It seems the law is pretty clear that, given DMCA, DeCSS is illegal (remember law != justice).
It seems difficult to unlikely that we will succeed in getting the DMCA revoked.
People will not boycott DVDs if there is no alternative.
We need a format that competes with DVD that is open and technically at least as capable. We then need to encourage independent content providers to support the open format.
We also need to educate consumers to prefer the open format.
Isn't the DVD CCA's ultimate objective to limit the number of DVD player manufacturers? Isn't the small number of distinct manufacturer's codes available in their scheme proof of the small number of participating manufacturers anticipated? How much is the license (the docs are "$500 per copy per title")? Is it priced to keep out "the little guys"? Isn't it illegal for corporations to collaborate to close a market to competition? Can't the algorithms be pried out of the DVD CCA into the public domain as a result?
Throughout history the world has been variously run by royals, nobles, thugs, politicians, and CEOs (yes, there is a lot of overlap between those groups).
If you want to make a difference, become a member of one of those groups (yes, your particular choices are limited) and then act. Otherwise, get used to the fact that your life will be largely irrelevant in the context of History.
If you choose to make a difference, resign yourself to the fact that you will have to completely change your mode of living. You will have to become obsessed with gaining power and control. You will probably become that which you despise.
The counter argument I am certain someone will make about revolutionaries is wrong because while revolutions shake things up for a while (perhaps even a couple of hundred years) human nature remains unchanged and so we return to the same situation again and again.
As an aside, I have to say the reference to "Libertarians having gotten what they asked for" indicates an incomplete understanding of Libertarianism (no offense intended).
It seems to me that by prohibiting the functionality of deCSS, the DVD CCA is tying together two different products (DVDs and DVD players) much like when IBM said "you can't connect third party devices to your IBM computer" or when printer/copier manufacturers said that you had to use their toner/paper or lose any warranty.
After all, the DVD CCA et alia are a consortium conspiring to keep people out of their DVD manufacturers club by creating an artificial barrier to entry (access to the decryption algorithm). The barrier is artificial because it really only affects playback devices, not copying. Therefore they are effectively engaging in fixing the price of DVD players by limiting competition, which is a crime.
Could the defense be effective on this sort of idea? See here for more ideas on these lines.
A classic example of the danger of relying on a monoculture system is the devastation wrought by the Irish potato famine. In the 1800's almost the entire Irish potato crop grown was of amazing (and frightening) genetic uniformity since it all originated from a single potato variety from Peru. When the disease, late blight occurred in the 1840's the crop was literally wiped out since it was all highly susceptible to blight. Millions starved to death and history was forever changed.
Now it may be that we will have the ability to rediversify ourselves in the event of disaster, or maybe we won't have time to react. At any rate, it is something to think about.
Because the source code to VMware is not available?
I generally don't like being dependent on the continued existence and good will of my tools providers. Suppose I depended on VMware and they went out of business? Suppose they raised their price to $10,000? Suppose there was a bug that critically affected my operation that chose not to fix?
Madeleine Kahn, to my mind, was a "nerd actress" in that she usually played quirky people with above average intelligence, who saw things from an unusual angle. From what I saw of her "real self" on talk shows etc. she seemed to be the same in real life.
I expect that Madeleine Kahn will have been a favorite of J. Random Hacker as a recognized kindred spirit.
The other neat thing about the Dam Busters was the "optical altimeter". They mounted spotlights on the aircraft that would shine two spots onto the water. When the altitude was just right the two spots would merge (light to light to water forming a unique triangle). This was a solution that provided precision and let the pilot keep his eyes on the job.
Focussing on the "Claims" section, isn't this just uux and uuxqt? The manpage for uuxqt on our Sun box here says it was last changed 19 May 1993. Sounds like "prior art" to me!
Assuming a punishment of Microsoft comes out of all this... I see a problem in designing a punishment for Microsoft that does not also punish innocent stockholders.
It would seem that justice would be better served by somehow punishing individuals at Microsoft. It is my understanding that the actions of individuals are not necessarily protected by the fact that their company is incorporated. What is the likelihood of personal punishments? If the likelihood is non-zero, what sort of punishments are likely?
