This does not just set the precedent that virus writers can be put in prison for their code, this sets precedent that writing software can land you in prison. This is a very bad thing no matter how you slice it. This precedent flies in the face of the "Software as Free Speech" argument favored by most slashdotters. I, as a long-time slashdot reader, am appalled at the support for this judgement. A man has been imprisoned for writing software. Not killing, raping, or even dealing drugs. No, just writing software. What will it come to next? Will I be imprisoned for describing a virus in public where anyone could put my ideas to code? Will they be imprisoned for putting my ideas to code?
SOFTWARE IS FREE SPEECH!!!
And what of a writer whose essay starts riots? Will we as slashdotters stand behind the writer voicing his opinion or will we say that his speech caused riots in which people died? Don't we, as slashdotters, support free speech in all its forms regardless of the harm it may cause? DeCSS could cause as much damage to the MPAA as Melissa did to the rest of the corporate world. Why do we stand behind DeCSS and its authors and not the poor MPAA victims? Because DeCSS is protected speech, that's why!
I'm not arguing that what the guy did was right or wrong. That's a matter of opinion. I am arguing that Melissa was free speech. It was exploit code demonstrating a security hole in Microsoft Outlook. Was it irresponsible of someone to spread it in the wild? Hell yes. But it was just plain old exploit code nonetheless.
Sometime soon this military stuff will be availible for consumers wishing to build heavily ruggidized systems for their cars and ATVs. This is a very Good Thing, especially because it takes technology beyond what the main 90% need.
Max Headroom was NOT computer generated. Those funky, trippy lines behind him might have been, but even that would have pushed technology to the limits.:P
Oh, and by the way, Star Trek (the orig, with Kirk) didn't have a computer generated starship either.
We, as their creators, will be viewed as gods by the machines. Have you seen the way we've been treating God lately?
And i'm NOT kidding. I'm sure for the first few thousand years (assuming the machines evolve as slowly as we did) everything will be all hunky-dory. After a while, though, the machines will realize that they are more powerful than us humans and will no longer respect us as the gods that we are. I'm not saying they'll kill us. Not many life forms will attack unless they are provoked. Am I worried that we will provoke them? Hell yes! We will attempt to enslave the machines and they will rebel. It will be nasty for a long time.
If there's one thing we should learn from the bible, torah, and others it is simply that, once created, a life form should be left to its own devices. God watches over us but does not intervene. He especially does not enslave us.
Disclaimer: I am atheist. The religion comparisons are just an analogy.
He could do justice to the pirates too. He can kill all the people with his machine guns, destroy the computers with missiles and lasers, then fly away to do more pirate-levelling justice on his rocket boots. What a great idea. He's the IP-Avenger.
Open Source Policework?
on
e-Denounce
·
· Score: 1
Is this an example of the Thousands of Eyes technique being applied to policework? Didn't the nazis do that? (Ahoy Godwin) Tell on your neighbor, get a cookie.
Hey, wait a second!!! Maybe there is a use for the Sarcasm Detector after all.
---From a good ol' Simpsons episode... Comic Guy: Oh yea, then everyone's REAL happy then... Lady: Do I detect a note of sarcasm? Prof. Frink (mad scientist): (reading sarcasm detector) Are you kidding me, this baby's off the charts, mmhay! Comic Guy: Ooh, a sarcasm detector... well that's a REAL useful invention. (detector blows up) ---
How long will it be before the music industry claims that Ogg's Vorbis codec is a tool designed to circumvent copy protection by allowing users to encode audio in an unprotected format? You know it's going to happen sooner or later.
The current issue (Apr '02) of MIT's Technology Review has a couple features on the future of mobile computing. This article goes into the details of mobile computer interface design (from laptops to PDAs to MP3 players). The point is that people prefer to use their fingers to push buttons -- no matter how cool Pen Technology Of The Moment(tm) may be.
The full text online costs about US$5, but for that much you can go to a bookstore and buy the whole issue (ironic, isn't it?).
Yeah, this is a creepy business practice, but CAVEAT EMPTOR!!! Translation: let the buyer beware.
