>But I have a question for the legally inclined. How binding are all of these thinly-veiled hostilities?? Were they obligated to under law?
Of course not. The only authority that can oblige anyone to do anything is the judiciary. These messages are merely diplomatic negotiation, often completely asinine.
If microsoft took Andover to court, filed motions, and won, the ViPs would be sequentially ordered, fined, and thrown in jail until they complied.
But otherwise, legal individuals such as microsoft have no power past the fear of the very bad things that could happen to you in court.
XMLifying anything makes it signifigantly harder to edit in text mode (all those ), and does not offer THAT much advantage for graphical configuration...
Why bother? Why bother?
Just jump ahead to the next level, natural language processing. It offers voice configuration and zero learning curve.
Modern computer languages seem to have smaller lexicons and more abstraction - making them easier to learn. In the future, a voice controlled editor and an advanced language could allow computer programs to be written in limited natural english*.
In other words, a computer program could be written to be understood by any English* speaker, with hopefully decreased training time and improved teamwork.
Do you foresee any possible use for a "natural" programming language?
*English is my first choice since I speak it; other people may differ.
It seems bizarre to use a system where everyone and anyone is considered irrelevant until proven meaningful.
Instead, it should be that you are <B>meaningful until proven irrelevant</B>.
How about changing the point range to -5 and +3.
Everyone's posts start at +1 max, decreasing over time as they are moderated down. Persistently Irrelevant Posters (PIPs) would soon end up posting at -5.
Another idea: anonymous posters must enter a name and email address <B>at the time of posting</B> if they do not log in. If you want to constantly post garbage, you'll have to spend time rotating your name spoof over and over.
To share the moderation load, you should be able to view only unmoderated comments, i.e. ones that need your touch.
I do not believe anyone should get any automatic bonuses. But it should be very common for people to get automatic penalties.
1523-24 ("[A]n attempt to monopolize the market by making it impossible for others to compete runs counter to the statutory purpose of promoting creative expression and cannot constitute a strong equitable basis for resisting the invocation of the fair use doctrine.").
1523-24 ("[A]n attempt to monopolize the market by making it impossible for others to compete runs counter to the statutory purpose of promoting creative expression and cannot constitute a strong equitable basis for resisting the invocation of the fair use doctrine.").
That would probably be considered a limp attempt to evade the blanket quoted below:
"As has been discussed already, it no longer is open to doubt that the First Amendment does not shield copyright infringement. The fundamental purpose of DeCSS is to circumvent the technological means, CSS, that ensures that the exclusive rights of the holders of copyright in DVD movies---including importantly the exclusive right to make copies---are protected against infringement. Even assuming that some would use DeCSS only to view copyrighted motion pictures which they lawfully possessed, and thus arguably not infringe plaintiffs' copyrights, the record clearly demonstrates that the chief focus of those promoting the dissemination of DeCSS is to permit widespread copying and dissemination of unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. The dissemination of DeCSS therefore is the critical component of a course of conduct, the principal object of which is copyright infringement. That DeCSS arguably is expressive to some degree does not alter that reality. In light of Giboney and its progeny, defendants cannot latch onto the expressive aspect in order to shield a key aspect of a chain of events, the main purpose of which is unlawful. Application of the DMCA to prohibit production and dissemination of DeCSS therefore does not violate the First Amendment."
"As there is no evidence of any commercially significant purpose of DeCSS other than circumvention of CSS, defendants' actions likely violated Section 1201(a)(2)(B). Moreover, although defendants contended at oral argument that DeCSS was not designed primarily to circumvent CSS, that argument is exceptionally unpersuasive.14 <b>In consequence, plaintiffs have an extremely high likelihood of prevailing on the merits unless defendants' activities come within one of the exceptions in the DMCA or unless there is a constitutional impediment to this conclusion. </b>"
"...even if DeCSS were intended and usable solely to permit the playing, and not the copying, of DVDs on Linux machines, the playing without a licensed CSS "player key'' would "circumvent a technological measure'' that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work and violate the statute in any case."
This demonstrates that the DMCA ignores fair use allowances. Unfortunately, fair use seems lower on the totem pole than DMCA.
