Isn't what goes on there just as "real" as what goes on in your office?
Any place with a concept of "tenure" has no relationship to the "real" world.
Just for the record, I agree with the guy. Not all college professors are clueless, but there is much, much truth in the old adage that "those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
You've failed to make the argument about why saving Mandrake is "the right thing".
Not everything is worth saving, and particularly not everything with good intentions. Why does Mandrake offer that is so great that it's worth dumping $4M into? And note that that $4M is not going into new development -- it's to resolve outstanding debts from all the wasted money of the past.
Most babies are aborted for a reason, and its none of anyone else's damn business if a woman decides to abort her baby.
Uh, yes it is. Do you think it's also none of anyone's "damn business" if a woman decides to abort a baby after it's born? A three month old?
You are so quick to make that decision
Easy decision.
do you want the mothers who cant afford their kids, or know they will be unable to raise them, to bring them to your door to pay for / love / raise them as your own??
So poor children should be killed while wealthy children should be able to live? If they can't afford their kids, then they should be put up for adoption.
I would say if you have this 'big ethical problem' about taking stem cells from an unborn baby, you just stay at home and quit thinking about it, because its happening whether you want it too or not.
For now, you're right, just like abortion. But there was a time when black people weren't defined to be human. "Hey, if you don't like slavery, then don't own slaves. It's none of anyone else's damn business if I decide to own slaves. It's a matter of personal choice."
Unborn children are the last human beings that are not fully recognized as human. I fully believe that someday unborn children will have a recognized legal right for temporary joint ownership of the mother's body. And that's the way it should be.
And yet, "Alice in Wonderland" was placed under Digital Rights Management, so that Adobe could control it's distribution.
You're not being logical here. Yes, AIW is in the public domain, but that doesn't mean you can't copyright particular expressions of it. For example, the words of the bible are public domain, but you can't just photocopy a particular publisher's version of it and hand it out. You could, however, scan the words and distribute that.
Just because Adobe chooses to control a particular version of AIW doesn't mean it ceases to be in the public domain. Just go out and get another copy of it if you want to.
When big time television producers (or whatever he was) tell me that not watching commercials is breaking the implicit contract with the TV broadcaster
And exactly why is that wrong? Who do you think pays for the production of the show?
I don't know, maybe I'm weird, but I actually appreciate the advertisers paying for the shows that I watch. I must just be a corporate tool.
I can't know the real purposes of something that is being proposed. I can only know what effects I can reasonably predict it will have. Thus, that's what my definition is based on.
Well then, don't be surprised when the opinions of you and those like you are ignored as ignorant by the people who make the laws. Anyway who walks up to a lawmaker and says "The purpose of DRM is to take away my rights!" is going to be ignored.
Just for the record, the proper statement is "The music industry is well within their rights to try and prevent rampant copyright violations. But I believe that DRM as currently implemented infringes too heavily on the fair-use rights of consumers. The solution is for anonymous distribution to be illegal (which it already is), perhaps even with criminal implications in extreme cases. Most cases should probably be civil."
One-time pads require that your key is as long as the message. Hello?
And the problem with that is... ?
Encryption is encoding a message in a secret way such that it cannot be read by unintended recipients. If I'm sending news from deep within my oppressive government to share with the world to my partner in a free country, and I use a one-time pad that we exchanged in the past, is that supposed to not qualify as encryption?
A one time pad is a key made up of a bunch of random numbers exactly the same length as the message. So one side encrypts with the pad, while the other side decrypts with the same pad. It is mathematically impossible to crack the code without the pad.
Uh, no. This is an extremely popular misconception by some people, and an extremely popular knowing lie by other people.
DRM is about preserving the rights of content creators. Period.
Now, unfortunately, taking options away from users is a side-effect of most of the DRM schemes out there. But that is a side-effect, not a first effect. People advocating DRM are not evil boogeymen who derive pleasure from your pain like some music industry vampire. They care about preserving their rights in the face of rampant, out of control copyright violations.
Put it this way: if DRM existed that preserved your fair-use rights while taking away your non-right to mass distribute copyrighted material, they would fine with it.
Don't get me wrong. I don't particularly want my fair-use rights watered down, buy lying about these people's motivations just makes everyone looked like thieves in the eyes of lawmakers, and ultimately hurts the cause.
Wrong. One time pads cannot be cracked. It is mathematically impossible.
After that, we can stop playing word games. When someone says uncrackable, they mean uncrackable by any practical method. Practicality is the only thing that matters in the discussion of encryption.
If you are aware of any lie in Ross Anderson's TCPA/Palladium FAQ, please state what it is.
Sheesh, that piece of trash is loaded with them. How about this beauty...
