Just calling something terrorism doesn't make it terrorism. It reminds me of the 50's when you didn't agree with someone you'd call them a communist.
As far as something that might be illegal in some jurisdiction, common sense tells you that the best route is to prosecute the person or people who did something illegal, not the medium carrying the message. Saying Google is responsible is like saying that the paper makers are responsible for what's written on their paper (not a perfect analogy, I realize).
I'm guessing the certificate security itself isn't changed. What they're saying is they're just going to do more research on a company before they hand out certificates. Right now you fill in a form, fax it in, and *presto* you get certs. Now, I guess someone will actually call and check before issuing.
They could do this now with regular SSL, but they couldn't charge more money... too much competition out there.
The thing is, the encryption of SSL is not at issue; it's just a new product to market.
Probably because the 64 bit version will break a lot of code. For example a lot of TV boards write their own drivers (for better or worse) and these won't work. Anything that writes it's own driver or have to get to ring 0 will break.
So the 32 bit will be if you want anything to run, the 64 bit will be for people who want to play DRM'd content on their PC. Maybe an exaggeration, but I think that's about it.
Years ago we purchased a Cisco Ethernet interface and paid some outrageous amount. Like... 4 figures. It was a standard PCI Ethernet card with no ID on it. Except the board had an FCC number on it. We checked, and it turned out to be a cheap Ethernet card that was readily available for about $25 anywhere. The only difference was there was no manufacturer identified.
Now, I don't know if this was a special case, but surely somebody figured out that some of these parts are generic parts and is selling them with phony Cisco papers and making a tidy profit.
Because the only way to make a decent living is not trying to hustle $500 jobs every odd week. You've got to find a regular contract that will specify 1000-2000 hours at a predetermined rate.
Despite what the media and everybody is telling us, good programmers who you can trust to do the job without managing them like a 12 year old are rare and expensive, and when you find one you pay him or her enough money to keep them happy (in fact, I don't personally know a programmer who would even bother with anything under about a 90 day gig. There's just too much work out there).
People are willing to take coding jobs to make $150 for what amounts to a day of work? If you think that's a lot, you have to estimate some serious overhead into that. So for all practical purposes, you're clearing about $15/hour to code? Or am I reading this wrong?
Ouch. The only way to go is to get long-term contracts and do the work. Or take a staff position. Even if you hate it. You'll at least make decent money if you stick with it.
"However realize when you buy an Ipod, you're agreeing to use it the way Apple says you can."
No you're not.
I just bought a 30G video iPod from Apple, and I didn't agree to that when I bought it. Nor was there anything in the packaging, and interestingly, I didn't have to agree to anything when I turned it on (no EULA was present).
Further, people buying a used iPod didn't agree to anything like that either.
You understand that HP didn't care about breaking the law; they cared about the appearance it created when the press got wind of it. There's a world of difference between the two extremes although the former likes to masquerade as the latter.
In other words, Patricia Dunn's biggest sin wasn't breaking the law (allegedly), it was getting caught.
"posting entire seeeasons of episodes from TV shows is something entirely different."
Yeah. Imagine the nerve of some people making entire TV seasons available so easily that people could sit on the couch, press a button and watch *for free*. That's worse than piracy... that's called.... ummm Watching TV?
I've heard there's a Linux based device that will let you capture it at your leisure, move it to your computer to edit and then turn into DVD. It's called Tivo, and I think they should ban it!
"WoW doesn't wreck lives, people wreck their own lives. If you have an addictive personality and can't set prorities, then you shouldn't play"
I agree. Which is why I wonder why people try to ban smoking and regulate drinking and gambling. If you get hooked easily, you should just stay away from drinking, smoking and gambling.
The upgrade market for PC's is very small. Those days were long ago when Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 were the hot OS. There's no incentive to pay $200 for a copy of an OS when $500 gets you a whole new machine with a copy already installed.
XP installs are almost all OEM copies, Vista will be the same way. The only people it affects are white box PC's (which are rare these days). Every PC that comes from a name vendor already has a license for Windows, which makes me wonder who the target is for these WGA activation patches.
