This may be a very naive question, but I am still curious.
Why do organizations which are obviously selfish (ignoring specifics), such as the MPAA, have better luck at lobbying for legislation than organizations which are obviously sincere and looking out for the people, such as the EFF?
Yes, I'm sure that money exchanges hands and that there is a little corruption involved. However, I cannot see how there is *that* much corruption to justify things like the DeCSS outcome and the undeserved resilience of the DMCA. Do most legislators really buy what the MPAA says?
I know the EFF is too honest to slip any money under the table, but I (perhaps naively) don't believe that the MPAA benefits too much from those tactics, so it seems like there has to be something else.
I have also spoken to a few politicians (Senators), and they always seem to be at least moderately intelligent and concerned. Yes, I know most of that is an act, but I can't see how a group of people of average (or better than average) intelligence can come to the conclusions that the US government has in recent times.
I fear that things like this are going to go MPAA's way, and I don't even understand how that's possible...
The danger in this approach, though I agree it is a generally good one, is that developers for this environment use the same tool to test with as a user does to use the site.
In fact, even that wouldn't be such a bad thing, but too many lame developers use the most liberal tool to test with, making it more, "Be liberal in what you emit and hope everyone is equally as liberal in what they accept."
This is the real problem with the whole situation.
The more accurate analogy would be if Ford designed a truck that stopped at a stop sign whether the driver pressed the brake pedal or not. While this may seem (to you, apparently) like a good "improvement" for safety, it breeds a whole army of drivers who don't stop at stop signs due to the popularity of Ford trucks.
Wouldn't this irritate the fuck out of you when some dumbass smashes into the side of your car?
I think it's an error to compare humans to computers in this way.
Where humans can discern intent from ambiguity, computers cannot. Thus, standards are much more important than in human cultures. Computers require exact instructions, thus the nature of getting major syntax errors when you leave off a semicolon in your code. Computers interpret things literally, and that's the whole idea.
Your argument would only hold up if all Web browsers could interpret crap code (thus the usage would stray from the standards), but the entities adhering to the standard could still interpret the meaning of the non-standard information. For example, I can interpret, "I ain't goin'." to mean, "I am not going." Does this define the language? Certainly it does in certain cultures, but that's the whole point. Even when a "culture" is dominant, it still must comprise the whole to really be the defining word.
I believe, however, that your typical AOL user isn't going to jump ship on a whim because a few Web sites are broken. I don't think these people will instantly conclude that their AOL software is broken, which is what it seems like you are suggesting.
Rather, it will seem like the Web site is broken, which is what I would love to see.:) After all, all these broken Web sites with screwed up HTML (tables especially - ugh!), JavaScript, and especially anything that's intentionally IE-specific deserve it. When 35 million additional users can't use your Web site because you have crap code, there's a compelling reason to fix it.
This "fixing" that I am optimistically hoping will happen is what I think the biggest benefit might be.
I've seen a lot of comments that seem to totally discard any significance coming from AOL using Mozilla as the base of its browser.
If nothing else, this seems particularly important to me because it will force more Web developers to stop using IE as a test browser.
With the poorest standards compliance of all browsers, this has created a flood of these "Best Viewed with Internet Explorer" pages, because they write THML, Javascript, etc. that is broken.
Now, if these broken Web sites are revealed as such by a larger audience, we could see some improvements in the overall quality, because something tells me the typical AOL user will happily complain about anything.:)
What is the difference between the terms Britain, Great Britain, and England then, if I may ask?
I always thought the United Kingdom was Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, and England (Great Britain), and the Republic of Ireland was a separate entity. Now you're telling me England isn't Great Britain?
You know, school is a good example.
Take colleges for instance. There are public universities and private. Does the existance of public universities hurt the general public (those seeking to learn)? Of course not; it forces the private universities to actually offer better education so that people will pay more money.
Now, what if software worked like this? Would the consumers be hurt, or would companies like Microsoft? Well, even Microsoft would admit that it would hurt them. Obviously, they wouldn't think such a thing if they actually believed their product was better.
Fact is, they don't.