Even if a punishment does not come out of this, it seems to be an injustice that most of the proposed actions (e.g., restructuring into baby-bills) would result in greater personal wealth for the officers of Microsoft. What could be done to ensure justice is served?
It was my sad experience to learn that a University has virtually no legal obligations to its students at all.
The University catalog in effect when I enrolled at the U. of South Carolina said that in order to graduate I needed to meet the requirements stated in the catalog in effect when I enrolled as a freshman.
I met all those requirements but in the meantime the catalog changed. My application for graduation was rejected. When I protested I was told that all graduation applications are reviewed by a board whose criteria for approval are not documented (but they mostly correspond to whatever the current catalog says) and whose decisions are final.
When I pointed out that no advisor had ever mentioned that my work would not meet the actual requirements for graduation I was told that it was the job of an advisor to provide guidance in the selection of individual courses but that it was not their responsibility to make certain that I made progress towards graduation.
Things might be different at other Universities but the U. of South Carolina sucks and has no use for students except to shake them down for as much as the University can get. There is certainly no sense of obligation to the students on the part of the administration.
Since I am off-topic now anyway, what's this I have heard that courses earned towards one degree cannot be reused to meet the requirements of another degree after X years have passed? What's the theory behind that? Does my engineering degree expire too? Also, if that is true, then why do those courses continue to affect your cumulative GPA? (I am not talking about a minimum residency requirement.)
Ever since it was decided that being compelled to give blood/saliva/urine/etc. is not a violation of a person's 5th ammendment rights, I have been worried that the right to not self-incriminate is on its way out (along with the rest of the Constitution).
I wonder if we are not actually seeing some sort of evolutionary transition in progress?
Imagine when opposable thumbs first started to exist. There were probably individuals who complained about all those thumb motions and this new-fangled grabbing idea as being far too complicated (after all, hadn't they gotten along fine for millions of years without opposable thumbs?).
There were also probably those who insisted that the opposable thumb would revolutionize the EUI (Environment User-Interface) and eventually lead to such almost unimaginable things as the wheel and controllable fire.
The debate solved itself as those who insisted on remaining with the old-style thumb became extinct. I extrapolate that something similar will happen to the neo-Luddites.
I graduated in EE and have worked as a software/systems engineer for ten years.
Almost all of my friends are engineers. Some teach engineering classes. None is a PE.
I have never asked anyone if they are a PE when interviewing applicants and I have never been asked. I have never received an application from someone who is a PE and I have never had an interview with a PE when I was the applicant.
I wouldn't mind being a PE but I have never worked for a PE so I haven't even gotten started on the experience requirement after ten years of work (which has to be gained while working directly under a PE).
Personally, with the plethora of 90 day wonder "certified engineers" running around, combined with the unreasonable difficulty (in my experience anyway) of even meeting the experience requirement, I don't see any point in worrying about being a PE. Sure, if the opportunity comes up, don't waste it but don't worry about it either.
BTW: Microsoft still explicitly says the E is for engineer and so does Novell. Neither says that the E is for expert.
I have been in touch with Jens Waltermann of Bertelsmann and it is his assertion that "Bertelsmann was closed down by the Nazi's in WWII and anything but a supporter of the regime" and "Reinhard Mohn, once owner of Bertelsmann, was criticised in Germany for instituting one of the first systems to have workers participate in the company both financially and in management".
Can someone provide an authorative online reference to substantiate one or the other of these two different stories we are getting here?
From the Libertarian Party official web site (specifically at http://www.lp.org/platform/uacb.html) -- "We support the right of free persons to voluntarily establish, associate in, or not associate in, labor unions. An employer should have the right to recognize, or refuse to recognize, a union as the collective bargaining agent of some, or all, of its employees."
I guess then that the greater moral to this story is that no matter what school one chooses, be very careful.
At least at the U. of South Carolina (probably elsewhere too), it is explicitly stated (in fine print) that the catalog is not authorative and that nothing your advisor says is binding upon the University.
