Personally, I'd like to see a law that makes it illegal for adult context to appear on a URL unless is has a special extension, something like ".xxx". Then it'd be easy for concerned parents (and wives!) to configure the browser to block anything from that extension.
Try this: Don't read the poetry/songs. I skipped right over them and never missed 'em.
It's people like you that are responsible for the downfall of the Poetry/Songs Association of America (PSAA). Don't you think the artists deserve to be compensated for their hard work and tireless efforts to put you to sleep through page after page of mind-numbing verse?
I bet you use one of those ThiefOs to skip past the commercial infotainment that pays for your expensive television programming! Who do you think pays the hacks that dig through old scripts to rehash entertainment for the next generation?
This title may be cited as the `Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005' or the `ART Act'.
Anyone else notice that their acronym doesn't handle all of the initial letters of the title? If they want to use "A.R.T.", this becomes the "ART Prevention Act of 2005".
But if Microsoft fails to comply? What are you going to do? Whine and pout?
OpenSource Mercenary Commandos. Find some angst-ridden FOSS disciples, give them pointy sticks and badges, and point them toward Redmond. Shadowrun, here we come.
You could even outfit them using the revenue stream from Microsoft fines; make them stronger, faster, more... open.
"If companies are only using GPL-licensed software internally, they only need to distribute the source code to their employees."
This is another one of the somehwat incorrect statements in TFA. It appears this incorrect assumption comes from the misunderstanding of the term "distribute" as a physical act, and not a legal one.
When the company "distributes" desktops and monitors and chairs, it doesn't expect you to take ownership of those objects. Likewise, when they "distribute" software tools for you to use, they're not actually "giving" you the software; you're using it as an agent of the company. Feel free to ask for the source, but don't expect to get it...
No other OS today will run a program designed for an Operating System 10 years old while still having the features one would expect from a modern operating system.
BellSouth is the only remaining Baby Bell in its original form.
BellSouth was called Southern Bell until a few years ago, when they renamed to drop the stereotypical slow Southern image (get it? Southern Belle?:( ) A lot of people still write "Southern Bell" on their checks when they pay their bill...
Southern Bell itself originally held only 4 states, and merged with South-Central Bell (5 states) shortly after divestiture. So, no, none of the Bells exist in their original form, although BellSouth is the only one that uses the old AT&T Bell logo still...
If they can't subpoena the IP lists, a John Doe filing is pretty useless- because it doesn't identify a specific Defendant.
Have you ever SEEN a John Doe subpoena? We've been answering them at $ISP for 6 months or so. It has IP and timestamp information - sometimes for hundreds of violations. The whole point of the individual filing is to get the customer information.
You can't have an action held against you unless they have good reasoning to do so
That's what the IP, timestamp, and log information is for. They submit evidence that "the individual at W.X.Y.Z at AA:BB was offering copyrighted material" and get a subpoena for $50. The ISP then looks up their AAA records for that time period, and for a hefty hourly fee, turns over the personal information (usually after notifying the customer, but not necessarily.)
It may protect the ISP, but it makes it pure Hell for them to get at you because they can't identify you specifically. Now, I'm not one that does the fileswapping BS, but I have a BIG problem with the way they're all going about this shite.
It appears MOST of what this ruling does is protect the ISP. It means that the *AA has to go about submitting subpoenas the long way, rather than fishing expeditions for customer records.
On a related note, there's a brewing opinion in a CA court that could determine that the industry has to submit one subpoena per offense, at $50 a pop. Currently, they can submit bulk John Does, even if they might be unrelated, and their filing fee with the court is the same lump sum.
Not that I expect that will slow them down, either...
The judgement merely states that they can't go on their previous fishing expeditions. It doesn't say they can't submit John Doe subpoenas; as a matter of fact, they've been doing just that for the past 6 months. If you RTFO, you'll see that it even suggests just that. This just protects the ISP...
Does a lot of this sound like re-hash to anyone else?
With Doom 3 it was horror, with Quake 4 it's going to be war. Doom 3 was slow-paced, tense gameplay. Quake 4 is going to be over the top, all-out action.
Gee, all-out action in an FPS? Who'da thunk it? Kind of an empty claim...
