Every highly moderated post so far has been some sci-fi or fantasy author. Yes, some of these authors probably will be read in fifty years, but not nearly as much as the "great" writers of the 20th century. A good corollary is music. Sure, people will still be listening to Black Sabbath and King Crimson in fifty years, but not nearly as many as will be listening to The Beatles and Bob Dylan. Why? Because that's the way music criticism has been running for the last thirty years, and it is showing no signs of changing directions. In order to understand why authors are still read fifty years after, you have to look at the critical direction. This shapes what is talked about, which shapes what is read, which shapes what is known in the future.
So I would say that in fifty years the most widely read authors of the 20th century will be:
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Ernest Hemingway
Vladimir Nabokov
T.S. Eliot
James Joyce
And probably a few others I've missed. This is the way modern criticism is shaping up, and, personally, I like it this way. Then again, a few of these could be dropped and a few added in the coming years. F. Scott Fitzgerald was not overly popular in his own time, and only became well respected when he was rediscovered in the late forties. Likewise, Shelley was practically worshipped as the greatest romantic poet for much of the 19th century, but his standing dropped dramatically with the "new criticism" of the early 20th century. This has already happened to a degree with Hemingway as he is now regarded as a bit sexist.
So yeah, some S/F is worthwhile and will be read in the future (I'd point to Dune and and LotR)...but the above authors will almost unquestionably be read.
You forget that, in the long run, 3^x dominates 2^x. Hence, if your theory about exponential growth is correct, then, given enough time, trenary computing will kick binary computing's ass!
Unfortunately, businesses don't often think in terms of the long run. So this kind of stuff will probably get done at Universities for a while, or maybe at places like IBM. But if it really is/that/ much better, businesses won't be able to ignore this...or else they won't be there in the long run.
I bought my Dell Dimension 4100 about this time last year. Thinking I was going to use it for video editing, and massive MP3 storage, I got the biggest available drive at that time, a 75 GB IBM drive. Witin a few months of receiving the computer I began to hear horrible grinding noises every time I used it. I ran some tests under both Linux and Windows and both told me that about half the drive was corrupted. After a few weeks of convincing tech support, I finally got them to send me a new drive. I installed this and it worked fine...for about 3 months. Then I had the exact same problems and, again, half the drive was corrupted. They finally sent me a third drive at the beginning of the summer and, so far, I've had no problems. Unfortunately, Dell refused to send me a different drive, even if it was smaller.
Admittedly, I could just be in a very statistically insignficant group...but two drives? And then all these other complaints I'm hearing?
Looking on the bright side, I now know way more about both Linux and Windows installation!
As C++ has recently been standardized and is very widely used in application development a library should probably have some reference work for it. Personally I prefer the definitive guide: Bjarne Strousoup's "The C++ Programming Language". The Special Edition is even better since it has extra appendices and is a hardback, for only $10 more.
Since it's generally a very bad idea for a beginner to start with C++, you might want to get some beginner Java books instead. Java's a better beginner language because it doesn't have the C clutter of C++ and because you don't have to mess with pointers. Finally, Java's better than C++ for the beginner because it has a free, easy to use, compiler for all platforms (many beginners will/not/ be running Linux) and many beginners will appreciate the ability to use Java in their webpages (that's where many beginners get their start, in HTML).
Of course this is not to deprecate C at all (though I would still recommend Java over C for the beginner) it's just that K&R has already been mentioned, and what else do you need?
Then again, if you're worried about some fad like C or C++ getting outdated too quickly you might want to check this out.
While "Planet of the Apes" unquestionably has one of the most shocking endings ever printed on celluloid, it's not the alone. For an equally shocking ending check out the classic 1980's comedy "Being There" with Peter Sellers. In it, Sellers plays a gardener who has lived his entire life with no human contact - except the constantly present television. However, he is forced out into the real world and somehow finds himself in the highest echelons of society, meeting the President and, unknowingly, describing the countries finances with simple gardening metaphors. (it makes sense in the movie!)
