Yes, programmers violate ethics, such as writing software which destroys privacy.
But is the solution allowing the gov't or some organization, with force of law, to bar one from the field?
How about this: no convicted felons can program. Ever. Even if it was possession of one ounce of marijuana when you were 18. Even if it was because of an act of civil disobedience. Or what about getting ones license revoked because they pissed off some corporation.
We need systems in place to uphold ethics, but not dangerous laws. Bad software will get written in any event. Let's prevent it from being used against us, either to destroy our privacy or any other freedoms we may have. Shackling programmers with gov't or pseudo-gov't bureaucracy is not the answer.
Violence in the media or video games does not make people KILL other people. Being a sick and twisted and worthless excuse for a human being does. If I trusted government I would say take killers and hang'em high, including those who say the video game/music/TV made them do it. (But I don't trust the gov't with the power to take life, but that is besides the point - I don't trust the gov't with much. I'm also excluding the insane or those with a good excuse to kill such as battered spouses, but that is also besides the point...).
People, how quickly will you give up the First Amendment. To protect the children?
Will you wait until Slashdot needs to do adult verification because someone could post porn or a link to it on it or because it contains (what The Man considers) "extremist" views???
It seems these days censorship is the USA's biggest export and import. Something illegal yesterday in Australia is illegal here today. Something illegal here today will be illegal somewhere else (probably the UK:/) tomorrow.
Our increasingly connected world isn't bringing us all the good things, it is allowing politicians of all different countries to steal each others bad ideas.
They know their hardware. They very well may not have much expertise in Linux or XFree86 internals. But do they really need to. We've got that experience, and we've got specs on the hardware too! So we have both pieces of the puzzle and it is up to us to put them together. ATI isn't screwing us, they haven't hidden the specs, they're giving them to us.
As for open-sourcing the Windows driver, maybe they have some cool workaround Windows specific brain damage that would be useful to us, but still be valuable intellectual property. So what. As long as we got complete and correct specs on the card we are good to go.
We don't need that. All we need are correct and complete specs, the hardware to test it on, and some good programmers. If we get a poorly written driver, we shouldn't look to ATI for the blame. We should look to ourselves. Do you believe in open source and open specs? If so, act on it. Write drivers, or if you can't, test beta versions, provide web space for the development or even just moral support. Just don't bitch and whine at a company which is doing the right thing because they aren't going to hold your hand, and don't insult the community by making it sound like we are incapable of writing a good driver on our own.
Specs instead of drivers is still good...
on
ATI Radeon Released
·
· Score: 1
ATI's stand is perfectly fine with me. They don't want to support/write drivers themselves, but they are providing us all the tools we need for us to do it ourselves. That is a very good thing. With the specs we can write drivers and debug them and optimize them, etc. We likely have at least as many people in the Linux community that can write drivers as ATI has. ATI is likely not interested or in the best position to write drivers for the Linux kernel or XFree86. So people in the Linux community can, should, and likely will do so, in an open source environment. (Barring any sillyness on the part of XFree86, they act kind of closed sometimes).
So Linux community, I ask you to take up the challenge.
P.S. Any drivers we write, let's make modular enough so that more than XFree86 can use them. Mesa3D over the raw hardware or a kernel driver will be much faster than over X... It would be great to not be dependant on X. Since we have the specs, we have the choice to do it right...
Knowing people with PCS phones, that would be an improvement!
Seriously, most people won't change their behavior. Maybe they will though. Maybe everyone will eat a "perfect" diet, drive the speed limit, always wear their seat belt, never drink more than 2 glasses of alcohol a day, stop doing drugs, stop stressing out to the point of a heart attack, stop missing sleep, make sure to exercise every day, and whatever other things they come up with next to prolong our lives.
But I doubt it.
And would doing everything right be the way to go. Live to 100 and be miserable. Oh wait, being miserable is unhealthy too.
Let's hope we can strike a balance hear.
P.S. Protesting cell towers is a bad idea. More towers = less distance = less power needed (by both phone and tower) = less risk (if there is any, it is likely to be dose related).