"...even assuming that DeCSS runs under Linux, it concededly runs under Windows---a far more widely used operating system---as well. It therefore cannot reasonably be said that DeCSS was developed "for the sole purpose'' of achieving interoperability between Linux and DVDs. "
A point, a point. WHY was DeCSS released as Win32 source, anyway? D'oh!
"Finally, and most important, the legislative history makes it abundantly clear that Section 1201(f) permits reverse engineering of copyrighted computer programs only and does not authorize circumvention of technological systems that control access to other copyrighted works, such as movies.21 In consequence, the reverse engineering exception does not apply. "
Problem - distinction between computer programs and and technological systems is vague.
"Surely there is no suggestion that any of them made a good faith effort to obtain authorization from the copyright owners. "
Another good point.
"If Congress had meant the fair use defense to apply to such actions, it would have said so."
"If plaintiffs are correct on the merits, they face substantially the same immediate and irreparable injury from defendants' posting of DeCSS as they would if defendants were infringing [copyrights] directly."
I create a Content Scrambling System, you break it - is it or is it not the logical assumption that you want to infringe my copyrights?
[disclaimer: I may have no idea what I'm talking about] I believe part of Carmack's goal in rewriting the stack and working with softmodems is to specifically allow game optimizations. (duh)
One limiting factor in Quake's internet performance is the lag time created by poor modem implementations. Many modems are excessively stringent about enforcing buffering, with the effect that my ultimate last ditch blaster shot is delayed because the 'modem' wanted to fill its buffer.
In theory, rewriting the stack and modem support while stress testing it with a busy quake connection will allow inefficiencies to be eliminated.
I doubt that there is anything 'wrong' with current linux implementations - they are just naturally focused on http/ftp designs.
You could be required to download a trusted binary for every game (even every level). The binary and source would be randomly modified for a unique cheating challenge, and as the source is different each time, cheaters would have to spend all their time d/ling and compiling source and no time playing.
This solution is a little off the wall, but I think the quakeworld client could be as little as a 300k file.
My overall suggestion is this: if the conditions needed for sucessful cheating are randomly changing all the time, to cheat will be very time-consuming.
Still, I believe external personal authentication or secondary checksum programs are the future.
Re:Just thought this was important to say?!?!
on
Quake 1 GPL'ed
·
· Score: 1
The last half of your post was also uncalled for, as it reported a slanderous, biased viewpoint from HendriX-uNF.
Anyway. Somebody named 'spinkam' was the first to suggest 'blessed binaries' as in 'netrek'.
I comment that it is illegal to create a hacked binary to distribute without releasing the source.
Finally, it is relatively simple to cheat at cards. Basically anyone could be doing it, and you wouldn't notice. But do you stop playing cards? No. You play, sometimes just with trusted friends, but you keep playing.
Playing for money will always be completely secure, since you'll probably have to d/l a new binary right as the game starts.
Re:Just thought this was important to say?!?!
on
Quake 1 GPL'ed
·
· Score: 1
Your post, while erudite, smacks of fear and paranoia. These problems faced by a GPL'd Quake are trival and not dangerous. As you should know, solutions have been debated and implemented for open source authenication many times. Indeed, open source is far easier to protect than most closed source apps - if your beloved TF had believed this it wouldn't have had to release so many versions.
I submit: iD is friendier and more altrustic than TF. Every day.
I submit: you do not fully understand what open source means.
I submit: your personal website is ugly and non functional. (Hah!:)
Slashdot Mirror
>But I have a question for the legally inclined. How binding are all of these thinly-veiled hostilities?? Were they obligated to under law?
Of course not. The only authority that can oblige anyone to do anything is the judiciary. These messages are merely diplomatic negotiation, often completely asinine.
If microsoft took Andover to court, filed motions, and won, the ViPs would be sequentially ordered, fined, and thrown in jail until they complied.
But otherwise, legal individuals such as microsoft have no power past the fear of the very bad things that could happen to you in court.
I don't understand this study well enough to say anything.
I doubt most of you do either.
However, a good methodology could test for whether people were more aggressive after playing than before.
But the fate of the company wasn't in their hands!
The new browser is the best on the market.
Mozilla is a world famous open source success.
Microsoft doesn't have a chance.
:)
If the fate of the company was in their hands, well, they failed.