What we've been instructed to do at the USPS is either make the web sites, including all content, easily accesible via a screen reader like JAWS (I wouldn't recommend installing this on anything important) or have an alternate method of viewing the content.
So, for pdf files, powerpoint presentations, etc., you would have to provide an alternate meansof receiving the content.
I'd have to agree with the article that ColdFusion has a quick development time and is easy to use. Also, and I saw this refuted above, but it is also extremely easy to maintain and more portable than you'd think.
I develop web applications for the USPS, and we use ColdFusion in the project I'm currently on; there are no portability issues to speak of with the basic cfml code. There *are*, however, portability issues concerning the CFX tags (ColdFusion extensions written in C++ and compiled as shared objects) and *anything* that mentions Java. I attribute the Java problem with the fact that it's an environment nightmare to get anything written in Java to run on different machines. The CFX problem was unintended, but Allaire made an error when they compiled the server using Sun's native C compiler (for the Solaris version). If you use gcc to compile your libraries, forget it; it will ungracefully crash and burn.
So what are the downfalls? The same pitfalls come with ColdFusion as with anything not open-sourced. They don't fix their own bugs in a timely manner. I have personally discovered two bugs, one of which is really getting in the way of development (and stability), Allaire has officially recognized both and escalated the situation, but there are *no* patches to fix these problems and no sign of any help.
If PHP had problems as large as these, were notified about it, and didn't have it fixed with amazing haste, I'd be disappointed.
That's worth a lot more to me than being able to teach an idiot how to code and make it work, which seems to be the focus of corporate opinions.
One thing I've noticed in reading through the draft is that every phrase is carefully worded to include only the intent to perform a criminal act.
With that being the case, would it not be upheld exactly the way it reads? For it sounds to me like the writing of DeCSS would be perfectly fine according to this document. Am I missing something?
Also, even when there is an intent to perform a crime, isn't that a bit hard to prove? Is there a way to not persecute those with good intentions while still persecuting those with criminal intentions?
Umm, no offense, but your "math" doesn't contradict anything bearpaw said.
"That's a heck of a stretch. The amount of money coming out of MP3's pocket will be unaffected by whether she wins or loses, but Universal may end
up with less of its heist. What part of this simple bit of math do you not understand? "
This is still a valid statement. Using variables to show the obvious doesn't make your point sound any more intelligent. If you'll notice in your own argument, mp3.com still loses $10,000,000 in all cases, no more, no less.
Obviously, Courtney Love's case against Universal does not affect mp3.com (financially) in any way. Besides, as has been mentioned you're missing the whole point. I think it's pretty damn funny myself, and I'm glad she's doing it.
By your logic, however, if Microsoft has pursued and won its lawsuit against Slashdot, then I were to win a lawsuit against Microsoft (over something unrelated), then I would be taking money straight out of Slashdot's pocket. Now exactly how fucking stupid do you need to be to believe that?
And I disagree with those that think you're a troll. You've just been smoking a little too much crack.
Here at the USPS, that is *exactly* the case. Other than myself, there are about five other people in this entire facility (app 500 people) with a clue.
The reason being that once people get a clue, they usually decide they want to get paid for having one and go elsewhere, thus this place turns into a training camp.
Government policies have an extremely hard time keeping up with the 21st century in a lot of ways. To pay people more money takes more political BS than I think most people realize. There are set positions with set salaries, and computer programmers are no exception, even though these salaries are about half of what you can find elsewhere.
Additionally, you must go through far too much red tape in order to get anything accomplished, even when you know what you're doing.
Now, the one big benefit of working for the government is the bottomless pit of money. My team (5 people) have our own development environment of a Sun Enterprise 6500 and five 4500s. You don't get that in many other places.
Aside from that, the quality people that are still here enjoy what they do, and that's about all that's keeping them here.
I work for a government agency (USPS), and while my experience with them deals only with internet and intranet applications, it's worth noting that the biggest obstacle we face (and likely the other government agencies as well) is the pride of the people that create insecure applications.
If you happen to read something on slashdot, such as the IE cookie exploit, then dare report it to a division using cookies for sensitive information, you just get a heated debate.
