While I 100% agree with your post - nicely written, by the way - I can answer your last question. People get in hysterics about nuclear weapons not because the risk is high, but because the impact is.
In security, we use a calculation that goes something like this: Annualized loss expectancy is equal to likelihood times impact. Now, if you take that calculation for something like "getting hit by a bus", the impact is generally one person's life, so the likelihood has to be insanely high (call it 25000 percent?) if it's going to match the ALE of a nuclear weapon going off with a likelihood of 1%.
Those numbers are obviously completely made up, but the point is: people worry more about larger-impact events. Add into this the fact that relatively few people are rational animals, and a big number on the impact side simply makes them ignore the likelihood altogether.
In case you want to indicate that there were something wrong with the used grammar: There isn't.
Just popping italics in to call out the grammar-nazi calling out the other grammar nazi... I'm not sure who's in the wrong here, and I don't care, it amused me.;)
What doesn't amuse me is people who think it's ok to tell an inefficient government to take someone else's money to fund healthcare.
I'll take this debate a lot more seriously when the proponents who think it's everybody's basic right to have healthcare start making deep personal sacrifices to fund it instead of trying to force other people to make small sacrifices.
If atheism is the default position, why are there so many people who believe in some sort of supreme being? I'd be quite willing to wager that over history, more people have believed in divinity than have not.
Despite being an agnostic with atheist leanings (as described earlier in this thread), I suspect that theism is the default position, with atheism being a recent aberration.
Oh, and your arguments on this sort of topic will be taken better if you leave the emotional content such as "grow up" out; we expect dogmatic and provocative crap from the theists, and look to the atheists for cool reason.;)
Much in the same way that if I decided to run around the office with a chain saw and someone gets up and walks into it, I should be held responsible even if it was them that walked into it.
We'll have to agree to disagree there. If anyone's stupid enough to walk into my loud, noisy, stinky chainsaw I don't care where I'm using it - they're too stupid to continue wasting my oxygen.
My favorite list: Switzerland, Netherland, Finland, Sweden, Norway. I would love to live in Switzerland myself: I love the direct democracy there, the peaceful people and the beautiful nature and very high standard of living. Another option is to become really rich! Rich people enjoy much more freedom all over the world!
As an American currently living in Switzerland and looking to get my citizenship in a few years, I have to agree with that. I love this country - it's everything America wanted to be before it grew up.
I posted a comment above about this, but if the state coerces private citizens to act on its behalf, then they are in essence state actors, and illegally obtained information becomes inadmissible.
If on the other hand the citizen stumbles across some information, regardless of how, and chooses (without being ordered, requested, payed, etc. to do so) to share it with the police, the court will allow the evidence.
Frankly, I think that's fair. If I am, say, breaking into the school at night to have a little fun with my buddies, and I see the principle murdering a teacher, I'm going to come forward and say something. Even though I shouldn't have been there, and may well be prosecuted for B&E, my eye-witness testimony to the other crime should still be valid.
No, you've got it right, though I don't see much of a difference between what you wrote and what the GP said.
Police and agents of the state are prevented from obtaining evidence illegally; doing so makes it inadmissible in court. However, information collected by private citizens can be used in court regardless of how it is obtained, though the private citizen can of course be prosecuted for any crimes committed during the collection of that evidence.
Look at it this way: the laws regarding collection of evidence are not designed to protect criminals, they are designed to protect individuals from an overreaching state. But if the state is handed information without doing anything wrong (which includes asking private citizens to illegally obtain evidence, mind you), then it has the right and obligation to act upon that information.
IANAL, though I did just read the chapter on forensics in my CISSP study guide....:)
And how do they get paid if anyone can replicate their content for free?
How about payment for work done? You know, like nearly every other industry. Or should plumbers demand a payment every time you have guest use your toilet?
Could someone explain this model to me, please? Which individual is going to pay all the salaries involved in creating a movie? I'm afraid I don't see the feasibility, unless that individual is in turn receiving greater pay, say, for copyright royalties. I know this is a popular argument around these parts, but I don't see how it's supposed to work.
They just give the phone to whoever is going to be signing in for them.
If they want to stop truancy, just give a quiz at the beginning of every class.
Apparently you missed the part of the summary (I didn't even RTFA) that implied that other pressures, such as the privacy of other data on the iphone, would curb this behavior.
Willpower will not enable you to age gracefully any more than it will make you a excellent baseball player or programmer.
You may be surprised just how much willpower has to do with each of those, actually. It may not be enough on it's own - it won't turn a man with no legs into michael jordan - but it's a critical component.
I'm 6' 4", which I would say is a bit on the tall side but not huge for the US, and I don't fit particularly well in a Camry, although most Toyota models are much better than, oh, Hondas or such. The Camry is indeed sold in the States.
