Breaking copyright in response to a computer intrusion seems like a proportional response to me.
Of course, I have just stopped buying from major labels altogether. I have all the classics I care about legally purchased already (many converted from CD), and I can't remember the last time a major label had anything I want.
You effectively have an agreement with your school or university under which you study there. If that agreement doesn't explicitly allow the use of plagiarism detection services right now, it will in the future. Your choice will be to either agree to it or walk away.
What people do not understand is the full spectrum of promotion. Kill off the record companies and promotion dies. With it go a lot of magazines that music promotion is supporting. FM Radio is going to change a lot in the US, because it is mostly a music promotion vehicle. I would expect most stations to just give up and shut down. The rest will do something else. They will not be playing popular music.
And yes I concur - the F'ing drummer always sets the volume of the band. They just can't seem to play fast, without playing really loud (and vise-versa)
You might like to come live in the current world. Like everything else in entertainment (movies, games, comics whatever), music is entertainment and professionally made. It requires time, effort and money.
The same is true of toxic waste and WMDs.
Lots of times people forget that record labels do lots of other work too
Yeah, like marketing, bribery, payola, and collecting blank media fees.
They actually find the artists that could be something
True, in the very limited sense that they find marketable artists. Marketability doesn't usually depend much on musical or artistic quality, it depends on appearance and following trends and demographics. That's neither good for artists nor for listeners.
The trouble with relying on unmanned planetary exploration is that it is just too slow. Thirty three years, and we still haven't found liquid water on Mars (for example). (It almost certainly does exist, as parts of the surface are warm enough during the day and well above the triple point of water.)
And this is going to be faster with humans... how? How are they going to move around?
And, all of those results will become historical footnotes about 1 week after the first manned expedition reaches Martian orbit.
A manned expedition to Mars will take decades to even get off the ground, and then have a high risk of total failure and result in little exploration.
No, if we want to learn about Mars, we should mass-produce 1000 robotic explorers, with a bunch of pluggable science modules, and land them a few dozen at a time. We can do that with today's technology, at a fraction of the cost of sending a single human. Research teams at every major university could design science modules and control an explorer. It would be a boon to research, to science, and to interest in space. The images and data would be spectacular. And we'd find out more in the next decade than we would in several decades even if we focused on a manned mission.
So you know exactly how much it would cost to send a manned mission to mars? Do tell.
No, I don't know "exactly" how much it would cost. But a human operating on Mars requires between 1000x and 10000x the weight of a mars probe to be transferred. In addition, you need to reduce the risk greatly compared to the risk of mission failure on a probe, resulting in additional costs. 10000x is a reasonable lower estimate.
And no, S&O were only designed to last for 90 Martian days. Currently we're more than 20 times past that.
That's wrong. They were designed to ensure reliable operation for 90 days with very high probability. Their average expected lifespan was much longer than 90 days, by design.
For unmanned probes, we know the costs, benefits, and risks, and they work out well. If you want to argue for spending money on a manned Mars program now, the burden of proof that doing so is reasonable is on you.
OpenSolaris, and specifically Nexenta with 'apt-clone' can deal with these situations, emerge cannot.
It also protects against unexpected attacks by killer penguins and having all your clothes disappear spontaneously while speaking in front of a crowded room. And it is about as useful.
The thing that makes me sad is that Linux is basically the only OS out there that isn't shipping with a root file-system that supports snapshots and other advance features.
I don't really care. Ext2/3 does everything I need.
It would have been nice if we could have had ZFS in the interim, but that just isn't going to happen.
I don't really care. I tried ZFS and it seemed unnecessarily complex.
One of the people on the mars lander program (specifically Spirit and Opportunity) stated that the amount of work done by the probes over the course of all the years they've been in operation could have been accomplished by one man in a month and a half.
Sure, at 10000x the cost. And, of course, we wouldn't have done it yet. And, for that matter, we'd still need to send the probes to prepare.
In different words for the price of sending one man to Mars for a couple of months (or even a year), we can send hundreds of probes to every planet, planetoid, and major rock in the solar system.
Probes work, but they are not necessarily the best option
You yourself just concluded that they are.