If a really bad virus attack hits the world at large FedEx, etc may not be able to cope with the extra demand and/or their own problems due to the attack. Something to think about. Hopefully those companies take steps to protect against viruses, but even if they are unscathed, do you think they could handle a 1000% increase in demand? Or more?
Yesmail has requested preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining MAPS from listing yesmail on its RBL. It also asks for compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys fees.
It appears they want to not only "protect" themselves, but to exact what they feel is their pound of flesh (compensitory damages) and then take even more (punitive damages). Punitive damages often just amounts to lawyer speak for taking money from someone out of spite. And then ask MAPS/RBL to pay for the attorneys used to inflict all this.
Is that fair? I wonder how many ISPs will put them on their private blackout lists because of this... Both from a need to stop spam (if its not on the public list, they'll need to on their own list) and out of outrage... Someone else said that getting off private lists will be much harder. Due to inertia and outrage at them I agree...
Anyone care to speculate if the Carnivore boxes only read packets or if they transmit? If an ISP said, sure we'll connect your box, but we will refuse to connect the transmit wire and/or put it behind a box which sents ALL packets TO the Carnivore, but NONE FROM it, could the FBI or a court rule that is illegal? If the gov't gets an order for a net wiretap, can they demand that its implementation also give them the power to disrupt?
Speaking of wiretaps, can the gov't have a telco break a connection with the same level of authority that they can get a tap?
Would it be legal for the FBI to demand their box to be connected in such a way as to allow remote shutdown of an ISP or subscriber, and have an ISP which gave them full monitoring but no ability to disrupt being considered in violation of the law (by saying that such a hookup is insufficient to meet their requirements, etc)?
Any lawyers care to comment?
Also, if they get a warrant to seize data and email, does that mean they can destroy it? In the real world, seizure implies that the intended owner or recipient loses the item seized, since in the physical world both they and the FBI can't have it (physical impossibility). In the virtual world, it would be natural that they both could have it, and a warrant to seize would mean the email is copied. But what does the law say? If the FBI gets a warrant, can they also stop the intended recipient of a message for getting it by deleting it from the ISP? Seziure laws weren't written to cover a world where "items" can be copied, rather than moved....
Great, convient and flexible protocols will have to be replaced with more secure, but less convient protocols. That's like saying crime is good, since it gets people to lock their doors and gets them trained to duck under tables and afraid of "high-risk" activities, such as letting their kids play outside.
And why do people love SSH?!? Just use the telnet encryption feature.
So I take it you would be for unconditional obedience to the Fugitive Slave Law (ordered people to be sent back into bondage even if they escaped to a free state, for those that don't know their history) if you were around when that was. Right? Support any law no matter how immoral it may be? Because the law is always right, eh?
Newsflash: What is legal and what is moral are not always the same. Neither one implies the other.
what happens when some future or in some case current laws start to gnaw away at basic freedoms.
Start to gnaw away at our freedoms? The law is already doing that. The DeCSS lawsuits is the first thing that comes to mind. Maybe if they wanted to catch real criminals they should repeal the bogus laws that make crimes out of activities that are not unethical. Then maybe we'd be more trusting and allowing of some monitoring. To catch real crooks. With strong legal safeguards. But while they are actively oppressing us? Hell no!
Even with UCITA you can click no and avoid the contract. No access to the product, but you haven't be bound to anything yet. With the above email, supposedly just the very act of reading you binds you to an agreement. Once you realize that their is an agreement you can be bound to, it is too late. That is one step beyond UCITA, as far as I can tell. I am not a lawyer, any lawyers know if the above is legal? E.G. By reading this sentence you agree to give me $100 dollars immediately. That doesn't sound legal, but anyone know what the law says?
Can any lawyer tell us the following: Can one be held to the terms of a contract one didn't sign, assent to (even electronically) and isn't even a party to? Can one be made a party to a contract without consent of it or even knowlege of it?
Common sense would say no to all the above, but I am asking about the law not about common sense here.
If they fire you, you can almost certainly get a job elsewhere. (That's one of the things that is great about the tech industry.). Also, let everyone know what happened and where so they know what workplaces to avoid.