Software companies can also make it harder for you to switch to their competitors' products; for example, Word could encrypt all your documents using keys that only Microsoft products have access to; this would mean that you could only read them using Microsoft products, not with any competing word processor.
And I don't care if he uses words like "could" or "may" or any other wishy-washy term. For purposes of his document, he stating that Microsoft WILL do these things, no matter how absurd. Note, by the way, that Microsoft could implement the above bullshit right now if they wanted to without waiting.
I didn't say they didn't have the legal right to do it. I'm just explaining that the root of this is people who can't mind their own business and want to control the computer choices of others. It's no different than if some programmer releases a utility with a requirement that only born again Christians can use it. Does he have the right to do it? Of course. But that doesn't make the decision less idiotic and wrong.
Microsoft are busy working on just this and it's much worse than you would imagine.
No, they aren't. Palladium will NEVER stop you from running unsigned code. Never. Ever.
There is a very simple reason for this: it would break backward compatibility. No backward compatibility, then no operating systems sold.
Yes, there are people who are LYING about Palladium. Yes, LYING.
And yes, Palladium can be used for digital rights management. But that is a completely separate issue from the idiots who assert that only Microsoft-signed software will be allowed to run, which is completely absurd.
Palladium is nothing like this binary module issue.
At the risk of this sounding like flamebait, it's about power and control.
There are people who think you should not be able to download a binary-only module and use it with a GPL program. Note that I say you, and not the creators of the programs themselves. The binary only creators are not using any GPL code. The GPL code is not using the binary. It's the combination of the two that many will tell you is a "sticky area".
It's exactly the same as if Microsoft changed the Windows license to say you could not run any GPL programs under the Windows operating system. Imagine the screaming that would take place if they tried that.
I think a lot of people need to get a grip and just mind their own business. If you don't want binary-only software on your computer, then don't do it. But don't presume to tell me what software I can or can't run on my computer.
Now, it's valid to worry about whether I'm redidistributing software according to the license. But if I follow each individual software's license, then leave me alone.
so, for employment to be a contract between equals, the employees need to have more clout and power? simple. unionize!
Actually, that's not the answer (at least, not the answer for the last 50 years or so).
When you join a union, instead of giving power to your boss over yourself, you are just giving power to the union over yourself. Unions simply elevate the lamers at the expense of the good people.
That's just a bad philosophy. Jealousy does not make you more money. You make EXACTLY as much money as you are worth. That the guy at the top makes millions has nothing whatsoever to do with how much money you make. So why worry about how much someone else makes? Worry about yourself.
Note that worth is how much you are perceived to be worth, and how much you have negotiated to be worth. If you are paid less than you think you are worth, then either negotiate it higher or find someone else who agrees.
when I can let my boss go due to "tough" financial times just like I can.
That's called "quitting" and finding another job. If you're unable to find another job, then make yourself more valuable.
when my boss invites me to his Christmas party.
Otherwise known as wanting pathetic gifts of approval. Don't invite him to your Christmas party, then.
when my boss will be reprimanded for missing a day of work.
That's called your boss having enough value to have negotiated the ability to miss days of work. If you can't, then become more valuable or negotiate that as part of your employment agreement.
when I get equal compensation for equal amounts of work and experience.
You are compensates exactly what you are worth. If you disagree, then find someone else who agrees with your self assessment.
when I can be in the same health plan as my boss and the company owner.
Nothing stops you from buying the same health plan as your boss. If you don't like the standard plan, ask if you can kick in money to get yourself to the higher level. If you can't, find another job or, again, make yourself valuable enough to where the company thinks you are worth giving the fancy health plan to.
when bosses and owners think of employment as an agreement among equals.
They think of you exactly the way you let them think of you. Congratulations, you have allowed yourself to be a tool.
agreement among equals when pigs fly or companies are worker owned.
Guess what? ALL COMPANIES ARE WORKER OWNED. The CEO is just as much of a worker as the ditch digger. And even the shareholders are workers. Everyone is a worker.
What did you give to your bosses and the company owner for allowing you to exchange your labor for money? Oh, nothing? The giving should only flow one way because the company should be thankful that you allow your labor to be purchased for money?
Let me give you a free clue: you will be MUCH more successful when you look at employment as an agreement among equals instead of a master to a purchased slave who pathetically looks for gifts of approval.
Slashdot Mirror
And in another startling discovery, saying something over and over doesn't make it applicable to every case! Good Lord!
Isn't what goes on there just as "real" as what goes on in your office?
Any place with a concept of "tenure" has no relationship to the "real" world.
Just for the record, I agree with the guy. Not all college professors are clueless, but there is much, much truth in the old adage that "those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
If you use their software why shouldnt you support the development of this software?
Well, it would be nice to "support the development" rather than support their debts caused by rampant out-of-control wasteful spending.
