How do you reconcile putting in this assertion: [etc]
Because it's absurd to argue about features in an application (i.e., Slashdot, Usenet) based on what protocol it uses. Either a feature is useful, or it is not. You can't have it both ways -- either HTML is good for discussion groups (Slashdot OR Usenet) or it is not.
No, it's not a straw man. Look past your "it's always been done that way" attitude, and think about it. Why is a Slashdot HTML forum "good" and a Usenet HTML forum "bad"? History is not a reason. Standards are meant to be enhanced.
Sheesh, some geeks are worse than PHBs on this issue. It reminds me of that shipping company commercial where the boss drones on about the fact that "we've always shipped this way. We will always ship this way" while the young employee stands there mocking him.
Why do I have a feeling that all the old farts are going to have to die off before this issue goes away?
Not only isn't HTML postings an important "technical advancement", not everyone thinks HTML postings look better, either - surprise.
So should the web return to the days of pure ASCII? Should Slashdot disallow any HTML postings? HTML is useful. Look at how it used on Slashdot -- italics, boldface, links, etc. Not to mention that proportional fonts are infinitely easier to read.
I don't complain HTML postings in web pages because it is what the HTTP was designed for...
How can you possible be in favor of HTML on the web, yet not in favor of HTML in Usenet? Put it this way: If Usenet were invented today and they included HTML, could you honestly say it would occur to you to say, "you know what would make this better? ASCII only!"
I cannot say so for newsreaders, at least yet.
Depends on your newsreader. If you're using a Windows newsreader, it typically uses the IE COM component to display the HTML.
The new modem standards apparently even have special compression modes for HTML, and if uuencode and base64 matter, modems and other compressors could recognize them as well.
That's great... if you use a dial-up modem. Personally, I think any more incentive we can give to stamp out dial-up modems, the better.
I hope you will be more considerate in the future.
Not a chance. It's not my fault you have a bad Internet connection, and I don't think it's reasonable to hold back progress for some proportion of people.
If this needs a solution, then the solution is to implement a "strip" protocol at the Usenet server level. But the solution is NOT to penalize everyone else who doesn't want to live in a world of monospace fonts.
Look, the guy makes some good points about the technical flaws. And maybe he's right, and I'm looking forward to his (or someone's) better ideas.
But I get annoyed with people who live in the past and think that "if it's good enough before, it's good enough now. <patronize>Maybe someday we'll do something better</patronize>"
As an example, I post HTML to Usenet. Intentionally. And I will continue to do so. The green-screen luddites need to stop whining and upgrade their newsreaders. Yes, ASCII newsreaders can strip out (or render to some degree) the HTML. And no, I don't care about the extra bandwidth. There's a reason that newspapers and magazines use italics, boldface and bullet lists.
The BEST solution that unfortunately will never be implemented is to allow specifying a port number in a DNS lookup. Then when the browser or e-mail looks up the address, one could also specify a port that you want.
Unfortunately, this ain't gonna happen without a rewrite of everything.
Hollings surely doesn't know the answer. Hollywood doesn't know the answer.
That's because there's no real question. If the encryption is broken, the by definition the movie copyable. The point of the hardware is prevent (or allow under restricted circumstances) the copying of marked, encyrypted content.
In other words, the copy protection is contained in the encryption, which is read by the special hardware.
We'll just have to tell Congress that "any device that can legitimately hit a baseball can be misused for illegal murder. How do you think MLB would react if the state legislatures tried to outlaw the game of baseball?"
Except they aren't trying to outlaw all copying, only illegal copying. If you read the Wired article, it specifically says the law allows for fair use copying.
That's what's incidious about this: it will WORK and it WILL solve the problem of illegal mass distribution. The argument needs to be that it creates more problems that it solves.
It does say the final "encoding rules" should take into account fair-use rights, such as making backup copies or reproducing short excerpts from books, songs, or movies. Copies of TV broadcasts made for one-time personal use at home are also permitted.
In other words, if you write congress and rant that they are "outlawing fair use" or something like that, the letter will go straight into the trash because they believe they ARE taking care of them.
If you want to oppose this law (and I think that would be a good idea), the argument needs to be based on economics (making consumer products more expensive), inconvenience (does this in practical terms make it much more difficult to exercise fair use rights), or privacy (will you have to register a music purchase in order to get a digital copy)?