That doesn't sound like its covered by the DMCA, but anyway... You can just file a counter notice. Your ISP is required under the DMCA to honor that. Doesn't cost a cent. the DMCA has all the info in it about what you need to do. Basically sign a statement and give it to them. DMCA sucks, but do realize the few protections in it and be prepared to use them.
Knowing the way the gov't is, even 51% accuracy would be enough. Anything over 50% is good enough for civil conviction. And with commitment to a mental institution being a civil procedure the above is possible. Technically it isn't "imprisonment" (criminal confinement), but in reality it can be just as bad, if not worse...
Pity the 49% who are innocent and locked away and drugged up to their eyeballs with psycho drugs and locked in some warehouse...
If they operate in another state, but in any way do business in or with anyone in Arizona, they could be covered by this law. If they move overseas, they could be covered if they have any assets or business in the U.S. They could be barred from doing any business in or with Arizona possibly, even if the are foreign. I am not a lawyer - contact one for real legal advice. But remember this, the U.S. (and its political subdivisions) do not take kindly to attempts to sidestep the law, including those involving trying to escape jurisdiction. We can, and do, prosecute U.S. citizens for actions taken outside of US controlled land...
Slashdot Mirror
Another question: How much does a shrinkwrapping device cost? :) There's a solution for you... It looks like it was never opened.
But is the solution allowing the gov't or some organization, with force of law, to bar one from the field?
How about this: no convicted felons can program. Ever. Even if it was possession of one ounce of marijuana when you were 18. Even if it was because of an act of civil disobedience. Or what about getting ones license revoked because they pissed off some corporation.
We need systems in place to uphold ethics, but not dangerous laws. Bad software will get written in any event. Let's prevent it from being used against us, either to destroy our privacy or any other freedoms we may have. Shackling programmers with gov't or pseudo-gov't bureaucracy is not the answer.
People, how quickly will you give up the First Amendment. To protect the children?
Will you wait until Slashdot needs to do adult verification because someone could post porn or a link to it on it or because it contains (what The Man considers) "extremist" views???
Our increasingly connected world isn't bringing us all the good things, it is allowing politicians of all different countries to steal each others bad ideas.
As for open-sourcing the Windows driver, maybe they have some cool workaround Windows specific brain damage that would be useful to us, but still be valuable intellectual property. So what. As long as we got complete and correct specs on the card we are good to go.
We don't need that. All we need are correct and complete specs, the hardware to test it on, and some good programmers. If we get a poorly written driver, we shouldn't look to ATI for the blame. We should look to ourselves. Do you believe in open source and open specs? If so, act on it. Write drivers, or if you can't, test beta versions, provide web space for the development or even just moral support. Just don't bitch and whine at a company which is doing the right thing because they aren't going to hold your hand, and don't insult the community by making it sound like we are incapable of writing a good driver on our own.
So Linux community, I ask you to take up the challenge.
P.S. Any drivers we write, let's make modular enough so that more than XFree86 can use them. Mesa3D over the raw hardware or a kernel driver will be much faster than over X... It would be great to not be dependant on X. Since we have the specs, we have the choice to do it right...
Knowing people with PCS phones, that would be an improvement!
Seriously, most people won't change their behavior. Maybe they will though. Maybe everyone will eat a "perfect" diet, drive the speed limit, always wear their seat belt, never drink more than 2 glasses of alcohol a day, stop doing drugs, stop stressing out to the point of a heart attack, stop missing sleep, make sure to exercise every day, and whatever other things they come up with next to prolong our lives.
But I doubt it.
And would doing everything right be the way to go. Live to 100 and be miserable. Oh wait, being miserable is unhealthy too.
Let's hope we can strike a balance hear.
P.S. Protesting cell towers is a bad idea. More towers = less distance = less power needed (by both phone and tower) = less risk (if there is any, it is likely to be dose related).
I don't know any mice that use cell phones. But that's just me. It would help explain how those cell phone companies are making so much money. :)
On a more serious note, mice are way different than people physiologically. Doing it on monkeys would be a better test.
If a really bad virus attack hits the world at large FedEx, etc may not be able to cope with the extra demand and/or their own problems due to the attack. Something to think about. Hopefully those companies take steps to protect against viruses, but even if they are unscathed, do you think they could handle a 1000% increase in demand? Or more?