Anyway, at the end of the movie, at the funeral of Sellers' rich benefactor, he wanders off into the woods nearby. As we watch him play amid the trees, the politicoes at the funeral agree that he should be the next President. And then, the incredible happens, Sellers walks up to a lake...and walks across it, walking on the water. Anyone who has seen this film will agree that it's one of the most surpising and effective endings in film.
(And then there's the both surprising and uneffective ending of AI.)
The 2001 rerelease date was originally scheduled for December 31, 2000. This was in accordance with Kubrick's wishes as stated in the Hollywood Reporter on March 11, 1999. Now Warner Brothers is letting everybody down by 'pushing back' the rerelease date to Spring 2001. Any negative publicity this decision can get is good. There is no doubt, absolutely no doubt, that if Kubrick was still alive this would not happen. As a staunch Kubrick follower, I must spread the word to at least voice my disapproval.
Doesn't this title remind you of the classic film, and the time that inspired it, "The Graduate"? "Plastics, kid, that's where all the money is; I'm telling you!"
In a similar way, electronics are the plastics of today. They've been the holy grail of investors for the past decade as well as the dream job of many of today's youth. Perhaps a similar conclusion will be drawn about electronics, thirty years from now. Today if an 18 year old told their parents they weren't going to college but would instead start off at $20 an hour at a start up many, but not all, parents would be happy. And yet in 30 years, when a large portion of the American economy will probably be dedicated to creating 'virtual' products (Be it through actual coding or through content generation) will it be the same 'glamour job' that it is today? One of my History Profs continually reminds us that at the beginning of the century Auto-mechanics were looked upon as 'glamour jobs.' Perhaps a similar effect will occur with computers.
Sorry if this drifted off topic...I just liked the graduate reference and kept going!
Re:Freenet really needs the support of the communi
on
Freenet 0.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
Wow, doesn't that comment fulfill all the requirements for karma whorage? Stick together...linux rules...'kindle the same passion for a secure and safe internet'...OSS is incredibly efficient and all around awesome. Not to mention his comment! I know I trust ESR with my life...
I tried to put a team together for this thing. They thought we'd use some weird blend of Python, Java and Lisp. Somehow that didn't quite mesh with my plan to grind INTERCAL, Befunge and Assembly into a coarse grind which only the few, the proud, the Real Programmers could stomach. Ah yes, the aroma of code rot...
This article at MSN talks about how Gnutella won't succeed because--in order to make money--they'll have to introduce some 'friction', thus replacing the record companies as the middle man. Just think, GNU making money?
While the author makes a few interesting points this article is what you what expect from a comp-sci student who's been detached from the reality of computing for years. While his 'life-streams' migth potentially sound good on paper how would you ever model this? He makes the analogy of how the brain accesses information. However, the brain takes one word like 'Fifth-Avenue' and then takes into accoutn a large amount of sub-concious knowledge to find exactly the resutl you're searching for. On a computer, on the other hand, you would need to figure out all this subconcious information (date, time, relationships of information) to get what you're looking for. It's just like any other find command. Of course the obvious solution to this would be neural implants, but by the time we have something of a quality sufficient to do that all of his ideas will be obsolete!
This also brings a whole new dimension to virus 'software'. I can just see it: every computer is shipped with a preinstalled bio mass that feeds on electric current; genetically engineered to exude an antivirul odor.
Also brings a whole new dimension to office angst. Imagine the loss in production solely due to the smell...;-) And of course employies hacking their boxes to turn it off...and putting all the hacked units in the boss' system
I've read a few articles recently about how some developers see the future of the web in flash. Do you think the web will eventually become mostly flash (or some other vectorign program) oriented or do you see it remaining under the current HTML system. It seems to me that with the increasing public use of the web and their acquisition of bandwidth many of the more popular sites will turn to flash to spice things up. Personally, i can't stand the damn thing, what's your opinion?
