If people believe that the scheme should be banned because it's taking advantage of public property without paying for the privilege, then the proper first course of action is to complain to the authorities. Only if that fails, and fails repeatedly, could you potentially argue that this course of action - *as a protest* - is justified, and even then it would be a real stretch.
No matter how you cut it, circumventing protection to gain use of a (non-essential) resource without the permission of the resource owner is wrong. That applies equally whether the resource is music, a film, or a bicycle.
And then they put out crap riddled with spyware, trojans, etc, people notice, complain, and the certificate is revoked.
That's even more effective if signed software is the norm, rather than the exception, of course, but a revoked certificate should cause a nice, big warning to pop up telling the user that they have very good reason to believe that the people who wrote what they're installing are scumbags.
Perhaps if 99% of Windows users weren't running as admin, this wouldn't be a problem?
Do you have a source for that figure, or are you making it up as you go along? With the number of locked-down corporate installs, I very much doubt that 99% of Windows users run as admin.
Sorry, but unsupported statistics are a pet peeve of mine.
It depends on how many shares the Guillemots have though - if they have only one or two percent less, then they too only have to convince a little more than 1 in 3 people to back them.
Of course, if the Guillemots have much less - say only 5% or so - then it's a different matter.
But with only a fifth of the company, it should be relatively easy for another large shareholder to block any move by EA as long as they can generate enough support.
As largest shareholder they *can* sway the vote in their favour, but it's by no means guaranteed.
Oh, piracy hurts sales, it just doesn't destroy them.
But really, whether the industry is barely surviving or raking in megabucks, copyright infringement is still illegal and immoral (imho, of course, but I think that people deserve the chance to profit from their time and labour).
Yes you do - but do you have the right to have someone else timeshift for you? Because that's what's actually happening; does the person who made the time-shifting copy have the right to give you that copy?
No, it was decided by those judges, in that case, that any use is enough. Next time round, it may be decided that some ratio or other is a minimum required, or that almost no amount of non-infringing use is enough, etc.
One case does not make a binding precedent.
I think you have an axe to grind. Perhaps you are a record industry lawyer, Mr. AC?
Isn't it just possible that the guy happens to have an opinion that differs with yours? Frankly, I'm getting tired of people here resorting to this kind of petty "attack" every time someone disagrees with them.
Middle clicking has been on by default in Firefox for a long time.
He means the ability to middle-click a link in his email program and have it open in a new browser tab. That was missing from FF/TB for a long, long time, but has been in Moz for as long as I can remember. It's only recently (possibly since 1.0) that FF has given you the option to open external links in a new tab in an existing window.
I wonder if anyone has explained this to the PHB's at the media companies?
Contrary to popular belief, "PHBs" aren't completely stupid. They know full well that it's impossible to prevent copying completely, and that all you can do is make it harder.
All they're trying to do is make it hard enough that most people don't bother, while going after those that do. Why do you think they're investing in DRM and yet still going after P2P networks, apps and users? It's because they know that even with DRM, with P2P, their stuff will still be distributed. Discourage casual copying and shut down P2P and they're in a much better position, control-wise.
The pain in the ass is then not the answering, but the getting out of the shower to see if you should.
So why get out of the shower? Are you likely to get a call so important that they can't leave a message and wait 10 minutes for you to call back?
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK there's a free service taht records the last number to have called you. Just dial 1471 and a recorded voice tells you the number and time of the call (unless the number was ex-directory (not listed) or they dialled a special prefix number before the call (141 iirc)). Even if the person doesn't leave a message, chances are good you'll know who called.
What percentage of spyware comes in through IE and ActiveX?
I don't know, and I'm betting that you don't either. My gut feeling is that an awful lot of it is installed by the user with their permission though, piggybacking on other programs (think Kazaa and similar) or just as a trojan (Bonzi Buddy, etc).
Hell, I downloaded a screensaver from a large-looking Windows download site a couple of months ago only to find that it had been trojaned. Not using IE won't save you from that.
I don't know - how much time have you spent familiarising yourself with the two codebases? Because unless you're familiar with the IE codebase, you really have very little idea how easy it would be to fix any given bug, just as with any non-trivial application.
Amazing as it sounds, they go from graduate work to post-doc to the faculty lounge, all the while succesfully avoiding any opportunity to deal with people as equals
No - their inability to deal with people as equals has nothing to do with not having the opportunity to do so. At each stage of their academic career (undergrad, postgrad, etc) they have *plenty* of equals, all around them. They just fail to interact with them correctly.
It's not a failing of the system, but of the person. Perhaps the higher levels of academia mostly attract that sort of person, but it's the people, not the institution (although perhaps a case could be made that those in charge subconciously favour that type of person too).