Netscape was bought out by the ugly giant AOL.
Employees were forced to give away all their software.
Microsoft took all their market share.
:(
for the First, Last and Only Time, a JJJon Katz Double headerrrrr -- let'ss get rrrready to rrrrummbleeee!
In this corner, wearing the blue shorts with a green stripe, from Freedom, USA, Jon 'Wordy' Katz!!!!
In the other corner, wearing red and white shorts, with the blue band, from Order, D.C... the one and only Wealthy 'Administrator' Powers!
only criminals, and those with power will have it.
On the other hand, if we make spying and monitoring easy, no one will have it. (a very good thing)
So, choose.
XMLifying anything makes it signifigantly harder to edit in text mode (all those ), and does not offer THAT much advantage for graphical configuration...
Why bother? Why bother?
Just jump ahead to the next level, natural language processing. It offers voice configuration and zero learning curve.
If you added a few more references, you could probably get published as an article. (and then get censored...)
Discalimer: I am a fool.
Modern computer languages seem to have smaller lexicons and more abstraction - making them easier to learn. In the future, a voice controlled editor and an advanced language could allow computer programs to be written in limited natural english*.
In other words, a computer program could be written to be understood by any English* speaker, with hopefully decreased training time and improved teamwork.
Do you foresee any possible use for a "natural" programming language?
*English is my first choice since I speak it; other people may differ.
>And then Slashdot would have to verify this email address, I take it? More wasted bandwidth and CPU
Actually, why verify it? I was merely thinking it would be used as an identifing tag on anonymous users, allowing non anonymous non logined
Disclaimer: I am a fool. IANALBTANSTAAFL
It seems bizarre to use a system where everyone and anyone is considered irrelevant until proven meaningful.
Instead, it should be that you are <B>meaningful until proven irrelevant</B>.
How about changing the point range to -5 and +3.
Everyone's posts start at +1 max, decreasing over time as they are moderated down. Persistently Irrelevant Posters (PIPs) would soon end up posting at -5.
Another idea: anonymous posters must enter a name and email address <B>at the time of posting</B> if they do not log in. If you want to constantly post garbage, you'll have to spend time rotating your name spoof over and over.
To share the moderation load, you should be able to view only unmoderated comments, i.e. ones that need your touch.
I do not believe anyone should get any automatic bonuses. But it should be very common for people to get automatic penalties.
Disclaimer: I am a fool. IANALATANSTAAFL
1523-24 ("[A]n attempt to monopolize the market by making it impossible for others to compete runs counter to the statutory purpose of promoting
creative expression and cannot constitute a strong equitable basis for resisting the invocation of the fair use doctrine.").
1523-24 ("[A]n attempt to monopolize the market by making it impossible for others to compete runs counter to the statutory purpose of promoting
creative expression and cannot constitute a strong equitable basis for resisting the invocation of the fair use doctrine.").
I have to agree with the article when it comments on how many people believe ZDNet is covering up for Intel.
That would probably be considered a limp attempt to evade the blanket quoted below:
"As has been discussed already, it no longer is open to doubt that the First Amendment does not shield copyright infringement. The fundamental purpose of DeCSS is to circumvent the technological means, CSS, that ensures that the exclusive rights of the holders of copyright in DVD movies---including importantly the exclusive right to make copies---are protected against
infringement. Even assuming that some would use DeCSS only to view copyrighted motion pictures which they lawfully possessed, and thus arguably not infringe plaintiffs' copyrights, the record clearly demonstrates that the chief focus of those
promoting the dissemination of DeCSS is to permit widespread copying and dissemination of unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. The dissemination of DeCSS therefore is the critical component of a course of conduct, the principal
object of which is copyright infringement. That DeCSS arguably is expressive to some degree does not alter that reality. In light of Giboney and its progeny, defendants cannot latch onto the expressive aspect in order to shield a key aspect of a chain of events, the main purpose of which is unlawful. Application of the DMCA to prohibit production and dissemination of DeCSS
therefore does not violate the First Amendment."
The judge's contention is that DMCA trumps Fair Use.
He's correct. That is what Congress meant for it to do, and the judge interpets Congress.