And no, not all American cars are huge, although they do on average tend to be larger than European/Japanese autos. I have a heck of a time here in Switzerland - any time someone offers me a ride, I know I'm going to have my knees in my face.
A Song of Ice and Fire is, in my opinion, the best fantasy story out there. Makes Tolkien look like a confused old fairy tale uncle.
Realistic characters, lots of greys (as in bad guys act bad for a good reason and the other way around), no hesitation to kill off main characters/heroes, etc.
I'd rate it as the second best, actually, behind Stephen Erikson's Tales from the Malazan Book of the Fallen. However, they are two incredibly different styles, and while I think Erikson has the edge in execution, both of these guys are highly talented authors. Very hard to make a fair comparison between such radically different styles, I guess.
and you don't ahve to train your entire staff in computer security.
Actually, you do. That's Bruce's whole point most of the time, and it's what makes my job as a security consultant so difficult (and well-paid).
Security is a mindset. Every person has to have the concept of "secure environment" in their head every day, be they developers, users of IT systems, or even the seemingly-rare non-IT user (i.e. custodians). People need to understand why security is so crucial, and they have to be involved in the process; just designing technical controls around them always fails quickly, because people who don't value security will abuse whatever privileges they have, thinking that they're helping someone.
Starbucks in Switzerland does something like this. It's free wireless, not even a purchase required: all you have to do is go to the counter and ask for an access card. However, that access card expires 30 minutes after activation, and to keep going, you have to request another.
I'm not sure that would work back in America; it plays off people's shame and only works if they don't keep asking for cards. However, it seems to work well here.
Actually, we had a similar - but much less involved - exercise in one of my senior classes at Purdue University back in 2002. I *did* use OpenBSD. I'm pretty sure the instructor didn't even understand that was an operating system.... but it was an easy A, because pf is a great little firewall.
They may well have released data to the German authorities, but they're based here in Switzerland. I've worked a bit with some of the guys there (I used to live in the town where they're located). Besides which, the "AG" suffix is a Swiss business designation, roughly equivalent to (I think) GmbH in Germany. And of course, Wikipedia backs me up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidshare
Of course, they did originate with German TLD (rapidshare.de).
Why is this relevant? Because rapidshare.com accounts don't work on rapidshare.de (at least, according to Wikipedia). Therefore, people with.com accounts may not be at risk (from this instance).
Just FYI. There's some great comments on this article about the so-called civil disobedience vs simple greed, so I'm not condoning the downloading behavior (though, frankly, I've done it myself), but I thought some people would probably like to consider this angle.
You can't argue that copyright has anything to do with whether people prefer watching movies in the theater or at home.
And while I can see your argument (which is not to agree) regarding the music business, lives shows don't apply for movies, books or games, so there's still no way to generate revenue for the artist in those mediums.
You suggested specialty hardware (i.e. DRM? yes, I know you meant consoles, I'm just making the comparison) for games, but that adds to the cost of user for the consumer. Not everyone wants to drop 4-500 francs on a gaming console; especially if they already have a computer with sufficient power!
All in all, I don't think you'll see the end of copyright until someone can suggest a specific and implementable plan to reward everyone involved in the creative process. With books this include authors and editors, movies and games have huge staffs, music pretty much requires the band and maybe some songwriters. Good luck with that.
Because copying isn't stealing: no one is deprived by it.
Rather, no one is directly deprived of it; however, the programmer is still deprived of income IF someone who would otherwise have bought the software chooses to "copyright infringe" it instead.
P2P has made the distribution channels obsolete, but we still need programmers to write new software, so they can still earn a living as long as the public is hungry for new programs.
How, exactly? For that to work, someone has to pay the programmer to come up with the software that he will then distribute for free. I fail to see who would pay the programmer in such a situation.
The GP has a valid point, and while I disagree with the RIAA's tactics, Slashdot nerds do have a depressing tendency to justify their desire for free stuff with a lot of complex rationalizations.
Are you sure about that? As noted by the GP, evidence obtained illegally by law enforcement can not be used, but evidence obtained the same way by a private citizen can.
Our constitution is built around protecting citizens from an overpowerful federal government (not that that we seem up to the task of defending it lately), and a lot of things that your average joe thinks are illegal (such as "censorship") are only illegal if done by the government.
It's not the rules are looser for citizens; they're tighter for the government.
And this is why we MBAs and CEOs pay you code monkeys jack diddly and squat compared to our nice big comfortable salaries; your incapacity to logically consider more than one possibility or express yourselves coherently and directly without resorting to base profanities.
Slashdot Mirror
While I 100% agree with your post - nicely written, by the way - I can answer your last question. People get in hysterics about nuclear weapons not because the risk is high, but because the impact is.
In security, we use a calculation that goes something like this: Annualized loss expectancy is equal to likelihood times impact. Now, if you take that calculation for something like "getting hit by a bus", the impact is generally one person's life, so the likelihood has to be insanely high (call it 25000 percent?) if it's going to match the ALE of a nuclear weapon going off with a likelihood of 1%.
