I saw this done in a library in Huntington Beach, but they didn't use PC clients. All a user saw was a keyboard, a mouse and an LCD monitor. These X terminals were basically for searching the web and the library resources and only ran one app - netscape. The advantages are clear - limited functionality to whatever they wanted, no PC hardware to reboot/upgrade/maintain, no worms and viruses to worry about, and a single point of upgrade for all software for clients.
They still had PCs on other floors running Windows/IE though.
Does anyone own a Motorola A760? Anyone know what markets it's available in? Judging by the specs, I'd buy one if I could. Any good/bad experiences with it?
Heck, IMO, this is a sure sign of the problems with software patents.
Oh, it's more than just software, believe me. Here is an example of Microsoft patenting apple trees. Apple trees? Got to be kidding right? Insert jokes about:
- Apple vs. MS - MS' backup plan after they lose in software market - USPTO granting an apple patent to MS - What you do with a Microsoft "apple" in your supermarket - etc., etc.
I think by "enables" they mean it enables scenarios where RIAA, and eventually MPAA will OK a commercial model. However, I am confused by what they mean by this:
... even block data pathways potentially deemed "unsafe," such as the traditional analog outputs on a high-definition TV set.
Good luck blocking content that I paid for from my own speakers! That's not going to go over very well at all. The more of such stupidity they try to sell the more they will force people to look somewhere else.
Judging by your post and the information we got from "slash"-"dot" and your ISP, you look like you have pirated our intellectual property over the Internet. As you know stealing our copyrighted material is wrong and you could be subject to lawsuits, large fines of up to $250,000 per violation, and even jail time.
However, we, at MGM, decided to give you a chance this time, and instead demand a letter of explanation from you. Please write us back and explain your intimate knowledge of the movie piracy online, what movies you have downloaded or shared, that you have deleted the files (destroyed CDs and DVDs), and don't forget to say "Uncle!" many times in between.
Failure on your part to write back will result in all out assault on you by our legal department.
So, after we receive your letter, we will evaluate your response and decide whether you fit our profile for the people that we'd like to sue, and make an example out of. For your sake, we hope you put the "right words" in your letter, so we wish you good luck.
Of course, if you are running Windows 98, or any version for that matter, you are already "trusting" Microsoft. So, no additional trust relationship (no pun intended) would be needed to install a patch from MS.
I don't agree with some of what you say. It helps to realize that since most "designers" are used to doing things one way on one platform, and if it's not the same way as GIMP, then GIMP must suck. I am not a designer, but I do use GIMP for different tasks when I need to edit or create images. I think for the most part, GIMP organizes icons, menus and other user options in a very logical and easy to comprehend manner.
(1) The interface sucks. Nobody likes working with 16 different open windows
This is about GIMP 2.0 - different windows can be combined or separated by dragging and dropping them; also, consider that GIMP is primarily made for Unix/Linux users, and having multiple windows open is not an issue with most window managers. In fact, having the ability to separate icons/options/menus in multiple windows helps me (personally) organize the tools that I use the most in a way and in places that they are easily accessible. A forced MDI[nterface] (like in PS for Windows) would be a nightmare and a step backwards for me.
(2) The interface sucks. Nobody likes menus in different windows and toolbars
I do. I am used to this already - like Mac OS X users are used to their single menu at the top. I wouldn't be able to use that type of menu system on my desktop. As a side note, I often separate sub-menu(s) that I need most and drag it out as a separate window on the side - this way, all sub-menu options/items are one click away. For example, if I am trying out alpha-to-logo script-fu effects on one or more images, I'll have the "Scipt-fu->Alpha to Logo" sub-menu on the side (as a separate window) and quickly get to any items I want.
(3) No 16-bit/channel color support
(4) No [good] CMYK support = will never be used in prepress[1]
OK, I agree, I'd like CMYK and 16-bit/channel support too. I'd like to edit and send images to my designer or publisher without having to use another app.
(5) Repeat (1) and (2)
This is more of what you are used to, and what you are looking to. Again, having used GIMP for many years, I would be extremely uncomfortable if I was forced to switch to the Windows MDI, or Apple's OS X's interfaces; and yes, I've tried using Photoshop on both.
(6) [Lack of] Speed
I don't have any speed issues, but then again, I am not a professional designer; there must be some filters and other tasks that are performed quicker in PS.
