up when monopolies form or manufacturers start dictating market prices. There's a difference between a free market and a laissez faire market, for the same reason that personal freedoms (liberties) cannot be secured in an anarchy.
There are two responses: 1) So be it. That's the market at work. 2) Speed and convenience will still win out much of the time. For example, people can buy chicken from the grocer and bake it themselves much cheaper than they can pick up food at KFC, but people still buy chicken at KFC. Similar with all types of products. I may be able to get an RJ-45 cable a little cheaper online, but I often don't feel like waiting a week for it.
Computer equipment is an extreme example anyway. Other that time and ease of return, there is little advantage to buying most computer products in a brick and mortar. Does being able to pick up and handle the video card box make for any more compelling a shopping experience than simply reading its specs online?
It's not a trick. If they're issuing take-down notices in the name of the law they should actually understand what the law says. Neither is it a spirit vs. letter of the law issue. The proper procedures for copyright holders to take in the DCMA are outlined quite explicitly, and this was intentional.
Besides, no take-down notice should have ever been sent. Her use clearly falls within fair use. If the NFL is depending on "low-paid professional hatchet men" to act in their name, and these people make mistakes, then the NFL still bears full responsibility for these mistakes. After all, these people are working as legal agents of the NFL.
Given that the island in question is within a huge delta, it's not immediately clear that it's dissappearance was due entirely, or even mostly, to global warming. Also, the island seems to have been abandoned for 22 years, when a major flood happened. Sediment shift seems prima facie the more likely explanation, though I'll admit I'm no climatologist. It seems unlikely that a global rise in water levels could sink just one major island, unless that island was mere inches above sea level.
What's immature is the attitude of Apple and policies they set for their admins. Companies should own up to bugs, or at the very least, not squash their discussion. For example, there are plenty of unhappy posts in the below forum (that yes, Nvidia helps moderate) and as far as I've seen, discussion of bugs is never deleted.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage creation of new works. Anything more than 10 years (in my view) is actually counterproductive. Derivative works are stymied by the monopoly the original creator has. Sure, you can negotiate and pay big dollar to license a derivative work. But, for example, had Disney been the original creator of "Alice in Wonderland" you can bet that the video game "Alice" would never have been made.
I don't know, there seems to be a moral difference between mocking children who have no choice but to be where they are, and mocking adults who chose the profession they are in. Teachers are held to a much higher standard of conduct than students, and for good reason.
I don't believe in copyright or patents, but bandwidth is a physical entity. It is not abstract. Thus, it can be stolen. I don't think stealing wireless is a 3 year offense, but this is Singapore, which is basically a mini-totalitarian regime.
Or maybe it's just a psychologically invasive test that most candidates would rather do without. I'm not hiding anything in my anus, but I'd certainly protest if a potential employer felt the need to anally probe me.
Well different people have different ideas of what it means for the press to be free. For me, the right not to reveal sources is not fundamental to the freedom of press. On the other hand, many of these countries ranking high in "freedom of press" outlaw "hate speech". I consider the ability to speak one's opinion, no matter how nasty it is, as a necessary prerequisite for freedom of speech. So if you change those two aspects of the rankings, I imagine the ordering would change dramatically.
I'm not rah rah about the freedom of press as it currently stands in the US. The report points out some valid criticisms, and the Bush administration's tendency to be less and less transparent under the guise of national security worries me.
But the methodology of this report is a bit question-begging if we can't all agree on what it means for the press to be "free".
As I understand it, the Tor exit nodes were making GET and POST requests against some kiddy porn web server. The web server itself, not part of the Tor network, logged the IPs of the Tor nodes. There is no way to prevent this, Tor has no control over what the web server chooses to log. The Tor nodes themselves probably did not log anything useful, and so would be a deadend for police. However, since the Tor exit nodes can be conduits for good and bad, the police certainly are creating a chilling effect against running such nodes. If you run an exit node, you will likely get your computer seized.
People run weekly virus and spyware scans because they already know they have viruses or spyware? No, they run them regularly because there might be viruses or spyware they don't know about. "Undetectable" means there is no means to detect it, it doesn't mean it fails to call attention to itself.
Leeches and tics secret numbing agents that make the host unaware of their existence. Until you visually inspect your body and find it there of course. Why would you be doing a thorough visual check of your body? Maybe you were walking through the brush. Why would you regularly inspect your hardware for rootkits? Maybe you've installed programs you don't totally trust.
People with irregular problems often check their memory by booting a memtest86 CD and letting it run. I don't see how inspecting your computer with a bootable liveCD poses any greater a challenge, assuming a rootkit detector has been packaged as an ISO for such a purpose.
