>...to advance religious doctrine, which is the only reason these issues are ever raised in the first place...
Because that's exactly what third graders are doing when they ask questions in the classroom. Advancing their religious doctrine. Down with inquisitive third-graders!
Seriously. Slow-change Darwinism? Ya that explains it all...
Oh man, you must get positively turgid when you read new licensing models and agreements for crap-products that don't even exist. I mean. What a wonderful world where it's impossible to actually *buy* anything and all anyone can ever do is "license".
Don't mind the guys writing stuff that's useful and works and then giving it away for free. You'll find a way to litigate them out of existence, or criminalize them (DMCA).
I think the point is: If you didn't *get something* out of the contract for what you're *putting in*... It's very often not a valid contract.
foo: "Sign this document that I get all your money." bar: "Okay." *bar signs* foo: "Muwahahah, I'm so smart!" *not a valid contract, foo is gonna get reamed in court*
foo has to at least *pretend* (like a cell phone carrier) to have given something valuable to bar in return for the money...
JOIN vs sub-query? I don't know what DB or problem sets you are working with, but if it were MySQL, for instance, MyISAM just seems to run many sub-queries much faster than similar JOIN logic.
In any case, reducing working sets (when there's not a simple index mapping) can be very important for getting any kind of performance. sub-query shines for that, (perhaps in a JOIN at times) JOIN by itself doesn't.
Expecting a certain slant on which is better (JOIN vs sub-query) just smacks of personal bias. (unless perhaps they've re-written the same sub-logic 10 times and aren't receiving serious performance gain)
According to the article "unstable code" is anything with undefined behavior according to the C++ standard. This could be as simple as an integer overflow or divide by zero which in debug or "zero optimization" mode would always cause an error, but which in an optimized release may simply be removed.
Is asking the user to actually pay for their software abusive?
If that software is GPL code you stole from the author, then YES!
If alternative free software is readily available and you're blocking it in an attempt to shovel your crap-ware, then YES!
And yes, I'm a programmer and I live with a strong sense of entitlement when it comes to controlling what software I put on my systems. I'm entitled to be EXTREMELY selective about any bit-stream I might decide to run, especially those that cost me cold hard cash.
People who want..., free OS,...
You're kidding me right? Tons of really talented people have spent large portions of their life creating software that they'd merely love for me to be able to freely use and I'm in entitlement mode if I want to honor their work by using it as originally intended?
I'm confused, are you saying the whole token system is poorly designed? The database should only contain the public key equivalents for the physical token generators. The private key equivalent data shouldn't exist anywhere outside the key-fob.
(It's like you're saying stealing the password file would give you remote access to a UNIX system, without further decryption/password guessing)
But this could help keep legitimate users from *also* getting sued by the RIAA. Or at least, their case starts to look a lot different than that of blatent infringers.
If a work is only legitimately distributed with a valid watermark, then any copy of that work without a watermark is unauthorized by definition.
Of course, if you can show you own a valid copy, having additional "unauthorized" copies for your own personal use should be more or less legitimate. Now redistributing unauthorized copies... That's where you should get into trouble with the law.
Well basically. It sounds like this isn't intended to help figure out where illegal/unofficial distributions come from. Rather to prove legitimate rights to a particular bit of content.
Basically if the RIAA says "we found copies of Titanic and Spiceworld in your online data store on June 15", you can come back and show them your official copy bought on May 12 so they'll leave you alone. Assuming forgeries are difficult, this might allow technologies like managed online media storage to get off the ground without the legalities dragging it down. Basically this gives you a portfolio of "legally registered" works that another entity can help you manage without imposing additional restrictions on what you can do with the content.
DRM kind of does this, but it locks up the portfolio and leaves someone besides the end-user with the keys. Under a scheme like this, you're less fencing in your property, and more just making an outline that says where the property boundaries are...
If you can't see a way to build a business of producing mixtapes or promo CDs with authorized content
Don't be silly. I could easily (if I had the pre-requisite taste, talent and drive) build a company selling authorized mix tapes. My point is that if I built one company which made authorized mix tapes and one which made unauthorized tapes, they would differ significantly in their content. This is because authorized compilations are subject to copyright holder whim. (Not need, not reasonable compensation... mere whim. Copyright is a monopoly pure and simple, especially when implemented the way you seem to view it.)
If it were just a matter of paying some reasonable and regulated fee based on revenues to resample a work, rather than getting permission from a finicky and picky artist type (or worse their label), then there would be no reason to have unauthorized mixes. But. This isn't the case, and there *are* reasons to allow unauthorized mixes. So we have a legal grey area on the subject. Obviously it can be taken too far by greedy mixers, just as it can be taken too far by greedy or picky rights holders.
