It's very strange. It seems Lars tacitly acknowledges that he's responding out of ignorance and concern. It would seem a good opportunity to use this as a way to change the way the market works. He obviously cares, otherwise he wouldn't put this effort into Napster, MP3s, and the internet vs his music.
How is it that we can use this to our(Lars, artists, and consumers all) advantage? Is there a way to *work* with the artists, like Lars, rather than against them? They just want to make music, want to sell it, want to have it spread. We want to hear it, obviously, and share it. Can some genius, someone with the right insight and the right knowledge, right now work a system up that puts all of this together and create a win-win situation?
I don't think I am that person. I don't know how we can create a system that gives consumers instant access, perfect quality, convenience, and acknowledgement, and the artists the satisfaction of being heard, being paid, and being loved.
What would that gain anyone? M$ is not an entity that feels pain. Only it's employees, it's shareholders, it's owners, can feel pain. Only the people.
If that case, why not just get Bill Gates and have him flogged? Or go to the stock holder's houses, and skin a live cat in their yard? Or go to the employee parking lots and paint a Linux penguin on all the windshields?
I mean, effectively, that's all you could accomplish: hurt the people and the families caught up in the M$ world...
Say someone has an infected version of the Apache source; it has embedded within it a modified 'ls' or 'find' or 'grep' or something. When compiled, it also replaces ls. Apache, of course, is also infected; it is a way into and out of your computer, and would be used to spread information, primarily.
Now when you do your usual make, make install, the source is modified to look perfectly normal, but the damage is done. You have an infected ls, find, grep, etc, as well as Apache. What the modified program would do is look for Makefiles and configures; when it identifies a directory with a Makefile and/or configure script, it will actually modify the process to build another infected program. In this case, it would get the infected source from Apache! See, while the server has been up, it has serriptitiously been downloading bad source and sharing bad source with other infected computers, without logging it, and placing it in strange and not commonly visited places.
So when you actually do another source compile, you get another infected program; say, ftp gets modified. Or telnet. Or man. Whatever. Until you have lots of malicious programs. All waiting for a signal, a trigger, a date, whatever. Or for apache to do something!
Of course this is speculation on my part. Do wiser heads think this is impossible?
There are several fights all entangled into one big mess here:
The power and freedom of Open Source Software
Use Linux and Open Source software
The right to explore, hack, and reverse engineer
DeCSS and fighting against the DMCA
The right of fair use and the ability to use your own goods in your own manner
Playing of DVDs under Linux, and fighting against the DMCA, backing up DVDs, recording off DVDs, etc.
The battle against the tyranny of the RIAA and the MPAA
Boycotting anything that gives money to those organizations, using and behaving in ways to miminize their income, and to violate their proscriptions
Which battles are worth fighting? Which do people even consider battles to fight?
I want to watch movies. I rent tapes/DVDs. I will fight for fair use, though, and against the DMCA. I support Linux, Open Source, and Free(Source) Software. I don't have a stand yet, but it's forming, slowly.
What's stopping you from buying a player like the Apex AD600A or the Raite AVphile 715, which plays MP3s(horror against RIAA), VCDs, can disable Macrovision(hex against MPAA)?
There is a way to fight the system without hurting yourself, isn't there? Buy only systems in which Macrovision and Region encoding is disabled, in which MP3s are playable, in which copy protection is a moot point?
You'd have an AI program with a web based interface.
Or
You'd have an AI enhanced web interface.
One of the former: A program that digests and characterizes an mp3. Say there is a store of music on a sister server that people can download and listen to, and then score in several ways. Think Cinematch at http://www.netflix.com where people can rank their preferences and get statistically collated with other people who rank their preferences. In this case, though, you correlate tastes of a person with the music. So you ask the person who listens to rank on 1 to 5: Slow . . . . Fast Heavy . . . . Light Sad . . . . Happy Tense . . . . Relaxed Simple. . . . Complex
Loved . . . . Hated
Where complex is taken to mean that the song is *both* sad and happy at places, tense and relaxed, etc. So the individual who ranks creates this 6 part characterization of the music, which is fed into some sort of NN and correlated with the music itself, somehow. The end goal would be to feed music into the system and be able to characterize the music correctly *and* decide with good certainty that a person would love a song or not.
