Yep, that was the most coherent and realistic analysis of the issue that I've ever heard. The pro-DeCSS crowd is going rah-rah around principles, which is fine. What they don't realize (or acknowledge) is that most of our beloved computer systems ARE built by power & money-hungry people who ARE willing to protect their investments and money trees with guns, both figurative and literal. And they don't give a d@mn about what you think you are entitled to.
What was so unbelievable about the offer? There are plenty of generally-unknown co-processor cards available (DSP, multi-processor, etc.), and it wouldn't be hard for someone to find a source of unused ones, reprogram them to aid SETI@home, and sell them cheap. Heck, just down the hall from me is a junk hardware bin with a dozen i960 cards in it...perfectly good hardware, but no longer useful to the project and the owners had no idea what to do with them; given specs and some time I could turn them into SETI@home co-processors and sell them for a tidy profit.
There's obviously a lot of interest in such hardware, and people are willing to buy them. A smart capitalist would recognize this, and actually turn this "hoax" into a marketable reality!
I just clicked on the download, not sure what I'd see. Having seen it, I'll probably go home, download it again, read it thoroughly, and send in my $1. Do the two downloads and one payment - even if all by one person - count as 50% compliance and work against the 75% requirement? What if I paid, and want to re-read it a few more times?...I'm not likely to save it locally (easier to just click the link) but certainly have upheld my obligation, yet will paid only $1 for multiple downloads.
Why is it that when the question of hiding X from professional searchers comes up, so many people believe they have an undetectable solution after deeply pondering the issue for TWO SECONDS (or so)... when the people that X is being hidden from look for such things FULL TIME, PROFESSIONALLY?
In this thread, some people want to hide communications from a monitoring agency tasked with finding such communications. Most respondents barely considered the issue and responded "stenography!" Don't ya think that the technical & intelligence professionals monitoring the communications channels KNOW about stenography? And that they've developed techniques for detecting it? Frankly, I'd suggest that the main covert-communications methods to avoid would be precisely the ones that are so readily suggested on a forum like this: such methods are well-known even to the lamest geeks, and are thus unquestionably watched for by the pros.
The judge rightfully decreed that eBay's servers are private property, and thus have the right to deny people access at will. The situation is comparable to a company sending people into a shopping mall to gather detailed information about what's sold there, and the mall owners objecting and ordering them off the property. Likewise, eBay has the right to eject people who are determined to be abusing browsing & shopping privliges.
The demand is for inexpensive quick access to a quick recharge of a power source that allows several hundred miles of travel per charge. Gasoline supplies that.
For roughly $20 every 300 miles, I can go anywhere anytime with a gas-based engine, and I can recharge the energy source within a few minutes of travel from any location at any time.
Try that with any other source. Straight electricity requires a lengthy recharge (on the order of hours) and a high-amperage outlet (where?). Hydrogen essentially isn't available. Natural gas isn't much more common.
Has ANYONE documented the cost per mile, miles per recharge, and average availability of recharge/refill sites? Gasoline does really well for all of these.
Gee, nice that you have convenient public transportation.
Some of us can't stand the sardine-can environment of the cities. Why rent an overpriced tiny box to live in, with the only view being of someone else's window? Why put up with noise, crime, expenses, dependency, panhandlers, wall-to-wall people, and government meddling...when one can have a spacious house on several acres of peaceful, clean air, life-producing fields where nobody gets in your face? Why live in total dependence when one can live in near-independence? That's just the rhetorical question to set up the response:
I live in the country, about 30 miles from work. I need a car to get anywhere, and there's NO WAY that public transport would work: the density of people is just way too low to support it...and you'd need a car just to get to the bus stop. I pay less for the freedom to travel anywhere, anytime, without traffic jams, fast, in comfort and convenience, than you do to ride your when-and-where-it's-scheduled dirty sardine-can-on-wheels bus or subway.
The better solution is: telecommuting. That way the pollution goes to almost zero.
Comparably: I study Iaido (Japanese sword fighting). Half the people who find out say that they (or a friend) own a "really high quality samurai sword - it cost 65 bucks!" - and they're sincere. I rarely have the heart to say that a good (not excellent!) new katana can cost $3000, and a really high quality one can cost $15,000.
