I do have one legit worry about these things. You can only copy them to three computers.
How is this enforced, exactly? Is it the copying of the file that is thwarted or the playback of the file from a "non-authorized" computer? And how long before there is a work-around for this limitation?
Hmm.... well, assuming the RIAA (or one of their members) owns the copyright to a song, then by definition it is not a crime for the RIAA to copy that song.
Have you actually compared a 128kbps aac to a 192 (or 256) kbps mp3 and found the aac was really so much worse?
I personally have a tin ear and a cheap stereo, so it all sounds about the same to me... what I was actually referring to was the fact that the straight mp3 that are typically downloaded from Kazaa, etc, have no restrictions on their use. Play them under any OS, copy them to another computer, copy them to your mp3 player, burn them to CD, stream them wherever you want.... everything "just works".
Many "legit" offerings, on the other hand, are intentionally limited (read: broken) so that you cannot always do the above things. This intentional prohibition of standard operations is the sign of a poor quality product to me.
Except in very desperate cases (stealing bread to survive winter), honesty is a personal choice. Fundamentally, nobody has an obligation to make it easy for you to be honest. In fact, it's usually harder to be honest.
You're right, but morality aside, it's not clear what Apple (or anyone) stands to gain by purposely degrading the quality of their own product -- especially when alternatives of higher quality are so readily available.
Shoplifting is also more convenient than lining up to pay the cashier.
Sounds like you're asking how you can be expected to be honest when it's so damned convenient to be dishonest. Are you expecting a reward for being honest?
No. What he's saying is that if people want to be dishonest, it's trivial for them to do so. So why encourage dishonesty by intentionally crippling the honest methods by making them harder to use?
All the automobile is good for is a more efficient form of transportation. It is nothing but a way to transport materials more efficiently than horses will allow.
But if the energy is coming from fossil fuels it only means that they will be burned at the power station instead of in your car engine.
True, but that's still an improvement because then all the pollution control machinery can be made very large and very efficient. Compare that to the current situation where all the pollution-control equipment has to be small enough to fit in a car, and cheap enough that it doesn't significantly increase the price of the car.
And when the fossil fuels start to run out, we'll find it much easier to switch over to (solar/wind/fusion/whatever) if we only need to upgrade a few dozen large hydrogen-generation plants, instead of 50 million separate automobile engines.
If you want to get people interested in voting, give them real choices during the election, not just the lesser of two evils. To wit:
Instant Runoff Voting - so that people can vote for their favorite candidate instead of having to vote for the lesser of two major-party evils to avoid letting the greater evil win
Public Campaign Financing - so that candidates who aren't rich or beholden to special interests can run competitive campaigns
Re:Code is not exactly speech
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
I think you are missing a distinction here. The code (i.e. the source code itself) is still no more than a sequence of letters, and has no more functional power than any other document. It's only the computers that the code is executed on that have the power to sew people's mouths shut or whatnot. Similarly, the content of the spoken speech you refer to cannot blow out anyone's eardrums, it's the loudspeaker that can do that.
So there is nothing fundamentally new here. Speech is still speech, and action is still action. Just because we have fancy new devices to semi-automatically translate speech into action doesn't mean the character of speech itself has changed.
So yes, Voltaire would defend the distribution of blueprints for a mouth-sewing machine. It's not the same as defending the actual sewing of mouths.
Even the non-anonymous weblogs can be complete BS, this is worse.
Sure... but many things can be independently verified. And of course, certain anonymous weblogs may build up a reputation for truthfulness, which is a useful heuristic.
Of course, this sort of thing is also a great way to post ransom notes, etc... not that I'm saying it's a bad idea because of that, I'm just noting a fact.
can someone please tell me how "privacy" has anything to do with "freedom of speech?"
Surely there are things that want to say in private conversation that you wouldn't feel free to say if you knew (or suspected) that you were being eavesdropped on?
For example, the Iraqi government used lack of privacy (informers listening everywhere) to deny its citizens freedom of speech (anyone who was overheard saying something bad about Saddam was hauled off to prison).