(7) Dependencies (GTK+, etc.)
Not a problem either. All Gtk+ libraries and other dependencies are part of my system install. All I've ever had to do to install or upgrade GIMP was to download an RPM and click on it.
So, GIMP developers, clean up the interface and change the product name, and your program has a decent chance of seeing the light of day in the real world.
I think the interface could use some improvement as well, but not for the reasons that most others, like Photoshop users state. I think some menus, such as right-click on layers are too long - maybe grayed out options should not be displayed there. Also, I am not really fond of how the background/foreground color icon and color switcher functionality works. Another one was the File->Open dialog, but that's supposedly fixed with the new Gtk libraries. There's some stuff like these that could use refinement.
GIMP needs more functionality as well. What I'd like to see is a support for "layered effects" (I don't know what the proper term is). For example, I apply filter A to a layer, then filter B, then filter C. Then I'd like to have an option to easily remove filter A, and have the program automatically (or with confirmation) re-apply filters B and C. So it has to store the history of modifications to each layer and have the ability to reverse them; or at least have
Normally, I would be against "big brother", but in this case aren't cameras basically able to see only what the general public would be able to see anyway?
From the article:
One of the nation's wealthiest towns will soon have cameras and computers running background checks on every car and driver that passes through.
I understand that you do not have an expectation of privacy in a public place, since you are in public, people can see and track you. But at the same time, the government should not have an unlimited right to track your every single move and do background checks every time you pass through an intersection. That's just unreasonable.
If a camera was focused on private property (like on a house), then that would certainly be an invasion of privacy...
Even though driving is a privilege and not a right, your car still remains your private property whether you are driving it or have it parked in your driveway.
Computers obviously are less discriminatory and hopefully more reliable than a human...
I don't agree. I was passing through the Bay Bridge in San Francisco, I paid my toll of $2.00 in cash. I don't know what happened to the "accuracy" of those computers but the system thought that I didn't pay and sent me $7.00 violation fine to my address.
That said, I think you're also right about the reverse engineering not being the problem in this case, rather the unauthorized network usage.
I don't get your logic - the Internet is a public network, and if I had a KaZaA P2P server/client installed, it would still be functioning over this public network - in peer to peer manner, not KaZaA's. They have no authority over other networks whatsoever. Just because you have their software doesn't mean they own everybody's "networks" and their dogs.
They think that IBM (the vendor who migrated AutoZone to Linux) did the engineering to get AutoZone's UnixWare apps integrated to run on Linux by taking the short cut of actually stripping the libraries off the old UnixWare installation and putting them into the new Linux installation. If that is true, then it *really would* be a case of copyright infringement. But like most SCO claims, it is probably suspect.
Why would that be copyright infringement? If AutoZone had already purchased SCO's software then it wouldn't. AutoZone didn't sell or redistribute SCO's software. Instead it could be a licensing violation, or a contract dispute if AutoZone did violate their agreement with SCO.
My guess is that he's got a pirated Windows 2003 (.net) server that comes with 30 day evaluation period, with required activation. He can't crack the activation, so he reinstalls it every 30 days. Suggestion: either purchase the license, or use something less expensive, or free.
Seriously now, when I do a new install or an upgrade, 95% of the programs I use will be handled with/by the initial installation process. Other than bug fixes and upgrades, about the only program I add on top of the initial SUSE install is MPlayer with associated libraries.
copyright does not change the facts of the case or the applicable law. The documents in issue are privileged and confidential...
OK, let me explain in more detail.
First, if the documents are given to the press, whether intentionally, accidentally or via a leak, they are no longer confidential. Anyway, the press is in no way responsible if the leak came from inside the lawyer's office; this happens all the time in almost all high profile cases, many times intentionally.
Second, the attorney-client privilege applies to the government tapping and recording communications between lawyers and their clients and then turning around and using those against the defendants in a court of law.
Third, the point is that with the DMCA and "trusted computing," it is the press, or whoever decrypts and publicizes the said "leaked" documents, will be violating the DMCA, the speech that has up until now been protected by the First Amendment.
Except the case isn't just about freedom of speech, it's about the confidential nature of the lawyer-client relationship.
Except that the linked article is not about the attorney-client privilege. That's a separate right that exists with or without DMCA, and applies to the government. IANAL, but I believe any evidence obtained by prosecution that violates attorney-client privilege will not be admissible in court.