(unless maybe we can actually duplicate the longevity of spirit and opportunity).
Of course we can. There is nothing particularly miraculous about Spirit and Opportunity's longevity; they were designed that way.
I think this is a great program. We should next extend it to 24/7 CCTV monitoring of politicians and their families to make sure that they do not betray the public trust, don't go sneaking off to their mistresses, don't take bribes, and don't do anything else that would embarrass us, the people who they represent.
It's just 99% of computer work isn't computer science.
Well, that "computer work" is taught by computer science professors in computer science departments and published in computer science journals under the heading of "computer science".
So, in different words, you agree with me then, it's just that you don't like what computer scientists actually call "computer science" these days.
It is, in fact, one of the 'hardest' sciences out there, often being near indistinguishable from mathematics.
Mathematics isn't a science, it is only a service discipline for the sciences. Mathematics is only rigorous within its own framework, but it lacks rigor when analyzing the real world.
Psychology isn't a science, it isn't debatable. It doesn't meet the formal definition of a science on several grounds, falsifiability, honoring of the null hypothesis, and lack of rigor in experiments all being among them.
Most modern experimental psychology papers do exactly that.
There is a science that often doesn't worry about falsifiability, honoring the null hypothesis, rigor in experiments, and repeatability. It is... computer science.
AIG was selling insurance. Insurance is no substitute for regulation because it is at least as easy to game as the system you're insuring.
What's there to "game"? Once an incident occurs, the insurance company pays, period. Insurance companies, like airlines, need to be regulated and supervised. They should not, however, get government subsidies for their day-to-day activities. In particular, they should not get government subsidies for providing security.
No one is capable of insuring against the next 9/11
Why not? The WTC itself was insured. Insuring things that cost a few billion dollars is pretty commonplace. And flying planes into the WTC is pretty much a worst case scenario.
The real problem is that insurance costs aren't high enough: airlines should be liable for millions of dollars per passenger lost in accidents or terrorism.
the next sub-prime mortgage crisis, or the next dot-com bust.
That's true, but it does have limitations and those limitations happen when free speech rights conflict with other individual rights.
No, that's just not how it works. US law protects your property from theft, but it doesn't protect you from speech, no matter how much you may feel your rights were infringed. You can claim defamation in civil court, although truth is always a defense, and lack of evident falsehood is usually a defense.
I fail to see why that matters. It's still restricting your ability to speak freely even though it is not false or imminently dangerous.
Well, it matters because that's a legally important distinction on what constitutes restrictions on free speech and what doesn't.
Except it isn't the law of the land since I presented you with an example of a law that limits speech and which does not meet your criteria.
You can take that up with the supreme court justices who wrote those words; they don't see a conflict between those words and your example.
of course, the host operating system has to stay current, and with Micro$oft already pressuring vendors to stop making XP drivers, its the host operating system that becomes important.
Important for what exactly?
Imagine a world in which Windows becomes little more than a BIOS for Linux. Do you really think Microsoft will be able to charge a lot of money for that?
Microsoft has been able to monopolize the market because they controlled everything. But their fortress is crumbling. The fact that they are releasing GPL drivers for Linux, even for this limited purpose, shows this, and it shows that they know it.
IBM also used to be an evil monopoly, but they have grown up. There's no reason Microsoft can't do that as well. And as more and more of the Microsoft blowhards retire from the company on their monopoly-derived billions, Microsoft will become increasingly realistic and cooperative, because the next generation at Microsoft has to realize that it's either cooperation or bankruptcy for Microsoft.
That's not so. Just because free speech is a guaranteed right, does not mean that instances where speech conflicts with other protected rights it trumps them.
I don't know what that means. What I do know is that, in the US, free speech has few limitations.
It is very much a consideration. The "yelling fire in a theater" example originated in the US in 1919 in a Supreme court case.
That is one of the few exceptions.
Public nuisance and disturbing the peace laws restrict free speech for the simple convenience and comfort of the public.
That is not a free speech restriction, since it is based on manner of speech, not content.
There are many more examples, but hopefully that one is good enough to falsify your theory.