Those numbers are obviously completely made up, but the point is: people worry more about larger-impact events. Add into this the fact that relatively few people are rational animals, and a big number on the impact side simply makes them ignore the likelihood altogether.
In case you want to indicate that there were something wrong with the used grammar: There isn't.
Just popping italics in to call out the grammar-nazi calling out the other grammar nazi... I'm not sure who's in the wrong here, and I don't care, it amused me. ;)
A computer runs on electricity. That means it requires us to stoke the flames.
Dude. Did you ever watch Keanu Reeves in his little cult-classic about 10 years ago? What is it... the Matrix or something...
What doesn't amuse me is people who think it's ok to tell an inefficient government to take someone else's money to fund healthcare.
I'll take this debate a lot more seriously when the proponents who think it's everybody's basic right to have healthcare start making deep personal sacrifices to fund it instead of trying to force other people to make small sacrifices.
If atheism is the default position, why are there so many people who believe in some sort of supreme being? I'd be quite willing to wager that over history, more people have believed in divinity than have not.
Despite being an agnostic with atheist leanings (as described earlier in this thread), I suspect that theism is the default position, with atheism being a recent aberration.
Oh, and your arguments on this sort of topic will be taken better if you leave the emotional content such as "grow up" out; we expect dogmatic and provocative crap from the theists, and look to the atheists for cool reason. ;)
Much in the same way that if I decided to run around the office with a chain saw and someone gets up and walks into it, I should be held responsible even if it was them that walked into it.
We'll have to agree to disagree there. If anyone's stupid enough to walk into my loud, noisy, stinky chainsaw I don't care where I'm using it - they're too stupid to continue wasting my oxygen.
My favorite list: Switzerland, Netherland, Finland, Sweden, Norway. I would love to live in Switzerland myself: I love the direct democracy there, the peaceful people and the beautiful nature and very high standard of living.
Another option is to become really rich! Rich people enjoy much more freedom all over the world!
As an American currently living in Switzerland and looking to get my citizenship in a few years, I have to agree with that. I love this country - it's everything America wanted to be before it grew up.
I'd tell you, but I like to encourage at least clicking the link through to articles referenced on Slashdot....
I posted a comment above about this, but if the state coerces private citizens to act on its behalf, then they are in essence state actors, and illegally obtained information becomes inadmissible.
If on the other hand the citizen stumbles across some information, regardless of how, and chooses (without being ordered, requested, payed, etc. to do so) to share it with the police, the court will allow the evidence.
Frankly, I think that's fair. If I am, say, breaking into the school at night to have a little fun with my buddies, and I see the principle murdering a teacher, I'm going to come forward and say something. Even though I shouldn't have been there, and may well be prosecuted for B&E, my eye-witness testimony to the other crime should still be valid.
No, you've got it right, though I don't see much of a difference between what you wrote and what the GP said.
Police and agents of the state are prevented from obtaining evidence illegally; doing so makes it inadmissible in court. However, information collected by private citizens can be used in court regardless of how it is obtained, though the private citizen can of course be prosecuted for any crimes committed during the collection of that evidence.
Look at it this way: the laws regarding collection of evidence are not designed to protect criminals, they are designed to protect individuals from an overreaching state. But if the state is handed information without doing anything wrong (which includes asking private citizens to illegally obtain evidence, mind you), then it has the right and obligation to act upon that information.
IANAL, though I did just read the chapter on forensics in my CISSP study guide.... :)
And how do they get paid if anyone can replicate their content for free?
How about payment for work done? You know, like nearly every other industry. Or should plumbers demand a payment every time you have guest use your toilet?
Could someone explain this model to me, please? Which individual is going to pay all the salaries involved in creating a movie? I'm afraid I don't see the feasibility, unless that individual is in turn receiving greater pay, say, for copyright royalties. I know this is a popular argument around these parts, but I don't see how it's supposed to work.
So what?
They just give the phone to whoever is going to be signing in for them.
If they want to stop truancy, just give a quiz at the beginning of every class.
Apparently you missed the part of the summary (I didn't even RTFA) that implied that other pressures, such as the privacy of other data on the iphone, would curb this behavior.
Willpower will not enable you to age gracefully any more than it will make you a excellent baseball player or programmer.
You may be surprised just how much willpower has to do with each of those, actually. It may not be enough on it's own - it won't turn a man with no legs into michael jordan - but it's a critical component.
I'm 6' 4", which I would say is a bit on the tall side but not huge for the US, and I don't fit particularly well in a Camry, although most Toyota models are much better than, oh, Hondas or such. The Camry is indeed sold in the States.