The linked article, however, discusses something else. This does not only apply to lawyers' documents but leaked Diebold documents and e-mails as well. For example, with the DMCA and "trusted computing," decrypting the leaked documents from Diebold by anyone else who is not "authorized" would violate the DMCA. Thereby, Diebold (or any other entity) would be able to control others' speech by swinging the DMCA around. Good example is whislteblowing which would be illegal with encrypted documents.
The issues with online voting are not insurmountable, but they are formidable.
With online banking, I want my bank to know who I am every step of the way. With online voting, the system needs to know who I am to confirm I am eligible to vote and have not voted already, but should not know who I am to compromise the privacy of my vote.
With that logic, it looks like it is insurmountable. It would be just too easy to buy and sell votes if the voters' identities cannot be verified physically and in person, and then full anonymity guaranteed.
One scenario could be selling your voter registration information to an automated (or manual) system that will cast a vote for you.
Another scenario is to have a "voting party" with rigged PCs/browsers/voting clients where you will "vote" for your favorite candidate and then enjoy dinner, music, booze, and 1 in 5 guests wins DVDs, games, vacation getaways, cash and other prizes; top prize is a house and an H2 in the garage.
Everyone should show up at the polls for voting unless they have a valid legal excuse to vote absentee.
If they refuse or have no interest, make sure you get compatible hardware/software combination next time. There are many manufacturers that happily support Linux without any pain or needing installation configuration whatsoever. I mean you don't go to a store, purchase a Mac-OS-X-only hardware and software, then complain that it doesn't work on your XP, and form an opinion that XP therefore sucks. Not for that reason at least.
The restrictions and usefulness of what you get for 99 cents are clearly and unambiguously disclosed before purchase. The terms are good enough for a great many people. There's really no need for PlayFair.
Well, it's reasonable for Apple to make any product they want, in the format of their choice, with any DRM scheme they wish. They, obviously, are not required to accommodate everyone, or any group in particular.
Having said that, in my opinion, it's also reasonable to attempt to crack a DRM or an encryption scheme in general. How do you think research is done in that area? Yes, DMCA makes some things illegal, but DMCA is what's self-contradicting and sometimes unreasonable, to say the least about it.
I think it makes a great deal of difference whether Apple is selling or renting the music. IANAL, so maybe a lawyer would shed more light, but if Apple is renting the music, then they have a say on how it may get played, on what hardware, software and who they are renting to, and for how long. On the other hand, if they are selling, then they have less powers after the sale is complete. There's 2 issues that I see:
1. What rights can Apple take away from you as a condition of a sale (not lease/rent/licensing)? Can they take away your fair use rights? If so, then "fair use" is not a "right" after all. So, is Apple really renting the music?
2. The DMCA says that you cannot circumvent the encryption scheme; but DMCA also says it wants to do nothing to limit the "fair use" rights. I don't recall a court case, but one judge ruled that that's OK, as long as you are not trafficking the circumvention device, or breaking the encryption. Well, quite frankly, I don't see how that's OK - it's either limiting the free speech, or fair use, or both; so maybe higher courts, maybe the Supreme Court, needs to resolve that contradiction in the DMCA itself.
Err... Just because Janet Jackson showed her boob on TV, FCC decided to crack down harder on radio companies, so ClearChannel could drop Howard Stern permanently; but Howard Stern can still do his show on TV. Look, I'm no Howard Stern fan, but it looks like there's more to this than that. Maybe it's that a lot of people listen to Howard Stern on radio, and neither FCC, nor current government in general likes or agrees with his opinions or even his topics, so they decided to make it hard for him.
Meanwhile, next time I see a real liposuction performed on someone's fat triple-chin, or oversized upper legs on TLC, or a tampon commercial on just about any channel on TV while I am having dinner, I am going to puke. I wonder what would "Parent's Council" (or whatever their name) would have to say about that. Maybe government should suppress all kinds of speech without consideration as long as it's viewed as indecent by any part of voting public. That way, we could all simply watch dissolving still green nature images with "inspiring" string music in the background on every TV channel, and be happy. Wouldn't that be nice?
There has always been a way to pirate music though it was usually borrowing music and re-recording it.
I think borrowing a CD from a friend and recording from it is fair use. I bet RIAA and MPAA would like you to think it's "piracy" and you are well ahead in their propaganda.
