Maybe because not enough people write to their representatives to let them know how they feel about intellectual property issues. However, I think it would take a *lot* of mail from constituents to conteract the messages they seem to be receiving that allow things such as UCITA and DMCA to pass votes.
What type of laws do you thing would benefit us consumers? Should the government pass a law stating that all systems must be totally secure? How would this be enforced? How would anyone know whether their systems are completely secure? I don't believe it is possible to prove a complex computer system as being secure. It can only be proven insecure. As such, prosecutors could only go after companies whose servers have been cracked. Maybe crackers could then become employees of various law enforcement agencies.:-)
Anyway, civil recourse against breaches of privacy seems to be the only sane route. Companies should be liable for gross negligence about security, but then how gross is gross?
As far as "the police/military/sceret services[sic]" just sitting back, I would rather have that than Carnivore/BadEvilGuyFinder watching everything. The system just needs time to settle into equilibrium.
I'm still upset that I can't find out how Windows NT or Windows 2000 can be administered with a simple vt100 or similar terminal. I have no problems on my unix boxes of telnetting (or ssh'ing) and updating the server configuration.
Maybe there's a way with windows that I just don't know. ControlIt, PCAnywhere, and VNC are nice, but they are not "real" ways to administer a server since they require one to be logged on to the console of the box!!!!!!
I sure hope not. That would be a waste of EFF dollars that could be used to represent someone who needs representation. AOL does not need additional representation.
The difference to me is that a nice encryption *algorithm* is simply a process, even it if has example implementations, but DeCSS by its nature requires additional data, namely the keys for decrypting the DVDs. AFAIK, the algorithm wasn't a well-kept secret, but the keys were (well, maybe not so well-kept.
I liken it to having a key to my truck that would let me put stuff in the bed. Maybe GM wanted to keep the key to the bed so that I could only use the bed when I was doing certain things, like hauling around DVD players.
Everyone knows that if I were to get the key, I could haul around dirt, chickens, or whatever. Now someone breaks into GM's super-secret key-shack and posts a key-code that can be used by consumers to make their own truck-bed keys.
I, among millions of others, get the key code, and take it to my friendly locksmith (or GM repo-man) to get the key made. Now I have free use of my truck bed, and I am happy. However, GM views this as a terrible thing, and they decide to sue for an injunction to remove the key code from the Web. They win, and get the code removed from at least the most prominent sites. Several smug quotes from their lawyers are printed in articles, "We are glad that the court has rectified the illegal use of truck beds, etc."
On appeal, a judge with stock in GM hears the case, and agrees with GM since it is obvious that people with the code are carting around all sort of stuff that GM doesn't want carted.
Finally, the US Supreme Court takes the case and tells GM that they are silly, and that consumers actually do have some rights, and that GM has to provide bed-keys to all people who bought their trucks.
Disclaimer: I like my truck a lot, and it is from GM, so I have no complaint with them, but I would if they tried to tell me how I could use it.
IANAL either, but since the shirt was already "illegal" by law (DMCA), then it may only matter that it was bought after the law (DMCA) was made. The current court case is merely part of the execution of that law.
At any rate if the law states that displaying the source code is a violation of copyright, then the ex post facto thingy would apply to continued display, and not displays done before imposition of the law.
The makers of web filtering software are addressing a particular market. We may not agree with them; though there is a double standard, one must realize that many people will accept it, and those are likely the same people who want to buy the software. I respect the rights of parents to control what sort of information their children may access. I would guess that many (not all or even most) parents have no problem with the information presented by Focus On The Family even though it condemns homosexuality. As long as the software meets the needs of the parents, it will sell.
On the other hand, if the software is being used by public entities, then there is a need to provide fair-handedness along with responsibility to the people paying for the public entity.
What would be interesting is to see software the provides filters for various religious affiliations. That would be quite a circus.
When was the last time YOU read the Constitution? Remember that the Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution, and thus, laws allowing for the restriction of free speech, etc. are unconstitutional, no? Granted there are laws about libel, allowing parties to sue for such, but statements of libel must be shown to be untrue (or something like that---I don't know who has the burden of proof here). I would be surprised if a judge found a negative review of a stupid game libelous. I could be wrong though.
Hopefully, I will not be sued for Copyright infringement for quoting the Bill of Rights and the Constitution:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an estalishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here is a clase from the US Constitution:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
However, by using the bandwidth in one's dorm room rather than in the allegedly useless computer lab, no harm is done to the computer lab and no bandwidth beyond what would be used had the students had their own machines in the basement would be consumed. Granted the students may use it more when it's in their rooms, but that doesn't differ significantly from having to 'live' in computer labs as many of us did in college.
Since when does Richard Dawkins support the idea that our genes control our behavior? Certainly not in The Selfish Gene, but I am not familiar with any of his other work. In The Selfish Gene he seems to take the opposite stance emphasising his belief that genes do not control our psyches. Please enlighten.
Sun has lots of information about HotSpot available. There is currently a download of the RC for Win32, that is fabulous for some stuff. We have a batch data manipulation program that is faster by an order of magnitude using HotSpot versus JView (MS VM) or the classic JDK VM. It seems to us that an increase in string manipulation is the major cause of speedup. Our application used to take hours to run, but HotSpot reduced the runtime to about ten minutes, and most of the time used by the application now is just waiting on the database server.
I was quite skeptical about HotSpot's claims until I experienced it for myself. Having it or something similar for Linux would be a boon to Java programming, IMO.