I guess you could argue that mixers should give royalties to the original artists, but doing so wouldn't put them on any better legal footing, further, I'm not sure it would help because it would be open to several other types of abuse.
That might have meant that he cleared less profit on each sale, so I suppose it's his greed that got in the way.
So, the difference between pulling in a slightly better than decent living and losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year making exactly the compositions you want can be attributed to basic human greed?
I guess so. I'm a pretty greedy bastard myself. I regularly go to huge lengths to avoid running up millions of dollars of debt, and then on top of that I try to make enough to pay the bills and keep my girlfriend and I solvent enough to eat dinner out a couple times a week.
I'm just saying. If he followed the rules he'd either have a highly negative profit, or he wouldn't be turning out the same tapes he's been turning out. Some folks are OK letting politics affect their creations, others aren't. And, still others are greedy and will do anything to make a buck without giving anything back to the community. Since I don't personally know the guy, or his work, I'll reserve judgement for those in the know. (Apprantly some people think he had something artistic to contribute according to the article...)
Well... Airbags do purportedly save some lives, it's just that they've also taken a few. At first I objected to the airbag analogy, but the more I think about it the more it fits. I'm sure full disclosure causes some reform, and in the case of Microsoft it has clearly had some (seemingly positive) effect. However, the effects of full disclosure are not always positive.
As to other analogies... I've yet to hear of a medical utensil causing injury because it was too well sterilized.
Shaping up bad vendors? Sounds like an attempt to make cars safer without taking into account some major problems with the basic model. Sure, it's a worthwhile endeavor. But why waste so much effort making cars safer, when the benefits of mass transit are so compelling? Similarly, why waste time reforming bad vendors when switching to better vendors, or even a better model, has such compelling benefits?
So, do I have an idea for simply shaping up bad vendors? Nothing new. I think the best course of action is still to quit using their products and to quit giving them money for bad product. Of course, being careful what you buy, being careful how you spend money and taking the time to exhaustively review products for the benefit of yourself and others isn't nearly as exciting as spreading around potentially dangerous vulnerability information with wanton abandon.
I think a truly responsible analysis of a particular body of work might give out statistics on problems found immediately, but would withhold gory exploit details until after negotiating a disclosure schedule with the creators. (Note: The schedule should be up for negotiation. The results should not.) I think such an approach is probably more effective than public disclosure without so much as notifying the vendor. In fact, there's no law that says temporary fixes can't be proposed without providing exploit examples.
A simple: "Turn off active scripting in IE 6 and 7, I think I found a vulnerability." or "Disable this particular feature in BIND." From the right source might work wonders. (Of course, in the case of scripting in IE, I hope everyone has learned their lesson by now... I'd wait about 3-5 years before trusting that particular browser on the open internet again, assuming it starts showing signs of secure operation at some point.)
These companies are doing the equivalent of shipping cars without airbags in the modern world
Ya, because small women and young children deserve to be crushed to death for riding in the front seat...
Of course, if someone were to suggest something likely to have a stastically significant impact on yearly motor vehicle deaths, like say mass transit, that'd just be inconvenient...
I guess mass transit would be akin to simply not using products from software vendors with poor security track records. In that vein I suppose airbags are about as useful as trying to turn bad vendors into good ones with nothing more than bug disclosure practices.
Eclipse is buggy as hell in a C++ environment, not to mention sloooow. (even my Java friends who are evangelists for the program will concede it is not worth it for a C++ developer)
Concede nothing. Eclipse for C++? Do you like screwing in nails with a fancy power-screwdriver?
If you like vi, try vim and gVim if your environment allows. Emacs may be a powerful tool, but I don't think that mindset is for everyone. Personally, I'll try Emacs again when my keyboard has a "meta" key:-/
Why would connection speeds change this? 56k is plenty to download a typical small-mid-sized java app. Besides, the median connection speed is still probably 56k with 256k up/1.0M down and 750k being close seconds. No one is connecting at 300 kbps. (Heh, except me at home oddly enough...)
Also, I thought overly complex security models and various exploits had more to do with low applet adoption rates than anything.
Slashdot Mirror
How can there be a "basic" pen register demand?
> ...to advance religious doctrine, which is the only reason these issues are ever raised in the first place...
Because that's exactly what third graders are doing when they ask questions in the classroom. Advancing their religious doctrine. Down with inquisitive third-graders!
Seriously. Slow-change Darwinism? Ya that explains it all...
Oh man, you must get positively turgid when you read new licensing models and agreements for crap-products that don't even exist. I mean. What a wonderful world where it's impossible to actually *buy* anything and all anyone can ever do is "license".