Whether it's dlls or modifying the bootloader, it doesn't alter the point. And the point still stands. If connecting the hard drive to another computer is too much work, you can just do a weekly check from a live CD. And yes, I'm damn sure that a rootkit could not hide when mounted read only from a clean computer. There are various means to defeat this, such as if the hard drive's firmware has been infected, or if the entire drive is encrypted. But the article doesn't suggest any of these possibilities are being taken advantage of. So this type of rootkit, at least, is not "100% undetectable".
Slashdot Mirror
Tribes 2 didn't fair well through the changes to threading in libc. Exporting the kernel version as 2.4 seemed to work at one point, IIRC. But last I tried I couldn't get it working at all. It's not true to say that a binary blob (which most games are) will work perfectly through changes to the underlying OS.
Huw Price has an interesting theory that all we need to do is give up the unidirectional nature of time. That is, causes can go forwards and backwards, at the micro level anyway. They can't at the macro level because of thermodynamics. Have physicists explored this option much, or do the recent experiments rule even it out?
Really? Could you cite the precedents you're referring to?
I would like to recommend that you respect their more relevant experience instead of your own less relevant experience.
No. I'm tired of being told not to judge people unless I've had exactly the same experiences as them. Any criteria you suggest for judgment should be one that is available to any reasonable adult, regardless of their background. But even if your criteria is correct, it goes both ways. How does anyone have the right to sympathize with her? After all, they have not had the relevant experiences.
Anyway, you said my example was cherry picking but after reading her post again I didn't see anything worse. I didn't see any assertion of other non-public information, but even if I did, I would never give any credence to claims of non-public information. Witness the evidence of WMD in Iraq for a prime example of why I do this. Maybe she has info she's sharing with the police and reasonably doesn't want to make public. That's fine, but then she should not use such hidden evidence for public sympathy.
And I can hardly see this blog post as anything but a call for public sympathy. That in itself, all other things aside, raised the bar for my judgment of whether her reaction to these events has been reasonable or not.
The disanalogies you pointed out are either not relevant or only work against your point. First of all, this is not even a threat: "fuck off you boring slut... i hope someone slits your throat and cums down your gob." Maybe you're just not familiar with the underbelly of the internet, but I see stuff like this all the time. Taking this is a threat is almost as bad as taking "break a leg" as a threat. Tracking down information on someone that is not public shows directed malice, which is a step up from generic misogynist insults.
Secondly, her being a public figure makes each threat less significant, not more. If someone threatens me, who has no normal reason to have attention directed my way, I would be disturbed more than if I started getting weird emails after my name appeared in a paper or something.
Thirdly, her reaction goes beyond "not speaking at public conventions". She's locked herself in her house with a shotgun and guard dog. So her reaction was more severe than mine was.
And fourthly, there will always be disanalogies between any two revelevantly similar cases. Do I have to murder to judge a murderer? Do I actually have to be a victim of a crime to say whether such a victim is overreacting? If I do, then there would be no such thing as overreacting to a crime, which seems absurd.
Different people have different comfort levels with threats of bodily harm. I am not sure that your post reflects an appropriate standard for all victims, and I suspect that you would change your tune fairly rapidly if you, yourself, (or, worse, someone you loved) were the target.
You're telling us not to speak for her and then go on in the next sentence to speak for us? I've been the subject of thinly disguised threats "I know your name and know where you live...", which worried me much more than would "I hope someone slits your throat and gobs down your neck" because the person actually did know my name and where I lived (and this was stuff I did not make public). Still, while I increased my vigilance a bit, I hardly went to the extremes of this woman. I think it's fair to say she's overreacting.
not according to the law.
Ok, do you have something to back that up? I was under the impression that everything except calls to engage in imminent illegal activity were protected speech.
"I hope you get..." = not a threat.
"You should get..." = not a threat.
"I will..." = a threat.
I'm in favor of free market but also in favor of anti-price fixing laws. The motivation is the same as for anti-trust laws. The market does not stay healthy and competitive on its own. Inefficiencies build up when monopolies form or manufacturers start dictating market prices. There's a difference between a free market and a laissez faire market, for the same reason that personal freedoms (liberties) cannot be secured in an anarchy.
There are two responses:
1) So be it. That's the market at work.
2) Speed and convenience will still win out much of the time. For example, people can buy chicken from the grocer and bake it themselves much cheaper than they can pick up food at KFC, but people still buy chicken at KFC. Similar with all types of products. I may be able to get an RJ-45 cable a little cheaper online, but I often don't feel like waiting a week for it.
Computer equipment is an extreme example anyway. Other that time and ease of return, there is little advantage to buying most computer products in a brick and mortar. Does being able to pick up and handle the video card box make for any more compelling a shopping experience than simply reading its specs online?