The TubeFET is the precursor to the Bipolar, Optical Bose-Einstein Amplifing Field Effect TransisTor, or BOBAFETT, which actually developed a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe because not enough people write to their representatives to let them know how they feel about intellectual property issues. However, I think it would take a *lot* of mail from constituents to conteract the messages they seem to be receiving that allow things such as UCITA and DMCA to pass votes.
:-)
What type of laws do you thing would benefit us consumers? Should the government pass a law stating that all systems must be totally secure? How would this be enforced? How would anyone know whether their systems are completely secure? I don't believe it is possible to prove a complex computer system as being secure. It can only be proven insecure. As such, prosecutors could only go after companies whose servers have been cracked. Maybe crackers could then become employees of various law enforcement agencies.
Anyway, civil recourse against breaches of privacy seems to be the only sane route. Companies should be liable for gross negligence about security, but then how gross is gross?
As far as "the police/military/sceret services[sic]" just sitting back, I would rather have that than Carnivore/BadEvilGuyFinder watching everything. The system just needs time to settle into equilibrium.
I'm still upset that I can't find out how Windows NT or Windows 2000 can be administered with a simple vt100 or similar terminal. I have no problems on my unix boxes of telnetting (or ssh'ing) and updating the server configuration.
Maybe there's a way with windows that I just don't know. ControlIt, PCAnywhere, and VNC are nice, but they are not "real" ways to administer a server since they require one to be logged on to the console of the box!!!!!!
I sure hope not. That would be a waste of EFF dollars that could be used to represent someone who needs representation. AOL does not need additional representation.
The difference to me is that a nice encryption *algorithm* is simply a process, even it if has example implementations, but DeCSS by its nature requires additional data, namely the keys for decrypting the DVDs. AFAIK, the algorithm wasn't a well-kept secret, but the keys were (well, maybe not so well-kept.
I liken it to having a key to my truck that would let me put stuff in the bed. Maybe GM wanted to keep the key to the bed so that I could only use the bed when I was doing certain things, like hauling around DVD players.
Everyone knows that if I were to get the key, I could haul around dirt, chickens, or whatever. Now someone breaks into GM's super-secret key-shack and posts a key-code that can be used by consumers to make their own truck-bed keys.
I, among millions of others, get the key code, and take it to my friendly locksmith (or GM repo-man) to get the key made. Now I have free use of my truck bed, and I am happy. However, GM views this as a terrible thing, and they decide to sue for an injunction to remove the key code from the Web. They win, and get the code removed from at least the most prominent sites. Several smug quotes from their lawyers are printed in articles, "We are glad that the court has rectified the illegal use of truck beds, etc."
On appeal, a judge with stock in GM hears the case, and agrees with GM since it is obvious that people with the code are carting around all sort of stuff that GM doesn't want carted.
Finally, the US Supreme Court takes the case and tells GM that they are silly, and that consumers actually do have some rights, and that GM has to provide bed-keys to all people who bought their trucks.
Disclaimer: I like my truck a lot, and it is from GM, so I have no complaint with them, but I would if they tried to tell me how I could use it.
That sounds like wishful thinking.
IANAL either, but since the shirt was already "illegal" by law (DMCA), then it may only matter that it was bought after the law (DMCA) was made. The current court case is merely part of the execution of that law.
At any rate if the law states that displaying the source code is a violation of copyright, then the ex post facto thingy would apply to continued display, and not displays done before imposition of the law.
The makers of web filtering software are addressing a particular market. We may not agree with them; though there is a double standard, one must realize that many people will accept it, and those are likely the same people who want to buy the software. I respect the rights of parents to control what sort of information their children may access. I would guess that many (not all or even most) parents have no problem with the information presented by Focus On The Family even though it condemns homosexuality. As long as the software meets the needs of the parents, it will sell.
On the other hand, if the software is being used by public entities, then there is a need to provide fair-handedness along with responsibility to the people paying for the public entity.
What would be interesting is to see software the provides filters for various religious affiliations. That would be quite a circus.
When was the last time YOU read the Constitution? Remember that the Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution, and thus, laws allowing for the restriction of free speech, etc. are unconstitutional, no? Granted there are laws about libel, allowing parties to sue for such, but statements of libel must be shown to be untrue (or something like that---I don't know who has the burden of proof here). I would be surprised if a judge found a negative review of a stupid game libelous. I could be wrong though.
Hopefully, I will not be sued for Copyright infringement for quoting the Bill of Rights and the Constitution:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an estalishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here is a clase from the US Constitution:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
However, by using the bandwidth in one's dorm room rather than in the allegedly useless computer lab, no harm is done to the computer lab and no bandwidth beyond what would be used had the students had their own machines in the basement would be consumed. Granted the students may use it more when it's in their rooms, but that doesn't differ significantly from having to 'live' in computer labs as many of us did in college.
Since when does Richard Dawkins support the idea that our genes control our behavior? Certainly not in The Selfish Gene, but I am not familiar with any of his other work. In The Selfish Gene he seems to take the opposite stance emphasising his belief that genes do not control our psyches. Please enlighten.
I was quite skeptical about HotSpot's claims until I experienced it for myself. Having it or something similar for Linux would be a boon to Java programming, IMO.
Simply fascinating, from a simple mind, too.
The TubeFET is the precursor to the Bipolar, Optical Bose-Einstein Amplifing Field Effect TransisTor, or BOBAFETT, which actually developed a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.