It took me no more than thirty minutes to compromise the "secure" cookie of their application, and it contained sensitive information that could compromise the entire application in plain text!
Fortunately, the right people (suits) got wind of my experiment, and this security hole is actually being dealt with. With all the effort it takes to get people to open their eyes, I can understand why nothing gets done about such issues.
It's really like testing someone's program, only to have your feedback ignored.
I work for the USPS and am listed on several patents (though strangely I was never asked to sign anything). When the patent lawyers ask you for descriptions of the application (or whatever) that they're trying to help you patent, they give you the following advice:
"Make it sound specific enough to be considered unique, but otherwise as broad and vague as possible."
Though I guess I always really knew that, it was strange to see it so openely expressed.
The really funny thing is, *very* little of what we're doing is unique, yet they are trying to patent the entire application. Half the time you listen to these lawyers, you'll find yourself wondering what the hell it is you're trying to patent.
These "new forms of media" indeed give people a better chance to open their eyes and learn more about the world around them, but there will always be a place for local news on television and in newspapers.
Along the same lines, there will always be a place for books, even with more and more information just a click away.
Things are changing, but I think some things will never change.
It seems that most judges have a history of political science or other liberal arts oriented educations, and of course a stellar legal career. Do you think the court system is flawed by having such individuals make rulings on computer-related cases such as this?
Should we (United States) consider amending the current legal system, instead of just amending the current laws, in our attempt to prepare for the future?
Slashdot Mirror
This may be a very naive question, but I am still curious.
Why do organizations which are obviously selfish (ignoring specifics), such as the MPAA, have better luck at lobbying for legislation than organizations which are obviously sincere and looking out for the people, such as the EFF?
Yes, I'm sure that money exchanges hands and that there is a little corruption involved. However, I cannot see how there is *that* much corruption to justify things like the DeCSS outcome and the undeserved resilience of the DMCA. Do most legislators really buy what the MPAA says?
I know the EFF is too honest to slip any money under the table, but I (perhaps naively) don't believe that the MPAA benefits too much from those tactics, so it seems like there has to be something else.
I have also spoken to a few politicians (Senators), and they always seem to be at least moderately intelligent and concerned. Yes, I know most of that is an act, but I can't see how a group of people of average (or better than average) intelligence can come to the conclusions that the US government has in recent times.
I fear that things like this are going to go MPAA's way, and I don't even understand how that's possible...
Linux is dead - Microsoft, June 2002.
Microsoft is dead - Linux, June 2010.
The danger in this approach, though I agree it is a generally good one, is that developers for this environment use the same tool to test with as a user does to use the site.
In fact, even that wouldn't be such a bad thing, but too many lame developers use the most liberal tool to test with, making it more, "Be liberal in what you emit and hope everyone is equally as liberal in what they accept."
This is the real problem with the whole situation.
I'm sorry, but your comment is just dumb.
The more accurate analogy would be if Ford designed a truck that stopped at a stop sign whether the driver pressed the brake pedal or not. While this may seem (to you, apparently) like a good "improvement" for safety, it breeds a whole army of drivers who don't stop at stop signs due to the popularity of Ford trucks.
Wouldn't this irritate the fuck out of you when some dumbass smashes into the side of your car?
I think it's an error to compare humans to computers in this way.
Where humans can discern intent from ambiguity, computers cannot. Thus, standards are much more important than in human cultures. Computers require exact instructions, thus the nature of getting major syntax errors when you leave off a semicolon in your code. Computers interpret things literally, and that's the whole idea.
Your argument would only hold up if all Web browsers could interpret crap code (thus the usage would stray from the standards), but the entities adhering to the standard could still interpret the meaning of the non-standard information. For example, I can interpret, "I ain't goin'." to mean, "I am not going." Does this define the language? Certainly it does in certain cultures, but that's the whole point. Even when a "culture" is dominant, it still must comprise the whole to really be the defining word.
I believe, however, that your typical AOL user isn't going to jump ship on a whim because a few Web sites are broken. I don't think these people will instantly conclude that their AOL software is broken, which is what it seems like you are suggesting.