To the contrary: they're guilty of libel. When asked about someone's background, they said s/he was a criminal when that was not the case, and that falsehood had a direct financial & social effect on the job applicant. The background check company probably has a "acceptable failure rate" policy, which just re-enforces the fact that they are willing to distribute libelous information about innocent people.
Similar case: I once stopped on the side of a road somewhere to admire the view. A cop pulled up and kindly informed me that parking in that particular location (nice view, non-dangerous, no risk to anyone) was a misdemeanor.
Ayn Rand observed that a government achieves much greater power by making so many laws that virtually nobody can participate in society without breaking laws, and thus anyone can be manipulated with "you broke law X...do what we want or off to jail you go."
I appreciate your point, but the parties don't need to know who each other is specifically, only generally. "Anybody with the software CD and receipt" is good enough.... For example, at a state fair the purchase of the an amusement ride ticket contracts the ride operator to give a ride to the ticket holder or his assignee, but neither of them know who the other is, beyond "hey you".
But "hey you" is still some degree of identification. You're using their service, and they know it. Even with a lottery ticket, or CD and receipt, you're anonymous until you show up to claim the money, at which point they identify you (even if it's just "hey you"). They identify you, you identify them, the contractual service occurs.
With a EULA, they don't know you, even as "hey you"; there is ZERO identification. They don't even know if anyone is using the product/service. The only hope for a EULA to matter is if you contact the company for further services (help, bug fixes, returns); like a lottery ticket, if you don't contact them for further services after initial purchase, they don't know you and neither of you owes the other anything and the contract is meaningless.
In general, legally a "contract" is not a piece of paper, with or without signatures, but rather "a meeting of the minds", an agreement between 2 or more parties that is "special" only in the sense that somone can sue for breach of that agreement. The piece of paper isn't the contract (which is intangible, being an agreement), it's the memorialization of the contract, so that both sides can know what they agreed to.
Exactly...and that just reinforces my point: With a EULA, one side is so ignorant of the other side that it doesn't even know if there IS another side! I may agree to Micro$oft's EULA, but how can M$ possibly hold me to it if they have absolutely no way of identifying me? even an identification as minimal as "you, with the glasses"? How can a contract between two parties exist when one side is profoundly, metaphysically ignorant of the existence of the other?
In any legal contract, however agreed to, each side has an awareness of the other - some way of identifying the other party. Even with a contract as vague as "by entering this store you agree to X", store personnel can identify even an anonymous patron as "that guy in aisle B" who has agreed to X by simply being there in the store. With a EULA, the company does not even know if "the other party" even exists, much less any way of identifying the other supposedly agreeing party.
Consider the absurdity of the following contract, absurd because I haven't got the vaguest hint of a clue who is subject to it: By reading the following sentence, the reader agrees to send his credit card number to carl@donath.org.
If the contract violates the law, or your rights you do not have to abide by that contract.
Yeah, BUT...you'll have to go to court (time, $$$, hassle) to have the contract ruled invalid. Contracts are valid until proven otherwise.
That's like unconstitutional laws: you might not have to follow a law because it's invalid, but the cop who arrests you and tosses you in jail for breaking that law won't care, your new arrest record won't be purged, the bail bondsman will still want his 10% cut, your lawyer will demand payment, you boss will replace you while you're in the slammer, your apartment contents will be dumped on the curb after you miss your payment, and the judge will take lots of your time while you explain how the law is unconstitutional. You'll be acquitted, but at what cost?
An unaddressed issue with "click-wrap licenses" (and shrink-wrap, and "if you use this you agree...") is that it is a contract where the service-providing party hasn't got a friggin' clue who the other party is! How can I possibly be held to a contract by someone who has absolutely no idea who I am? Software makers produce a copy of a product (boxed or.ZIPped, sold (excuse me, leased) retail or downloaded), and that's it - they are not notified when the box is opened or "Agree" is clicked, have no idea who the user is that the product is licensed to, and don't even know if the product went straight from production to dumpster.
The producer who demands agreement to the license doesn't even have an "anonymous" ID (like the name on this post); click/shrink-wrap licenses are like putting "by reading the following posting you agree to the following conditions..." on a/. response - it's a legal absurdity because the one requiring agreement to terms hasn't got the foggiest clue who is doing the agreeing.