He's incorrect. The spirit of fair use should be paramount, but only the Supreme Court would find that interesting enough to rule upon.
"As there is no evidence of any commercially significant purpose of DeCSS other than circumvention of CSS, defendants' actions likely violated Section 1201(a)(2)(B). Moreover, although defendants contended at oral argument that
DeCSS was not designed primarily to circumvent CSS, that argument is exceptionally unpersuasive.14 <b>In consequence, plaintiffs have an extremely high likelihood of prevailing on the merits unless defendants' activities come within one of the exceptions in the DMCA or unless there is a constitutional impediment to this conclusion. </b>"
"...even if DeCSS were intended and usable solely to permit the playing, and not the copying, of DVDs on Linux machines, the playing without a licensed CSS "player key'' would "circumvent a technological measure'' that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work and violate the statute in any case."
This demonstrates that the DMCA ignores fair use allowances. Unfortunately, fair use seems lower on the totem pole than DMCA.
"...even assuming that DeCSS runs under Linux, it concededly runs under Windows---a far more widely used operating system---as well. It therefore cannot reasonably be said that DeCSS was developed "for the sole purpose'' of achieving
interoperability between Linux and DVDs. "
A point, a point. WHY was DeCSS released as Win32 source, anyway? D'oh!
"Finally, and most important, the legislative history makes it abundantly clear that Section 1201(f) permits reverse engineering of
copyrighted computer programs only and does not authorize circumvention of technological systems that control access to other copyrighted works, such as movies.21 In consequence, the reverse engineering exception does not apply. "
Problem - distinction between computer programs and and technological systems is vague.
"Surely there is no suggestion that any of them made a good faith effort to obtain authorization from the copyright owners. "
Another good point.
"If Congress had meant the fair use defense to apply to such actions, it would have said so."
"If plaintiffs are correct on the merits, they face substantially the same immediate and irreparable injury from defendants' posting of DeCSS as they would if defendants were infringing [copyrights] directly."
I create a Content Scrambling System, you break it - is it or is it not the logical assumption that you want to infringe my copyrights?
[disclaimer: I may have no idea what I'm talking about]
I believe part of Carmack's goal in rewriting the stack and working with softmodems is to specifically allow game optimizations. (duh)
One limiting factor in Quake's internet performance is the lag time created by poor modem implementations. Many modems are excessively stringent about enforcing buffering, with the effect that my ultimate last ditch blaster shot is delayed because the 'modem' wanted to fill its buffer.
In theory, rewriting the stack and modem support while stress testing it with a busy quake connection will allow inefficiencies to be eliminated.
I doubt that there is anything 'wrong' with current linux implementations - they are just naturally focused on http/ftp designs.
Zephyr
Alfredo
You could be required to download a trusted binary for every game (even every level). The binary and source would be randomly modified for a unique cheating challenge, and as the source is different each time, cheaters would have to spend all their time d/ling and compiling source and no time playing.
This solution is a little off the wall, but I think the quakeworld client could be as little as a 300k file.
My overall suggestion is this: if the conditions needed for sucessful cheating are randomly changing all the time, to cheat will be very time-consuming.
Still, I believe external personal authentication or secondary checksum programs are the future.
The last half of your post was also uncalled for, as it reported a slanderous, biased viewpoint from HendriX-uNF.
Anyway. Somebody named 'spinkam' was the first to suggest 'blessed binaries' as in 'netrek'.
I comment that it is illegal to create a hacked binary to distribute without releasing the source.
Finally, it is relatively simple to cheat at cards. Basically anyone could be doing it, and you wouldn't notice. But do you stop playing cards? No. You play, sometimes just with trusted friends, but you keep playing.
Playing for money will always be completely secure, since you'll probably have to d/l a new binary right as the game starts.
Your post, while erudite, smacks of fear and paranoia. These problems faced by a GPL'd Quake are trival and not dangerous. As you should know, solutions have been debated and implemented for open source authenication many times. Indeed, open source is far easier to protect than most closed source apps - if your beloved TF had believed this it wouldn't have had to release so many versions.
:)
I submit: iD is friendier and more altrustic than TF. Every day.
I submit: you do not fully understand what open source means.
I submit: your personal website is ugly and non functional. (Hah!
Michael Buttrey