Don't mind the guys writing stuff that's useful and works and then giving it away for free. You'll find a way to litigate them out of existence, or criminalize them (DMCA).
> First year law school stuff.
Ya, the "wet dream" part...
Ever hear of Common Law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Note: Judges are lawyers too.
I think the point is: If you didn't *get something* out of the contract for what you're *putting in*... It's very often not a valid contract.
foo: "Sign this document that I get all your money."
bar: "Okay."
*bar signs*
foo: "Muwahahah, I'm so smart!"
*not a valid contract, foo is gonna get reamed in court*
foo has to at least *pretend* (like a cell phone carrier) to have given something valuable to bar in return for the money...
JOIN vs sub-query? I don't know what DB or problem sets you are working with, but if it were MySQL, for instance, MyISAM just seems to run many sub-queries much faster than similar JOIN logic.
In any case, reducing working sets (when there's not a simple index mapping) can be very important for getting any kind of performance. sub-query shines for that, (perhaps in a JOIN at times) JOIN by itself doesn't.
Expecting a certain slant on which is better (JOIN vs sub-query) just smacks of personal bias. (unless perhaps they've re-written the same sub-logic 10 times and aren't receiving serious performance gain)
According to the article "unstable code" is anything with undefined behavior according to the C++ standard. This could be as simple as an integer overflow or divide by zero which in debug or "zero optimization" mode would always cause an error, but which in an optimized release may simply be removed.
I think momentum is an important term to remember here. Photons may not have rest mass, but they do have momentum. (in classical physics: p = m * v)
I just have to point out a bit of a seeming discrepancy here. From the wiki article on ERP:
> However, information tools like ERP are expensive, and not a practical method for medium or small business owners.
Is asking the user to actually pay for their software abusive?
If that software is GPL code you stole from the author, then YES!
If alternative free software is readily available and you're blocking it in an attempt to shovel your crap-ware, then YES!
And yes, I'm a programmer and I live with a strong sense of entitlement when it comes to controlling what software I put on my systems. I'm entitled to be EXTREMELY selective about any bit-stream I might decide to run, especially those that cost me cold hard cash.
People who want..., free OS, ...
You're kidding me right? Tons of really talented people have spent large portions of their life creating software that they'd merely love for me to be able to freely use and I'm in entitlement mode if I want to honor their work by using it as originally intended?
Lynx anyone? Also, you don't have to leave the command line to use it.
I'm confused, are you saying the whole token system is poorly designed? The database should only contain the public key equivalents for the physical token generators. The private key equivalent data shouldn't exist anywhere outside the key-fob.
(It's like you're saying stealing the password file would give you remote access to a UNIX system, without further decryption/password guessing)
From Wikipedia:
The Index Librorum Prohibitorum ("List of Prohibited Books") was a list of publications prohibited by the Roman Catholic Church...
And they'll still get sued by the RIAA.
But this could help keep legitimate users from *also* getting sued by the RIAA. Or at least, their case starts to look a lot different than that of blatent infringers.
If a work is only legitimately distributed with a valid watermark, then any copy of that work without a watermark is unauthorized by definition.
Of course, if you can show you own a valid copy, having additional "unauthorized" copies for your own personal use should be more or less legitimate. Now redistributing unauthorized copies... That's where you should get into trouble with the law.
Well basically. It sounds like this isn't intended to help figure out where illegal/unofficial distributions come from. Rather to prove legitimate rights to a particular bit of content.
Basically if the RIAA says "we found copies of Titanic and Spiceworld in your online data store on June 15", you can come back and show them your official copy bought on May 12 so they'll leave you alone. Assuming forgeries are difficult, this might allow technologies like managed online media storage to get off the ground without the legalities dragging it down. Basically this gives you a portfolio of "legally registered" works that another entity can help you manage without imposing additional restrictions on what you can do with the content.
DRM kind of does this, but it locks up the portfolio and leaves someone besides the end-user with the keys. Under a scheme like this, you're less fencing in your property, and more just making an outline that says where the property boundaries are...
If you can't see a way to build a business of producing mixtapes or promo CDs with authorized content
Don't be silly. I could easily (if I had the pre-requisite taste, talent and drive) build a company selling authorized mix tapes. My point is that if I built one company which made authorized mix tapes and one which made unauthorized tapes, they would differ significantly in their content. This is because authorized compilations are subject to copyright holder whim. (Not need, not reasonable compensation... mere whim. Copyright is a monopoly pure and simple, especially when implemented the way you seem to view it.)
If it were just a matter of paying some reasonable and regulated fee based on revenues to resample a work, rather than getting permission from a finicky and picky artist type (or worse their label), then there would be no reason to have unauthorized mixes. But. This isn't the case, and there *are* reasons to allow unauthorized mixes. So we have a legal grey area on the subject. Obviously it can be taken too far by greedy mixers, just as it can be taken too far by greedy or picky rights holders.