As far as I was ever able to tell, there is no written document that is authorative with regards to graduation requirements for the U. of South Carolina. The awarding of degrees is purely discretionary at the whim of a committee. All of this information I learned personally and the hard way.
While you are entering into a contractual agreement, the obligations are purely on the side of the student. I am being quite honest and factual here: my kids will have their relevant college materials reviewed by my lawyer. Caveat emptor...
This is not the right place for me to bore people with war stories but I must say this do not even think of considering the University of South Carolina!
The experience described in the posting to which I am replying (being left out to dry) is far from unique at both the grad and undergrad level.
I would not enter grad school without a lawyer at my side from day one.
Thank you for posting this link. For a long time I have been telling people that you are more likely to be locked up in the US than anywhere else in the world and few believed me (I see that since the breakup of the USSR the Russians are now 'winning' this 'competition').
I live in South Carolina and of the states in the US, one is most likely to be incarcerated here. That is to say that (probably even today with the new figures) you face the highest likelihood of incarceration in the world, in South Carolina.
This insane War on Drugs is producing a huge, predominantly black male, underclass that cannot hold a decent job (without lying on the application) and cannot vote. There is nothing left for a group like that to lose when it comes to crime or even violent revolution.
While for some the deleritous effects of drugs on individuals may be debatable, the effects on the country as a whole are irrefutable and tragic.
I won't even go into the largely invisible loss of rights that has been suffered by the general population via such un-American travesties of justice as the RICO act.
If you want a used Harrier, go to this web site where their business is (apparently) selling used Harriers. There does seem to be some shortage of inventory though!
Slashdot Mirror
It seems the law is pretty clear that, given DMCA, DeCSS is illegal (remember law != justice).
It seems difficult to unlikely that we will succeed in getting the DMCA revoked.
People will not boycott DVDs if there is no alternative.
We need a format that competes with DVD that is open and technically at least as capable. We then need to encourage independent content providers to support the open format.
We also need to educate consumers to prefer the open format.
-- OpenSourcerers
The DMCA passed the Senate unanimously in May 1998 (see here) so you can blame every senator in office at that time.
It passed the House by a "voice vote" which means no record was made of how individuals voted (so just blame them all).
It was signed into law by "President" Clinton in September 1998 (see here).
All of this was done to "prepare" America for conformance with WIPO and WTO.
Things are getting scary when Pat Buchanon starts making sense!
People here should also know of the Digital Future Coalition.
-- OpenSourcerers
Isn't the DVD CCA's ultimate objective to limit the number of DVD player manufacturers? Isn't the small number of distinct manufacturer's codes available in their scheme proof of the small number of participating manufacturers anticipated? How much is the license (the docs are "$500 per copy per title")? Is it priced to keep out "the little guys"? Isn't it illegal for corporations to collaborate to close a market to competition? Can't the algorithms be pried out of the DVD CCA into the public domain as a result?
-- OpenSourcerers
Throughout history the world has been variously run by royals, nobles, thugs, politicians, and CEOs (yes, there is a lot of overlap between those groups).
If you want to make a difference, become a member of one of those groups (yes, your particular choices are limited) and then act. Otherwise, get used to the fact that your life will be largely irrelevant in the context of History.
If you choose to make a difference, resign yourself to the fact that you will have to completely change your mode of living. You will have to become obsessed with gaining power and control. You will probably become that which you despise.
The counter argument I am certain someone will make about revolutionaries is wrong because while revolutions shake things up for a while (perhaps even a couple of hundred years) human nature remains unchanged and so we return to the same situation again and again.
As an aside, I have to say the reference to "Libertarians having gotten what they asked for" indicates an incomplete understanding of Libertarianism (no offense intended).
-- OpenSourcerers
It seems to me that by prohibiting the functionality of deCSS, the DVD CCA is tying together two different products (DVDs and DVD players) much like when IBM said "you can't connect third party devices to your IBM computer" or when printer/copier manufacturers said that you had to use their toner/paper or lose any warranty.