The downside cost of an action (or failure to act) can be greater to society than the individual actor is capable of reimbursing
The government can require insurance or sufficient funds to cover the costs.
From an airlines cost/benefit perspective it's better to scrimp on security, because they personally are unlikely to recoup the cost of security expenditures.
Not if they are actually held liable.
Meanwhile, that one airline folds as soon as it is sued, and your 401(k) suffers.
Not if they are required to insure each other.
I don't mind airline regulation. I mind the government giving airlines freebies or providing private security services.
Would this idea of government non-interference extend to a scenario
Who said anything about "government non-interference"? The government can interfere... once there has been a crime. It should hold the airline liable for not providing enough security.
With some exceptions, I believe that most of the bar owners would say that they count on you to feel safe in their establishment.
And they hire and pay for the necessary security themselves.
This can be done pretty easily with a smart card: it only gives out the key for a limited amount of time. I suppose you have to trust the manufacturer of the smart card, but you also have to trust the manufacturer of the PC you're reading the message on, and its OS and...
How the fuck should they have responded? Ignore it on the likely chance its some jackass kid
Yes.
Oh how they've failed us. Look, all show, no substance. We need competent security people!
Why does everybody think they have a right to be safe everywhere?
And why is it the government's responsibility to make a private trip in a privately owned airplane safe for you, pay for all that security with my tax dollars, and use intrusive government means as part of security?
Make airline security exclusively an airline responsibility: no tax dollars and no governmental intrusions anymore. And I bet if companies had to pay the full consequences of terrorism, they'd find ways to make sure it didn't happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Lots of open standards are patent-encumbered with RAND terms on patent licensing, including the MPEG family
MPEG is not an open standard, it is a proprietary standard that happens to be owned by a consortium.
The term that people seem to be looking for is 'royalty free', which is orthogonal to 'open'.
"Open" means that it is published and can be implemented and modified without restrictions. MPEG is not an open standard, neither is Java.
Being implementable by open source software is necessary, but not sufficient, for something to be an open standard.
Breaking copyright in response to a computer intrusion seems like a proportional response to me.
Of course, I have just stopped buying from major labels altogether. I have all the classics I care about legally purchased already (many converted from CD), and I can't remember the last time a major label had anything I want.
You effectively have an agreement with your school or university under which you study there. If that agreement doesn't explicitly allow the use of plagiarism detection services right now, it will in the future. Your choice will be to either agree to it or walk away.
What people do not understand is the full spectrum of promotion. Kill off the record companies and promotion dies. With it go a lot of magazines that music promotion is supporting. FM Radio is going to change a lot in the US, because it is mostly a music promotion vehicle. I would expect most stations to just give up and shut down. The rest will do something else. They will not be playing popular music.
Great, how can I help to make this happen?
And yes I concur - the F'ing drummer always sets the volume of the band. They just can't seem to play fast, without playing really loud (and vise-versa)
Yup: basic physics.
You might like to come live in the current world. Like everything else in entertainment (movies, games, comics whatever), music is entertainment and professionally made. It requires time, effort and money.
The same is true of toxic waste and WMDs.
Lots of times people forget that record labels do lots of other work too
Yeah, like marketing, bribery, payola, and collecting blank media fees.
They actually find the artists that could be something
True, in the very limited sense that they find marketable artists. Marketability doesn't usually depend much on musical or artistic quality, it depends on appearance and following trends and demographics. That's neither good for artists nor for listeners.
The trouble with relying on unmanned planetary exploration is that it is just too slow. Thirty three years, and we still haven't found liquid water on Mars (for example). (It almost certainly does exist, as parts of the surface are warm enough during the day and well above the triple point of water.)
And this is going to be faster with humans... how? How are they going to move around?
And, all of those results will become historical footnotes about 1 week after the first manned expedition reaches Martian orbit.
A manned expedition to Mars will take decades to even get off the ground, and then have a high risk of total failure and result in little exploration.