It's not a trick. If they're issuing take-down notices in the name of the law they should actually understand what the law says. Neither is it a spirit vs. letter of the law issue. The proper procedures for copyright holders to take in the DCMA are outlined quite explicitly, and this was intentional.
Besides, no take-down notice should have ever been sent. Her use clearly falls within fair use. If the NFL is depending on "low-paid professional hatchet men" to act in their name, and these people make mistakes, then the NFL still bears full responsibility for these mistakes. After all, these people are working as legal agents of the NFL.
Given that the island in question is within a huge delta, it's not immediately clear that it's dissappearance was due entirely, or even mostly, to global warming. Also, the island seems to have been abandoned for 22 years, when a major flood happened. Sediment shift seems prima facie the more likely explanation, though I'll admit I'm no climatologist. It seems unlikely that a global rise in water levels could sink just one major island, unless that island was mere inches above sea level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohachara
What's immature is the attitude of Apple and policies they set for their admins. Companies should own up to bugs, or at the very least, not squash their discussion. For example, there are plenty of unhappy posts in the below forum (that yes, Nvidia helps moderate) and as far as I've seen, discussion of bugs is never deleted.
f =14
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?
You don't need to sign up for any special accounts that likeely require NDAs and other restrictions to discuss issues you're having.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage creation of new works. Anything more than 10 years (in my view) is actually counterproductive. Derivative works are stymied by the monopoly the original creator has. Sure, you can negotiate and pay big dollar to license a derivative work. But, for example, had Disney been the original creator of "Alice in Wonderland" you can bet that the video game "Alice" would never have been made.
The problem then is that this could lead to contract killings.
I don't know, there seems to be a moral difference between mocking children who have no choice but to be where they are, and mocking adults who chose the profession they are in. Teachers are held to a much higher standard of conduct than students, and for good reason.
I would never rely on any software that forbid benchmarking.
I don't believe in copyright or patents, but bandwidth is a physical entity. It is not abstract. Thus, it can be stolen. I don't think stealing wireless is a 3 year offense, but this is Singapore, which is basically a mini-totalitarian regime.
Or maybe it's just a psychologically invasive test that most candidates would rather do without. I'm not hiding anything in my anus, but I'd certainly protest if a potential employer felt the need to anally probe me.
Well different people have different ideas of what it means for the press to be free. For me, the right not to reveal sources is not fundamental to the freedom of press. On the other hand, many of these countries ranking high in "freedom of press" outlaw "hate speech". I consider the ability to speak one's opinion, no matter how nasty it is, as a necessary prerequisite for freedom of speech. So if you change those two aspects of the rankings, I imagine the ordering would change dramatically.
I'm not rah rah about the freedom of press as it currently stands in the US. The report points out some valid criticisms, and the Bush administration's tendency to be less and less transparent under the guise of national security worries me.
But the methodology of this report is a bit question-begging if we can't all agree on what it means for the press to be "free".
As I understand it, the Tor exit nodes were making GET and POST requests against some kiddy porn web server. The web server itself, not part of the Tor network, logged the IPs of the Tor nodes. There is no way to prevent this, Tor has no control over what the web server chooses to log. The Tor nodes themselves probably did not log anything useful, and so would be a deadend for police. However, since the Tor exit nodes can be conduits for good and bad, the police certainly are creating a chilling effect against running such nodes. If you run an exit node, you will likely get your computer seized.
If you thought Google had a lot of lawsuits when altering pageranks of linkfarms, wait until limewire et al start suing Google for "defamation".
People run weekly virus and spyware scans because they already know they have viruses or spyware? No, they run them regularly because there might be viruses or spyware they don't know about. "Undetectable" means there is no means to detect it, it doesn't mean it fails to call attention to itself.
Leeches and tics secret numbing agents that make the host unaware of their existence. Until you visually inspect your body and find it there of course. Why would you be doing a thorough visual check of your body? Maybe you were walking through the brush. Why would you regularly inspect your hardware for rootkits? Maybe you've installed programs you don't totally trust.
People with irregular problems often check their memory by booting a memtest86 CD and letting it run. I don't see how inspecting your computer with a bootable liveCD poses any greater a challenge, assuming a rootkit detector has been packaged as an ISO for such a purpose.
Whether it's dlls or modifying the bootloader, it doesn't alter the point. And the point still stands. If connecting the hard drive to another computer is too much work, you can just do a weekly check from a live CD. And yes, I'm damn sure that a rootkit could not hide when mounted read only from a clean computer. There are various means to defeat this, such as if the hard drive's firmware has been infected, or if the entire drive is encrypted. But the article doesn't suggest any of these possibilities are being taken advantage of. So this type of rootkit, at least, is not "100% undetectable".