Vehicles! They show a really cool outdoor shot of a bunch of Strogg (I think) fighter jets blasting everything.
I should hope so. Battlefield has been out how long, now? Any FPS coming out today that doesn't support and include a variety of vehicles isn't worth its engine. There's only so much 'running around with Generic Machinegun 5' can do for
entertainment.
Squad-based gameplay. A lot of the time you will be fighting as part of a squad.
Hopefully squad intelligence is better than Daikatana, or even AvP2. But still, I've seen it before.
Quake 4 will smash the perception that the Doom 3 engine is only good at indoor environments. There are many huge, open, outdoor levels.
...with an amazing palette of 16 million shades of gray. Fight on Asteroid Generica, Planet Bland, and the outerspace surface of the S.S.Dismal!
I can't wait. What new is this bringing to the table to warrant me spending $49.99? (or is it $59.99 now?)
I can't tell if you're being rhetorical or not, so here goes:
The federal government is directly involved in every citizen's life, not just the states (or their governments) of the union. Federal taxes, laws, regulations, everything that's bundled under interstate commerce that you don't have to leave your state to do. This is part of the reason why public presidential election is necessary, and presidents should not simply be picked by the state governments without public involvement (unless, of course, you want to argue that there should be no public presidential election at all since it's just the _States_).
We were discussing how things _should_ be. You can't (gasp) flip-flop from disucssing in your previous post about how things should be ("
Moreover, the federal elections should not be about states"), then turn around and claim I'm ignoring reality. I understand _why_ it is, I was simply making a point that I think there's another way that could be better.
Isn't that the principle and the purpose of voting - to determine what's more popular and what most people agree with and vote for? How else do you propose people participate in these matters, if not by voting?
That's the problem with what's popular: In the late 1600's it was popular to burn unpopular people at the stake, hang them by the neck, and other grisly events. If you want to play slippery-slope ("Where does it stop?"), I'll say its merely a matter of time before some states pass laws making displays of same-gender affection punishable by death, and outlaw all persons with a skin tone darker than themselves. I already know people in the rural parts of the country who have made exactly that claim (I even got to spend the weekend with two that made the claim "I'm voting for Bush because he killed him some A-rabs" in fairly mixed company.)
Get enough of them together, and according to you, their group-morality makes right.
The more laws one group makes that affect other people that they don't even know exist, have never seen, will never meet, and whose activities will have no impact on them, the worse off this country becomes. Community governments should be handling most of these kinds of issues, not mass-mandate.
I've a whole continued rant about how mass-religeon plays into this, but I'm double-parked.
Moreover, the federal elections should not be about states, but about all citizens in the country.
People seem to be forgetting that this is the United _States_, not The Republic of America. The Federal Government should serve the States, and each State should get a voice in how the Federal side is run.
The principle here is majority rule, minority rights. The electoral college doesn't guarantee that.
Oh, that's right, the popular vote guarantees that. Like the popular votes that made gay marriage illegal in nearly a dozen states yesterday.
Please. Popular vote + Strong Federal Government = Tyranny of the Majority
No matter how you slice it, he won this election. Electorally, popular vote, plurality of states, plurality of precincts, plurality of counties.
What exactly do you want to change in regards to the rules of the games?
How about some form of Instant Runoff voting, so I can vote for the candidate(s) that most closely represent my views without feeling like I'm throwing my vote away?
How about Instant Runoff voting, so I don't feel like I have to vote against the greater evil?
How about Instant Runoff voting, so the candidate that everyone can live with is elected, rather than a candidate who most polarizes the electorate?
Of course, since the candidates in office now got there through the current broken majority-electorate system, they're unlikely to change the hand that lifted them there...
They have the right to regulate digital hardware, too, as every computer you buy has been certified by the FCC not to cause harmful interference.
Sounds like regulating transmissions to me. Now, when the FCC tells me that my HDD can only boot an FCC approved OS image, or can only store files that have been signed by a corporate entity, then they get the FINGER.
# No retail (no middleman) price mark up which should result in cheaper games
Heard around The Table at BigBiz, International (a division of EngulfCo Holdings):
Peon:"So, you see, if we eliminate all of these smaller retail stores and sell direct to the consumers, we can lower the prices on our media, and the consumer will save a bundle!"