After all, the DVD CCA et alia are a consortium conspiring to keep people out of their DVD manufacturers club by creating an artificial barrier to entry (access to the decryption algorithm). The barrier is artificial because it really only affects playback devices, not copying. Therefore they are effectively engaging in fixing the price of DVD players by limiting competition, which is a crime.
Could the defense be effective on this sort of idea? See here for more ideas on these lines.
-- OpenSourcerers
There is real danger in monocultures (the lack of biological diversity).
To pick a reference at random, from Cultivating Concepts vol. 5 Sept. 1997 GPCRC
Now it may be that we will have the ability to rediversify ourselves in the event of disaster, or maybe we won't have time to react. At any rate, it is something to think about.
Because the source code to VMware is not available?
I generally don't like being dependent on the continued existence and good will of my tools providers. Suppose I depended on VMware and they went out of business? Suppose they raised their price to $10,000? Suppose there was a bug that critically affected my operation that chose not to fix?
There are many reasons to bother.
Madeleine Kahn, to my mind, was a "nerd actress" in that she usually played quirky people with above average intelligence, who saw things from an unusual angle. From what I saw of her "real self" on talk shows etc. she seemed to be the same in real life.
I expect that Madeleine Kahn will have been a favorite of J. Random Hacker as a recognized kindred spirit.
As such, her untimely passing is News for Nerds.
The other neat thing about the Dam Busters was the "optical altimeter". They mounted spotlights on the aircraft that would shine two spots onto the water. When the altitude was just right the two spots would merge (light to light to water forming a unique triangle). This was a solution that provided precision and let the pilot keep his eyes on the job.
Focussing on the "Claims" section, isn't this just uux and uuxqt? The manpage for uuxqt on our Sun box here says it was last changed 19 May 1993. Sounds like "prior art" to me!
Assuming a punishment of Microsoft comes out of all this... I see a problem in designing a punishment for Microsoft that does not also punish innocent stockholders.
It would seem that justice would be better served by somehow punishing individuals at Microsoft. It is my understanding that the actions of individuals are not necessarily protected by the fact that their company is incorporated. What is the likelihood of personal punishments? If the likelihood is non-zero, what sort of punishments are likely?
Even if a punishment does not come out of this, it seems to be an injustice that most of the proposed actions (e.g., restructuring into baby-bills) would result in greater personal wealth for the officers of Microsoft. What could be done to ensure justice is served?
It was my sad experience to learn that a University has virtually no legal obligations to its students at all.
The University catalog in effect when I enrolled at the U. of South Carolina said that in order to graduate I needed to meet the requirements stated in the catalog in effect when I enrolled as a freshman.
I met all those requirements but in the meantime the catalog changed. My application for graduation was rejected. When I protested I was told that all graduation applications are reviewed by a board whose criteria for approval are not documented (but they mostly correspond to whatever the current catalog says) and whose decisions are final.
When I pointed out that no advisor had ever mentioned that my work would not meet the actual requirements for graduation I was told that it was the job of an advisor to provide guidance in the selection of individual courses but that it was not their responsibility to make certain that I made progress towards graduation.
Things might be different at other Universities but the U. of South Carolina sucks and has no use for students except to shake them down for as much as the University can get. There is certainly no sense of obligation to the students on the part of the administration.
Since I am off-topic now anyway, what's this I have heard that courses earned towards one degree cannot be reused to meet the requirements of another degree after X years have passed? What's the theory behind that? Does my engineering degree expire too? Also, if that is true, then why do those courses continue to affect your cumulative GPA? (I am not talking about a minimum residency requirement.)
There is an article about Polyus at one of the coolest web sites there is: Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Ever since it was decided that being compelled to give blood/saliva/urine/etc. is not a violation of a person's 5th ammendment rights, I have been worried that the right to not self-incriminate is on its way out (along with the rest of the Constitution).
I wonder if we are not actually seeing some sort of evolutionary transition in progress?
Imagine when opposable thumbs first started to exist. There were probably individuals who complained about all those thumb motions and this new-fangled grabbing idea as being far too complicated (after all, hadn't they gotten along fine for millions of years without opposable thumbs?).