Is it also possible that the quality of music is not as great as in the past or that a lot of music is "more of the same?"
I bet. And recent deregulation and consolidation in the radio station arena should not help any. All you will be hearing on your radio station is top 20 songs - "more of the same." There are multiple factors at work here as far as I can tell. When you have 90% (?) of such popular method of delivery of music owned by a handful of companies that control many radio stations in any given area, they - cartel (i.e. RIAA companies/labels) - get certain advantages: Labels can purchase/dictate what songs are being played on most stations, how many times per day/week, etc.; with lack of competition, station owners are in control of what listeners are hearing; since this way, there's more certainty to the advertizing dollar, station owners get more marketing and advertizing revenues; which, again, discourages local competition. In the end, you have a cartel of RIAA companies dealing with an oligopoly of radio stations - no wonder none of them are interested in competition, variety of products, or meeting consumer demands.
"Meeting consumer demands" in a creative field also includes a lot of offering something that potential consumers did not know about. Why then, you would ask, are they - the Cartel - not offering more variety to compete for consumer dollars? Key word here is compete - because they don't compete. They are a cartel. They would rather put 80-90% or whatever actual number of their advertizing resources in handful of "artists" that would be made into marketing icons and TV channels like MTV, E!, VH1, etc. will be talking about 24 hours a day. Again, "more of the same."
I've said it many times and I'll say it again because many people seem to be ignoring the root of the problem - RIAA is a cartel - they violate competition laws, fix prices, engage in "creative" and illegal accounting practices, create artificial barriers to entry for legitimate competitors, engage in artificial and illegal trade restrictions, etc., etc., etc. Many times, they get sued, pay fines, and go on to keep doing the same thing they were doing before. Then they use their combined powers to purchase more legislation against their own customers in order to gain more powers.
So, when you note that you are getting "more of the same" and point out all the unfair legislation that's been passed and introduced that treats everyone as outlaws until proven otherwise, you (in general, not specific) need to realize that the problem is deeper than a thin layer of what music you are hearing.
The cartel needs to be disbanded and their illegal practices halted. The only way for the market to prosper is to create an environment where competition will bloom. Multitude of companies that are competing against each other to deliver the best products, the best services, innovating products and delivery methods is the only way to stop this madness. RIAA cartel and its members do not do this, and destroy, acquire, or sue other companies who attempt to.
Actually, the article you refer to places WMA9 as the best overall codec with the score 9 out of 10. AAC and Vorbis both get 8, and MP3 gets a 6. You'll note that AAC VBR was not tested since presumably iTunes does not support that. Also of significance is how well Vorbis performed at low bitrate - 64k - while others mostly sucked in that category. Also a thing to notice is that Vorbis "low pass filters" not only save more data at "out of range" frequencies, but also always taper off at the edge while others often just cut it off sharply. Anyway those were my observations, completely OT to the original discussion.
I would say the worst case would be that you just violated the DMCA, so did the author of the software (if he/she resides in the U.S.), and so did OSDN twice - SourceForge for providing the downloads (trafficking), Slashdot for providing links.
Unfortunately, Matrox's cards aren't anywhere near as good as ATI's/nVidia's. Most people who have Linux installed also have Windows installed, and will simply run games etc from Windows.
That's more of an argument to purchase a system or a video card that will be fully supported on both OSes. As far as their cards, they don't have as large of an array to choose from but they are making a significant progress. I currently use NVIDIA, but next time I am in the market, I will definitely consider Matrox. And this is likely to happen a lot sooner if ATI and NVIDIA drivers crash X more often than they should, or they start shoving their DRM down my throat with their binary-only driver software.
Hardware development is almost always an insanely expensive process, and drivers - being the link between hardware and software contain many explicit details about the hardware they support - for this reason in many cases it is totally unviable to make them open-source, especially given the relatively small market share Linux has in the desktop.
Remember when ATI were underdogs playing catch-up not that long ago? It was perfectly feasible for them to try to gain every possible advantage they could, including "playing nice" to the OSS developers.
Although it's an unpopular idea, I think it would be best if an interface for closed-source binary drivers was created, which supported all patches of a given kernel (eg 2.6.0-2.6.5 etc). This would also solve the problems with trying to install 3rd party drivers from source.
And I think a common reply to this is - how far do you take this? Until you have a kernel with a GPLed binary module loader, and all of the hardware drivers in binary? The system loses the value of being open source then.