Sorry, but IMAO I think you're reading way too much into The Matrix. If the movie was meant to be anything more than a superficial action thriller they would've written good dialog; instead, they wrote 'whoa.' It's the same sort of thing several people have done with Star Wars. Star Wars is simply a space opera, the 'philosophy' of the force is great and high sounding but totally without material. Lucas simply wrote it to make some money. As to the philosophy of The Matrix: yes, it does *seem* to raise some interesting questions...but, once again IMAO, I heavily doubt the writers were thinking any more beyond the usefulness of it for the moment. 'The body can not live without the mind' was most likely simply a cheap cop out that allowed the writers a way to continue the plot element.
I'll admit that I have no formal philosophical training, nor would I ever claim to. However, the idea that 'The Matrix' is some great philosophical treatise is simply wishful thinking; it's like looking for deeper meaning in a Horatio Algiers novel. Sure, it was great fun, but it was written for the buck, not for the intellectual.
In closing I will admit that there is a non-zero possibility that 'The Matrix' does have a deep meaning. In fact my initial feeling after leaving the movie was 'Wow, that was a pretty cool idea until the directors suddenly remembered they had to make money and threw in the fighting at the end.' I think it could've been much better, though it probably wouldn't have made as much money.
At least I'm not posting as an anonymous coward, hypocrite. And as to why it's misspelled: you tryin getting muaddib@insertfreemailname.com. I have mauddib for three reasons:
1. the e-mail was open. 2. It was misspelled on the blurb of my book. 3. I was told it was Maud'Dib, argued about it saying it was Muad'Dib. I checked my book, it was Maud'Dib, so I stayed with what I had. I'm not changing after a year.
You're taking stuff from TNG. TNG was ok, TOS was great. Nothing will ever compare to TOS. Admittedly, they copped out a ton but TOS still grades as some of the best televised sci-fi in the regard. Try doing it only one hour...with a very low budget...in that timeframe. damn
Star Trek has been in a steady decline ever since the end of TNG. Deep Space Nine, while entertaining, just didn't live up to the Star Trek legend. The thing I always loved most about Star Trek was that it was real science fiction. It wasn't the ray gun popsci that Star Wars, nor the '2 hour long music video' that The Matrix was. Instead, Star Trek chose to concentrate much more on the philosophical and human implications of a highly advanced future. Episodes like 'The City on the Edge of Forever' will never leave me. After all these years 'The Wrath of Kahn' still sends chills down my spine...
And here is the problem which Paramount is only exacerbating in a desperate attempt to save the franchise. DS9 was dying: solution throw in a huge war story arc and Ezri Dax. Voyager's always had problems, mostly because of poor beginning charachter development. Solution: Seven of Nine. Did Either of these solve the basic problem? My resounding answer is NO! They only upped ratings a bit, they did not attempt to fix the inherrent flaws.
If this new series is to succeed Paramount is going to have get back to the basics. They need to plan it well from the beginning to avoid the poor charachters which have plagued Voyager. And, most importantly, bring in some good writers. They need to search the sci-fi genre and pay good money to good writers. If they could bring together a group of some of the best writers of today (David Brin, Orson Scott Card, Neal Stephenson to name a few) to just start the series and get some good original ideas it would be much more likely to succeed. It might be too late, but Star Trek seems to be the only way to get good Sci-Fi into mainstream television these days.
I tried to put in the whole quote but I think it's a bit too big for Slashdot's sigs. Sorry if maybe I don't spend all my time changing sig files, I guess I just have more useful things to do...
And in case you don't know it's from DUNE by Frank Herbert, quite simply the greatest science fiction book ever written. Check it out.