Sure, you can write a law full of language that says it can only be used against terrorists etc etc etc. You can write a law that is 1000's of pages in length detailing these correct uses....and then 10 minutes later, somebody attaches a provision to a farm subsidy bill that says these records can be used by RIAA and MPAA to discover copyright abuse with no warrant because "users have no expectations of privacy on the internet" and POOF all those protections are gone.
Well, you are talking about an industry that wants to sue it's customers so they'll, ummm, respect them. Or something like that. They haven't actually said.
I always thought a perfect use of the p2p networks was to place low-bitrate files (128kb/s mp3's) with bumpers around announcing the artist. They could talk over them like a DJ. The point is that they get the songs out there as an advertisement to either buy the CD or download a CD quality file. They could do like they used to do and have an album version and a radio version (shorter), except that it would be a p2p version.
Get it on social networks, p2p networks, it would be the same as listening to the radio. It would build artist loyalty, it would get the record companies out of the payola business, it would let them more easily turn a profit on marginal acts because you can narrowcast this stuff. If I can think that stuff up, imagine what somebody who really had a stake in it could do.
But I'm convinced they're so worried about next quarter's profits that they can't build for the future. Oh well. Maybe someboy will be adventurous enough to try it.
The only race in Europe worth mentioning is the Nurburgring. And that hasn't been the same ever since they made it so short. Note, however, this was not the fault of the EU, nor was it done to protect children.
Actually, the burden should have been on Jack to prove that this game would cause a nuisance.
Let's put it in perspective...
The game (if it's ever released) would be released nationally. So if you're the judge, you'd have to say "Jack, there is no game released called 'Bully'. You claim some company will release such a game. What evidence do you have that it will create a nuisance".
Jack would have to say "Well, none your honor. I've never seen the game, but I've heard about it"
And the judge would say "Well Jack, that's interesting, so you're saying you read about something that may or may not bother you, but you're taking up the court's time to try to interfere with a video game that isn't for sale"
I think you're missing my point. The judge simply was not in a legal position to judge this thing yet. He would be after the game was released, but not until then release. If I didn't know any better, I'd say the makers of the game hired Jack for some free publicity.
The Dreamcast really had it all at launch. Sony froze the market by talking about the PS2 which would have the best of everything. People forget the level of hype for the PS2 over a year before launch. Remember how the PS2 was to have graphics like Toy Story, but in real time? (BTW, Sony is making that claim for the new PS3 as well. Did Toy Story get better animation?)
The PS1 was already popular, people figured they'd wait a few months and get the new PS2 instead. And Sega was bleeding cash, so they couldn't hang on for 2 years while it took off.
What I can say is the games that were out were really good.
The judge wasn't asked to rule if this game was obscene, and the Jack wasn't claiming it was. In any event, the game was not yet published (and is not published), so how can he judge rule on it?
I don't watch much television, but that's my business, nobody else's, and in general, you should be able to do what you want. If you think it's bad for your 3 year old, then don't let them watch it.
Why do you think it's the government's job to regulate or ban things you or I don't like? I really don't understand.
Not really. And if he's doing his job, he throws it out because the judge is smart enough to know that there's nothing there to rule on!
Let me give an example. If I'm writing a book, and I tell people that's a revisionist view of WW2 with the Germans as the "good guys", and my neighbor objects, he can't go to a judge and say "Your honor, he is writing a book that offends me and likely offends this community. Make him stop." Well he can. But do you think the judge would say to me "Sir, give me a copy of your manuscript so I can 'judge' it"?
No, he wouldn't for a lot of reasons:
1) I'm allowed to write books that offend 2) I'm allowed to be wrong 3) And until I actually publish it, the judge couldn't ask me to stop writing it just because it might offend someone. 4) Even if I published it, he still can't do anything about it because it's not his job to review books.
