My point is as long as the copying machine supports all types of CD, it is a copies. Copies are legal. This is my impression of "Insert CD X. Insert blank CD-R. Insert money. Remove two CD X's." means. Sorry for the confusion.
This post is above normal temperature, but I hope that it doesn't catch on fire, because i have a point to make.
Many people points out that not only does RMS think all software should be free, but we should be required by law to make our software free. I agree with RMS. People have a right to choose what type of software they want to use. But people have no right to choose what type of license they want to apply. We must replace all propriety software with free software, or at least software that let users have the freedoms to learn, modify, and verify them. Propreity software is the reason why we have spyware and backdoors in the market today.
RMS is not a zealot but a persistent man. It is not his beliefs but his principles. I don't have a problem with RMS living his life the way he wants to live it too. Besides, I like the way he shoves this "freedom" down people throat. If anyone want to use closed source and proprietary formats, then you better stayed out of my machines and networks. I don't want your virus and cancer and I especially don't like your doc and htm. I hate how you extend and embrace the standard and then claim to be compatible with me. If you are compatible, show me your source.
That's right. Furthermore, there is a problem with this encryption - key transmission thru' obscurity. From the news article,
This... number is exchanged with the server through a secure process known only to Prescient, the server uses it to encrypt any information it sends back to the client, and then the key is destroyed and a new one is created. This process is repeated every time information is exchanged between the client and the server, making it virtually impossible for outsiders to decrypt the information.
Once a hacker is able to intecept the key transmissions above and figures out what this "secure process" is, the game is over.
But with current battery technology and my habits of listening to mp3, recording video, and running countless of background applications all at once, I wonder how many seconds I can unplug clie from the wall. They should make a wearable power generator an accessory.
This isn't right. Fair use isn't theirs to give. It is our rights. In this case, I would treat it as if they gave us two licenses + fair use on top of that. Man, I am greedy.
At this stage, the states needs to justify their proposed penalties. That's why Tiemann is there. To give the current state of the software industry and to explain why the states proposed penalties (in this case, full disclosure) is appropriate. It is not to discuss new violations or prove whether M$ is still a monopoly.
That is actually not copy-protection. I read from the sony linux playstation2 site that there is nothing that prevent you from rewriting and replacing the entire RTE, and hence access to memory card. My guess is that sony doesn't want to spend development time to do it. Instead, they simply provide a VM for you to hack into it. If open source works, someone else will make it.
I agree with you to a certain degree, but if you look at the video-source code analogy (if there is one): getting to aim the cam is like getting to go into your basement and take control of your coding style. Hell, I won't even let anyone distract me while I am coding.
There's really very little that can be done with raw footage. The creative control comes with the direction and that happens before the cameras are rolling.
This statement shows the amount of creativity you have. Like coding, if you don't like the angle, create your own footage.
Raw footage would only be good for people with access to the technology to cut and splice and produce a segment. (Oh wait. that's anybody with a Mac and iMovie.:-)
Oh wait. I don't have a computer. Guess source code is useless to me too (lame analogy, I know.)
"They invade our [harddisk] space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire [open source] worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! [with GPL!?]" said Capt. Jean-Luc Picard in First Contact
Seriously though, any state would fight for this right. It is a dangerous precedent.
I believe their representation of XP as the "Most Secure Windows Ever" does open the company to prosecution for misleading advertizing, but who has the resources to prosecute it?
"What's impressive is that the picture of sixteen to twenty year-olds working in their basement is not true," Bates observed. "They're twenty-two to thirty-seven essentially, by and large working within a corporate environment."
Dear Hemo, Time moves forward and never stops. Some 10 - 11 years ago, I am sure those 22-37 were in their basements.
except for Open source software which is free. New companies can sell for service or for the big market wide adoption. Later, they can charge the software as intellectual property to the west.
Imagine all the motherboard makers in Taiwan start using "pdx" instead of "pdf" for their product manuals. That would be interesting.
Singularity doesn't exist
on
True Names
·
· Score: 1
No matter how fast a computering speed is, it will never exist the speed of light. Instead of assuming an exponential growth (2^n), a better assumption is to assume an s-curve growth. As technology development approach the speed of light or whatever reference it is based on, the speed will slow down, like the same way it speeds up. At that point,
Computing speed halves every two years.
Computing speed halves every two years of work.
Computing speed halves every two subjective years of work.
Eventually, the technology will become common knowledge and stablized, perhap even abondoned for a better alternative.
Will AI approach human intelligent at that time could still be a question.
Re:DeCSS decision now available on EFF site
on
DMCA 2, Freedom 0
·
· Score: 1
There is no misunderstanding. The court's argument is based on
...that code can have functional aspects
I don't complain that the code is speech. In fact, the comments that code is speech is the best i have seen so far. The problem is the court buys Judge Kaplan's idea of a functional aspect in speech.