It's a selfish goal of mine because there is too much music out there, and I know what I like, but of course I don't know what I haven't heard. Having a device that filters out 70% of the music I like correctly, with the remaining 30% left for variety and error, would be very interesting.
OMG. I just can't help thinking 'This is the value of M$'s integration with the OS'
It makes the Internet all that much closer to you, as well as your machine:in both directions.
Well, maybe the above thought is incorrect.
Anyway, I'm thinking something blasphemous. M$ complains that splitting it up will hinder it's ability to 'innovate' and 'compete'. Isn't that the point? If M$ can't expect to release a decent Office or X-Box or IE without access to the OS group, how is Netscape, or Corel, or anyone else expected to 'innovate' and 'compete' if M$ cannot?
There are people complaining about how breaking up M$ is bad, but I'm wondering, if M$ restructures itself in such a way that the OS department can still freely communicate with the Apps department, but in a way that is public and open, doesn't *everyone* win?
ID is a 'limited' company. They do excellent technology and software, have a large fanbase, but are typecast into the FPS game/world.
It'd be interesting to track all the ID graduates over the next 5 years. Hook, Romero, Zoid, Cash, and Carmack. We'll see Romero's child this year, if all goes well(Xs fingers).
Well, best of luck to Cash and the rest of ID's ex members, and ID!
If the startup they invest in takes off, they may be able to harness the energy, the product, or the community, but to acquire and control it would, I think, destroy it(as you have said). Because it's open source, they don't have to acquire it to reap the rewards, so that may not be an inevitable thing.
I don't know that you want a corporation, an otherwise souless entity, to do things because they are 'right'. Individuals and persons can choose, but corporations are almost always products of groups. What is right for a group is not always what is right for the individuals in the group. By working on profitable, a twofold benefit is achieved. Any good the corporation brings into the world is sustaining, as the corporation is in no fear of collapsing due to unprofitability. If the corporation is profitable, then there will be copycats, so then the good of the company is multiplied by that of it's copycats.
HP is/was an imaging company. I'd think it would focus on it as a core strength; scanners, digital cameras, photocopiers, laser printers, deskjets, etc.
But they seem to push PCs, big iron, a flavor of Un*x, laptops, PDAs, as well as services and support. Makes me think of a big department store waiting to be pushed aside by a Target or several smaller more focused corporations.
If they want to do PDAs, they should probably look at Palm and such instead of Microsoft. They don't seem to have any major partnerships with Oracle or Cisco or any other 'big' server based internet company, yet they still have HPUX. The architecture is actually pretty good, I'd guess, given that Intel wanted it badly enough to implement as IA64, but the support infrastructure to sell big iron and services seems to be lacking. Does anyone else see this? Or am I missing something?
Then the have their PCs and such... why? It's an excellent way to build brand name, I guess, but they don't seem all that special. Sorta feels like Chevrolet, serviceable, affordable, but nothing special.
Mostly it is fans who enjoy your music would download it. Mostly it is fans who would pay for your music. Mostly it is fans who would go to your concerts.
These people, all 35,000 or so of them, really want your music, otherwise they wouldn't have had your music for sharing and downloading. They obviously think your music is worth space on their hard drives. Economics would ask not how to stop them from sharing and distributing your music, but how you can profit from their sharing and distributing your music.
Your music label does nothing different than your fans in this case, except pay you. In which case, why are you hunting down your fans instead of looking for ways to tap into and profit from them? Why not just release your music, directly, to MP3.com and take part in their 'pay per download' feature, and cut out the 'middlemen', in this case the Napster people, and get your music out to more fans, and get your money and gratification for your work?
Now that is an interesting thought: ...a world which we perceive through our own five senses, and for us to tamper with our perception of reality in this way can only lead to a disaster for the human race. Remember, how can you trust the system supplying you with information?