As I see it there is one primary problem in how many have chosen to deal with DeCSS. Whether it's constitutional or not the DMCA has provisions reading (this is from the judge's ruling):
"No person shall . . . offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any technology . . . that---
"(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act];
"(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act]; or
"(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act].''10
Portion C of this is most important. Most of the activities of the open source community thus far have been to disseminate the code as widely as possible, this is only hurting the case. By publicly flaunting the law--printing the code on t-shirts etc--many persons have made it look like the original intent of DeCSS was to pirate. No matter what the defendants might say now it is almost impossible to prove to a judge that the true motives behind spreading the code were to play DVDs in Linux. In fact I personally don't believe that was the motive of most of the people posting the code, they were just trying to flaunt the system; all fine and dandy until the system catches up.
If the community had chosen to deal with DeCSS as it was origninally intended I have to think we would have a much better chance of winning the case.
I propose an open dare, attack Slashdot with a DDoS attack. Then Slashdot will open source the information collected while underattack and see if the open source community can't catch the perpetraitors. I'm sure just a few of Open Source's best could catch these packet monkeys given enough time, imagine what the whole movement could do!
As I see it there is one primary problem in how many have chosen to deal with DeCSS. Whether it's constitutional or not the DMCA has provisions reading (this is from the judge's ruling):
"No person shall . . . offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any technology . . . that--- "(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act]; "(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act]; or "(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act].''10
Portion C of this is most important. Most of the activities of the open source community thus far have been to disseminate the code as widely as possible, this is only hurting the case. By publicly flaunting the law--printing the code on t-shirts etc--many persons have made it look like the original intent of DeCSS was to pirate. No matter what the defendants might say now it is almost impossible to prove to a judge that the true motives behind spreading the code were to play DVDs in Linux. In fact I personally don't believe that was the motive of most of the people posting the code, they were just trying to flaunt the system; all fine and dandy until the system catches up. If the community had chosen to deal with DeCSS as it was origninally intended I have to think we would have a much better chance of winning the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Every highly moderated post so far has been some sci-fi or fantasy author. Yes, some of these authors probably will be read in fifty years, but not nearly as much as the "great" writers of the 20th century. A good corollary is music. Sure, people will still be listening to Black Sabbath and King Crimson in fifty years, but not nearly as many as will be listening to The Beatles and Bob Dylan. Why? Because that's the way music criticism has been running for the last thirty years, and it is showing no signs of changing directions. In order to understand why authors are still read fifty years after, you have to look at the critical direction. This shapes what is talked about, which shapes what is read, which shapes what is known in the future.
So I would say that in fifty years the most widely read authors of the 20th century will be:
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Ernest Hemingway
Vladimir Nabokov
T.S. Eliot
James Joyce
And probably a few others I've missed. This is the way modern criticism is shaping up, and, personally, I like it this way. Then again, a few of these could be dropped and a few added in the coming years. F. Scott Fitzgerald was not overly popular in his own time, and only became well respected when he was rediscovered in the late forties. Likewise, Shelley was practically worshipped as the greatest romantic poet for much of the 19th century, but his standing dropped dramatically with the "new criticism" of the early 20th century. This has already happened to a degree with Hemingway as he is now regarded as a bit sexist.
So yeah, some S/F is worthwhile and will be read in the future (I'd point to Dune and and LotR)...but the above authors will almost unquestionably be read.
You forget that, in the long run, 3^x dominates 2^x. Hence, if your theory about exponential growth is correct, then, given enough time, trenary computing will kick binary computing's ass!
/that/ much better, businesses won't be able to ignore this...or else they won't be there in the long run.
Unfortunately, businesses don't often think in terms of the long run. So this kind of stuff will probably get done at Universities for a while, or maybe at places like IBM. But if it really is
I bought my Dell Dimension 4100 about this time last year. Thinking I was going to use it for video editing, and massive MP3 storage, I got the biggest available drive at that time, a 75 GB IBM drive. Witin a few months of receiving the computer I began to hear horrible grinding noises every time I used it. I ran some tests under both Linux and Windows and both told me that about half the drive was corrupted. After a few weeks of convincing tech support, I finally got them to send me a new drive. I installed this and it worked fine...for about 3 months. Then I had the exact same problems and, again, half the drive was corrupted. They finally sent me a third drive at the beginning of the summer and, so far, I've had no problems. Unfortunately, Dell refused to send me a different drive, even if it was smaller.