BigBoss:"Why don't we just KEEP the money, and the consumers can just keep paying the same price?! In fact, we could even RAISE prices, since the consumer now gets the convenience of shopping in their own home!"
P: "...er...uhm... but, our competitors could release a cheaper product!"
B: "What competitors? Have you seen the tired copies of last year's games being pushed out the door by our Publishing Media Partners? Once we license our LatestEngine(c) technology, who cares how much they sell their knockoffs for?
Can I request the source code since I got the binaries?
I wouldn't think so, since your company has not actually "distributed" the binary. If the company has made the modification, then as long as the company keeps the binary internal to the company, I wouldn't imagine it would be constrained by that portion of the GPL. Just as they didn't "give" you that monitor on your desk, or that chair you're sitting in, I don't think they would "give" you the binaries that you're using. Since the GPL seems to rely on variants of the term "distribute" however, it could legally be interpreted several ways. I would think, however, that you are being given access to the binaries as an agent of the company, not as an individual; in that case, no real distribution has occurred.
IANAL, but I'm sure your company has two or three; ask them.
...and then having a driver non signed in background which takes the bits direct from the screen memory or what is sent to output...
The video card, for one. The monitor, too. In the Palladium world, hollywood can trust the video card to not allow its memory to be accessed unless the application sends the correct decryption key. The monitor will only display "signed" data, prenegotiated over your new 18-pin cable. Remember, in the world of Trusted Computing, you can't trust any part of your hardware to cooperate.
(of course, nothing prevents you from just videotaping the screen itself, then signing that as a "personal, shareable" video... until image watermarking progresses quite a bit further than currently possible. Your quality, however, will suffer - probably unacceptably.)
I haven't seen much discussion about the concepts which allow virtual machines to exist, but isn't there a theory that any turing-complete system can emulate any other turing-complete system flawlessly? At least, if you ignore the infinite space requirement of a turing machine, any turing-complete system can at least simulate what any other turing complete system can do?
I think this is the theory that the *AA, Microsoft, and any other DRM implementors are going to have to realize. It is not possible for software to trust hardware. Any hardware interrupts or memory-mapped I/O can be completely simulated; the only problem is getting the correct response back (i.e., through breaking the encryption keys or whatever. How long did it take dongles to be cracked?) The software can't even necessarily do anything malicious to the user if whatever authentications fail; any instructions can be executed conditionally at every step, and anything malicious simply ignored. The bytecode for a program is sort of like a book of instructions - the book may say "Step 4: if you don't have the password, burn this book", but the reader doesn't have to do anything of the sort.
Of course, the problem is, the instructions may say "Step 5: Use the password to decrypt the hardware key, then use the decrypted key to decrypt the rest of this book." This is little more than security through obscurity.
The cat is out of the bag, and all the czar's horses can't put it back in. They'll need to invent a system that is not turing-complete and then get the american sheeple to buy it; good luck.
For sure you don't have to put the source code up on a public FTP to let anyone have a copy. But don't you still have to make the source available, under the GPL, to anyone you distribute a binary?
Are you sure they're giving you the binary? Did they give you that nice monitor on your desk, or would you say its still owned by the company?
Slashdot Mirror
Pardon the interruption, but the marketers making the previous offer have been sacked.
"More LOW LOW prices, now from SunSOFT...
We apologize, but the people responsible for sacking the previous marketers, have been sacked.
"..and you can ONLY get this deal from the brand-new Sun... er... Microsystems!
Once again we apologize for the interruption. The people responsible for sacking the people who were sacking the marketing droids, have been sacked.
We now continue with some less offensive Slashdot commentary...
No no no, he's a DEC Field Technician...
How many DEC Field Technicians does it take to change a flat tire?
Five: Four to lift the car and one to swap each tire.
How long will it take?
It depends on how many flat tires they brought with them.
What if you're out of gas?
They change the oil.
We're doomed.
What about IP-based URLs?
(http://127.0.0.1/ is FULL of pornography!)
After step 2, you've created a device to circumvent copy protection in the relative security of your own home, from previously legal materials.
Cue slimeball corporate lawyers suing to make audio cables illegal.