If you know how to discuss a security flaw without simultaneously giving away how that flaw might be exploited, I'd love to hear how you do it. Be sure to describe how someone can test their patched system to see whether the flaw is fixed if they aren't allowed to try to break the security....
Every company is entitled to keep trade secrets. It either that or they must patent their inventions. Patents require disclosure. So take your pick.
Of course a company is entitled to keep their trade secrets secret, if they can. What's at issue is: Should they be allowed to finesse the government into making it illegal for anyone else to discover those secrets via reverse engineering?
Copyright was never meant to be a way to prevent people from learning secrets. It was meant to prevent people from redistributing copies of others' work without their permission. The fact that the DMCA is being used in this way shows how overbroad and ill-advised the DMCA is.
that doesn't follow. i understand people's dislike of the patriot act, but this type of thinking is a bit of an over-reaction
Okay, so suppose Jose Padilla wants to challenge his current incarceration as unconstitutional. How can he do that, given that he isn't even allowed to talk to a lawyer?
The police are public servants, are employed as police by their own choice, are given power to do things that would be illegal if a regular citizen did them (i.e. arrest people, shoot people, speed, etc), and in many cases have a history of abusing that power. So comparing the privacy rights of the police force to the privacy rights of a private citizen isn't valid.
Also, the old "I don't care if the government spies on me because I have nothing to hide" gag only works as long as the government remains accountable to its own rules. Remove government accountibility for its own actions, and it won't be too many years before you do have something to hide... some egregious crime like voting for a third party or insulting the President or etc.
but why would the police or FBI need to give you a lawyer or trial if they already have proof of your guilt? Why waste my tax dollars?
"Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first-verdict afterwards."
"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"
"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.
"I won't!" said Alice.
"Off with her head!" the Queen sounded at the top of her voice.
you can't challenge the PATRIOT act as unconstitutional because you're effectively tried by secret tribunal.. i.e. no way for it to get to the supreme court to be ruled unconstitutional.
That's a very nice catch-22 indeed. Perhaps the ACLU or someone could file a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the various John Does affected?
A statement like this reeks of ignorance. Blaming the language is typical of those novice programmers who fail to completely understanding the language
On the other hand, just because you have learned how to successfully work around C/C++'s shortcomings doesn't mean those shortcomings do not exist. The fact that so many bugs and security holes exist in C/C++ programs is evidence that the language doesn't do enough to prevent those things.
C++ is great language when speed and reliability on the server is required.
Speed, yes. Reliability, yes -- IF the program is bug free. If, like 99.9999% of the programs in existence, your C++ program contains bugs, then C++ allows those bugs to be exploited to take over your server -- which is not what I would consider 'reliable' behaviour.
Does anyone who has used templates have anything to say about templates and bloat?
You're right, using templates does cause bloat -- executables become bigger and compilation becomes slower. The upside is that when used properly, they make your code much less susceptible to bugs. Before templates, your options were either to make separate container classes for each data type, or make a single class that stores void pointers and downcast everything back to your type by hand. Either method is tedious and extremely bug prone.
With templates, you just declare a container type corresponding to the type you want it to hold, and you're done -- no need to write redundant code, and all your operations on that container are properly type-checked by the compiler. This means you can write a lot more correct code in a lot less time. Yes, it causes some bloat, but often it's well worth it.
Instead of setting a sales threshold, it might be better for the seller to set an expiration date, at which time the software would become open source. That way buyers wouldn't have to guess about when (or if) the source would become available. Under the currently proposed system, there is a danger that your company will invest in the program, but the program won't ever sell well enough to ever be open-sourced, in which case you are still stuck with proprietary software -- just the thing the buyers are hoping to avoid with this plan.
Of course, it's possible that some organizations would just put off buying the software since they could get it for free after the expiration date. But presumably if the organizations can afford to wait that long (5-10 years, maybe?), they probably didn't really need the software in the first place.