You've failed to make the argument about why saving Mandrake is "the right thing".
Not everything is worth saving, and particularly not everything with good intentions. Why does Mandrake offer that is so great that it's worth dumping $4M into? And note that that $4M is not going into new development -- it's to resolve outstanding debts from all the wasted money of the past.
Most babies are aborted for a reason, and its none of anyone else's damn business if a woman decides to abort her baby.
Uh, yes it is. Do you think it's also none of anyone's "damn business" if a woman decides to abort a baby after it's born? A three month old?
You are so quick to make that decision
Easy decision.
do you want the mothers who cant afford their kids, or know they will be unable to raise them, to bring them to your door to pay for / love / raise them as your own??
So poor children should be killed while wealthy children should be able to live? If they can't afford their kids, then they should be put up for adoption.
I would say if you have this 'big ethical problem' about taking stem cells from an unborn baby, you just stay at home and quit thinking about it, because its happening whether you want it too or not.
For now, you're right, just like abortion. But there was a time when black people weren't defined to be human. "Hey, if you don't like slavery, then don't own slaves. It's none of anyone else's damn business if I decide to own slaves. It's a matter of personal choice."
Unborn children are the last human beings that are not fully recognized as human. I fully believe that someday unborn children will have a recognized legal right for temporary joint ownership of the mother's body. And that's the way it should be.
And yet, "Alice in Wonderland" was placed under Digital Rights Management, so that Adobe could control it's distribution.
You're not being logical here. Yes, AIW is in the public domain, but that doesn't mean you can't copyright particular expressions of it. For example, the words of the bible are public domain, but you can't just photocopy a particular publisher's version of it and hand it out. You could, however, scan the words and distribute that.
Just because Adobe chooses to control a particular version of AIW doesn't mean it ceases to be in the public domain. Just go out and get another copy of it if you want to.
First of all, what the hell are you talking about? Where did jail come into the discussion?
Second of all, billboards don't give back value, TV shows do.
When big time television producers (or whatever he was) tell me that not watching commercials is breaking the implicit contract with the TV broadcaster
And exactly why is that wrong? Who do you think pays for the production of the show?
I don't know, maybe I'm weird, but I actually appreciate the advertisers paying for the shows that I watch. I must just be a corporate tool.
I can't know the real purposes of something that is being proposed. I can only know what effects I can reasonably predict it will have. Thus, that's what my definition is based on.
Well then, don't be surprised when the opinions of you and those like you are ignored as ignorant by the people who make the laws. Anyway who walks up to a lawmaker and says "The purpose of DRM is to take away my rights!" is going to be ignored.
Just for the record, the proper statement is "The music industry is well within their rights to try and prevent rampant copyright violations. But I believe that DRM as currently implemented infringes too heavily on the fair-use rights of consumers. The solution is for anonymous distribution to be illegal (which it already is), perhaps even with criminal implications in extreme cases. Most cases should probably be civil."
Sure they can; just get your hands on the pad.
Stealing the key is not cracking the code.
But how do you exchange the pads securely?
Here's a CD with the pad. Don't lose it. Not every communication has to be electronic.
Here you are, completely unbreakable encription.
You are correct.
One-time pads require that your key is as long as the message. Hello?
And the problem with that is... ?
Encryption is encoding a message in a secret way such that it cannot be read by unintended recipients. If I'm sending news from deep within my oppressive government to share with the world to my partner in a free country, and I use a one-time pad that we exchanged in the past, is that supposed to not qualify as encryption?
A one time pad is a key made up of a bunch of random numbers exactly the same length as the message. So one side encrypts with the pad, while the other side decrypts with the same pad. It is mathematically impossible to crack the code without the pad.
DRM is about taking options away from users.
Uh, no. This is an extremely popular misconception by some people, and an extremely popular knowing lie by other people.
DRM is about preserving the rights of content creators. Period.
Now, unfortunately, taking options away from users is a side-effect of most of the DRM schemes out there. But that is a side-effect, not a first effect. People advocating DRM are not evil boogeymen who derive pleasure from your pain like some music industry vampire. They care about preserving their rights in the face of rampant, out of control copyright violations.
Put it this way: if DRM existed that preserved your fair-use rights while taking away your non-right to mass distribute copyrighted material, they would fine with it.
Don't get me wrong. I don't particularly want my fair-use rights watered down, buy lying about these people's motivations just makes everyone looked like thieves in the eyes of lawmakers, and ultimately hurts the cause.
Wrong. One time pads cannot be cracked. It is mathematically impossible.
After that, we can stop playing word games. When someone says uncrackable, they mean uncrackable by any practical method. Practicality is the only thing that matters in the discussion of encryption.
Did you ignore the distinction between kernel and user mode intentionally?
Yes. It's none of their business in what mode I decide to run my programs.