Who would be dumb enough? The only dumb ones would be HavenCo if they didn't uphold their end of the contract. Sure, they could take the money and run, but what would that get them? a few thousand bucks and a ruined reputation? They'll make FAR more money by actually upholding the contracts. This enterprise is a goose laying golden eggs...just keep feeding the goose and the money will keep flowing in; kill it, and it's all over.
Re:Yeah, I'm thinking about getting rid of ACs
on
Privacy vs. Anonymity
·
· Score: 1
How about giving users an "ignore ACs" switch instead? That would be a variant of thresholds, and allow the right of anonymity along with the right to ignore.
Don't let the AC dirt distract you from the AC gems. I recall Quake god John Carmack posting anonymously at least once for technical/logistic reasons, and there have been many other valuable AC posts (some AC for laziness, some for fear of repercussions).
Re:Yeah, I'm thinking about getting rid of ACs
on
Privacy vs. Anonymity
·
· Score: 1
Get rid of AC because impersonators abuse accounts? Non-sequitor!
Because they want their post read in the context of the particular forum. If they knew that the post would appear in another forum, they might post differently or not at all. Audience, context, and control differ and matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, that was the most coherent and realistic analysis of the issue that I've ever heard. The pro-DeCSS crowd is going rah-rah around principles, which is fine. What they don't realize (or acknowledge) is that most of our beloved computer systems ARE built by power & money-hungry people who ARE willing to protect their investments and money trees with guns, both figurative and literal. And they don't give a d@mn about what you think you are entitled to.
- Scott Kim
There's obviously a lot of interest in such hardware, and people are willing to buy them. A smart capitalist would recognize this, and actually turn this "hoax" into a marketable reality!
I just clicked on the download, not sure what I'd see. Having seen it, I'll probably go home, download it again, read it thoroughly, and send in my $1. Do the two downloads and one payment - even if all by one person - count as 50% compliance and work against the 75% requirement? What if I paid, and want to re-read it a few more times? ...I'm not likely to save it locally (easier to just click the link) but certainly have upheld my obligation, yet will paid only $1 for multiple downloads.
In this thread, some people want to hide communications from a monitoring agency tasked with finding such communications. Most respondents barely considered the issue and responded "stenography!" Don't ya think that the technical & intelligence professionals monitoring the communications channels KNOW about stenography? And that they've developed techniques for detecting it? Frankly, I'd suggest that the main covert-communications methods to avoid would be precisely the ones that are so readily suggested on a forum like this: such methods are well-known even to the lamest geeks, and are thus unquestionably watched for by the pros.
For roughly $20 every 300 miles, I can go anywhere anytime with a gas-based engine, and I can recharge the energy source within a few minutes of travel from any location at any time.
Try that with any other source. Straight electricity requires a lengthy recharge (on the order of hours) and a high-amperage outlet (where?). Hydrogen essentially isn't available. Natural gas isn't much more common.
Has ANYONE documented the cost per mile, miles per recharge, and average availability of recharge/refill sites? Gasoline does really well for all of these.
Some of us can't stand the sardine-can environment of the cities. Why rent an overpriced tiny box to live in, with the only view being of someone else's window? Why put up with noise, crime, expenses, dependency, panhandlers, wall-to-wall people, and government meddling...when one can have a spacious house on several acres of peaceful, clean air, life-producing fields where nobody gets in your face? Why live in total dependence when one can live in near-independence? That's just the rhetorical question to set up the response:
I live in the country, about 30 miles from work. I need a car to get anywhere, and there's NO WAY that public transport would work: the density of people is just way too low to support it...and you'd need a car just to get to the bus stop. I pay less for the freedom to travel anywhere, anytime, without traffic jams, fast, in comfort and convenience, than you do to ride your when-and-where-it's-scheduled dirty sardine-can-on-wheels bus or subway.
The better solution is: telecommuting. That way the pollution goes to almost zero.
When the 180GB 5" discs finally come out of the labs and onto shelves, THAT will be news and worth looking into.
The wide use of 3D first-person games shows that we DO have the powerful graphics engines needed to run immersive virtual 3D environments.
What we don't have (or at least haven't shown) is the insight to create something more effective than time-consuming walk-thru paradigms.
Comparably:
I study Iaido (Japanese sword fighting). Half the people who find out say that they (or a friend) own a "really high quality samurai sword - it cost 65 bucks!" - and they're sincere. I rarely have the heart to say that a good (not excellent!) new katana can cost $3000, and a really high quality one can cost $15,000.