Out here in the "real" world , you'd be amazed at how many seemingly incompetent managers and directors there are - completely lacking any real personal skills as far as regard and respect for their charges is concerned, etc. Some even manage to turn successful companies into hollow shells, spiralling to financial ruin. And yet, they've all worked their way up the levels; none of them spring fully-formed into senior management straight from college. They failed to pick up a few essential skills on the way, too.
there will a thousands others writing the same software and making it available for free with source
And while they're spending their time writing this code, who's paying their bills? Or do you suggest that they be forced to switch from primarily producing software to primarily supporting/maintaining/extending it?
Yes, they still happen, but in several years of using both XP and Linux (Mandrake), the two OSes tended to crash about as often as each other - which is to say, almost never.
what is available for downloading is already in a format that's not crap, in fact, is much better quality than I ever could rip/encode myself without a lot of practice.
With sufficient disk space you can rip DVDs to iso images and mount them using a virtual drive tool such as Daemon Tools. Absolutely no loss of quality at all, then watch them on your PC or burn to DVD (if you can find dual layer disks or they're small DVDs, etc).
There's an excellent (imho, of course) native-Windows ssh client called putty - take a look at http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/. Obviously that doesn't provide an X server, etc, but if ssh access is all you require, it'll work just fine.
So, are you legally entitled to that one phone call, or are you legally entitled to contact someone (lawyer, friend, family member, etc)? That is, is it an unquestionable violation of your rights if they refuse to allow you to make the call but give you pen and paper to send a letter, or offer to go pick the person up and bring them in to talk face to face, etc? If so, can you point to the statute that makes it such?
Not trying to be an arse, but I would have thought that the point is to allow the prisoner to contact the outside world, *not* to give them a phone call. For instance, what of a mute? Do they have no right to contact, because they can't use a phone?
Slashdot Mirror
If people believe that the scheme should be banned because it's taking advantage of public property without paying for the privilege, then the proper first course of action is to complain to the authorities. Only if that fails, and fails repeatedly, could you potentially argue that this course of action - *as a protest* - is justified, and even then it would be a real stretch.
No matter how you cut it, circumventing protection to gain use of a (non-essential) resource without the permission of the resource owner is wrong. That applies equally whether the resource is music, a film, or a bicycle.
And then they put out crap riddled with spyware, trojans, etc, people notice, complain, and the certificate is revoked.
That's even more effective if signed software is the norm, rather than the exception, of course, but a revoked certificate should cause a nice, big warning to pop up telling the user that they have very good reason to believe that the people who wrote what they're installing are scumbags.
Perhaps if 99% of Windows users weren't running as admin, this wouldn't be a problem?
Do you have a source for that figure, or are you making it up as you go along? With the number of locked-down corporate installs, I very much doubt that 99% of Windows users run as admin.
Sorry, but unsupported statistics are a pet peeve of mine.
Or, you run md5sum over the binary and compare the output to the supplied value, which is what the OP was talking about doing.
I guess you've only verified md5 sums recently.
It depends on how many shares the Guillemots have though - if they have only one or two percent less, then they too only have to convince a little more than 1 in 3 people to back them.
Of course, if the Guillemots have much less - say only 5% or so - then it's a different matter.
But with only a fifth of the company, it should be relatively easy for another large shareholder to block any move by EA as long as they can generate enough support.
As largest shareholder they *can* sway the vote in their favour, but it's by no means guaranteed.
Oh, piracy hurts sales, it just doesn't destroy them.
But really, whether the industry is barely surviving or raking in megabucks, copyright infringement is still illegal and immoral (imho, of course, but I think that people deserve the chance to profit from their time and labour).
So? Personally, I'd rather people are reading pulp than watching reality TV; at least the former has a chance of exercising their brains.
But I have the right to time-shift, haven't I?
Yes you do - but do you have the right to have someone else timeshift for you? Because that's what's actually happening; does the person who made the time-shifting copy have the right to give you that copy?
Any use is therefore enough.
No, it was decided by those judges, in that case, that any use is enough. Next time round, it may be decided that some ratio or other is a minimum required, or that almost no amount of non-infringing use is enough, etc.
One case does not make a binding precedent.
I think you have an axe to grind. Perhaps you are a record industry lawyer, Mr. AC?
Isn't it just possible that the guy happens to have an opinion that differs with yours? Frankly, I'm getting tired of people here resorting to this kind of petty "attack" every time someone disagrees with them.
Yes - they're using "processor numbers" rather than just GHz ratings. See this page for more details. A list of processor numbers is available here.