If they are tried to be 'forced', they just won't produce drivers for Linux any more.
Breaks my heart! They too, like everyone else, have to obey copyrights and software licenses. That's what competition is all about. If they are willing to ditch 5-10% of their market, it's their choice. Someone like Matrox and other underdogs will pick it up from there.
You sir, are a fucking idiot.
AC + personal insults + cliches = you are not trying to argue or discuss. Good going, AC. Maybe I shouldn't have replied.
That sounds like the excuse people get when they protest about Bush taking away their freedoms. Nobody's forcing you to live here you know, you could move to Canada hippie.
I don't see the analogy. Feel free to move yourself to any country where governments jail and execute people who express disagreements with them. You may feel much "safer" there, hippie.
This has nothing to do with video cards and users complaints about added restrictions. NVIDIA probably had some commercial incentives to add extra Macrovision stuff in their drivers. Will it work out for the future? Who knows. Will it make other video cards more popular? Maybe - ATI was once an underdog trying to catch up too, you know.
[Great move !]...for ATI. (by AC, OK it may be funny)
...and for the people using open-source drivers
Let's see how the "nvidia are great, we trust their binary drivers" fanboys react to this one...
ATI and NVIDIA open source drivers do not have the same capabilities. ATI, like NVIDIA, also releases binary only drivers for their recent hardware and no longer provides useful technical data for them to anyone, including OSS developers.
That said, yes, both NVIDIA and ATI have to be forced to release GPLed drivers. It's a GPL/copyright violation and I don't care what Linus says about it.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw this done in a library in Huntington Beach, but they didn't use PC clients. All a user saw was a keyboard, a mouse and an LCD monitor. These X terminals were basically for searching the web and the library resources and only ran one app - netscape. The advantages are clear - limited functionality to whatever they wanted, no PC hardware to reboot/upgrade/maintain, no worms and viruses to worry about, and a single point of upgrade for all software for clients.
They still had PCs on other floors running Windows/IE though.
Does anyone own a Motorola A760? Anyone know what markets it's available in? Judging by the specs, I'd buy one if I could. Any good/bad experiences with it?
Oh, it's more than just software, believe me. Here is an example of Microsoft patenting apple trees. Apple trees? Got to be kidding right? Insert jokes about:
- Apple vs. MS
- MS' backup plan after they lose in software market
- USPTO granting an apple patent to MS
- What you do with a Microsoft "apple" in your supermarket
- etc., etc.
I think by "enables" they mean it enables scenarios where RIAA, and eventually MPAA will OK a commercial model. However, I am confused by what they mean by this:
... even block data pathways potentially deemed "unsafe," such as the traditional analog outputs on a high-definition TV set.
Good luck blocking content that I paid for from my own speakers! That's not going to go over very well at all. The more of such stupidity they try to sell the more they will force people to look somewhere else.
Dear Mr. Falser,
Judging by your post and the information we got from "slash"-"dot" and your ISP, you look like you have pirated our intellectual property over the Internet. As you know stealing our copyrighted material is wrong and you could be subject to lawsuits, large fines of up to $250,000 per violation, and even jail time.
However, we, at MGM, decided to give you a chance this time, and instead demand a letter of explanation from you. Please write us back and explain your intimate knowledge of the movie piracy online, what movies you have downloaded or shared, that you have deleted the files (destroyed CDs and DVDs), and don't forget to say "Uncle!" many times in between.
Failure on your part to write back will result in all out assault on you by our legal department.
So, after we receive your letter, we will evaluate your response and decide whether you fit our profile for the people that we'd like to sue, and make an example out of. For your sake, we hope you put the "right words" in your letter, so we wish you good luck.
Sincerely,
MGM
Cc: Jack Valenti
Of course, if you are running Windows 98, or any version for that matter, you are already "trusting" Microsoft. So, no additional trust relationship (no pun intended) would be needed to install a patch from MS.
This is about GIMP 2.0 - different windows can be combined or separated by dragging and dropping them; also, consider that GIMP is primarily made for Unix/Linux users, and having multiple windows open is not an issue with most window managers. In fact, having the ability to separate icons/options/menus in multiple windows helps me (personally) organize the tools that I use the most in a way and in places that they are easily accessible. A forced MDI[nterface] (like in PS for Windows) would be a nightmare and a step backwards for me.