It's people like you that are responsible for the downfall of the Poetry/Songs Association of America (PSAA). Don't you think the artists deserve to be compensated for their hard work and tireless efforts to put you to sleep through page after page of mind-numbing verse?
I bet you use one of those ThiefOs to skip past the commercial infotainment that pays for your expensive television programming! Who do you think pays the hacks that dig through old scripts to rehash entertainment for the next generation?
Anyone else notice that their acronym doesn't handle all of the initial letters of the title? If they want to use "A.R.T.", this becomes the "ART Prevention Act of 2005".
How apt.
OpenSource Mercenary Commandos. Find some angst-ridden FOSS disciples, give them pointy sticks and badges, and point them toward Redmond. Shadowrun, here we come.
You could even outfit them using the revenue stream from Microsoft fines; make them stronger, faster, more... open.
This is another one of the somehwat incorrect statements in TFA. It appears this incorrect assumption comes from the misunderstanding of the term "distribute" as a physical act, and not a legal one.
When the company "distributes" desktops and monitors and chairs, it doesn't expect you to take ownership of those objects. Likewise, when they "distribute" software tools for you to use, they're not actually "giving" you the software; you're using it as an agent of the company. Feel free to ask for the source, but don't expect to get it...
*cough* SunOS *cough*
BellSouth was called Southern Bell until a few years ago, when they renamed to drop the stereotypical slow Southern image (get it? Southern Belle? :( ) A lot of people still write "Southern Bell" on their checks when they pay their bill...
Southern Bell itself originally held only 4 states, and merged with South-Central Bell (5 states) shortly after divestiture. So, no, none of the Bells exist in their original form, although BellSouth is the only one that uses the old AT&T Bell logo still...
Have you ever SEEN a John Doe subpoena? We've been answering them at $ISP for 6 months or so. It has IP and timestamp information - sometimes for hundreds of violations. The whole point of the individual filing is to get the customer information.
That's what the IP, timestamp, and log information is for. They submit evidence that "the individual at W.X.Y.Z at AA:BB was offering copyrighted material" and get a subpoena for $50. The ISP then looks up their AAA records for that time period, and for a hefty hourly fee, turns over the personal information (usually after notifying the customer, but not necessarily.)
It appears MOST of what this ruling does is protect the ISP. It means that the *AA has to go about submitting subpoenas the long way, rather than fishing expeditions for customer records.
On a related note, there's a brewing opinion in a CA court that could determine that the industry has to submit one subpoena per offense, at $50 a pop. Currently, they can submit bulk John Does, even if they might be unrelated, and their filing fee with the court is the same lump sum.
Not that I expect that will slow them down, either...
The judgement merely states that they can't go on their previous fishing expeditions. It doesn't say they can't submit John Doe subpoenas; as a matter of fact, they've been doing just that for the past 6 months. If you RTFO, you'll see that it even suggests just that. This just protects the ISP...
Does a lot of this sound like re-hash to anyone else?
Gee, all-out action in an FPS? Who'da thunk it? Kind of an empty claim...
I should hope so. Battlefield has been out how long, now? Any FPS coming out today that doesn't support and include a variety of vehicles isn't worth its engine. There's only so much 'running around with Generic Machinegun 5' can do for entertainment.
Hopefully squad intelligence is better than Daikatana, or even AvP2. But still, I've seen it before.
...with an amazing palette of 16 million shades of gray. Fight on Asteroid Generica, Planet Bland, and the outerspace surface of the S.S.Dismal!
I can't wait. What new is this bringing to the table to warrant me spending $49.99? (or is it $59.99 now?)
I can't tell if you're being rhetorical or not, so here goes:
We were discussing how things _should_ be. You can't (gasp) flip-flop from disucssing in your previous post about how things should be (" Moreover, the federal elections should not be about states"), then turn around and claim I'm ignoring reality. I understand _why_ it is, I was simply making a point that I think there's another way that could be better.
That's the problem with what's popular: In the late 1600's it was popular to burn unpopular people at the stake, hang them by the neck, and other grisly events. If you want to play slippery-slope ("Where does it stop?"), I'll say its merely a matter of time before some states pass laws making displays of same-gender affection punishable by death, and outlaw all persons with a skin tone darker than themselves. I already know people in the rural parts of the country who have made exactly that claim (I even got to spend the weekend with two that made the claim "I'm voting for Bush because he killed him some A-rabs" in fairly mixed company.)