I guess you could argue that mixers should give royalties to the original artists, but doing so wouldn't put them on any better legal footing, further, I'm not sure it would help because it would be open to several other types of abuse.
Good points but:
That might have meant that he cleared less profit on each sale, so I suppose it's his greed that got in the way.
So, the difference between pulling in a slightly better than decent living and losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year making exactly the compositions you want can be attributed to basic human greed?
I guess so. I'm a pretty greedy bastard myself. I regularly go to huge lengths to avoid running up millions of dollars of debt, and then on top of that I try to make enough to pay the bills and keep my girlfriend and I solvent enough to eat dinner out a couple times a week.
I'm just saying. If he followed the rules he'd either have a highly negative profit, or he wouldn't be turning out the same tapes he's been turning out. Some folks are OK letting politics affect their creations, others aren't. And, still others are greedy and will do anything to make a buck without giving anything back to the community. Since I don't personally know the guy, or his work, I'll reserve judgement for those in the know. (Apprantly some people think he had something artistic to contribute according to the article...)
Ya, the GNU credo is something like:
"We think copyright is bad, but since we're stuck with it, we'll use it against itself wherever possible."
Copyleft was always meant to be the opposite of copyright... Of course, sometimes people forget the fundamentals.
Government issued or not "last mile" utility solutions always seem to wind up owned by a monopoly...
Well... Airbags do purportedly save some lives, it's just that they've also taken a few. At first I objected to the airbag analogy, but the more I think about it the more it fits. I'm sure full disclosure causes some reform, and in the case of Microsoft it has clearly had some (seemingly positive) effect. However, the effects of full disclosure are not always positive.
As to other analogies... I've yet to hear of a medical utensil causing injury because it was too well sterilized.
Shaping up bad vendors? Sounds like an attempt to make cars safer without taking into account some major problems with the basic model. Sure, it's a worthwhile endeavor. But why waste so much effort making cars safer, when the benefits of mass transit are so compelling? Similarly, why waste time reforming bad vendors when switching to better vendors, or even a better model, has such compelling benefits?
So, do I have an idea for simply shaping up bad vendors? Nothing new. I think the best course of action is still to quit using their products and to quit giving them money for bad product. Of course, being careful what you buy, being careful how you spend money and taking the time to exhaustively review products for the benefit of yourself and others isn't nearly as exciting as spreading around potentially dangerous vulnerability information with wanton abandon.
I think a truly responsible analysis of a particular body of work might give out statistics on problems found immediately, but would withhold gory exploit details until after negotiating a disclosure schedule with the creators. (Note: The schedule should be up for negotiation. The results should not.) I think such an approach is probably more effective than public disclosure without so much as notifying the vendor. In fact, there's no law that says temporary fixes can't be proposed without providing exploit examples.
A simple: "Turn off active scripting in IE 6 and 7, I think I found a vulnerability." or "Disable this particular feature in BIND." From the right source might work wonders. (Of course, in the case of scripting in IE, I hope everyone has learned their lesson by now... I'd wait about 3-5 years before trusting that particular browser on the open internet again, assuming it starts showing signs of secure operation at some point.)
These companies are doing the equivalent of shipping cars without airbags in the modern world
Ya, because small women and young children deserve to be crushed to death for riding in the front seat...
Of course, if someone were to suggest something likely to have a stastically significant impact on yearly motor vehicle deaths, like say mass transit, that'd just be inconvenient...
I guess mass transit would be akin to simply not using products from software vendors with poor security track records. In that vein I suppose airbags are about as useful as trying to turn bad vendors into good ones with nothing more than bug disclosure practices.
Just let them use the body of work created by other students.
Collaboration *is* a big part of software development.
Eclipse is buggy as hell in a C++ environment, not to mention sloooow. (even my Java friends who are evangelists for the program will concede it is not worth it for a C++ developer)
:-/
Concede nothing. Eclipse for C++? Do you like screwing in nails with a fancy power-screwdriver?
If you like vi, try vim and gVim if your environment allows. Emacs may be a powerful tool, but I don't think that mindset is for everyone. Personally, I'll try Emacs again when my keyboard has a "meta" key
Why would connection speeds change this? 56k is plenty to download a typical small-mid-sized java app. Besides, the median connection speed is still probably 56k with 256k up/1.0M down and 750k being close seconds. No one is connecting at 300 kbps. (Heh, except me at home oddly enough...)
Also, I thought overly complex security models and various exploits had more to do with low applet adoption rates than anything.