Admittedly, I could just be in a very statistically insignficant group...but two drives? And then all these other complaints I'm hearing?
Looking on the bright side, I now know way more about both Linux and Windows installation!
As C++ has recently been standardized and is very widely used in application development a library should probably have some reference work for it. Personally I prefer the definitive guide: Bjarne Strousoup's "The C++ Programming Language". The Special Edition is even better since it has extra appendices and is a hardback, for only $10 more.
/not/ be running Linux) and many beginners will appreciate the ability to use Java in their webpages (that's where many beginners get their start, in HTML).
Since it's generally a very bad idea for a beginner to start with C++, you might want to get some beginner Java books instead. Java's a better beginner language because it doesn't have the C clutter of C++ and because you don't have to mess with pointers. Finally, Java's better than C++ for the beginner because it has a free, easy to use, compiler for all platforms (many beginners will
Of course this is not to deprecate C at all (though I would still recommend Java over C for the beginner) it's just that K&R has already been mentioned, and what else do you need?
Then again, if you're worried about some fad like C or C++ getting outdated too quickly you might want to check this out.
While "Planet of the Apes" unquestionably has one of the most shocking endings ever printed on celluloid, it's not the alone. For an equally shocking ending check out the classic 1980's comedy "Being There" with Peter Sellers. In it, Sellers plays a gardener who has lived his entire life with no human contact - except the constantly present television. However, he is forced out into the real world and somehow finds himself in the highest echelons of society, meeting the President and, unknowingly, describing the countries finances with simple gardening metaphors. (it makes sense in the movie!)
Anyway, at the end of the movie, at the funeral of Sellers' rich benefactor, he wanders off into the woods nearby. As we watch him play amid the trees, the politicoes at the funeral agree that he should be the next President. And then, the incredible happens, Sellers walks up to a lake...and walks across it, walking on the water. Anyone who has seen this film will agree that it's one of the most surpising and effective endings in film.
(And then there's the both surprising and uneffective ending of AI.)
Why not just use everything2? It's a perfect medium to generate such a database.
The 2001 rerelease date was originally scheduled for December 31, 2000. This was in accordance with Kubrick's wishes as stated in the Hollywood Reporter on March 11, 1999. Now Warner Brothers is letting everybody down by 'pushing back' the rerelease date to Spring 2001. Any negative publicity this decision can get is good. There is no doubt, absolutely no doubt, that if Kubrick was still alive this would not happen. As a staunch Kubrick follower, I must spread the word to at least voice my disapproval.
Doesn't this title remind you of the classic film, and the time that inspired it, "The Graduate"? "Plastics, kid, that's where all the money is; I'm telling you!"
In a similar way, electronics are the plastics of today. They've been the holy grail of investors for the past decade as well as the dream job of many of today's youth. Perhaps a similar conclusion will be drawn about electronics, thirty years from now. Today if an 18 year old told their parents they weren't going to college but would instead start off at $20 an hour at a start up many, but not all, parents would be happy. And yet in 30 years, when a large portion of the American economy will probably be dedicated to creating 'virtual' products (Be it through actual coding or through content generation) will it be the same 'glamour job' that it is today? One of my History Profs continually reminds us that at the beginning of the century Auto-mechanics were looked upon as 'glamour jobs.' Perhaps a similar effect will occur with computers.
Sorry if this drifted off topic...I just liked the graduate reference and kept going!
Wow, doesn't that comment fulfill all the requirements for karma whorage? Stick together...linux rules...'kindle the same passion for a secure and safe internet'...OSS is incredibly efficient and all around awesome. Not to mention his comment! I know I trust ESR with my life...