Middle clicking has been on by default in Firefox for a long time.
He means the ability to middle-click a link in his email program and have it open in a new browser tab. That was missing from FF/TB for a long, long time, but has been in Moz for as long as I can remember. It's only recently (possibly since 1.0) that FF has given you the option to open external links in a new tab in an existing window.
I wonder if anyone has explained this to the PHB's at the media companies?
Contrary to popular belief, "PHBs" aren't completely stupid. They know full well that it's impossible to prevent copying completely, and that all you can do is make it harder.
All they're trying to do is make it hard enough that most people don't bother, while going after those that do. Why do you think they're investing in DRM and yet still going after P2P networks, apps and users? It's because they know that even with DRM, with P2P, their stuff will still be distributed. Discourage casual copying and shut down P2P and they're in a much better position, control-wise.
I think they just want to make DRM "compatable" speakers.
And that prevents me from placing a microphone in front of the speakers and recording it that way how?
If it can be seen or heard by a human, it can be recorded.
The pain in the ass is then not the answering, but the getting out of the shower to see if you should.
So why get out of the shower? Are you likely to get a call so important that they can't leave a message and wait 10 minutes for you to call back?
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK there's a free service taht records the last number to have called you. Just dial 1471 and a recorded voice tells you the number and time of the call (unless the number was ex-directory (not listed) or they dialled a special prefix number before the call (141 iirc)). Even if the person doesn't leave a message, chances are good you'll know who called.
What percentage of spyware comes in through IE and ActiveX?
I don't know, and I'm betting that you don't either. My gut feeling is that an awful lot of it is installed by the user with their permission though, piggybacking on other programs (think Kazaa and similar) or just as a trojan (Bonzi Buddy, etc).
Hell, I downloaded a screensaver from a large-looking Windows download site a couple of months ago only to find that it had been trojaned. Not using IE won't save you from that.
I bathed a cat. I would put that far above browsing with IE, and have the scars to support it.
I don't know - how much time have you spent familiarising yourself with the two codebases? Because unless you're familiar with the IE codebase, you really have very little idea how easy it would be to fix any given bug, just as with any non-trivial application.
In which case, I'd hope you'd all support a full counter attack
Yeah - because their innocent civillians deserve to die just as much as yours did; their deaths will make the world a better place.
Amazing as it sounds, they go from graduate work to post-doc to the faculty lounge, all the while succesfully avoiding any opportunity to deal with people as equals
No - their inability to deal with people as equals has nothing to do with not having the opportunity to do so. At each stage of their academic career (undergrad, postgrad, etc) they have *plenty* of equals, all around them. They just fail to interact with them correctly.
It's not a failing of the system, but of the person. Perhaps the higher levels of academia mostly attract that sort of person, but it's the people, not the institution (although perhaps a case could be made that those in charge subconciously favour that type of person too).
Out here in the "real" world , you'd be amazed at how many seemingly incompetent managers and directors there are - completely lacking any real personal skills as far as regard and respect for their charges is concerned, etc. Some even manage to turn successful companies into hollow shells, spiralling to financial ruin. And yet, they've all worked their way up the levels; none of them spring fully-formed into senior management straight from college. They failed to pick up a few essential skills on the way, too.
there will a thousands others writing the same software and making it available for free with source
And while they're spending their time writing this code, who's paying their bills? Or do you suggest that they be forced to switch from primarily producing software to primarily supporting/maintaining/extending it?
"The system has recovered from a serious error"
Yes, they still happen, but in several years of using both XP and Linux (Mandrake), the two OSes tended to crash about as often as each other - which is to say, almost never.
what is available for downloading is already in a format that's not crap, in fact, is much better quality than I ever could rip/encode myself without a lot of practice.
With sufficient disk space you can rip DVDs to iso images and mount them using a virtual drive tool such as Daemon Tools. Absolutely no loss of quality at all, then watch them on your PC or burn to DVD (if you can find dual layer disks or they're small DVDs, etc).
There's an excellent (imho, of course) native-Windows ssh client called putty - take a look at http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/ . Obviously that doesn't provide an X server, etc, but if ssh access is all you require, it'll work just fine.
So, are you legally entitled to that one phone call, or are you legally entitled to contact someone (lawyer, friend, family member, etc)? That is, is it an unquestionable violation of your rights if they refuse to allow you to make the call but give you pen and paper to send a letter, or offer to go pick the person up and bring them in to talk face to face, etc? If so, can you point to the statute that makes it such?
Not trying to be an arse, but I would have thought that the point is to allow the prisoner to contact the outside world, *not* to give them a phone call. For instance, what of a mute? Do they have no right to contact, because they can't use a phone?