I do. I am used to this already - like Mac OS X users are used to their single menu at the top. I wouldn't be able to use that type of menu system on my desktop. As a side note, I often separate sub-menu(s) that I need most and drag it out as a separate window on the side - this way, all sub-menu options/items are one click away. For example, if I am trying out alpha-to-logo script-fu effects on one or more images, I'll have the "Scipt-fu->Alpha to Logo" sub-menu on the side (as a separate window) and quickly get to any items I want.
OK, I agree, I'd like CMYK and 16-bit/channel support too. I'd like to edit and send images to my designer or publisher without having to use another app.
This is more of what you are used to, and what you are looking to. Again, having used GIMP for many years, I would be extremely uncomfortable if I was forced to switch to the Windows MDI, or Apple's OS X's interfaces; and yes, I've tried using Photoshop on both.
I don't have any speed issues, but then again, I am not a professional designer; there must be some filters and other tasks that are performed quicker in PS.
Not a problem either. All Gtk+ libraries and other dependencies are part of my system install. All I've ever had to do to install or upgrade GIMP was to download an RPM and click on it.
I think the interface could use some improvement as well, but not for the reasons that most others, like Photoshop users state. I think some menus, such as right-click on layers are too long - maybe grayed out options should not be displayed there. Also, I am not really fond of how the background/foreground color icon and color switcher functionality works. Another one was the File->Open dialog, but that's supposedly fixed with the new Gtk libraries. There's some stuff like these that could use refinement.
GIMP needs more functionality as well. What I'd like to see is a support for "layered effects" (I don't know what the proper term is). For example, I apply filter A to a layer, then filter B, then filter C. Then I'd like to have an option to easily remove filter A, and have the program automatically (or with confirmation) re-apply filters B and C. So it has to store the history of modifications to each layer and have the ability to reverse them; or at least have
From the article:
One of the nation's wealthiest towns will soon have cameras and computers running background checks on every car and driver that passes through.
I understand that you do not have an expectation of privacy in a public place, since you are in public, people can see and track you. But at the same time, the government should not have an unlimited right to track your every single move and do background checks every time you pass through an intersection. That's just unreasonable.
Even though driving is a privilege and not a right, your car still remains your private property whether you are driving it or have it parked in your driveway.
I don't agree. I was passing through the Bay Bridge in San Francisco, I paid my toll of $2.00 in cash. I don't know what happened to the "accuracy" of those computers but the system thought that I didn't pay and sent me $7.00 violation fine to my address.
I don't get your logic - the Internet is a public network, and if I had a KaZaA P2P server/client installed, it would still be functioning over this public network - in peer to peer manner, not KaZaA's. They have no authority over other networks whatsoever. Just because you have their software doesn't mean they own everybody's "networks" and their dogs.
Why would that be copyright infringement? If AutoZone had already purchased SCO's software then it wouldn't. AutoZone didn't sell or redistribute SCO's software. Instead it could be a licensing violation, or a contract dispute if AutoZone did violate their agreement with SCO.
My guess is that he's got a pirated Windows 2003 (.net) server that comes with 30 day evaluation period, with required activation. He can't crack the activation, so he reinstalls it every 30 days. Suggestion: either purchase the license, or use something less expensive, or free.
Seriously now, when I do a new install or an upgrade, 95% of the programs I use will be handled with/by the initial installation process. Other than bug fixes and upgrades, about the only program I add on top of the initial SUSE install is MPlayer with associated libraries.
OK, let me explain in more detail.
First, if the documents are given to the press, whether intentionally, accidentally or via a leak, they are no longer confidential. Anyway, the press is in no way responsible if the leak came from inside the lawyer's office; this happens all the time in almost all high profile cases, many times intentionally.
Second, the attorney-client privilege applies to the government tapping and recording communications between lawyers and their clients and then turning around and using those against the defendants in a court of law.
Third, the point is that with the DMCA and "trusted computing," it is the press, or whoever decrypts and publicizes the said "leaked" documents, will be violating the DMCA, the speech that has up until now been protected by the First Amendment.
Except that the linked article is not about the attorney-client privilege. That's a separate right that exists with or without DMCA, and applies to the government. IANAL, but I believe any evidence obtained by prosecution that violates attorney-client privilege will not be admissible in court.