Another free observation
I tried to put a team together for this thing. They thought we'd use some weird blend of Python, Java and Lisp. Somehow that didn't quite mesh with my plan to grind INTERCAL, Befunge and Assembly into a coarse grind which only the few, the proud, the Real Programmers could stomach. Ah yes, the aroma of code rot...
This article at MSN talks about how Gnutella won't succeed because--in order to make money--they'll have to introduce some 'friction', thus replacing the record companies as the middle man. Just think, GNU making money?
Msn article
While the author makes a few interesting points this article is what you what expect from a comp-sci student who's been detached from the reality of computing for years. While his 'life-streams' migth potentially sound good on paper how would you ever model this? He makes the analogy of how the brain accesses information. However, the brain takes one word like 'Fifth-Avenue' and then takes into accoutn a large amount of sub-concious knowledge to find exactly the resutl you're searching for. On a computer, on the other hand, you would need to figure out all this subconcious information (date, time, relationships of information) to get what you're looking for. It's just like any other find command. Of course the obvious solution to this would be neural implants, but by the time we have something of a quality sufficient to do that all of his ideas will be obsolete!
This also brings a whole new dimension to virus 'software'. I can just see it: every computer is shipped with a preinstalled bio mass that feeds on electric current; genetically engineered to exude an antivirul odor.
Also brings a whole new dimension to office angst. Imagine the loss in production solely due to the smell...;-) And of course employies hacking their boxes to turn it off...and putting all the hacked units in the boss' system
I've read a few articles recently about how some developers see the future of the web in flash. Do you think the web will eventually become mostly flash (or some other vectorign program) oriented or do you see it remaining under the current HTML system. It seems to me that with the increasing public use of the web and their acquisition of bandwidth many of the more popular sites will turn to flash to spice things up. Personally, i can't stand the damn thing, what's your opinion?
Sorry, but IMAO I think you're reading way too much into The Matrix. If the movie was meant to be anything more than a superficial action thriller they would've written good dialog; instead, they wrote 'whoa.' It's the same sort of thing several people have done with Star Wars. Star Wars is simply a space opera, the 'philosophy' of the force is great and high sounding but totally without material. Lucas simply wrote it to make some money. As to the philosophy of The Matrix: yes, it does *seem* to raise some interesting questions...but, once again IMAO, I heavily doubt the writers were thinking any more beyond the usefulness of it for the moment. 'The body can not live without the mind' was most likely simply a cheap cop out that allowed the writers a way to continue the plot element.
I'll admit that I have no formal philosophical training, nor would I ever claim to. However, the idea that 'The Matrix' is some great philosophical treatise is simply wishful thinking; it's like looking for deeper meaning in a Horatio Algiers novel. Sure, it was great fun, but it was written for the buck, not for the intellectual.
In closing I will admit that there is a non-zero possibility that 'The Matrix' does have a deep meaning. In fact my initial feeling after leaving the movie was 'Wow, that was a pretty cool idea until the directors suddenly remembered they had to make money and threw in the fighting at the end.' I think it could've been much better, though it probably wouldn't have made as much money.
Fucknut, what an insult...
At least I'm not posting as an anonymous coward, hypocrite. And as to why it's misspelled: you tryin getting muaddib@insertfreemailname.com. I have mauddib for three reasons:
1. the e-mail was open.
2. It was misspelled on the blurb of my book.
3. I was told it was Maud'Dib, argued about it saying it was Muad'Dib. I checked my book, it was Maud'Dib, so I stayed with what I had. I'm not changing after a year.