I'm guessing that the judge would likely say something like "Sir, stop bothering this court with nonsense". And that's what the judge should have done in this case. It was not his right to review the game. Just like it isn't the judge's right to review books, or movies, or magazines, or anything like that.
You could file a complaint with the FCC after it aired, but the FCC isn't actually a "judge"; it's part of the executive branch that determines if something is not suitable (a power that I don't agree with, BTW). The FCC's only power deals with something already aired on "broadcast" TV. It has no power over say, a movie, a video game, or a book. It doesn't even have power over a TV show unless it's shown on particular frequencies.
In any case you couldn't complain about an upcoming episode of CSI to anybody. Why would you grant that power to a judge in the case of a video game? That's my point. The judge should have simply said "this is not even available, you haven't seen it, so how could you bring a complaint to me when even YOU haven't seen it? Case dismissed"
That would have been 30 seconds of time. About right for this one.
"This attitude is not prudent since all the broadcast networks tend toward the lowest common denominator of what they can get away with. Eventially there will be no channel to change to for "family" programming."
I didn't realize there was a right to family programming? If there isn't any stuff you feel is suitable, then get rid of your antenna or cable box. Poof. The stuff disappears. Please understand, I agree that TV is not suitable for kids except for very specific shows. But I don't really think I have the right to demand family entertainment from a commercial entity. Seriously.
So you're saying that if you wanted to sue CBS because you thought CSI was too graphic, you should be able to file a motion, and CSI would have to submit a TV show and the judge would look at a show and decide if it was okay?
Go ahead try that and let me know how it works out for you...
It promotes violence, but within the game. But so what?
I think you'll be hard-pressed to somehow say that people who make violent choices in video games transfer that to real life....and even if that were true, it's not up to judges to make the choices that would make that illegal. Presumably, that would be up to the legislature who would have to pass laws that are constitutional.
I'll assume that we'd rather not have judges making stuff up as they go along.
Slashdot Mirror
Just calling something terrorism doesn't make it terrorism. It reminds me of the 50's when you didn't agree with someone you'd call them a communist.
As far as something that might be illegal in some jurisdiction, common sense tells you that the best route is to prosecute the person or people who did something illegal, not the medium carrying the message. Saying Google is responsible is like saying that the paper makers are responsible for what's written on their paper (not a perfect analogy, I realize).
I'm guessing the certificate security itself isn't changed. What they're saying is they're just going to do more research on a company before they hand out certificates. Right now you fill in a form, fax it in, and *presto* you get certs. Now, I guess someone will actually call and check before issuing.
They could do this now with regular SSL, but they couldn't charge more money... too much competition out there.
The thing is, the encryption of SSL is not at issue; it's just a new product to market.
Probably because the 64 bit version will break a lot of code. For example a lot of TV boards write their own drivers (for better or worse) and these won't work. Anything that writes it's own driver or have to get to ring 0 will break.
So the 32 bit will be if you want anything to run, the 64 bit will be for people who want to play DRM'd content on their PC. Maybe an exaggeration, but I think that's about it.
Years ago we purchased a Cisco Ethernet interface and paid some outrageous amount. Like... 4 figures. It was a standard PCI Ethernet card with no ID on it. Except the board had an FCC number on it. We checked, and it turned out to be a cheap Ethernet card that was readily available for about $25 anywhere. The only difference was there was no manufacturer identified.
Now, I don't know if this was a special case, but surely somebody figured out that some of these parts are generic parts and is selling them with phony Cisco papers and making a tidy profit.
Because the only way to make a decent living is not trying to hustle $500 jobs every odd week. You've got to find a regular contract that will specify 1000-2000 hours at a predetermined rate.
Despite what the media and everybody is telling us, good programmers who you can trust to do the job without managing them like a 12 year old are rare and expensive, and when you find one you pay him or her enough money to keep them happy (in fact, I don't personally know a programmer who would even bother with anything under about a 90 day gig. There's just too much work out there).
People are willing to take coding jobs to make $150 for what amounts to a day of work? If you think that's a lot, you have to estimate some serious overhead into that. So for all practical purposes, you're clearing about $15/hour to code? Or am I reading this wrong?