No, if we want to learn about Mars, we should mass-produce 1000 robotic explorers, with a bunch of pluggable science modules, and land them a few dozen at a time. We can do that with today's technology, at a fraction of the cost of sending a single human. Research teams at every major university could design science modules and control an explorer. It would be a boon to research, to science, and to interest in space. The images and data would be spectacular. And we'd find out more in the next decade than we would in several decades even if we focused on a manned mission.
So you know exactly how much it would cost to send a manned mission to mars? Do tell.
No, I don't know "exactly" how much it would cost. But a human operating on Mars requires between 1000x and 10000x the weight of a mars probe to be transferred. In addition, you need to reduce the risk greatly compared to the risk of mission failure on a probe, resulting in additional costs. 10000x is a reasonable lower estimate.
And no, S&O were only designed to last for 90 Martian days. Currently we're more than 20 times past that.
That's wrong. They were designed to ensure reliable operation for 90 days with very high probability. Their average expected lifespan was much longer than 90 days, by design.
For unmanned probes, we know the costs, benefits, and risks, and they work out well. If you want to argue for spending money on a manned Mars program now, the burden of proof that doing so is reasonable is on you.
OpenSolaris, and specifically Nexenta with 'apt-clone' can deal with these situations, emerge cannot.
It also protects against unexpected attacks by killer penguins and having all your clothes disappear spontaneously while speaking in front of a crowded room. And it is about as useful.
The thing that makes me sad is that Linux is basically the only OS out there that isn't shipping with a root file-system that supports snapshots and other advance features.
I don't really care. Ext2/3 does everything I need.
It would have been nice if we could have had ZFS in the interim, but that just isn't going to happen.
I don't really care. I tried ZFS and it seemed unnecessarily complex.
One of the people on the mars lander program (specifically Spirit and Opportunity) stated that the amount of work done by the probes over the course of all the years they've been in operation could have been accomplished by one man in a month and a half.
Sure, at 10000x the cost. And, of course, we wouldn't have done it yet. And, for that matter, we'd still need to send the probes to prepare.
In different words for the price of sending one man to Mars for a couple of months (or even a year), we can send hundreds of probes to every planet, planetoid, and major rock in the solar system.
Probes work, but they are not necessarily the best option
You yourself just concluded that they are.
(unless maybe we can actually duplicate the longevity of spirit and opportunity).
Of course we can. There is nothing particularly miraculous about Spirit and Opportunity's longevity; they were designed that way.
I think this is a great program. We should next extend it to 24/7 CCTV monitoring of politicians and their families to make sure that they do not betray the public trust, don't go sneaking off to their mistresses, don't take bribes, and don't do anything else that would embarrass us, the people who they represent.
It's just 99% of computer work isn't computer science.
Well, that "computer work" is taught by computer science professors in computer science departments and published in computer science journals under the heading of "computer science".
So, in different words, you agree with me then, it's just that you don't like what computer scientists actually call "computer science" these days.
It is, in fact, one of the 'hardest' sciences out there, often being near indistinguishable from mathematics.
Mathematics isn't a science, it is only a service discipline for the sciences. Mathematics is only rigorous within its own framework, but it lacks rigor when analyzing the real world.
How are they even going to know?
Psychology isn't a science, it isn't debatable. It doesn't meet the formal definition of a science on several grounds,
falsifiability, honoring of the null hypothesis, and lack of rigor in experiments all being among them.
Most modern experimental psychology papers do exactly that.
There is a science that often doesn't worry about falsifiability, honoring the null hypothesis, rigor in experiments, and repeatability. It is... computer science.
AIG was selling insurance. Insurance is no substitute for regulation because it is at least as easy to game as the system you're insuring.
What's there to "game"? Once an incident occurs, the insurance company pays, period. Insurance companies, like airlines, need to be regulated and supervised. They should not, however, get government subsidies for their day-to-day activities. In particular, they should not get government subsidies for providing security.
No one is capable of insuring against the next 9/11
Why not? The WTC itself was insured. Insuring things that cost a few billion dollars is pretty commonplace. And flying planes into the WTC is pretty much a worst case scenario.
The real problem is that insurance costs aren't high enough: airlines should be liable for millions of dollars per passenger lost in accidents or terrorism.
the next sub-prime mortgage crisis, or the next dot-com bust.