I'm speculating right now, because we won't really know what it says until we can read the actual law.
The bottom line is that arguments that it's your right to steal copyrighted material will play right into their hands as proof that this law is needed. I think it behooves everyone to realize that laws are generally written to solve problems, and the problem here is copyright theft. The argument against it needs to be that this solution creates more problems than it solves.
I think people should also remember that something like this WILL solve the problem of copyright theft, and not try to convince yourself that it won't. Will it possibly not stop certain people from making illegal digital copies? Of course not -- but that's not the point. The music industry doesn't care about Joe L33t making copies, it cares about the mass market making copies. It only has to be "good enough" to be effective.
Crazy thought: How about waiting for the text of the law and reading it before criticizing! Sure it sounds kind of strange, but wouldn't it be more effective to fax your senator knowing what the law actually says?
Sorry, I don't know what I'm thinking. Forget it. Hail the mob!!
I think "interesting" is quite the right word... but note that is not necessarily a compliment. Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Kaczinsky are also "interesting" people whom I think it would be fascinating to meet and talk with -- from behind glass.
Of course, there's always that blind person who has a cell phone...
I don't know what the law is with regards to blind people and signs, but that's a problem everywhere. What about a blind person with a pacemaker in a quick-e-mart (big warning sign about microwaves). What about signs that say, "floor is wet -- watch your step"?
According to him, the higher-ups have qualms about doing this because of legal issues e.g. what happens if someoone needs to get in touch with someone else who happens to be in a movie theatre, but the movie theatre has disabled wireless devices?
Sheesh, people are such weenies. Just put up a big ass sign up that says, "Wireless signals will be blocked while on the premises." Problem solved.
It's precisely because I'm educated in computers that I doubt climate modellers. Climates are unbelievably complex things. First of all, our level of knowledge on all the factors that go into climates is at the level of stone knives and bear skins. Second of all, I don't believe that we have even CLOSE to the computer power needed to accurately model something like the planet.
In short, show me real evidence, not manufactured evidence.
In a telephone interview after the appearance, Heckenkamp's father, Thomas Heckenkamp, said his son is only trying to protect his rights . "They've overstepped their bounds, and they're keeping him from defending himself," he said.
What an idiot. My first thought was, "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree."
Actually, there is a forth option: A country where everyone is allowed, but is either culturally frowned upon, or has significant legal restrictions. The US is culturally very "agitated" -- the public is not shy about demonstrating against something, anything. I think to do a valid comparison, you have to look in-depth at what people are protesting. Heck, look at Slashdot -- the average Slashdotter is complaining because they they can't steal music. That's a far cry from complaining about 50% unemployment or food rationing or military government takeovers or something.
As an American, I think I can safely say that Americans are probably the most spoiled rotten populace in the world. The average American (particularly the average Slashdotter) have no clue what real restrictions in freedom are all about.
On the topic of abortion, it's a woman's right to make her own decision. Not some random slashdotter/religious nut/passerby's decision, her own. If you believe it's a bad and immoral thing, avoid doing so yourself. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you _have_ to do it.
On the topic of slavery, it's a person's right to make their own decision. Not some random person's decision, their own. If you believe it's a bad and immoral thing, avoid doing so yourself. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you _have_ to own slaves.
If you think you'd go to hell for doing it, don't; if you think somebody else will go to hell for doing it, would you please just let them make that decision themselves?!
Religion is totally irrelevent to the question of abortion.
A common reason for requiring an abortion is as a result of rape.
While I sympathize with the emotional trauma of a rape victim, it's not the child's fault that it was created through a violent act. There is clearly no easy answer to this, but I don't think the answer is killing the child.
...followed by twenty years looking after the child of a guy who raped you is something in which most people ought to see the horrific side.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you reconcile putting in this assertion: [etc]
Because it's absurd to argue about features in an application (i.e., Slashdot, Usenet) based on what protocol it uses. Either a feature is useful, or it is not. You can't have it both ways -- either HTML is good for discussion groups (Slashdot OR Usenet) or it is not.
Stop setting up straw men.