There were also probably those who insisted that the opposable thumb would revolutionize the EUI (Environment User-Interface) and eventually lead to such almost unimaginable things as the wheel and controllable fire.
The debate solved itself as those who insisted on remaining with the old-style thumb became extinct. I extrapolate that something similar will happen to the neo-Luddites.
I graduated in EE and have worked as a software/systems engineer for ten years.
Almost all of my friends are engineers. Some teach engineering classes. None is a PE.
I have never asked anyone if they are a PE when interviewing applicants and I have never been asked. I have never received an application from someone who is a PE and I have never had an interview with a PE when I was the applicant.
I wouldn't mind being a PE but I have never worked for a PE so I haven't even gotten started on the experience requirement after ten years of work (which has to be gained while working directly under a PE).
Personally, with the plethora of 90 day wonder "certified engineers" running around, combined with the unreasonable difficulty (in my experience anyway) of even meeting the experience requirement, I don't see any point in worrying about being a PE. Sure, if the opportunity comes up, don't waste it but don't worry about it either.
BTW: Microsoft still explicitly says the E is for engineer and so does Novell. Neither says that the E is for expert.
If this is true, then they have me confused with someone else because that number is not part of my handle!
Just to make certain they hadn't assigned two handles to me, I did do a whois on the number I received and it returned information about someone else.
I have been in touch with Jens Waltermann of Bertelsmann and it is his assertion that "Bertelsmann was closed down by the Nazi's in WWII and anything but a supporter of the regime" and "Reinhard Mohn, once owner of Bertelsmann, was criticised in Germany for instituting one of the first systems to have workers participate in the company both financially and in management".
Can someone provide an authorative online reference to substantiate one or the other of these two different stories we are getting here?
From the Libertarian Party official web site (specifically at http://www.lp.org/platform/uacb.html) -- "We support the right of free persons to voluntarily establish, associate in, or not associate in, labor unions. An employer should have the right to recognize, or refuse to recognize, a union as the collective bargaining agent of some, or all, of its employees."
I guess then that the greater moral to this story is that no matter what school one chooses, be very careful.
At least at the U. of South Carolina (probably elsewhere too), it is explicitly stated (in fine print) that the catalog is not authorative and that nothing your advisor says is binding upon the University.
As far as I was ever able to tell, there is no written document that is authorative with regards to graduation requirements for the U. of South Carolina. The awarding of degrees is purely discretionary at the whim of a committee. All of this information I learned personally and the hard way.
While you are entering into a contractual agreement, the obligations are purely on the side of the student. I am being quite honest and factual here: my kids will have their relevant college materials reviewed by my lawyer. Caveat emptor...
This is not the right place for me to bore people with war stories but I must say this do not even think of considering the University of South Carolina!
The experience described in the posting to which I am replying (being left out to dry) is far from unique at both the grad and undergrad level.
I would not enter grad school without a lawyer at my side from day one.
Thank you for posting this link. For a long time I have been telling people that you are more likely to be locked up in the US than anywhere else in the world and few believed me (I see that since the breakup of the USSR the Russians are now 'winning' this 'competition').
I live in South Carolina and of the states in the US, one is most likely to be incarcerated here. That is to say that (probably even today with the new figures) you face the highest likelihood of incarceration in the world, in South Carolina.
This insane War on Drugs is producing a huge, predominantly black male, underclass that cannot hold a decent job (without lying on the application) and cannot vote. There is nothing left for a group like that to lose when it comes to crime or even violent revolution.
While for some the deleritous effects of drugs on individuals may be debatable, the effects on the country as a whole are irrefutable and tragic.
I won't even go into the largely invisible loss of rights that has been suffered by the general population via such un-American travesties of justice as the RICO act.
A mandatory draft registration is wrong as well. Also, an actual draft (such as I faced) is clearly involuntary servitude (aka slavery).
However, the fact that men are wronged does not make it OK to wrong women. There are many injustices in the world, you have to fix them one at a time.
If you want a used Harrier, go to this web site where their business is (apparently) selling used Harriers. There does seem to be some shortage of inventory though!
A better site is here because of the nice pictures.