The real question is how you're so confident you can trust your own five senses? Sure the data you get is raw and uncontaminated, but before you can even think consciously and intelligibly about thoses inputs, they have already been processed and interpreted by your brain; and your brain, being a product of the social and environmental conditioning, is already warping and distorting the input in ways you are not aware of. Prejudices, instinct, favoritism, fears, etc. None of those are inherent in any input of the senses, but are deeply associated with many sights, scents, images, etc. because our brain creates these realities.
The problem is that people are already brainwashed and don't realize it. A lot of problems may vanish if we realize that we are brainwashed and held captive by our innate sense of reality, which is non-connected to the outer reality which surrounds us.
Fair isn't the issue, with their choice of Python as the implementation language. First and foremost was their desire that all the tools interoperate as a development framework, and not a whole bunch of non-related tools. Not that they are interdependent, but that they work smoothly together. Partially it was a maintenaince/design thing. Support only one language, as opposed to many/all languages, in the contest.
They never said Python was an ideal language for all situations, just that it did enough well to fit their design. You're right, of course, that allowing other languages creates a bigger participant pool, but adding other languages introduces other support problems; language compatibility across platforms, versions, OSes, patches, etc. It's tough enough with ONE language, let alone many/all if they didn't require Python.
I mean, part of the initial design document was ease of use, maintenance, and management. Single language seems a reasonable way to get this. Single OS is not, but notice they support NT and Linux. Hopefully Mac and other Unix support will fall out of the fact that it's Python code(Python runs on other systems, of course), and that no Win or Linux dependent design is implemented.
So I'm not an expert and I may have or be getting things wrong. Oops. Not my intention.
However, I am trying to muddy the waters, a bit. The point of my thread is that crime, legality, and wrong is not black and white. Lots of things that are wrong are not crimes. Lots of things that are crimes are not wrong. Lots of things that aren't legal are still done.
UCITA and DMCA are both legislation that makes lots of fair use and common sense actions wrong. If they become law, they also become crimes. Yet the actions themselves aren't bad or immoral, just not sanctioned by Big Corporation.
I'm not trying to stir outrage, but I was trying to bring up examples that are ambiguous depending on context, location, and temporal placement.
There are no legally licensed or provided DVD players under Linux. Not that I know of, at least. That may be different, now, but if that is the case, any viewing of DVDs under Linux violates several new laws and statutes; that of reverse engineering and obtainging the CSS keys, for example, or viewing DVDs in a way that the owners of the copyright have not allowed.
Breaking an encryption scheme, IE reverse engineering it(not the encrypted material, but the scheme itself) is illegal, under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, or whatever it's called. Look at DeCSS and all the software that revealed the censorware black lists!
Again, having an mp3 means using software to process and store and listen to your music in a way not sanctioned by the copyright holders, just like the DVD thing
Linking to a website is a crime that 2600 is currently fighting.
Driving 70mph is just violation of speeding limits in the US.
These aren't *wrong*, in a moral sense, but they violate some laws, statutes, (and in some cases, proposals) etc. that seriously limit us. Some more important than others...
All my original statement was that beta drivers is not fine.
Supported drivers are the goal, though some take that to mean binary, some take that to mean source, some take that to mean phone call support. Whatever.
So being satisfied with beta is pointless. Beta is only temporary, transitory, towards final release.
We, as consumers, should not be expecting beta stuff, in general, yet that is what we have with Windows, Netscape, and a whole raft of other software and products.
I certainly enjoyed the distractions and the social activities!
But I'm saying that it is certainly possible to do everything ArsDigita wants... just minus the space and time filler that school normally has instead of learning.
It's the clearly black and white and short sighted opinion that just seems too unreal to be someone's actual thought...
The fact of the matter is, you either believe that anyone who is a criminal should be allowed to make money off of their crimes, or you are a hypocrite. So what is it?
That's a hot-point; making a statement that judges the viewer for being a hypocrite over an issue that is not clear. Criminals are not always bad people, and criminals are not always fairly judged. There is no difference between most criminals and most people, given that both belong to the set of people called humans. Maybe there are things wrong with criminals that make them so, but that's a different philosophical argument entirely. Then there's the case of making money of his crimes; he isn't, I don't think. He isn't selling the secrets he found, or the using the market to his advantage, from breaking into the corporations he did. Those were his crimes.