Come on, people. Speech has no functional aspect. Recipe has no functional aspect. Blueprint has no functional aspect. DeCSS has no functional aspect. The fact that it is easy to execute DeCSS does not exclude the requirement that a thinking normal human being want to click on the mouse and run that program. It takes a lot of intelligent to run that program. My grandma doesn't know how to do it.
Re:DeCSS decision now available on EFF site
on
DMCA 2, Freedom 0
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
IANAL and MY OPINION
After reading the decision, it seems that the appeal court considers that decss is not pure speech like a recipe or a engineering blueprint because decss can instruct a computer to execute some functions without the instructor's understanding of what the code does, while recipe and blueprint can't. Therefore, there is more of a functional aspect to decss than the speech aspect.
Base on this critical point and other more accepted arguments, the appeal court upheld Kaplan's ruling.
IANAL, but why is code being considered less of a speech just because a stupid machine is able to interprete the code automatically?
If i create a machine that can automatically cook me a meal by reading recipes, will the free speech protection of those recipes become less?
This is troll. Nothing in the article talks about powerless freedom. It is about power to the users to use software vs. power to the programmers to choose the license. They call power to the users as freedom because the power is being distributed to the community, without reducing the power of the programmers enjoy the same freedom.
Furthermore, your power as a programmer to choose license hasn't been taken away. Only in this case, Kuhn and RMS is "powerless" to enforce your "freedom" to do that. You can choose the license you like, just don't call it GNU or free software license.
1. Allow end users (via a mechanism readily accessible from the desktop or Start menu such as an Add/Remove icon) and OEMs (via standard preinstallation kits) to enable or remove access to each Microsoft Middleware Product or Non-Microsoft Middleware Product
This is great. I hope they allow me to remove Microsoft Product Activation in XP and replace it with PGP. Other products I hate are Microsft MSN Product, Microsoft Passport Product, and Microsoft MyService.Net Product.
Instead of showing no hit, they should have shown:
- MSOffice's new feature
- implementing.net
- using IE browser on MSN
- all your base are belong to us
Slashdot Mirror
CD X = the original CD
CD-R = the copy
My point is as long as the copying machine supports all types of CD, it is a copies. Copies are legal. This is my impression of "Insert CD X. Insert blank CD-R. Insert money. Remove two CD X's." means. Sorry for the confusion.
This post is above normal temperature, but I hope that it doesn't catch on fire, because i have a point to make.
Many people points out that not only does RMS think all software should be free, but we should be required by law to make our software free. I agree with RMS. People have a right to choose what type of software they want to use. But people have no right to choose what type of license they want to apply. We must replace all propriety software with free software, or at least software that let users have the freedoms to learn, modify, and verify them. Propreity software is the reason why we have spyware and backdoors in the market today.
RMS is not a zealot but a persistent man. It is not his beliefs but his principles. I don't have a problem with RMS living his life the way he wants to live it too. Besides, I like the way he shoves this "freedom" down people throat. If anyone want to use closed source and proprietary formats, then you better stayed out of my machines and networks. I don't want your virus and cancer and I especially don't like your doc and htm. I hate how you extend and embrace the standard and then claim to be compatible with me. If you are compatible, show me your source.
I was going to mod you down for incorrect information, instead I might as well point it out to you since I don't know which is correct:
First, according to the slashdot story above, you need the original cd to copy.
Second, how do you conclude that the machine can't copy mix, data, or personal cds? It was not mention in the post above or in the article.
The majority of the world has already passed april 1st, but he still makes jokes at this hour. When is the "real" wrap up going to be?
The right explanation is:
A one-time pad is secure because there is no way to figure out the keys without the codebook. Once you transmit the keys, this is no longer true.
That's right. Furthermore, there is a problem with this encryption - key transmission thru' obscurity. From the news article,
... number is exchanged with the server through a secure process known only to Prescient, the server uses it to encrypt any information it sends back to the client, and then the key is destroyed and a new one is created. This process is repeated every time information is exchanged between the client and the server, making it virtually impossible for outsiders to decrypt the information.
This
Once a hacker is able to intecept the key transmissions above and figures out what this "secure process" is, the game is over.
But with current battery technology and my habits of listening to mp3, recording video, and running countless of background applications all at once, I wonder how many seconds I can unplug clie from the wall. They should make a wearable power generator an accessory.
This isn't right. Fair use isn't theirs to give. It is our rights. In this case, I would treat it as if they gave us two licenses + fair use on top of that. Man, I am greedy.
At this stage, the states needs to justify their proposed penalties. That's why Tiemann is there. To give the current state of the software industry and to explain why the states proposed penalties (in this case, full disclosure) is appropriate. It is not to discuss new violations or prove whether M$ is still a monopoly.
That is actually not copy-protection. I read from the sony linux playstation2 site that there is nothing that prevent you from rewriting and replacing the entire RTE, and hence access to memory card. My guess is that sony doesn't want to spend development time to do it. Instead, they simply provide a VM for you to hack into it. If open source works, someone else will make it.
I agree with you to a certain degree, but if you look at the video-source code analogy (if there is one): getting to aim the cam is like getting to go into your basement and take control of your coding style. Hell, I won't even let anyone distract me while I am coding.