So what is going through the heads of the other 91 percent? That the copyrighted material you normally have to pay for somehow magically teleported to your hard drive?
Have you been using the Internet very long? Other than your monthly ISP fee, 99.9% of the data you get off the Internet, you don't have to pay for. So yes, to most people, downloading free songs is normal and expected.
Man, that looks like like Windows. But isn't the Windows "look and feel" copyrighted somehow?
I thought that when Microsoft won the Apple v. Microsoft case it set the precedent that you can't copyright "look and feel"? It will be interesting to see what Microsoft does now that the shoe is on the other foot...
If I'm going to do something illegal, I can put a piece of tape over the lens.
If you want to do something illegal, you probably won't use this type of gun in the first place, you'll use the regular old kind. But imagine that you are a cop accused of shooting someone irresponsibly. Having picture evidence of exactly what they were doing when you shot them could be quite useful to you.
If I run out of memory, does the gun lock up?
Why would it lock up? Obviously it wouldn't be able to store any more data without first deleting something else, but it would be up to the manufacturer to decide what it should do. My guess is that they would delete the oldest photo to make room for the new one.
These guns aren't designed to be criminal-proof, they are designed to be accident-proof, theft-proof, and self-documenting. As the article says, they are designed to be used by government officials and the military, not necessarily by Joe Civilian.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this enforced, exactly? Is it the copying of the file that is thwarted or the playback of the file from a "non-authorized" computer? And how long before there is a work-around for this limitation?
Hmm.... well, assuming the RIAA (or one of their members) owns the copyright to a song, then by definition it is not a crime for the RIAA to copy that song.
I personally have a tin ear and a cheap stereo, so it all sounds about the same to me... what I was actually referring to was the fact that the straight mp3 that are typically downloaded from Kazaa, etc, have no restrictions on their use. Play them under any OS, copy them to another computer, copy them to your mp3 player, burn them to CD, stream them wherever you want.... everything "just works".
Many "legit" offerings, on the other hand, are intentionally limited (read: broken) so that you cannot always do the above things. This intentional prohibition of standard operations is the sign of a poor quality product to me.
You're right, but morality aside, it's not clear what Apple (or anyone) stands to gain by purposely degrading the quality of their own product -- especially when alternatives of higher quality are so readily available.
Shoplifting is also more convenient than lining up to pay the cashier.
Not when you get caught it isn't...
No. What he's saying is that if people want to be dishonest, it's trivial for them to do so. So why encourage dishonesty by intentionally crippling the honest methods by making them harder to use?
All the automobile is good for is a more efficient form of transportation. It is nothing but a way to transport materials more efficiently than horses will allow.
True, but that's still an improvement because then all the pollution control machinery can be made very large and very efficient. Compare that to the current situation where all the pollution-control equipment has to be small enough to fit in a car, and cheap enough that it doesn't significantly increase the price of the car.
And when the fossil fuels start to run out, we'll find it much easier to switch over to (solar/wind/fusion/whatever) if we only need to upgrade a few dozen large hydrogen-generation plants, instead of 50 million separate automobile engines.
Instant Runoff Voting - so that people can vote for their favorite candidate instead of having to vote for the lesser of two major-party evils to avoid letting the greater evil win
Public Campaign Financing - so that candidates who aren't rich or beholden to special interests can run competitive campaigns
So there is nothing fundamentally new here. Speech is still speech, and action is still action. Just because we have fancy new devices to semi-automatically translate speech into action doesn't mean the character of speech itself has changed.
So yes, Voltaire would defend the distribution of blueprints for a mouth-sewing machine. It's not the same as defending the actual sewing of mouths.
Sure... but many things can be independently verified. And of course, certain anonymous weblogs may build up a reputation for truthfulness, which is a useful heuristic.
Of course, this sort of thing is also a great way to post ransom notes, etc... not that I'm saying it's a bad idea because of that, I'm just noting a fact.
Yeah. Thoughtcrime is doubleplusungood.