Ouch. The only way to go is to get long-term contracts and do the work. Or take a staff position. Even if you hate it. You'll at least make decent money if you stick with it.
"However realize when you buy an Ipod, you're agreeing to use it the way Apple says you can."
No you're not.
I just bought a 30G video iPod from Apple, and I didn't agree to that when I bought it. Nor was there anything in the packaging, and interestingly, I didn't have to agree to anything when I turned it on (no EULA was present).
Further, people buying a used iPod didn't agree to anything like that either.
So I think this statement is false.
You understand that HP didn't care about breaking the law; they cared about the appearance it created when the press got wind of it. There's a world of difference between the two extremes although the former likes to masquerade as the latter.
In other words, Patricia Dunn's biggest sin wasn't breaking the law (allegedly), it was getting caught.
"posting entire seeeasons of episodes from TV shows is something entirely different."
Yeah. Imagine the nerve of some people making entire TV seasons available so easily that people could sit on the couch, press a button and watch *for free*. That's worse than piracy... that's called.... ummm Watching TV?
I've heard there's a Linux based device that will let you capture it at your leisure, move it to your computer to edit and then turn into DVD. It's called Tivo, and I think they should ban it!
"WoW doesn't wreck lives, people wreck their own lives. If you have an addictive personality and can't set prorities, then you shouldn't play"
I agree. Which is why I wonder why people try to ban smoking and regulate drinking and gambling. If you get hooked easily, you should just stay away from drinking, smoking and gambling.
The upgrade market for PC's is very small. Those days were long ago when Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 were the hot OS. There's no incentive to pay $200 for a copy of an OS when $500 gets you a whole new machine with a copy already installed.
XP installs are almost all OEM copies, Vista will be the same way. The only people it affects are white box PC's (which are rare these days). Every PC that comes from a name vendor already has a license for Windows, which makes me wonder who the target is for these WGA activation patches.
Sure, you can write a law full of language that says it can only be used against terrorists etc etc etc. You can write a law that is 1000's of pages in length detailing these correct uses. ...and then 10 minutes later, somebody attaches a provision to a farm subsidy bill that says these records can be used by RIAA and MPAA to discover copyright abuse with no warrant because "users have no expectations of privacy on the internet" and POOF all those protections are gone.
Well, you are talking about an industry that wants to sue it's customers so they'll, ummm, respect them. Or something like that. They haven't actually said.
I always thought a perfect use of the p2p networks was to place low-bitrate files (128kb/s mp3's) with bumpers around announcing the artist. They could talk over them like a DJ. The point is that they get the songs out there as an advertisement to either buy the CD or download a CD quality file. They could do like they used to do and have an album version and a radio version (shorter), except that it would be a p2p version.
Get it on social networks, p2p networks, it would be the same as listening to the radio. It would build artist loyalty, it would get the record companies out of the payola business, it would let them more easily turn a profit on marginal acts because you can narrowcast this stuff. If I can think that stuff up, imagine what somebody who really had a stake in it could do.
But I'm convinced they're so worried about next quarter's profits that they can't build for the future. Oh well. Maybe someboy will be adventurous enough to try it.
"Anyone who watches any reality TV show has no room to talk."
Perhaps you're right.
On the other hand, the reality show only soaks up an hour a week.
"European" is not a race.
The only race in Europe worth mentioning is the Nurburgring. And that hasn't been the same ever since they made it so short. Note, however, this was not the fault of the EU, nor was it done to protect children.
Actually, the burden should have been on Jack to prove that this game would cause a nuisance.
Let's put it in perspective...
The game (if it's ever released) would be released nationally. So if you're the judge, you'd have to say "Jack, there is no game released called 'Bully'. You claim some company will release such a game. What evidence do you have that it will create a nuisance".