Yesmail has requested preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining MAPS from listing yesmail on its RBL. It also asks for compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys fees.
It appears they want to not only "protect" themselves, but to exact what they feel is their pound of flesh (compensitory damages) and then take even more (punitive damages). Punitive damages often just amounts to lawyer speak for taking money from someone out of spite. And then ask MAPS/RBL to pay for the attorneys used to inflict all this.
Is that fair? I wonder how many ISPs will put them on their private blackout lists because of this... Both from a need to stop spam (if its not on the public list, they'll need to on their own list) and out of outrage... Someone else said that getting off private lists will be much harder. Due to inertia and outrage at them I agree...
suing people is not the way to make friends...
They haven't repealed the 4th Amendment yet. Isn't that an illegal search if there is no warrant?
Speaking of wiretaps, can the gov't have a telco break a connection with the same level of authority that they can get a tap?
Would it be legal for the FBI to demand their box to be connected in such a way as to allow remote shutdown of an ISP or subscriber, and have an ISP which gave them full monitoring but no ability to disrupt being considered in violation of the law (by saying that such a hookup is insufficient to meet their requirements, etc)?
Any lawyers care to comment?
Also, if they get a warrant to seize data and email, does that mean they can destroy it? In the real world, seizure implies that the intended owner or recipient loses the item seized, since in the physical world both they and the FBI can't have it (physical impossibility). In the virtual world, it would be natural that they both could have it, and a warrant to seize would mean the email is copied. But what does the law say? If the FBI gets a warrant, can they also stop the intended recipient of a message for getting it by deleting it from the ISP? Seziure laws weren't written to cover a world where "items" can be copied, rather than moved....
And why do people love SSH?!? Just use the telnet encryption feature.
Umm there are such things as federal civil courts.
Newsflash: What is legal and what is moral are not always the same. Neither one implies the other.
Start to gnaw away at our freedoms? The law is already doing that. The DeCSS lawsuits is the first thing that comes to mind. Maybe if they wanted to catch real criminals they should repeal the bogus laws that make crimes out of activities that are not unethical. Then maybe we'd be more trusting and allowing of some monitoring. To catch real crooks. With strong legal safeguards. But while they are actively oppressing us? Hell no!
Even with UCITA you can click no and avoid the contract. No access to the product, but you haven't be bound to anything yet. With the above email, supposedly just the very act of reading you binds you to an agreement. Once you realize that their is an agreement you can be bound to, it is too late. That is one step beyond UCITA, as far as I can tell. I am not a lawyer, any lawyers know if the above is legal? E.G. By reading this sentence you agree to give me $100 dollars immediately. That doesn't sound legal, but anyone know what the law says?
Common sense would say no to all the above, but I am asking about the law not about common sense here.
If they fire you, you can almost certainly get a job elsewhere. (That's one of the things that is great about the tech industry.). Also, let everyone know what happened and where so they know what workplaces to avoid.
That doesn't sound like its covered by the DMCA, but anyway... You can just file a counter notice. Your ISP is required under the DMCA to honor that. Doesn't cost a cent. the DMCA has all the info in it about what you need to do. Basically sign a statement and give it to them. DMCA sucks, but do realize the few protections in it and be prepared to use them.
Too bad suing the person can be step 2 if you so choose. As well as calling their ISP and having their account terminated.
Pity the 49% who are innocent and locked away and drugged up to their eyeballs with psycho drugs and locked in some warehouse...
If they operate in another state, but in any way do business in or with anyone in Arizona, they could be covered by this law. If they move overseas, they could be covered if they have any assets or business in the U.S. They could be barred from doing any business in or with Arizona possibly, even if the are foreign. I am not a lawyer - contact one for real legal advice. But remember this, the U.S. (and its political subdivisions) do not take kindly to attempts to sidestep the law, including those involving trying to escape jurisdiction. We can, and do, prosecute U.S. citizens for actions taken outside of US controlled land...
Seriously, that would make a great analogy for the DVD people forcing people to watch their ads... Keep that in mind...