If you are aware of any lie in Ross Anderson's TCPA/Palladium FAQ, please state what it is.
Sheesh, that piece of trash is loaded with them. How about this beauty...
And I don't care if he uses words like "could" or "may" or any other wishy-washy term. For purposes of his document, he stating that Microsoft WILL do these things, no matter how absurd. Note, by the way, that Microsoft could implement the above bullshit right now if they wanted to without waiting.
That document is a load of scare mongering crap.
I didn't say they didn't have the legal right to do it. I'm just explaining that the root of this is people who can't mind their own business and want to control the computer choices of others. It's no different than if some programmer releases a utility with a requirement that only born again Christians can use it. Does he have the right to do it? Of course. But that doesn't make the decision less idiotic and wrong.
Microsoft are busy working on just this and it's much worse than you would imagine.
No, they aren't. Palladium will NEVER stop you from running unsigned code. Never. Ever.
There is a very simple reason for this: it would break backward compatibility. No backward compatibility, then no operating systems sold.
Yes, there are people who are LYING about Palladium. Yes, LYING.
And yes, Palladium can be used for digital rights management. But that is a completely separate issue from the idiots who assert that only Microsoft-signed software will be allowed to run, which is completely absurd.
Palladium is nothing like this binary module issue.
At the risk of this sounding like flamebait, it's about power and control.
There are people who think you should not be able to download a binary-only module and use it with a GPL program. Note that I say you, and not the creators of the programs themselves. The binary only creators are not using any GPL code. The GPL code is not using the binary. It's the combination of the two that many will tell you is a "sticky area".
It's exactly the same as if Microsoft changed the Windows license to say you could not run any GPL programs under the Windows operating system. Imagine the screaming that would take place if they tried that.
I think a lot of people need to get a grip and just mind their own business. If you don't want binary-only software on your computer, then don't do it. But don't presume to tell me what software I can or can't run on my computer.
Now, it's valid to worry about whether I'm redidistributing software according to the license. But if I follow each individual software's license, then leave me alone.
but the fact that he got a friggin bobble-head of the CEO is probably kind of a slap in the face.
I won't argue with that. The CEO giving a bobble-head of himself is just unbelievably stupid.
so, for employment to be a contract between equals, the employees need to have more clout and power? simple. unionize!
Actually, that's not the answer (at least, not the answer for the last 50 years or so).
When you join a union, instead of giving power to your boss over yourself, you are just giving power to the union over yourself. Unions simply elevate the lamers at the expense of the good people.
but that he is not compensated on the same scale as his boss,
The boss is paid exactly what the boss is worth to the company.
who is waaaaaay overpaid at the expense of the company and its workers.
The boss making more money does not mean he makes less money. He makes exactly what he is worth.
That's just a bad philosophy. Jealousy does not make you more money. You make EXACTLY as much money as you are worth. That the guy at the top makes millions has nothing whatsoever to do with how much money you make. So why worry about how much someone else makes? Worry about yourself.
Note that worth is how much you are perceived to be worth, and how much you have negotiated to be worth. If you are paid less than you think you are worth, then either negotiate it higher or find someone else who agrees.
when I can let my boss go due to "tough" financial times just like I can.
That's called "quitting" and finding another job. If you're unable to find another job, then make yourself more valuable.
when my boss invites me to his Christmas party.
Otherwise known as wanting pathetic gifts of approval. Don't invite him to your Christmas party, then.
when my boss will be reprimanded for missing a day of work.
That's called your boss having enough value to have negotiated the ability to miss days of work. If you can't, then become more valuable or negotiate that as part of your employment agreement.
when I get equal compensation for equal amounts of work and experience.
You are compensates exactly what you are worth. If you disagree, then find someone else who agrees with your self assessment.
when I can be in the same health plan as my boss and the company owner.
Nothing stops you from buying the same health plan as your boss. If you don't like the standard plan, ask if you can kick in money to get yourself to the higher level. If you can't, find another job or, again, make yourself valuable enough to where the company thinks you are worth giving the fancy health plan to.
when bosses and owners think of employment as an agreement among equals.
They think of you exactly the way you let them think of you. Congratulations, you have allowed yourself to be a tool.
agreement among equals when pigs fly or companies are worker owned.
Guess what? ALL COMPANIES ARE WORKER OWNED. The CEO is just as much of a worker as the ditch digger. And even the shareholders are workers. Everyone is a worker.
What did you give to your bosses and the company owner for allowing you to exchange your labor for money? Oh, nothing? The giving should only flow one way because the company should be thankful that you allow your labor to be purchased for money?
Let me give you a free clue: you will be MUCH more successful when you look at employment as an agreement among equals instead of a master to a purchased slave who pathetically looks for gifts of approval.