BTW, crime is not wrong, crime is just public mass opinion. DeCSS is a crime. Watching DVDs under Linux is a crime. Breaking an encryption scheme is a crime. Having an mp3 is a crime. Linking to a website is a crime. Jaywalking is a crime. Driving 70mph is a crime. Changing lanes within 20 feet of a traffic signal is a crime.
You're still going to use the line a crime is still wrong, whether it is a little wrong or a big wrong? Life, crime, and people are all shades of grey, not absolutes...
And what, you're saying he's only taken seriously because he's a criminal?
No; he's being taken seriously because he has the skills. Him being a criminal and him being caught are two separate issues. His being a criminal is only a matter of judgement from the legal system, not on his skills. His being caught is a matter of him not being as good as the A-Team, and not on his skillset of security!
By my logic, if you beat the shit out of someone, not only do you pay the medical bills, you help rehabilitate him afterwards!
Which it seems what Mitnick is doing; is this incorrect logic?
BTW, I don't believe in punishment, in the abstract sense. It's only the inflictment of pain on another, and that's just pointless. His punishment, btw, is the ban from using computers, TVs, cell phones, technology, etc. It isn't from speaking, or making a living, or making money!
A felon has as much right as anyone else in the world to profit, right? Especially if, in profiting, they can live righteously and not fall back into bad ways, right? Now it is morally suspect if he's profiting from his crimes...
You're right; without his notoriety, people would pay less attention to him, especially about security. However, without his notoriety, he wouldn't even have the skillset necessary to talk about security! How can one talk intelligently about social engineering without being active in it? In this case, he socially engineered the wrong people, and paid some time in prison and in his lifestyle for it. Wasn't that his punishment? Not being able to watch TV, use a cell phone, browse pr0n or read/.?
Now it seems petty and punative. Of course, having never seen a lecture of his, I don't know how apropos it is, nor do I see the whole story... but then, neither do you, right?
The fact of the matter is, you either believe that anyone who is a criminal should be allowed to make money off of their crimes, or you are a hypocrite. So what is it?
Nothing is ever black and white, clear cut, or so well defined.
Criminals, unfortunately, are people to. And people have every capability to become criminals. Mitnick is a criminal, fine, everyone agrees.
Mitnick can be productive to society. That's true too. It's not just about praise or fame; it's economics. If he can produce a service to our society we want, we exchange with him a fair service or amount of goods. In this case, he can speak expertly on hacking and cracking, something most are ignorant of. In this case, it seems a service worthy of being performed!
Now here's the question. If he were anyone else, people wouldn't take him seriously. Don't even try to put Mitnick in the same class as a rapist or serial killer, btw!
It almost seems as if the judge involved, and the government, want to punish Mitnick, not just assess him for damages and to minimize future damages. It seems, I dunno, petty, and I quote this from the article, though it is now hearsay twice over...
She said that she thought Mitnick would be unable to earn anything above minimum wage.
Isn't that just wrong? Mitnick arguably has skills and contributions to society he can make, and paying him decently is a good way to get it out of him as an economic exchange of goods. Yet by desiring Mitnick to be earn minimum wage, the system expects Mitnick to contribute minimally to our society.
WTF? I don't curse, so I'm glad for TLAs...
I wonder if he has the training or background to legitimately work in the security field; if he does, props to him! If the government thinks he's going to take advantage of the situation unfairly, then auditing his work is even better; security through rigor!
Maybe... At least, I thought it was harder than that.
CIT, for example, it would be normal to take 15 or 16 courses in 9 months. For 4 or 5 years...
So, even if it's barely enough time for human reproduction, if we're assuming that ArsDigita students are of the same caliber as MIT, CIT, Stanford, etc, 9 months of intense important classes could conceivably equal 2 years at CIT, without the distractions of core classes, or GEs, or social activities.
Slashdot Mirror
It's very strange. It seems Lars tacitly acknowledges that he's responding out of ignorance and concern. It would seem a good opportunity to use this as a way to change the way the market works. He obviously cares, otherwise he wouldn't put this effort into Napster, MP3s, and the internet vs his music.