:-)
There's really very little that can be done with raw footage. The creative control comes with the direction and that happens before the cameras are rolling.
This statement shows the amount of creativity you have. Like coding, if you don't like the angle, create your own footage.
Raw footage would only be good for people with access to the technology to cut and splice and produce a segment. (Oh wait. that's anybody with a Mac and iMovie.
Oh wait. I don't have a computer. Guess source code is useless to me too (lame analogy, I know.)
"They invade our [harddisk] space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire [open source] worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! [with GPL!?]" said Capt. Jean-Luc Picard in First Contact
Seriously though, any state would fight for this right. It is a dangerous precedent.I believe their representation of XP as the "Most Secure Windows Ever" does open the company to prosecution for misleading advertizing, but who has the resources to prosecute it?
Indeed. The bullet-proof windows manufacturers.
This could be useful if there is a corporation that leases/buys a percentage of your box. Better yet, it sells computers by the percentage:
Here is the latest supercomputer for 299. However, you should let us use 80% of its resources for our distributed computing.
What kind of corporation that does that and still makes money is a msytery to me. But, hey, it's just an idea.
"What's impressive is that the picture of sixteen to twenty year-olds working in their basement is not true," Bates observed. "They're twenty-two to thirty-seven essentially, by and large working within a corporate environment."
Dear Hemo, Time moves forward and never stops. Some 10 - 11 years ago, I am sure those 22-37 were in their basements.
except for Open source software which is free. New companies can sell for service or for the big market wide adoption. Later, they can charge the software as intellectual property to the west.
Imagine all the motherboard makers in Taiwan start using "pdx" instead of "pdf" for their product manuals. That would be interesting.
No matter how fast a computering speed is, it will never exist the speed of light. Instead of assuming an exponential growth (2^n), a better assumption is to assume an s-curve growth. As technology development approach the speed of light or whatever reference it is based on, the speed will slow down, like the same way it speeds up. At that point,
Computing speed halves every two years.
Computing speed halves every two years of work.
Computing speed halves every two subjective years of work.
Eventually, the technology will become common knowledge and stablized, perhap even abondoned for a better alternative.
Will AI approach human intelligent at that time could still be a question.
There is no misunderstanding. The court's argument is based on
...that code can have functional aspects
I don't complain that the code is speech. In fact, the comments that code is speech is the best i have seen so far. The problem is the court buys Judge Kaplan's idea of a functional aspect in speech.
Come on, people. Speech has no functional aspect. Recipe has no functional aspect. Blueprint has no functional aspect. DeCSS has no functional aspect. The fact that it is easy to execute DeCSS does not exclude the requirement that a thinking normal human being want to click on the mouse and run that program. It takes a lot of intelligent to run that program. My grandma doesn't know how to do it.
IANAL and MY OPINION
After reading the decision, it seems that the appeal court considers that decss is not pure speech like a recipe or a engineering blueprint because decss can instruct a computer to execute some functions without the instructor's understanding of what the code does, while recipe and blueprint can't. Therefore, there is more of a functional aspect to decss than the speech aspect.
Base on this critical point and other more accepted arguments, the appeal court upheld Kaplan's ruling.
IANAL, but why is code being considered less of a speech just because a stupid machine is able to interprete the code automatically?
If i create a machine that can automatically cook me a meal by reading recipes, will the free speech protection of those recipes become less?
1. All future virus and worms will look like magic latern, or behave like one... for examples, melissa latern, magic i love you, sirmagic, etc.
2. Criminmals may start sending fake magic latern messages or keystrokes to fbi.
3. There will be a new breed of open source virus-definition files or software that will do the job right.
Actually, it is the second link on slashdot. The first one happened yesterday.
Precisely, RMS's objection is a big "So what" and we don't have to listen to him.
I think we both agree that power and freedom are not exclusive. In fact, freedom is power. RMS didn't say he believes otherwise.
This is troll. Nothing in the article talks about powerless freedom. It is about power to the users to use software vs. power to the programmers to choose the license. They call power to the users as freedom because the power is being distributed to the community, without reducing the power of the programmers enjoy the same freedom.
Furthermore, your power as a programmer to choose license hasn't been taken away. Only in this case, Kuhn and RMS is "powerless" to enforce your "freedom" to do that. You can choose the license you like, just don't call it GNU or free software license.
1. Allow end users (via a mechanism readily accessible from the desktop or Start menu such as an Add/Remove icon) and OEMs (via standard preinstallation kits) to enable or remove access to each Microsoft Middleware Product or Non-Microsoft Middleware Product
.Net Product.
This is great. I hope they allow me to remove Microsoft Product Activation in XP and replace it with PGP. Other products I hate are Microsft MSN Product, Microsoft Passport Product, and Microsoft MyService
Instead of showing no hit, they should have shown: .net
- MSOffice's new feature
- implementing
- using IE browser on MSN
- all your base are belong to us