To the contrary: they're guilty of libel. When asked about someone's background, they said s/he was a criminal when that was not the case, and that falsehood had a direct financial & social effect on the job applicant. The background check company probably has a "acceptable failure rate" policy, which just re-enforces the fact that they are willing to distribute libelous information about innocent people.
I once stopped on the side of a road somewhere to admire the view. A cop pulled up and kindly informed me that parking in that particular location (nice view, non-dangerous, no risk to anyone) was a misdemeanor.
Ayn Rand observed that a government achieves much greater power by making so many laws that virtually nobody can participate in society without breaking laws, and thus anyone can be manipulated with "you broke law X...do what we want or off to jail you go."
Hard disks don't hold up well under normal camera usage. Bounce, heat/cold, etc.
Still cheaper to use full-size CDRs.
But "hey you" is still some degree of identification. You're using their service, and they know it. Even with a lottery ticket, or CD and receipt, you're anonymous until you show up to claim the money, at which point they identify you (even if it's just "hey you"). They identify you, you identify them, the contractual service occurs.
With a EULA, they don't know you, even as "hey you"; there is ZERO identification. They don't even know if anyone is using the product/service. The only hope for a EULA to matter is if you contact the company for further services (help, bug fixes, returns); like a lottery ticket, if you don't contact them for further services after initial purchase, they don't know you and neither of you owes the other anything and the contract is meaningless.
Exactly...and that just reinforces my point: With a EULA, one side is so ignorant of the other side that it doesn't even know if there IS another side! I may agree to Micro$oft's EULA, but how can M$ possibly hold me to it if they have absolutely no way of identifying me? even an identification as minimal as "you, with the glasses"? How can a contract between two parties exist when one side is profoundly, metaphysically ignorant of the existence of the other?
In any legal contract, however agreed to, each side has an awareness of the other - some way of identifying the other party. Even with a contract as vague as "by entering this store you agree to X", store personnel can identify even an anonymous patron as "that guy in aisle B" who has agreed to X by simply being there in the store. With a EULA, the company does not even know if "the other party" even exists, much less any way of identifying the other supposedly agreeing party.
Consider the absurdity of the following contract, absurd because I haven't got the vaguest hint of a clue who is subject to it:
By reading the following sentence, the reader agrees to send his credit card number to carl@donath.org.
Yeah, BUT...you'll have to go to court (time, $$$, hassle) to have the contract ruled invalid. Contracts are valid until proven otherwise.
That's like unconstitutional laws: you might not have to follow a law because it's invalid, but the cop who arrests you and tosses you in jail for breaking that law won't care, your new arrest record won't be purged, the bail bondsman will still want his 10% cut, your lawyer will demand payment, you boss will replace you while you're in the slammer, your apartment contents will be dumped on the curb after you miss your payment, and the judge will take lots of your time while you explain how the law is unconstitutional. You'll be acquitted, but at what cost?
The producer who demands agreement to the license doesn't even have an "anonymous" ID (like the name on this post); click/shrink-wrap licenses are like putting "by reading the following posting you agree to the following conditions..." on a /. response - it's a legal absurdity because the one requiring agreement to terms hasn't got the foggiest clue who is doing the agreeing.
Who would be dumb enough? The only dumb ones would be HavenCo if they didn't uphold their end of the contract. Sure, they could take the money and run, but what would that get them? a few thousand bucks and a ruined reputation? They'll make FAR more money by actually upholding the contracts. This enterprise is a goose laying golden eggs...just keep feeding the goose and the money will keep flowing in; kill it, and it's all over.
Bits are free.
Atoms cost money.
Don't let the AC dirt distract you from the AC gems. I recall Quake god John Carmack posting anonymously at least once for technical/logistic reasons, and there have been many other valuable AC posts (some AC for laziness, some for fear of repercussions).
Such irrational thought is why:
Because asking "may I?" does wonders to smooth the workings of society.
If you ask "may I borrow your stapler?" I will invariably say "yes" and happily let you take it. If you just take it I'll get pissed at you.
Because they want their post read in the context of the particular forum. If they knew that the post would appear in another forum, they might post differently or not at all. Audience, context, and control differ and matter.