How is it that we can use this to our(Lars, artists, and consumers all) advantage? Is there a way to *work* with the artists, like Lars, rather than against them? They just want to make music, want to sell it, want to have it spread. We want to hear it, obviously, and share it. Can some genius, someone with the right insight and the right knowledge, right now work a system up that puts all of this together and create a win-win situation?
I don't think I am that person. I don't know how we can create a system that gives consumers instant access, perfect quality, convenience, and acknowledgement, and the artists the satisfaction of being heard, being paid, and being loved.
Anyone?
-AS
Then isn't a simple matter to change your links to become a link to a search engine's results on a search for +decss +source or something?
Then what are they going to do? Stop all the search engines?
-AS
What would that gain anyone? M$ is not an entity that feels pain. Only it's employees, it's shareholders, it's owners, can feel pain. Only the people.
If that case, why not just get Bill Gates and have him flogged? Or go to the stock holder's houses, and skin a live cat in their yard? Or go to the employee parking lots and paint a Linux penguin on all the windshields?
I mean, effectively, that's all you could accomplish: hurt the people and the families caught up in the M$ world...
-AS
Viruses, whatever...
Source code virus?
Say someone has an infected version of the Apache source; it has embedded within it a modified 'ls' or 'find' or 'grep' or something. When compiled, it also replaces ls. Apache, of course, is also infected; it is a way into and out of your computer, and would be used to spread information, primarily.
Now when you do your usual make, make install, the source is modified to look perfectly normal, but the damage is done. You have an infected ls, find, grep, etc, as well as Apache. What the modified program would do is look for Makefiles and configures; when it identifies a directory with a Makefile and/or configure script, it will actually modify the process to build another infected program. In this case, it would get the infected source from Apache! See, while the server has been up, it has serriptitiously been downloading bad source and sharing bad source with other infected computers, without logging it, and placing it in strange and not commonly visited places.
So when you actually do another source compile, you get another infected program; say, ftp gets modified. Or telnet. Or man. Whatever. Until you have lots of malicious programs. All waiting for a signal, a trigger, a date, whatever. Or for apache to do something!
Of course this is speculation on my part. Do wiser heads think this is impossible?
-AS
Which battles are worth fighting? Which do people even consider battles to fight?
I want to watch movies. I rent tapes/DVDs. I will fight for fair use, though, and against the DMCA. I support Linux, Open Source, and Free(Source) Software. I don't have a stand yet, but it's forming, slowly.
-AS
What's stopping you from buying a player like the Apex AD600A or the Raite AVphile 715, which plays MP3s(horror against RIAA), VCDs, can disable Macrovision(hex against MPAA)?
There is a way to fight the system without hurting yourself, isn't there? Buy only systems in which Macrovision and Region encoding is disabled, in which MP3s are playable, in which copy protection is a moot point?
Or is that too much of a cop out?
-AS
Several thoughts of mine...
You'd have an AI program with a web based interface.
Or
You'd have an AI enhanced web interface.
One of the former:
A program that digests and characterizes an mp3. Say there is a store of music on a sister server that people can download and listen to, and then score in several ways. Think Cinematch at http://www.netflix.com where people can rank their preferences and get statistically collated with other people who rank their preferences. In this case, though, you correlate tastes of a person with the music. So you ask the person who listens to rank on 1 to 5:
Slow . . . . Fast
Heavy . . . . Light
Sad . . . . Happy
Tense . . . . Relaxed
Simple. . . . Complex
Loved . . . . Hated
Where complex is taken to mean that the song is *both* sad and happy at places, tense and relaxed, etc. So the individual who ranks creates this 6 part characterization of the music, which is fed into some sort of NN and correlated with the music itself, somehow. The end goal would be to feed music into the system and be able to characterize the music correctly *and* decide with good certainty that a person would love a song or not.
It's a selfish goal of mine because there is too much music out there, and I know what I like, but of course I don't know what I haven't heard. Having a device that filters out 70% of the music I like correctly, with the remaining 30% left for variety and error, would be very interesting.
Just one idea!