No, it's not a straw man. Look past your "it's always been done that way" attitude, and think about it. Why is a Slashdot HTML forum "good" and a Usenet HTML forum "bad"? History is not a reason. Standards are meant to be enhanced.
Sheesh, some geeks are worse than PHBs on this issue. It reminds me of that shipping company commercial where the boss drones on about the fact that "we've always shipped this way. We will always ship this way" while the young employee stands there mocking him.
Why do I have a feeling that all the old farts are going to have to die off before this issue goes away?
So if straight ASCII is so great, why do you use HTML in your Slashdot posts?
Grumble mutter bah humbug
Your sig is particularly appropriate for your post.
Not only isn't HTML postings an important "technical advancement", not everyone thinks HTML postings look better, either - surprise.
So should the web return to the days of pure ASCII? Should Slashdot disallow any HTML postings? HTML is useful. Look at how it used on Slashdot -- italics, boldface, links, etc. Not to mention that proportional fonts are infinitely easier to read.
I don't complain HTML postings in web pages because it is what the HTTP was designed for...
How can you possible be in favor of HTML on the web, yet not in favor of HTML in Usenet? Put it this way: If Usenet were invented today and they included HTML, could you honestly say it would occur to you to say, "you know what would make this better? ASCII only!"
I cannot say so for newsreaders, at least yet.
Depends on your newsreader. If you're using a Windows newsreader, it typically uses the IE COM component to display the HTML.
The new modem standards apparently even have special compression modes for HTML, and if uuencode and base64 matter, modems and other compressors could recognize them as well.
That's great ... if you use a dial-up modem. Personally, I think any more incentive we can give to stamp out dial-up modems, the better.
I hope you will be more considerate in the future.
Not a chance. It's not my fault you have a bad Internet connection, and I don't think it's reasonable to hold back progress for some proportion of people.
If this needs a solution, then the solution is to implement a "strip" protocol at the Usenet server level. But the solution is NOT to penalize everyone else who doesn't want to live in a world of monospace fonts.
Look, the guy makes some good points about the technical flaws. And maybe he's right, and I'm looking forward to his (or someone's) better ideas.
But I get annoyed with people who live in the past and think that "if it's good enough before, it's good enough now. <patronize>Maybe someday we'll do something better</patronize>"
As an example, I post HTML to Usenet. Intentionally. And I will continue to do so. The green-screen luddites need to stop whining and upgrade their newsreaders. Yes, ASCII newsreaders can strip out (or render to some degree) the HTML. And no, I don't care about the extra bandwidth. There's a reason that newspapers and magazines use italics, boldface and bullet lists.
Death to the luddites!
Actually, I mis-read his question. Apparently his problem is outgoing port 80, rather than incoming port 80 block, which is what I'm addressing.
The BEST solution that unfortunately will never be implemented is to allow specifying a port number in a DNS lookup. Then when the browser or e-mail looks up the address, one could also specify a port that you want.
Unfortunately, this ain't gonna happen without a rewrite of everything.
But the way the bill is written it would be illegal for your computer to play content which is not protected.
Where do you get that from?
Hollings surely doesn't know the answer. Hollywood doesn't know the answer.
That's because there's no real question. If the encryption is broken, the by definition the movie copyable. The point of the hardware is prevent (or allow under restricted circumstances) the copying of marked, encyrypted content.
In other words, the copy protection is contained in the encryption, which is read by the special hardware.
We'll just have to tell Congress that "any device that can legitimately hit a baseball can be misused for illegal murder. How do you think MLB would react if the state legislatures tried to outlaw the game of baseball?"
Except they aren't trying to outlaw all copying, only illegal copying. If you read the Wired article, it specifically says the law allows for fair use copying.
That's what's incidious about this: it will WORK and it WILL solve the problem of illegal mass distribution. The argument needs to be that it creates more problems that it solves.
From the article...
It does say the final "encoding rules" should take into account fair-use rights, such as making backup copies or reproducing short excerpts from books, songs, or movies. Copies of TV broadcasts made for one-time personal use at home are also permitted.
In other words, if you write congress and rant that they are "outlawing fair use" or something like that, the letter will go straight into the trash because they believe they ARE taking care of them.
If you want to oppose this law (and I think that would be a good idea), the argument needs to be based on economics (making consumer products more expensive), inconvenience (does this in practical terms make it much more difficult to exercise fair use rights), or privacy (will you have to register a music purchase in order to get a digital copy)?