:) After all, all these broken Web sites with screwed up HTML (tables especially - ugh!), JavaScript, and especially anything that's intentionally IE-specific deserve it. When 35 million additional users can't use your Web site because you have crap code, there's a compelling reason to fix it.
Rather, it will seem like the Web site is broken, which is what I would love to see.
This "fixing" that I am optimistically hoping will happen is what I think the biggest benefit might be.
I've seen a lot of comments that seem to totally discard any significance coming from AOL using Mozilla as the base of its browser.
:)
If nothing else, this seems particularly important to me because it will force more Web developers to stop using IE as a test browser.
With the poorest standards compliance of all browsers, this has created a flood of these "Best Viewed with Internet Explorer" pages, because they write THML, Javascript, etc. that is broken.
Now, if these broken Web sites are revealed as such by a larger audience, we could see some improvements in the overall quality, because something tells me the typical AOL user will happily complain about anything.
What is the difference between the terms Britain, Great Britain, and England then, if I may ask?
I always thought the United Kingdom was Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, and England (Great Britain), and the Republic of Ireland was a separate entity. Now you're telling me England isn't Great Britain?
Hell yeah! That's still my favorite controller, though the GameCube's form-fitting characteristics give it a good run for the money.
Have none of you people seen the iBot before?
It's a wheelchair that uses a gyroscope to keep it balanced on two wheels, has a seat, and was invented by Dean Kamen.
You know, school is a good example. Take colleges for instance. There are public universities and private. Does the existance of public universities hurt the general public (those seeking to learn)? Of course not; it forces the private universities to actually offer better education so that people will pay more money. Now, what if software worked like this? Would the consumers be hurt, or would companies like Microsoft? Well, even Microsoft would admit that it would hurt them. Obviously, they wouldn't think such a thing if they actually believed their product was better. Fact is, they don't.
What we've been instructed to do at the USPS is either make the web sites, including all content, easily accesible via a screen reader like JAWS (I wouldn't recommend installing this on anything important) or have an alternate method of viewing the content.
So, for pdf files, powerpoint presentations, etc., you would have to provide an alternate meansof receiving the content.
I work for the USPS and can confirm that all web sites must be 508 compliant by June 22, 2001. Yes, this means retroactively.
I'd have to agree with the article that ColdFusion has a quick development time and is easy to use. Also, and I saw this refuted above, but it is also extremely easy to maintain and more portable than you'd think.
I develop web applications for the USPS, and we use ColdFusion in the project I'm currently on; there are no portability issues to speak of with the basic cfml code. There *are*, however, portability issues concerning the CFX tags (ColdFusion extensions written in C++ and compiled as shared objects) and *anything* that mentions Java. I attribute the Java problem with the fact that it's an environment nightmare to get anything written in Java to run on different machines. The CFX problem was unintended, but Allaire made an error when they compiled the server using Sun's native C compiler (for the Solaris version). If you use gcc to compile your libraries, forget it; it will ungracefully crash and burn.
So what are the downfalls? The same pitfalls come with ColdFusion as with anything not open-sourced. They don't fix their own bugs in a timely manner. I have personally discovered two bugs, one of which is really getting in the way of development (and stability), Allaire has officially recognized both and escalated the situation, but there are *no* patches to fix these problems and no sign of any help.
If PHP had problems as large as these, were notified about it, and didn't have it fixed with amazing haste, I'd be disappointed.
That's worth a lot more to me than being able to teach an idiot how to code and make it work, which seems to be the focus of corporate opinions.
One thing I've noticed in reading through the draft is that every phrase is carefully worded to include only the intent to perform a criminal act.
With that being the case, would it not be upheld exactly the way it reads? For it sounds to me like the writing of DeCSS would be perfectly fine according to this document. Am I missing something?
Also, even when there is an intent to perform a crime, isn't that a bit hard to prove? Is there a way to not persecute those with good intentions while still persecuting those with criminal intentions?
I don't see how.
Umm, no offense, but your "math" doesn't contradict anything bearpaw said.