What do they have to do with this discussion?
This isn't Microsoft caring about GPL or whatever, it's about a small project that gives them more hooks into more websites.
Sure, but it's a start. They used to proclaim that the GPL was somewhere between the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf.
And they have released genuinely useful software, too, like IronPython.
That's true, but it does have limitations and those limitations happen when free speech rights conflict with other individual rights.
No, that's just not how it works. US law protects your property from theft, but it doesn't protect you from speech, no matter how much you may feel your rights were infringed. You can claim defamation in civil court, although truth is always a defense, and lack of evident falsehood is usually a defense.
I fail to see why that matters. It's still restricting your ability to speak freely even though it is not false or imminently dangerous.
Well, it matters because that's a legally important distinction on what constitutes restrictions on free speech and what doesn't.
Except it isn't the law of the land since I presented you with an example of a law that limits speech and which does not meet your criteria.
You can take that up with the supreme court justices who wrote those words; they don't see a conflict between those words and your example.
of course, the host operating system has to stay current, and with Micro$oft already pressuring vendors to stop making XP drivers, its the host operating system that becomes important.
Important for what exactly?
Imagine a world in which Windows becomes little more than a BIOS for Linux. Do you really think Microsoft will be able to charge a lot of money for that?
Microsoft has been able to monopolize the market because they controlled everything. But their fortress is crumbling. The fact that they are releasing GPL drivers for Linux, even for this limited purpose, shows this, and it shows that they know it.
IBM also used to be an evil monopoly, but they have grown up. There's no reason Microsoft can't do that as well. And as more and more of the Microsoft blowhards retire from the company on their monopoly-derived billions, Microsoft will become increasingly realistic and cooperative, because the next generation at Microsoft has to realize that it's either cooperation or bankruptcy for Microsoft.
I know this can be beneficial, but this is too close to ice pick lobotomies for comfort.
And this seems like it is ripe for abuse by totalitarian states.
That's not so. Just because free speech is a guaranteed right, does not mean that instances where speech conflicts with other protected rights it trumps them.
I don't know what that means. What I do know is that, in the US, free speech has few limitations.
It is very much a consideration. The "yelling fire in a theater" example originated in the US in 1919 in a Supreme court case.
That is one of the few exceptions.
Public nuisance and disturbing the peace laws restrict free speech for the simple convenience and comfort of the public.
That is not a free speech restriction, since it is based on manner of speech, not content.
There are many more examples, but hopefully that one is good enough to falsify your theory.
It's not my theory, it's the law of the land.
The downside cost of an action (or failure to act) can be greater to society than the individual actor is capable of reimbursing
The government can require insurance or sufficient funds to cover the costs.
From an airlines cost/benefit perspective it's better to scrimp on security, because they personally are unlikely to recoup the cost of security expenditures.
Not if they are actually held liable.
Meanwhile, that one airline folds as soon as it is sued, and your 401(k) suffers.
Not if they are required to insure each other.
I don't mind airline regulation. I mind the government giving airlines freebies or providing private security services.
Would this idea of government non-interference extend to a scenario
Who said anything about "government non-interference"? The government can interfere... once there has been a crime. It should hold the airline liable for not providing enough security.
With some exceptions, I believe that most of the bar owners would say that they count on you to feel safe in their establishment.
And they hire and pay for the necessary security themselves.
This can be done pretty easily with a smart card: it only gives out the key for a limited amount of time. I suppose you have to trust the manufacturer of the smart card, but you also have to trust the manufacturer of the PC you're reading the message on, and its OS and ...
How the fuck should they have responded? Ignore it on the likely chance its some jackass kid
Yes.
Oh how they've failed us. Look, all show, no substance. We need competent security people!
Why does everybody think they have a right to be safe everywhere?
And why is it the government's responsibility to make a private trip in a privately owned airplane safe for you, pay for all that security with my tax dollars, and use intrusive government means as part of security?
Make airline security exclusively an airline responsibility: no tax dollars and no governmental intrusions anymore. And I bet if companies had to pay the full consequences of terrorism, they'd find ways to make sure it didn't happen.