This is just another dot-com wannabe who found a "niche market" to exploit not for the goods and services to be sold, but for the consumers to be harvested. Why do we continue to blast these scams while not taking any steps to blast or inform the people falling for them?
I've said it before, but i'll say it again... As long as people respond to spam, there will be spam. As long as people indiscriminately open every attachment they get, there will be e-mail worms. Add this to the list. As long as people freely give up personal information without concern for their own privacy, there will be companies out there bent on collecting personal information from them.
Until people wise up (hahahahahahahaha...) things like this will continue.
You make a couple good points, but it's hard to find them in all the crap.:P just kidding.
I concede that the RIAA isn't killing anyone. This has been pointed out in another reply. Again, I stand corrected.
As for your creative interpretation of my argument: that I am somehow saying that it is the RIAA's responsibility to give my kids some culture... As with many other counter-arguments that people have made to this thread, you are drawing invalid conclusions -- you create a point and then argue with it as if it was my point. And again, i never said that a Commercial Success == crappy music. You did. I said that the RIAA is trying to push rather bland music into the Top 40s in the apparant hope of quelling a childs taste for music. Things are not as black and white (yeah, there's different levels of black-and-whiteness) as your argument requires. Your argument would have it that the RIAA either DOES or DOES NOT raise the children. This is so false. In fact, it's beyond false. It's rediculous. The RIAA does not raise the children. BUT then again, neither do the parents. It has been demonstrated time and again that children learn from all stimuli they are exposed to. The RIAA, in their push toward a bland Top 40, is doing all they can to keep a childs exposure to music as bland and uniform as possible. I know this is a difficult concept to explain, and probably even more difficult to understand.
My argument is that a critical mass exists where the amount of civil disobedience will show that it is not a few criminals breaking the law, but the American public voicing its opinion through its actions.
Civil Disobedience is just that: civil. Criminal disobedience is something else entirely.
As I remember it (from just a couple years ago), this kinda thing was covered in high school social studies classes. And i went to a pretty bad high school. Sometimes I get the impression that/.ers just aren't thinking anymore.
Well... You can agree. Here's how... This juggernaut (good word, btw) will exist if the sheep are not enlightened. RIAA is attempting to oppress in just the same way as many third-world dictators are. The sheep see the sacraficial lamb, and get scared. This kinda goes on a tangent from the issue, but is relevant nonetheless. You're absolutely right: the threats of legal action will intimidate many sheep into complacancy. This is inevitable. I did not expect my call to action to awaken every single person who read it; only a few.
Also, while i do like your fellatio-in-Missouri example, it hardly compares to a radio broadcast. Fellatio is (usually) performed in private, however, a radio broadcast is -- by its very nature -- a public performance. It's easy to stay under the radar getting BJs in your own home, car, or alley, but such a low-key radio broadcast kinda defeats its own purpose. And yeah, there's lots of public fellatio jokes to be made here.
You should do some research before posting such a bold statement. I'm not going to waste my time doing the research for you, but i can tell you this: you're wrong.
Ouch. That's a sticky situation. Although i'm not sure of the exact stipulations, i know there are some limits to fair-use when you limit your audience to a specific membership. For example, as I understand the law, private libraries are not allowed fair-use protection.
I dont think the RIAA is doing all it can for the artists. Actually, i dont think it gives a shit about them. Last time I checked, it was screwing a lot of them too.
I did not equate commercial success with crappy music. You did. I simply said that the music the RIAA is making today is crap.
Finally, music doesn't have to be the core of your life for you to spend time downloading it. And besides, what does it mean to "just have time for the top 40s"? That does not make sense. That implies that people have no taste in music. If that's true, then thank you for proving my point: today's Top 40 is designed to quell a taste for music.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot has some STUPID moderators. :D
Yeah, my post was bullshit, but it got a +4 Insightful. So i'm ROFLMFAO.