And no, not all American cars are huge, although they do on average tend to be larger than European/Japanese autos. I have a heck of a time here in Switzerland - any time someone offers me a ride, I know I'm going to have my knees in my face.
A Song of Ice and Fire is, in my opinion, the best fantasy story out there. Makes Tolkien look like a confused old fairy tale uncle.
Realistic characters, lots of greys (as in bad guys act bad for a good reason and the other way around), no hesitation to kill off main characters/heroes, etc.
I'd rate it as the second best, actually, behind Stephen Erikson's Tales from the Malazan Book of the Fallen. However, they are two incredibly different styles, and while I think Erikson has the edge in execution, both of these guys are highly talented authors. Very hard to make a fair comparison between such radically different styles, I guess.
and you don't ahve to train your entire staff in computer security.
Actually, you do. That's Bruce's whole point most of the time, and it's what makes my job as a security consultant so difficult (and well-paid).
Security is a mindset. Every person has to have the concept of "secure environment" in their head every day, be they developers, users of IT systems, or even the seemingly-rare non-IT user (i.e. custodians). People need to understand why security is so crucial, and they have to be involved in the process; just designing technical controls around them always fails quickly, because people who don't value security will abuse whatever privileges they have, thinking that they're helping someone.
Starbucks in Switzerland does something like this. It's free wireless, not even a purchase required: all you have to do is go to the counter and ask for an access card. However, that access card expires 30 minutes after activation, and to keep going, you have to request another.
I'm not sure that would work back in America; it plays off people's shame and only works if they don't keep asking for cards. However, it seems to work well here.
You're posting on Slashdot. Odds are good you drink too much sugar, eat too much pizza and see too little sunlight to ever reach the "old" part.
Actually, we had a similar - but much less involved - exercise in one of my senior classes at Purdue University back in 2002. I *did* use OpenBSD. I'm pretty sure the instructor didn't even understand that was an operating system.... but it was an easy A, because pf is a great little firewall.
They may well have released data to the German authorities, but they're based here in Switzerland. I've worked a bit with some of the guys there (I used to live in the town where they're located). Besides which, the "AG" suffix is a Swiss business designation, roughly equivalent to (I think) GmbH in Germany. And of course, Wikipedia backs me up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidshare
Of course, they did originate with German TLD (rapidshare.de).
Why is this relevant? Because rapidshare.com accounts don't work on rapidshare.de (at least, according to Wikipedia). Therefore, people with .com accounts may not be at risk (from this instance).
Just FYI. There's some great comments on this article about the so-called civil disobedience vs simple greed, so I'm not condoning the downloading behavior (though, frankly, I've done it myself), but I thought some people would probably like to consider this angle.
This is one of those "I wish I had mod points" posts. This is the most insightful commentary on copyright and "pirates" that I've seen in a long time.
Thanks for the well thought-out post.
That's a pretty ridiculous argument, actually.
You can't argue that copyright has anything to do with whether people prefer watching movies in the theater or at home.
And while I can see your argument (which is not to agree) regarding the music business, lives shows don't apply for movies, books or games, so there's still no way to generate revenue for the artist in those mediums.
You suggested specialty hardware (i.e. DRM? yes, I know you meant consoles, I'm just making the comparison) for games, but that adds to the cost of user for the consumer. Not everyone wants to drop 4-500 francs on a gaming console; especially if they already have a computer with sufficient power!
All in all, I don't think you'll see the end of copyright until someone can suggest a specific and implementable plan to reward everyone involved in the creative process. With books this include authors and editors, movies and games have huge staffs, music pretty much requires the band and maybe some songwriters. Good luck with that.
Because copying isn't stealing: no one is deprived by it.
Rather, no one is directly deprived of it; however, the programmer is still deprived of income IF someone who would otherwise have bought the software chooses to "copyright infringe" it instead.
P2P has made the distribution channels obsolete, but we still need programmers to write new software, so they can still earn a living as long as the public is hungry for new programs.
How, exactly? For that to work, someone has to pay the programmer to come up with the software that he will then distribute for free. I fail to see who would pay the programmer in such a situation.
The GP has a valid point, and while I disagree with the RIAA's tactics, Slashdot nerds do have a depressing tendency to justify their desire for free stuff with a lot of complex rationalizations.
Are you sure about that? As noted by the GP, evidence obtained illegally by law enforcement can not be used, but evidence obtained the same way by a private citizen can.
Our constitution is built around protecting citizens from an overpowerful federal government (not that that we seem up to the task of defending it lately), and a lot of things that your average joe thinks are illegal (such as "censorship") are only illegal if done by the government.
It's not the rules are looser for citizens; they're tighter for the government.
And this is why we MBAs and CEOs pay you code monkeys jack diddly and squat compared to our nice big comfortable salaries; your incapacity to logically consider more than one possibility or express yourselves coherently and directly without resorting to base profanities.
Yes, post is off-topic. Please mod it as such.