I'm speculating right now, because we won't really know what it says until we can read the actual law.
The bottom line is that arguments that it's your right to steal copyrighted material will play right into their hands as proof that this law is needed. I think it behooves everyone to realize that laws are generally written to solve problems, and the problem here is copyright theft. The argument against it needs to be that this solution creates more problems than it solves.
I think people should also remember that something like this WILL solve the problem of copyright theft, and not try to convince yourself that it won't. Will it possibly not stop certain people from making illegal digital copies? Of course not -- but that's not the point. The music industry doesn't care about Joe L33t making copies, it cares about the mass market making copies. It only has to be "good enough" to be effective.
Crazy thought: How about waiting for the text of the law and reading it before criticizing! Sure it sounds kind of strange, but wouldn't it be more effective to fax your senator knowing what the law actually says?
Sorry, I don't know what I'm thinking. Forget it. Hail the mob!!
I think "interesting" is quite the right word ... but note that is not necessarily a compliment. Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Kaczinsky are also "interesting" people whom I think it would be fascinating to meet and talk with -- from behind glass.
Is your Microwave oven pretty old? I would think the shielding would be better than that.
Of course, there's always that blind person who has a cell phone...
I don't know what the law is with regards to blind people and signs, but that's a problem everywhere. What about a blind person with a pacemaker in a quick-e-mart (big warning sign about microwaves). What about signs that say, "floor is wet -- watch your step"?
According to him, the higher-ups have qualms about doing this because of legal issues e.g. what happens if someoone needs to get in touch with someone else who happens to be in a movie theatre, but the movie theatre has disabled wireless devices?
Sheesh, people are such weenies. Just put up a big ass sign up that says, "Wireless signals will be blocked while on the premises." Problem solved.
Anywhere you have a dimmer switch. Personally, I have quite a few of them.
It's precisely because I'm educated in computers that I doubt climate modellers. Climates are unbelievably complex things. First of all, our level of knowledge on all the factors that go into climates is at the level of stone knives and bear skins. Second of all, I don't believe that we have even CLOSE to the computer power needed to accurately model something like the planet.
In short, show me real evidence, not manufactured evidence.
In a telephone interview after the appearance, Heckenkamp's father, Thomas Heckenkamp, said his son is only trying to protect his rights . "They've overstepped their bounds, and they're keeping him from defending himself," he said.
What an idiot. My first thought was, "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree."
There are a lot of nice things about Canada and I've never understood this obsession w/trying to keep up w/the U.S.
Indeed. And maybe one of these years you'll win the hockey olympic gold medal. Sorry we had to beat you again.
Reality Master? Cock Master, more like.
Well, in all modesty I have to admit the Reality Master is well endowed.
Actually, there is a forth option: A country where everyone is allowed, but is either culturally frowned upon, or has significant legal restrictions. The US is culturally very "agitated" -- the public is not shy about demonstrating against something, anything. I think to do a valid comparison, you have to look in-depth at what people are protesting. Heck, look at Slashdot -- the average Slashdotter is complaining because they they can't steal music. That's a far cry from complaining about 50% unemployment or food rationing or military government takeovers or something.
As an American, I think I can safely say that Americans are probably the most spoiled rotten populace in the world. The average American (particularly the average Slashdotter) have no clue what real restrictions in freedom are all about.
On the topic of abortion, it's a woman's right to make her own decision. Not some random slashdotter/religious nut/passerby's decision, her own. If you believe it's a bad and immoral thing, avoid doing so yourself. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you _have_ to do it.
On the topic of slavery, it's a person's right to make their own decision. Not some random person's decision, their own. If you believe it's a bad and immoral thing, avoid doing so yourself. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you _have_ to own slaves.
If you think you'd go to hell for doing it, don't; if you think somebody else will go to hell for doing it, would you please just let them make that decision themselves?!
Religion is totally irrelevent to the question of abortion.
A common reason for requiring an abortion is as a result of rape.
While I sympathize with the emotional trauma of a rape victim, it's not the child's fault that it was created through a violent act. There is clearly no easy answer to this, but I don't think the answer is killing the child.
Adoption.