Surely there are things that want to say in private conversation that you wouldn't feel free to say if you knew (or suspected) that you were being eavesdropped on?
For example, the Iraqi government used lack of privacy (informers listening everywhere) to deny its citizens freedom of speech (anyone who was overheard saying something bad about Saddam was hauled off to prison).
If you know how to discuss a security flaw without simultaneously giving away how that flaw might be exploited, I'd love to hear how you do it. Be sure to describe how someone can test their patched system to see whether the flaw is fixed if they aren't allowed to try to break the security....
Of course a company is entitled to keep their trade secrets secret, if they can. What's at issue is: Should they be allowed to finesse the government into making it illegal for anyone else to discover those secrets via reverse engineering?
Copyright was never meant to be a way to prevent people from learning secrets. It was meant to prevent people from redistributing copies of others' work without their permission. The fact that the DMCA is being used in this way shows how overbroad and ill-advised the DMCA is.
Okay, so suppose Jose Padilla wants to challenge his current incarceration as unconstitutional. How can he do that, given that he isn't even allowed to talk to a lawyer?
Also, the old "I don't care if the government spies on me because I have nothing to hide" gag only works as long as the government remains accountable to its own rules. Remove government accountibility for its own actions, and it won't be too many years before you do have something to hide... some egregious crime like voting for a third party or insulting the President or etc.
"Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first-verdict afterwards."
"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"
"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.
"I won't!" said Alice.
"Off with her head!" the Queen sounded at the top of her voice.
That's a very nice catch-22 indeed. Perhaps the ACLU or someone could file a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the various John Does affected?
On the other hand, just because you have learned how to successfully work around C/C++'s shortcomings doesn't mean those shortcomings do not exist. The fact that so many bugs and security holes exist in C/C++ programs is evidence that the language doesn't do enough to prevent those things.
C++ is great language when speed and reliability on the server is required.
Speed, yes. Reliability, yes -- IF the program is bug free. If, like 99.9999% of the programs in existence, your C++ program contains bugs, then C++ allows those bugs to be exploited to take over your server -- which is not what I would consider 'reliable' behaviour.
Christ, I already feel that way every time I go to a movie theater.
You're right, using templates does cause bloat -- executables become bigger and compilation becomes slower. The upside is that when used properly, they make your code much less susceptible to bugs. Before templates, your options were either to make separate container classes for each data type, or make a single class that stores void pointers and downcast everything back to your type by hand. Either method is tedious and extremely bug prone.
With templates, you just declare a container type corresponding to the type you want it to hold, and you're done -- no need to write redundant code, and all your operations on that container are properly type-checked by the compiler. This means you can write a lot more correct code in a lot less time. Yes, it causes some bloat, but often it's well worth it.
Of course, it's possible that some organizations would just put off buying the software since they could get it for free after the expiration date. But presumably if the organizations can afford to wait that long (5-10 years, maybe?), they probably didn't really need the software in the first place.
Have you been using the Internet very long? Other than your monthly ISP fee, 99.9% of the data you get off the Internet, you don't have to pay for. So yes, to most people, downloading free songs is normal and expected.
I thought that when Microsoft won the Apple v. Microsoft case it set the precedent that you can't copyright "look and feel"? It will be interesting to see what Microsoft does now that the shoe is on the other foot...
If you want to do something illegal, you probably won't use this type of gun in the first place, you'll use the regular old kind. But imagine that you are a cop accused of shooting someone irresponsibly. Having picture evidence of exactly what they were doing when you shot them could be quite useful to you.
If I run out of memory, does the gun lock up?
Why would it lock up? Obviously it wouldn't be able to store any more data without first deleting something else, but it would be up to the manufacturer to decide what it should do. My guess is that they would delete the oldest photo to make room for the new one.
These guns aren't designed to be criminal-proof, they are designed to be accident-proof, theft-proof, and self-documenting. As the article says, they are designed to be used by government officials and the military, not necessarily by Joe Civilian.