Get enough of them together, and according to you, their group-morality makes right.
The more laws one group makes that affect other people that they don't even know exist, have never seen, will never meet, and whose activities will have no impact on them, the worse off this country becomes. Community governments should be handling most of these kinds of issues, not mass-mandate.
I've a whole continued rant about how mass-religeon plays into this, but I'm double-parked.
People seem to be forgetting that this is the United _States_, not The Republic of America. The Federal Government should serve the States, and each State should get a voice in how the Federal side is run.
Oh, that's right, the popular vote guarantees that. Like the popular votes that made gay marriage illegal in nearly a dozen states yesterday.
Please. Popular vote + Strong Federal Government = Tyranny of the Majority
How about some form of Instant Runoff voting, so I can vote for the candidate(s) that most closely represent my views without feeling like I'm throwing my vote away?
How about Instant Runoff voting, so I don't feel like I have to vote against the greater evil?
How about Instant Runoff voting, so the candidate that everyone can live with is elected, rather than a candidate who most polarizes the electorate?
Of course, since the candidates in office now got there through the current broken majority-electorate system, they're unlikely to change the hand that lifted them there...
Sounds like regulating transmissions to me. Now, when the FCC tells me that my HDD can only boot an FCC approved OS image, or can only store files that have been signed by a corporate entity, then they get the FINGER.
Heard around The Table at BigBiz, International (a division of EngulfCo Holdings):
As the saying goes, I'll use AIX once they finish porting it to UNIX. :P
And nobody ever will. q.v. Halting Problem
I wouldn't think so, since your company has not actually "distributed" the binary. If the company has made the modification, then as long as the company keeps the binary internal to the company, I wouldn't imagine it would be constrained by that portion of the GPL. Just as they didn't "give" you that monitor on your desk, or that chair you're sitting in, I don't think they would "give" you the binaries that you're using. Since the GPL seems to rely on variants of the term "distribute" however, it could legally be interpreted several ways. I would think, however, that you are being given access to the binaries as an agent of the company, not as an individual; in that case, no real distribution has occurred.
IANAL, but I'm sure your company has two or three; ask them.
The video card, for one. The monitor, too. In the Palladium world, hollywood can trust the video card to not allow its memory to be accessed unless the application sends the correct decryption key. The monitor will only display "signed" data, prenegotiated over your new 18-pin cable. Remember, in the world of Trusted Computing, you can't trust any part of your hardware to cooperate.
(of course, nothing prevents you from just videotaping the screen itself, then signing that as a "personal, shareable" video... until image watermarking progresses quite a bit further than currently possible. Your quality, however, will suffer - probably unacceptably.)
I haven't seen much discussion about the concepts which allow virtual machines to exist, but isn't there a theory that any turing-complete system can emulate any other turing-complete system flawlessly? At least, if you ignore the infinite space requirement of a turing machine, any turing-complete system can at least simulate what any other turing complete system can do?
I think this is the theory that the *AA, Microsoft, and any other DRM implementors are going to have to realize. It is not possible for software to trust hardware. Any hardware interrupts or memory-mapped I/O can be completely simulated; the only problem is getting the correct response back (i.e., through breaking the encryption keys or whatever. How long did it take dongles to be cracked?) The software can't even necessarily do anything malicious to the user if whatever authentications fail; any instructions can be executed conditionally at every step, and anything malicious simply ignored. The bytecode for a program is sort of like a book of instructions - the book may say "Step 4: if you don't have the password, burn this book", but the reader doesn't have to do anything of the sort.
Of course, the problem is, the instructions may say "Step 5: Use the password to decrypt the hardware key, then use the decrypted key to decrypt the rest of this book." This is little more than security through obscurity.
The cat is out of the bag, and all the czar's horses can't put it back in. They'll need to invent a system that is not turing-complete and then get the american sheeple to buy it; good luck.
Are you sure they're giving you the binary? Did they give you that nice monitor on your desk, or would you say its still owned by the company?