-AS
ROTFLMAO
OMG. I just can't help thinking 'This is the value of M$'s integration with the OS'
It makes the Internet all that much closer to you, as well as your machine:in both directions.
Well, maybe the above thought is incorrect.
Anyway, I'm thinking something blasphemous. M$ complains that splitting it up will hinder it's ability to 'innovate' and 'compete'. Isn't that the point? If M$ can't expect to release a decent Office or X-Box or IE without access to the OS group, how is Netscape, or Corel, or anyone else expected to 'innovate' and 'compete' if M$ cannot?
There are people complaining about how breaking up M$ is bad, but I'm wondering, if M$ restructures itself in such a way that the OS department can still freely communicate with the Apps department, but in a way that is public and open, doesn't *everyone* win?
-AS
ID is a 'limited' company. They do excellent technology and software, have a large fanbase, but are typecast into the FPS game/world.
It'd be interesting to track all the ID graduates over the next 5 years. Hook, Romero, Zoid, Cash, and Carmack. We'll see Romero's child this year, if all goes well(Xs fingers).
Well, best of luck to Cash and the rest of ID's ex members, and ID!
-AS
Not that I can blame you, either!
If the startup they invest in takes off, they may be able to harness the energy, the product, or the community, but to acquire and control it would, I think, destroy it(as you have said). Because it's open source, they don't have to acquire it to reap the rewards, so that may not be an inevitable thing.
I don't know that you want a corporation, an otherwise souless entity, to do things because they are 'right'. Individuals and persons can choose, but corporations are almost always products of groups. What is right for a group is not always what is right for the individuals in the group. By working on profitable, a twofold benefit is achieved. Any good the corporation brings into the world is sustaining, as the corporation is in no fear of collapsing due to unprofitability. If the corporation is profitable, then there will be copycats, so then the good of the company is multiplied by that of it's copycats.
At least, I think so.
-AS
HP is/was an imaging company. I'd think it would focus on it as a core strength; scanners, digital cameras, photocopiers, laser printers, deskjets, etc.
But they seem to push PCs, big iron, a flavor of Un*x, laptops, PDAs, as well as services and support. Makes me think of a big department store waiting to be pushed aside by a Target or several smaller more focused corporations.
If they want to do PDAs, they should probably look at Palm and such instead of Microsoft. They don't seem to have any major partnerships with Oracle or Cisco or any other 'big' server based internet company, yet they still have HPUX. The architecture is actually pretty good, I'd guess, given that Intel wanted it badly enough to implement as IA64, but the support infrastructure to sell big iron and services seems to be lacking. Does anyone else see this? Or am I missing something?
Then the have their PCs and such... why? It's an excellent way to build brand name, I guess, but they don't seem all that special. Sorta feels like Chevrolet, serviceable, affordable, but nothing special.
Maybe I need to go and talk to Carly or something
-AS
So here's the context of my question:
Mostly it is fans who enjoy your music would download it. Mostly it is fans who would pay for your music. Mostly it is fans who would go to your concerts.
These people, all 35,000 or so of them, really want your music, otherwise they wouldn't have had your music for sharing and downloading. They obviously think your music is worth space on their hard drives. Economics would ask not how to stop them from sharing and distributing your music, but how you can profit from their sharing and distributing your music.
Your music label does nothing different than your fans in this case, except pay you. In which case, why are you hunting down your fans instead of looking for ways to tap into and profit from them? Why not just release your music, directly, to MP3.com and take part in their 'pay per download' feature, and cut out the 'middlemen', in this case the Napster people, and get your music out to more fans, and get your money and gratification for your work?
-AS
Now that is an interesting thought:
...a world which we perceive through our own five senses, and for us to tamper with our perception of reality in this way can only lead to a disaster for the human race. Remember, how can you trust the system supplying you with information?
The real question is how you're so confident you can trust your own five senses? Sure the data you get is raw and uncontaminated, but before you can even think consciously and intelligibly about thoses inputs, they have already been processed and interpreted by your brain; and your brain, being a product of the social and environmental conditioning, is already warping and distorting the input in ways you are not aware of. Prejudices, instinct, favoritism, fears, etc. None of those are inherent in any input of the senses, but are deeply associated with many sights, scents, images, etc. because our brain creates these realities.