The linked article, however, discusses something else. This does not only apply to lawyers' documents but leaked Diebold documents and e-mails as well. For example, with the DMCA and "trusted computing," decrypting the leaked documents from Diebold by anyone else who is not "authorized" would violate the DMCA. Thereby, Diebold (or any other entity) would be able to control others' speech by swinging the DMCA around. Good example is whislteblowing which would be illegal with encrypted documents.
There should be - hence the word should.
With that logic, it looks like it is insurmountable. It would be just too easy to buy and sell votes if the voters' identities cannot be verified physically and in person, and then full anonymity guaranteed.
One scenario could be selling your voter registration information to an automated (or manual) system that will cast a vote for you.
Another scenario is to have a "voting party" with rigged PCs/browsers/voting clients where you will "vote" for your favorite candidate and then enjoy dinner, music, booze, and 1 in 5 guests wins DVDs, games, vacation getaways, cash and other prizes; top prize is a house and an H2 in the garage.
Everyone should show up at the polls for voting unless they have a valid legal excuse to vote absentee.
In case of hardware drivers:
c) ask your manufacturer to do it.
If they refuse or have no interest, make sure you get compatible hardware/software combination next time. There are many manufacturers that happily support Linux without any pain or needing installation configuration whatsoever. I mean you don't go to a store, purchase a Mac-OS-X-only hardware and software, then complain that it doesn't work on your XP, and form an opinion that XP therefore sucks. Not for that reason at least.
Well, it's reasonable for Apple to make any product they want, in the format of their choice, with any DRM scheme they wish. They, obviously, are not required to accommodate everyone, or any group in particular.
Having said that, in my opinion, it's also reasonable to attempt to crack a DRM or an encryption scheme in general. How do you think research is done in that area? Yes, DMCA makes some things illegal, but DMCA is what's self-contradicting and sometimes unreasonable, to say the least about it.
I think it makes a great deal of difference whether Apple is selling or renting the music. IANAL, so maybe a lawyer would shed more light, but if Apple is renting the music, then they have a say on how it may get played, on what hardware, software and who they are renting to, and for how long. On the other hand, if they are selling, then they have less powers after the sale is complete. There's 2 issues that I see:
1. What rights can Apple take away from you as a condition of a sale (not lease/rent/licensing)? Can they take away your fair use rights? If so, then "fair use" is not a "right" after all. So, is Apple really renting the music?
2. The DMCA says that you cannot circumvent the encryption scheme; but DMCA also says it wants to do nothing to limit the "fair use" rights. I don't recall a court case, but one judge ruled that that's OK, as long as you are not trafficking the circumvention device, or breaking the encryption. Well, quite frankly, I don't see how that's OK - it's either limiting the free speech, or fair use, or both; so maybe higher courts, maybe the Supreme Court, needs to resolve that contradiction in the DMCA itself.
Err... Just because Janet Jackson showed her boob on TV, FCC decided to crack down harder on radio companies, so ClearChannel could drop Howard Stern permanently; but Howard Stern can still do his show on TV. Look, I'm no Howard Stern fan, but it looks like there's more to this than that. Maybe it's that a lot of people listen to Howard Stern on radio, and neither FCC, nor current government in general likes or agrees with his opinions or even his topics, so they decided to make it hard for him.
Meanwhile, next time I see a real liposuction performed on someone's fat triple-chin, or oversized upper legs on TLC, or a tampon commercial on just about any channel on TV while I am having dinner, I am going to puke. I wonder what would "Parent's Council" (or whatever their name) would have to say about that. Maybe government should suppress all kinds of speech without consideration as long as it's viewed as indecent by any part of voting public. That way, we could all simply watch dissolving still green nature images with "inspiring" string music in the background on every TV channel, and be happy. Wouldn't that be nice?
Yeah, OT, burn it baby!
I think borrowing a CD from a friend and recording from it is fair use. I bet RIAA and MPAA would like you to think it's "piracy" and you are well ahead in their propaganda.
I bet. And recent deregulation and consolidation in the radio station arena should not help any. All you will be hearing on your radio station is top 20 songs - "more of the same." There are multiple factors at work here as far as I can tell. When you have 90% (?) of such popular method of delivery of music owned by a handful of companies that control many radio stations in any given area, they - cartel (i.e. RIAA companies/labels) - get certain advantages: Labels can purchase/dictate what songs are being played on most stations, how many times per day/week, etc.; with lack of competition, station owners are in control of what listeners are hearing; since this way, there's more certainty to the advertizing dollar, station owners get more marketing and advertizing revenues; which, again, discourages local competition. In the end, you have a cartel of RIAA companies dealing with an oligopoly of radio stations - no wonder none of them are interested in competition, variety of products, or meeting consumer demands.