"That's a heck of a stretch. The amount of money coming out of MP3's pocket will be unaffected by whether she wins or loses, but Universal may end up with less of its heist. What part of this simple bit of math do you not understand? "
This is still a valid statement. Using variables to show the obvious doesn't make your point sound any more intelligent. If you'll notice in your own argument, mp3.com still loses $10,000,000 in all cases, no more, no less.
Obviously, Courtney Love's case against Universal does not affect mp3.com (financially) in any way. Besides, as has been mentioned you're missing the whole point. I think it's pretty damn funny myself, and I'm glad she's doing it.
By your logic, however, if Microsoft has pursued and won its lawsuit against Slashdot, then I were to win a lawsuit against Microsoft (over something unrelated), then I would be taking money straight out of Slashdot's pocket. Now exactly how fucking stupid do you need to be to believe that?
And I disagree with those that think you're a troll. You've just been smoking a little too much crack.
That shit'll kill ya.
How ironic that the first release of Internet Explorer to fix the cookie exploit contains another privacy issue along the same lines.
It makes you wonder if Microsoft was really trying to fix the problem or just alter it in a way they had hoped would go unnoticed.
Here at the USPS, that is *exactly* the case. Other than myself, there are about five other people in this entire facility (app 500 people) with a clue.
The reason being that once people get a clue, they usually decide they want to get paid for having one and go elsewhere, thus this place turns into a training camp.
Government policies have an extremely hard time keeping up with the 21st century in a lot of ways. To pay people more money takes more political BS than I think most people realize. There are set positions with set salaries, and computer programmers are no exception, even though these salaries are about half of what you can find elsewhere.
Additionally, you must go through far too much red tape in order to get anything accomplished, even when you know what you're doing.
Now, the one big benefit of working for the government is the bottomless pit of money. My team (5 people) have our own development environment of a Sun Enterprise 6500 and five 4500s. You don't get that in many other places.
Aside from that, the quality people that are still here enjoy what they do, and that's about all that's keeping them here.
I work for a government agency (USPS), and while my experience with them deals only with internet and intranet applications, it's worth noting that the biggest obstacle we face (and likely the other government agencies as well) is the pride of the people that create insecure applications.
If you happen to read something on slashdot, such as the IE cookie exploit, then dare report it to a division using cookies for sensitive information, you just get a heated debate.
It took me no more than thirty minutes to compromise the "secure" cookie of their application, and it contained sensitive information that could compromise the entire application in plain text!
Fortunately, the right people (suits) got wind of my experiment, and this security hole is actually being dealt with. With all the effort it takes to get people to open their eyes, I can understand why nothing gets done about such issues.
It's really like testing someone's program, only to have your feedback ignored.
What's the point?
I work for the USPS and am listed on several patents (though strangely I was never asked to sign anything). When the patent lawyers ask you for descriptions of the application (or whatever) that they're trying to help you patent, they give you the following advice:
"Make it sound specific enough to be considered unique, but otherwise as broad and vague as possible."
Though I guess I always really knew that, it was strange to see it so openely expressed.
The really funny thing is, *very* little of what we're doing is unique, yet they are trying to patent the entire application. Half the time you listen to these lawyers, you'll find yourself wondering what the hell it is you're trying to patent.
Children are like a wet bar of soap:
If you do not squeeze tightly enough, it will slip out of your hand.
If you squeeze too tightly, it will slip out of your hand.
Well, I can't fucking exert the right amount of pressure with the government grabbing my fucking hand and squeezing for me.
God bless America.
Why yes, sir. It's pretty hard programming.
Do I get the job?
These "new forms of media" indeed give people a better chance to open their eyes and learn more about the world around them, but there will always be a place for local news on television and in newspapers.
Along the same lines, there will always be a place for books, even with more and more information just a click away.
Things are changing, but I think some things will never change.
Better not let anyone named Mickey get involved. We'll have space brooms all over the freaking galaxy.
It seems that most judges have a history of political science or other liberal arts oriented educations, and of course a stellar legal career. Do you think the court system is flawed by having such individuals make rulings on computer-related cases such as this?
Should we (United States) consider amending the current legal system, instead of just amending the current laws, in our attempt to prepare for the future?