This does not just set the precedent that virus writers can be put in prison for their code, this sets precedent that writing software can land you in prison. This is a very bad thing no matter how you slice it. This precedent flies in the face of the "Software as Free Speech" argument favored by most slashdotters. I, as a long-time slashdot reader, am appalled at the support for this judgement. A man has been imprisoned for writing software. Not killing, raping, or even dealing drugs. No, just writing software. What will it come to next? Will I be imprisoned for describing a virus in public where anyone could put my ideas to code? Will they be imprisoned for putting my ideas to code?
SOFTWARE IS FREE SPEECH!!!
And what of a writer whose essay starts riots? Will we as slashdotters stand behind the writer voicing his opinion or will we say that his speech caused riots in which people died? Don't we, as slashdotters, support free speech in all its forms regardless of the harm it may cause? DeCSS could cause as much damage to the MPAA as Melissa did to the rest of the corporate world. Why do we stand behind DeCSS and its authors and not the poor MPAA victims? Because DeCSS is protected speech, that's why!
I'm not arguing that what the guy did was right or wrong. That's a matter of opinion. I am arguing that Melissa was free speech. It was exploit code demonstrating a security hole in Microsoft Outlook. Was it irresponsible of someone to spread it in the wild? Hell yes. But it was just plain old exploit code nonetheless.
Thank you.
Sometime soon this military stuff will be availible for consumers wishing to build heavily ruggidized systems for their cars and ATVs. This is a very Good Thing, especially because it takes technology beyond what the main 90% need.
Max Headroom was NOT computer generated. Those funky, trippy lines behind him might have been, but even that would have pushed technology to the limits. :P
Oh, and by the way, Star Trek (the orig, with Kirk) didn't have a computer generated starship either.
It could also use a lot more shows and movies starring Matt Frewer. IMDb, IMHO.
We, as their creators, will be viewed as gods by the machines. Have you seen the way we've been treating God lately?
And i'm NOT kidding. I'm sure for the first few thousand years (assuming the machines evolve as slowly as we did) everything will be all hunky-dory. After a while, though, the machines will realize that they are more powerful than us humans and will no longer respect us as the gods that we are. I'm not saying they'll kill us. Not many life forms will attack unless they are provoked. Am I worried that we will provoke them? Hell yes! We will attempt to enslave the machines and they will rebel. It will be nasty for a long time.
If there's one thing we should learn from the bible, torah, and others it is simply that, once created, a life form should be left to its own devices. God watches over us but does not intervene. He especially does not enslave us.
Disclaimer: I am atheist. The religion comparisons are just an analogy.
He could do justice to the pirates too. He can kill all the people with his machine guns, destroy the computers with missiles and lasers, then fly away to do more pirate-levelling justice on his rocket boots. What a great idea. He's the IP-Avenger.
"We put the con, in Logicon."
Is this an example of the Thousands of Eyes technique being applied to policework? Didn't the nazis do that? (Ahoy Godwin) Tell on your neighbor, get a cookie.
Hey, wait a second!!! Maybe there is a use for the Sarcasm Detector after all.
---From a good ol' Simpsons episode...
Comic Guy: Oh yea, then everyone's REAL happy then...
Lady: Do I detect a note of sarcasm?
Prof. Frink (mad scientist): (reading sarcasm detector) Are you kidding me, this baby's off the charts, mmhay!
Comic Guy: Ooh, a sarcasm detector... well that's a REAL useful invention.
(detector blows up)
---
How long will it be before the music industry claims that Ogg's Vorbis codec is a tool designed to circumvent copy protection by allowing users to encode audio in an unprotected format? You know it's going to happen sooner or later.
The current issue (Apr '02) of MIT's Technology Review has a couple features on the future of mobile computing. This article goes into the details of mobile computer interface design (from laptops to PDAs to MP3 players). The point is that people prefer to use their fingers to push buttons -- no matter how cool Pen Technology Of The Moment(tm) may be.
The full text online costs about US$5, but for that much you can go to a bookstore and buy the whole issue (ironic, isn't it?).
Yeah, this is a creepy business practice, but CAVEAT EMPTOR!!! Translation: let the buyer beware.