The problem is that people are already brainwashed and don't realize it. A lot of problems may vanish if we realize that we are brainwashed and held captive by our innate sense of reality, which is non-connected to the outer reality which surrounds us.
-AS
Fair isn't the issue, with their choice of Python as the implementation language. First and foremost was their desire that all the tools interoperate as a development framework, and not a whole bunch of non-related tools. Not that they are interdependent, but that they work smoothly together. Partially it was a maintenaince/design thing. Support only one language, as opposed to many/all languages, in the contest.
They never said Python was an ideal language for all situations, just that it did enough well to fit their design. You're right, of course, that allowing other languages creates a bigger participant pool, but adding other languages introduces other support problems; language compatibility across platforms, versions, OSes, patches, etc. It's tough enough with ONE language, let alone many/all if they didn't require Python.
I mean, part of the initial design document was ease of use, maintenance, and management. Single language seems a reasonable way to get this. Single OS is not, but notice they support NT and Linux. Hopefully Mac and other Unix support will fall out of the fact that it's Python code(Python runs on other systems, of course), and that no Win or Linux dependent design is implemented.
-AS
Look at Star Wars ep 3, as well.
Obviously they both ripped of the Matrix!
Ender's Game and Star Wars, however, did come out first, so they do get more originality points ^^
-AS
So I'm not an expert and I may have or be getting things wrong. Oops. Not my intention.
However, I am trying to muddy the waters, a bit. The point of my thread is that crime, legality, and wrong is not black and white. Lots of things that are wrong are not crimes. Lots of things that are crimes are not wrong. Lots of things that aren't legal are still done.
UCITA and DMCA are both legislation that makes lots of fair use and common sense actions wrong. If they become law, they also become crimes. Yet the actions themselves aren't bad or immoral, just not sanctioned by Big Corporation.
I'm not trying to stir outrage, but I was trying to bring up examples that are ambiguous depending on context, location, and temporal placement.
Which you have pointed out very well.
-AS
There are no legally licensed or provided DVD players under Linux. Not that I know of, at least. That may be different, now, but if that is the case, any viewing of DVDs under Linux violates several new laws and statutes; that of reverse engineering and obtainging the CSS keys, for example, or viewing DVDs in a way that the owners of the copyright have not allowed.
Breaking an encryption scheme, IE reverse engineering it(not the encrypted material, but the scheme itself) is illegal, under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, or whatever it's called. Look at DeCSS and all the software that revealed the censorware black lists!
Again, having an mp3 means using software to process and store and listen to your music in a way not sanctioned by the copyright holders, just like the DVD thing
Linking to a website is a crime that 2600 is currently fighting.
Driving 70mph is just violation of speeding limits in the US.
These aren't *wrong*, in a moral sense, but they violate some laws, statutes, (and in some cases, proposals) etc. that seriously limit us. Some more important than others...
-AS
All my original statement was that beta drivers is not fine.
Supported drivers are the goal, though some take that to mean binary, some take that to mean source, some take that to mean phone call support. Whatever.
So being satisfied with beta is pointless. Beta is only temporary, transitory, towards final release.
We, as consumers, should not be expecting beta stuff, in general, yet that is what we have with Windows, Netscape, and a whole raft of other software and products.
-AS
I certainly enjoyed the distractions and the social activities!
But I'm saying that it is certainly possible to do everything ArsDigita wants... just minus the space and time filler that school normally has instead of learning.
-AS
It's the clearly black and white and short sighted opinion that just seems too unreal to be someone's actual thought...
The fact of the matter is, you either believe that anyone who is a criminal should be allowed to make money off of their crimes, or you are a hypocrite. So what is it?
That's a hot-point; making a statement that judges the viewer for being a hypocrite over an issue that is not clear. Criminals are not always bad people, and criminals are not always fairly judged. There is no difference between most criminals and most people, given that both belong to the set of people called humans. Maybe there are things wrong with criminals that make them so, but that's a different philosophical argument entirely. Then there's the case of making money of his crimes; he isn't, I don't think. He isn't selling the secrets he found, or the using the market to his advantage, from breaking into the corporations he did. Those were his crimes.