You're taking stuff from TNG. TNG was ok, TOS was great. Nothing will ever compare to TOS. Admittedly, they copped out a ton but TOS still grades as some of the best televised sci-fi in the regard. Try doing it only one hour...with a very low budget...in that timeframe. damn
Star Trek has been in a steady decline ever since the end of TNG. Deep Space Nine, while entertaining, just didn't live up to the Star Trek legend. The thing I always loved most about Star Trek was that it was real science fiction. It wasn't the ray gun popsci that Star Wars, nor the '2 hour long music video' that The Matrix was. Instead, Star Trek chose to concentrate much more on the philosophical and human implications of a highly advanced future. Episodes like 'The City on the Edge of Forever' will never leave me. After all these years 'The Wrath of Kahn' still sends chills down my spine...
And here is the problem which Paramount is only exacerbating in a desperate attempt to save the franchise. DS9 was dying: solution throw in a huge war story arc and Ezri Dax. Voyager's always had problems, mostly because of poor beginning charachter development. Solution: Seven of Nine. Did Either of these solve the basic problem? My resounding answer is NO! They only upped ratings a bit, they did not attempt to fix the inherrent flaws.
If this new series is to succeed Paramount is going to have get back to the basics. They need to plan it well from the beginning to avoid the poor charachters which have plagued Voyager. And, most importantly, bring in some good writers. They need to search the sci-fi genre and pay good money to good writers. If they could bring together a group of some of the best writers of today (David Brin, Orson Scott Card, Neal Stephenson to name a few) to just start the series and get some good original ideas it would be much more likely to succeed. It might be too late, but Star Trek seems to be the only way to get good Sci-Fi into mainstream television these days.
I tried to put in the whole quote but I think it's a bit too big for Slashdot's sigs. Sorry if maybe I don't spend all my time changing sig files, I guess I just have more useful things to do...
And in case you don't know it's from DUNE by Frank Herbert, quite simply the greatest science fiction book ever written. Check it out.
Is it ROBOthief? has to be one of her henchmen...
Would you mind telling me where you got your info? Any good books/sites on world war II cryptography that you know of?
As I see it there is one primary problem in how many have chosen to deal with DeCSS. Whether it's constitutional or not the DMCA has provisions reading (this is from the judge's ruling):
"No person shall . . . offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any technology . . . that---
"(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act];
"(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act]; or
"(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act].''10
Portion C of this is most important. Most of the activities of the open source community thus far have been to disseminate the code as widely as possible, this is only hurting the case. By publicly flaunting the law--printing the code on t-shirts etc--many persons have made it look like the original intent of DeCSS was to pirate. No matter what the defendants might say now it is almost impossible to prove to a judge that the true motives behind spreading the code were to play DVDs in Linux. In fact I personally don't believe that was the motive of most of the people posting the code, they were just trying to flaunt the system; all fine and dandy until the system catches up.
If the community had chosen to deal with DeCSS as it was origninally intended I have to think we would have a much better chance of winning the case.
gee, im almost happy, he's had to drop to my level...if only i had the power
I propose an open dare, attack Slashdot with a DDoS attack. Then Slashdot will open source the information collected while underattack and see if the open source community can't catch the perpetraitors. I'm sure just a few of Open Source's best could catch these packet monkeys given enough time, imagine what the whole movement could do!
As I see it there is one primary problem in how many have chosen to deal with DeCSS. Whether it's constitutional or not the DMCA has provisions reading (this is from the judge's ruling):
"No person shall . . . offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any technology . . . that---
"(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act];
"(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act]; or
"(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act].''10
Portion C of this is most important. Most of the activities of the open source community thus far have been to disseminate the code as widely as possible, this is only hurting the case. By publicly flaunting the law--printing the code on t-shirts etc--many persons have made it look like the original intent of DeCSS was to pirate. No matter what the defendants might say now it is almost impossible to prove to a judge that the true motives behind spreading the code were to play DVDs in Linux. In fact I personally don't believe that was the motive of most of the people posting the code, they were just trying to flaunt the system; all fine and dandy until the system catches up.
If the community had chosen to deal with DeCSS as it was origninally intended I have to think we would have a much better chance of winning the case.