Jack would have to say "Well, none your honor. I've never seen the game, but I've heard about it"
And the judge would say "Well Jack, that's interesting, so you're saying you read about something that may or may not bother you, but you're taking up the court's time to try to interfere with a video game that isn't for sale"
I think you're missing my point. The judge simply was not in a legal position to judge this thing yet. He would be after the game was released, but not until then release. If I didn't know any better, I'd say the makers of the game hired Jack for some free publicity.
The PS2 killed it.
The Dreamcast really had it all at launch. Sony froze the market by talking about the PS2 which would have the best of everything. People forget the level of hype for the PS2 over a year before launch. Remember how the PS2 was to have graphics like Toy Story, but in real time? (BTW, Sony is making that claim for the new PS3 as well. Did Toy Story get better animation?)
The PS1 was already popular, people figured they'd wait a few months and get the new PS2 instead. And Sega was bleeding cash, so they couldn't hang on for 2 years while it took off.
What I can say is the games that were out were really good.
Sue people until profits are restored.
I like it. It's catchy, people will fear you. Seriously.
The judge wasn't asked to rule if this game was obscene, and the Jack wasn't claiming it was. In any event, the game was not yet published (and is not published), so how can he judge rule on it?
"Would that be so bad really?"
I don't watch much television, but that's my business, nobody else's, and in general, you should be able to do what you want. If you think it's bad for your 3 year old, then don't let them watch it.
Why do you think it's the government's job to regulate or ban things you or I don't like? I really don't understand.
"That is what judges do, judge things."
Not really. And if he's doing his job, he throws it out because the judge is smart enough to know that there's nothing there to rule on!
Let me give an example. If I'm writing a book, and I tell people that's a revisionist view of WW2 with the Germans as the "good guys", and my neighbor objects, he can't go to a judge and say "Your honor, he is writing a book that offends me and likely offends this community. Make him stop." Well he can. But do you think the judge would say to me "Sir, give me a copy of your manuscript so I can 'judge' it"?
No, he wouldn't for a lot of reasons:
1) I'm allowed to write books that offend
2) I'm allowed to be wrong
3) And until I actually publish it, the judge couldn't ask me to stop writing it just because it might offend someone.
4) Even if I published it, he still can't do anything about it because it's not his job to review books.
I'm guessing that the judge would likely say something like "Sir, stop bothering this court with nonsense". And that's what the judge should have done in this case. It was not his right to review the game. Just like it isn't the judge's right to review books, or movies, or magazines, or anything like that.
You could file a complaint with the FCC after it aired, but the FCC isn't actually a "judge"; it's part of the executive branch that determines if something is not suitable (a power that I don't agree with, BTW). The FCC's only power deals with something already aired on "broadcast" TV. It has no power over say, a movie, a video game, or a book. It doesn't even have power over a TV show unless it's shown on particular frequencies.
In any case you couldn't complain about an upcoming episode of CSI to anybody. Why would you grant that power to a judge in the case of a video game? That's my point. The judge should have simply said "this is not even available, you haven't seen it, so how could you bring a complaint to me when even YOU haven't seen it? Case dismissed"
That would have been 30 seconds of time. About right for this one.
"This attitude is not prudent since all the broadcast networks tend toward the lowest common denominator of what they can get away with. Eventially there will be no channel to change to for "family" programming."
I didn't realize there was a right to family programming? If there isn't any stuff you feel is suitable, then get rid of your antenna or cable box. Poof. The stuff disappears. Please understand, I agree that TV is not suitable for kids except for very specific shows. But I don't really think I have the right to demand family entertainment from a commercial entity. Seriously.
So you're saying that if you wanted to sue CBS because you thought CSI was too graphic, you should be able to file a motion, and CSI would have to submit a TV show and the judge would look at a show and decide if it was okay?
Go ahead try that and let me know how it works out for you...
It promotes violence, but within the game. But so what?
...and even if that were true, it's not up to judges to make the choices that would make that illegal. Presumably, that would be up to the legislature who would have to pass laws that are constitutional.
I think you'll be hard-pressed to somehow say that people who make violent choices in video games transfer that to real life.
I'll assume that we'd rather not have judges making stuff up as they go along.