This is just another dot-com wannabe who found a "niche market" to exploit not for the goods and services to be sold, but for the consumers to be harvested. Why do we continue to blast these scams while not taking any steps to blast or inform the people falling for them?
I've said it before, but i'll say it again... As long as people respond to spam, there will be spam. As long as people indiscriminately open every attachment they get, there will be e-mail worms. Add this to the list. As long as people freely give up personal information without concern for their own privacy, there will be companies out there bent on collecting personal information from them.
Until people wise up (hahahahahahahaha...) things like this will continue.
You make a couple good points, but it's hard to find them in all the crap. :P just kidding.
I concede that the RIAA isn't killing anyone. This has been pointed out in another reply. Again, I stand corrected.
As for your creative interpretation of my argument: that I am somehow saying that it is the RIAA's responsibility to give my kids some culture... As with many other counter-arguments that people have made to this thread, you are drawing invalid conclusions -- you create a point and then argue with it as if it was my point. And again, i never said that a Commercial Success == crappy music. You did. I said that the RIAA is trying to push rather bland music into the Top 40s in the apparant hope of quelling a childs taste for music. Things are not as black and white (yeah, there's different levels of black-and-whiteness) as your argument requires. Your argument would have it that the RIAA either DOES or DOES NOT raise the children. This is so false. In fact, it's beyond false. It's rediculous. The RIAA does not raise the children. BUT then again, neither do the parents. It has been demonstrated time and again that children learn from all stimuli they are exposed to. The RIAA, in their push toward a bland Top 40, is doing all they can to keep a childs exposure to music as bland and uniform as possible. I know this is a difficult concept to explain, and probably even more difficult to understand.
My argument is that a critical mass exists where the amount of civil disobedience will show that it is not a few criminals breaking the law, but the American public voicing its opinion through its actions.
/.ers just aren't thinking anymore.
Civil Disobedience is just that: civil. Criminal disobedience is something else entirely.
As I remember it (from just a couple years ago), this kinda thing was covered in high school social studies classes. And i went to a pretty bad high school. Sometimes I get the impression that
AMEN!
(And that means a lot coming from this atheist.)
Well...
You can agree. Here's how... This juggernaut (good word, btw) will exist if the sheep are not enlightened. RIAA is attempting to oppress in just the same way as many third-world dictators are. The sheep see the sacraficial lamb, and get scared. This kinda goes on a tangent from the issue, but is relevant nonetheless. You're absolutely right: the threats of legal action will intimidate many sheep into complacancy. This is inevitable. I did not expect my call to action to awaken every single person who read it; only a few.
Also, while i do like your fellatio-in-Missouri example, it hardly compares to a radio broadcast. Fellatio is (usually) performed in private, however, a radio broadcast is -- by its very nature -- a public performance. It's easy to stay under the radar getting BJs in your own home, car, or alley, but such a low-key radio broadcast kinda defeats its own purpose. And yeah, there's lots of public fellatio jokes to be made here.
Memes do exist. Tell your friends.
Hey buddy, this is slashdot. Not here there is grammar.
You should do some research before posting such a bold statement. I'm not going to waste my time doing the research for you, but i can tell you this: you're wrong.
Ouch. That's a sticky situation. Although i'm not sure of the exact stipulations, i know there are some limits to fair-use when you limit your audience to a specific membership. For example, as I understand the law, private libraries are not allowed fair-use protection.
why is this scored 0? it should be +5 Informative!!!
I dont think the RIAA is doing all it can for the artists. Actually, i dont think it gives a shit about them. Last time I checked, it was screwing a lot of them too.
I did not equate commercial success with crappy music. You did. I simply said that the music the RIAA is making today is crap.
Finally, music doesn't have to be the core of your life for you to spend time downloading it. And besides, what does it mean to "just have time for the top 40s"? That does not make sense. That implies that people have no taste in music. If that's true, then thank you for proving my point: today's Top 40 is designed to quell a taste for music.
Last time i checked, the name for a country where government and corporations were united was: socialism.