"Meeting consumer demands" in a creative field also includes a lot of offering something that potential consumers did not know about. Why then, you would ask, are they - the Cartel - not offering more variety to compete for consumer dollars? Key word here is compete - because they don't compete. They are a cartel. They would rather put 80-90% or whatever actual number of their advertizing resources in handful of "artists" that would be made into marketing icons and TV channels like MTV, E!, VH1, etc. will be talking about 24 hours a day. Again, "more of the same."
I've said it many times and I'll say it again because many people seem to be ignoring the root of the problem - RIAA is a cartel - they violate competition laws, fix prices, engage in "creative" and illegal accounting practices, create artificial barriers to entry for legitimate competitors, engage in artificial and illegal trade restrictions, etc., etc., etc. Many times, they get sued, pay fines, and go on to keep doing the same thing they were doing before. Then they use their combined powers to purchase more legislation against their own customers in order to gain more powers.
So, when you note that you are getting "more of the same" and point out all the unfair legislation that's been passed and introduced that treats everyone as outlaws until proven otherwise, you (in general, not specific) need to realize that the problem is deeper than a thin layer of what music you are hearing.
The cartel needs to be disbanded and their illegal practices halted. The only way for the market to prosper is to create an environment where competition will bloom. Multitude of companies that are competing against each other to deliver the best products, the best services, innovating products and delivery methods is the only way to stop this madness. RIAA cartel and its members do not do this, and destroy, acquire, or sue other companies who attempt to.
Actually, the article you refer to places WMA9 as the best overall codec with the score 9 out of 10. AAC and Vorbis both get 8, and MP3 gets a 6. You'll note that AAC VBR was not tested since presumably iTunes does not support that. Also of significance is how well Vorbis performed at low bitrate - 64k - while others mostly sucked in that category. Also a thing to notice is that Vorbis "low pass filters" not only save more data at "out of range" frequencies, but also always taper off at the edge while others often just cut it off sharply. Anyway those were my observations, completely OT to the original discussion.
I would say the worst case would be that you just violated the DMCA, so did the author of the software (if he/she resides in the U.S.), and so did OSDN twice - SourceForge for providing the downloads (trafficking), Slashdot for providing links.
That's more of an argument to purchase a system or a video card that will be fully supported on both OSes. As far as their cards, they don't have as large of an array to choose from but they are making a significant progress. I currently use NVIDIA, but next time I am in the market, I will definitely consider Matrox. And this is likely to happen a lot sooner if ATI and NVIDIA drivers crash X more often than they should, or they start shoving their DRM down my throat with their binary-only driver software.
Remember when ATI were underdogs playing catch-up not that long ago? It was perfectly feasible for them to try to gain every possible advantage they could, including "playing nice" to the OSS developers.
And I think a common reply to this is - how far do you take this? Until you have a kernel with a GPLed binary module loader, and all of the hardware drivers in binary? The system loses the value of being open source then.
Breaks my heart! They too, like everyone else, have to obey copyrights and software licenses. That's what competition is all about. If they are willing to ditch 5-10% of their market, it's their choice. Someone like Matrox and other underdogs will pick it up from there.
AC + personal insults + cliches = you are not trying to argue or discuss. Good going, AC. Maybe I shouldn't have replied.
I don't see the analogy. Feel free to move yourself to any country where governments jail and execute people who express disagreements with them. You may feel much "safer" there, hippie.
This has nothing to do with video cards and users complaints about added restrictions. NVIDIA probably had some commercial incentives to add extra Macrovision stuff in their drivers. Will it work out for the future? Who knows. Will it make other video cards more popular? Maybe - ATI was once an underdog trying to catch up too, you know.
ATI and NVIDIA open source drivers do not have the same capabilities. ATI, like NVIDIA, also releases binary only drivers for their recent hardware and no longer provides useful technical data for them to anyone, including OSS developers.
That said, yes, both NVIDIA and ATI have to be forced to release GPLed drivers. It's a GPL/copyright violation and I don't care what Linus says about it.