BTW, crime is not wrong, crime is just public mass opinion. DeCSS is a crime. Watching DVDs under Linux is a crime. Breaking an encryption scheme is a crime. Having an mp3 is a crime. Linking to a website is a crime. Jaywalking is a crime. Driving 70mph is a crime. Changing lanes within 20 feet of a traffic signal is a crime.
You're still going to use the line a crime is still wrong, whether it is a little wrong or a big wrong? Life, crime, and people are all shades of grey, not absolutes...
And what, you're saying he's only taken seriously because he's a criminal?
No; he's being taken seriously because he has the skills. Him being a criminal and him being caught are two separate issues. His being a criminal is only a matter of judgement from the legal system, not on his skills. His being caught is a matter of him not being as good as the A-Team, and not on his skillset of security!
-AS
By my logic, if you beat the shit out of someone, not only do you pay the medical bills, you help rehabilitate him afterwards!
Which it seems what Mitnick is doing; is this incorrect logic?
BTW, I don't believe in punishment, in the abstract sense. It's only the inflictment of pain on another, and that's just pointless. His punishment, btw, is the ban from using computers, TVs, cell phones, technology, etc. It isn't from speaking, or making a living, or making money!
-AS
A felon has as much right as anyone else in the world to profit, right? Especially if, in profiting, they can live righteously and not fall back into bad ways, right? Now it is morally suspect if he's profiting from his crimes...
/.?
You're right; without his notoriety, people would pay less attention to him, especially about security. However, without his notoriety, he wouldn't even have the skillset necessary to talk about security! How can one talk intelligently about social engineering without being active in it? In this case, he socially engineered the wrong people, and paid some time in prison and in his lifestyle for it. Wasn't that his punishment? Not being able to watch TV, use a cell phone, browse pr0n or read
Now it seems petty and punative. Of course, having never seen a lecture of his, I don't know how apropos it is, nor do I see the whole story... but then, neither do you, right?
-AS
The fact of the matter is, you either believe that anyone who is a criminal should be allowed to make money off of their crimes, or you are a hypocrite. So what is it?
Nothing is ever black and white, clear cut, or so well defined.
Criminals, unfortunately, are people to. And people have every capability to become criminals. Mitnick is a criminal, fine, everyone agrees.
Mitnick can be productive to society. That's true too. It's not just about praise or fame; it's economics. If he can produce a service to our society we want, we exchange with him a fair service or amount of goods. In this case, he can speak expertly on hacking and cracking, something most are ignorant of. In this case, it seems a service worthy of being performed!
Now here's the question. If he were anyone else, people wouldn't take him seriously. Don't even try to put Mitnick in the same class as a rapist or serial killer, btw!
-AS
It almost seems as if the judge involved, and the government, want to punish Mitnick, not just assess him for damages and to minimize future damages. It seems, I dunno, petty, and I quote this from the article, though it is now hearsay twice over...
She said that she thought Mitnick would be unable to earn anything above minimum wage.
Isn't that just wrong? Mitnick arguably has skills and contributions to society he can make, and paying him decently is a good way to get it out of him as an economic exchange of goods. Yet by desiring Mitnick to be earn minimum wage, the system expects Mitnick to contribute minimally to our society.
WTF? I don't curse, so I'm glad for TLAs...
I wonder if he has the training or background to legitimately work in the security field; if he does, props to him! If the government thinks he's going to take advantage of the situation unfairly, then auditing his work is even better; security through rigor!
-AS
Maybe... At least, I thought it was harder than that.
CIT, for example, it would be normal to take 15 or 16 courses in 9 months. For 4 or 5 years...
So, even if it's barely enough time for human reproduction, if we're assuming that ArsDigita students are of the same caliber as MIT, CIT, Stanford, etc, 9 months of intense important classes could conceivably equal 2 years at CIT, without the distractions of core classes, or GEs, or social activities.
I think it would work ^^
But I'm biased
-AS